Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts

Bidragets oversatte titel: Hverdagens tektonik: Begrebsafklaring

Anne Beim, Marie Frier Hvejsel

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportKonferencebidrag i proceedingsForskningpeer review

Resumé

In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. (Hvejsel et.al 2015). Iconic works such as Salk Institute by Louis Kahn, Sydney Opera House by Jørn Utzon or Brion Cemetery by Carlo Scarpa Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, Jørn Utzon’s Sydney Opera or Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Cemetery that posses an ability to enrich the lives of their users are signified by an in-depth attention to the correlation ofbetween structure, materials and details. InWithin the architectural history and theorydiscourse such works are referred to, as key examples of a tectonic approach to architecture understood as a spatial unification of aesthetics and technique wherein which structure and materials carry and amplify the spatial experience. But, we as a profession we have difficulties to extract, develop, and apply this sort of tectonic knowledge related to everyday practices. This circumstance posesing a major challenges to the development and range of our discipline, an issue that and this problem we have tried to addressraised for the first timeinitially in a theme issue of the Nordic Journal of Architectural Research titled; Everyday Tectonics, and an effort that this paper and the facilitation of the mini symposium on ‘Everyday Tectonics’ at ICSA2016 continues (Hvejsel et al. 2015) (vi skal have ref. ind til vores editors note mv. fra NjoARK, skal vi måske gøre det eksplicit, skrive at her forsøgte vi første gsang at belyse menet?). When studying the state of everyday architecture such as our living spaces and workplaces they tend to be designed as mere rational frameworks rather than enriching spaces for residing. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. When observing the state of everyday architecture, where our living spaces are increasingly experienced as uniform structural frameworks rather than inviting and enriching places for residing, it is our observation that here in particular a spatial utilization of the structural elements of construction is needed. In everyday architecture there seems to be a particular need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beam, columns, window deliveries etc. as spatial gestures. Because of its etymological origin as a description of the fundamental task of the Greek tekton, to unite aesthetics and technique in the creation of architecture, it is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter. By referring to the task rather than the object itself the notion of tectonics refers to the question of approach and method in architecture; how we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potential of these structural elements? There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. However, as a result of the accelerated technological development that arose with the industrial revolution, the process of realization and the number of parties involved has radically changed. This causes a technical bias where technical requirements concerning construction become detached from - or even overshadow - the vital spatial potential of architecture. Particularly in ‘everyday architecture’ this circumstance calls for redefining the architectural task. Hence, with this paperThus, it is our it is our intention to critically juxtapose the two concepts, everyday architecture and tectonics in this paper. We ask ourselves if everyday architecture can be qualified by means of general tectonic considerationsmethod and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?. To aAnswerring theseese questions entails a clarification of concepts. Methodologically we pursue this clarification through a rereading of the essay: “Henri Lefebvre’s essay of 1972 entitled ‘The everyday and everydayness” by Henri Lefebvre (Lefebvre 1972).’ The essay offersing a general definition of the term related to everyday life as such and outlinea general definition of the aspects related to everyday life, how it can manifest itself in various cultural practices that can be discussed in relation to ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonic strategies or practices of tectonic methods. As such we propose the notion of ‘the everyday’ as a critical and as a lens through which to identify examples of best practice examples and to pursue outlineing the challenges and potentialspossibilities inimbeddedherited in this field of knowledge.e term that is subsequently related to. Following we apply this rereading as a means of analysis of the present state of everyday architecture Richard Sennets’ ‘The craftsman’. Sennets’ study of craftsmanship versus mass production offers a critical means to position the term ‘everyday’ specifically in relation to architecture As a result hereof the paper outlines a conceptual and strategic link between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’. This is done by relating the nascent focus upon everyday architecture that rose in architectural discourse in the 1990’ies inspired in Henri Lefebvre’s essay, with the simultaneous reintroduction of tectonic theory in architecture led by Marco Frascari and Kenneth Frampton (Harris & Berke 1997, Read 2000, Frascari 1984, Frampton 1995kilder). Whereas the focus upon everyday architecture seems to have lost its momentum too quickly, tectonic theory in architecture has been steadily growing as a field of research in architecture, especially related to the rise of digital technology. As a result of this proposed experiment of thought, juxtaposing ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonics’, it is first and foremost evident how it forces a critical reconsideration of the role of the architect in relation to everyday practice involving a strategic ability to: - Take on a leading responsibility within the building industry with the explicit goal of transforming otherwise indifferent construction elements into sensuous spatial gestures. ToThat of fighting the tendency ofto silently accepting the existing technical and economical bias in everyday practice is a necessity and a responsibility of the architectural discipline if we applyingfollow the lines of thought suggested byof Lefebvre.e as a critical lens today Considering theWith the environmental and economical challenges that condition contemporary everyday practice of today it seems more urgent that ever to that of arriveing at a tectonic approach into everyday architectural practice is ever present and urgent. However, as discussedfound in the paper, the answer is not toa strengthening of the technical dimension of architecture as such, but toof developing playful and inventive relations between aesthetics, material consciousness, and (construction) technique. 1 Conclusions In addressing the … As st formulated by Lefebvre: ‘Why should the study of the banal be banal? Are not the surreal, the extraordinary, the surprising, even the magical, also part of the real? Why wouldn’t the concept of everydayness reveal the extraordinary in the ordinary?” (Lefebvre 1972/1987:9). In conclusion; to Hence, in concluding that of pursueing a conceptual and strategic correlationlink between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’ is intimately linked linkedwith to actions of bringing forth the vital, imaginative, and joyful possibilities of architecture - to enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Ultimately, this could be to create a view where there is none by the right design of a window opening or forming a place for social encounter where there is a formal separation. Each case offeris an interesting challenge for research, practice, and education, which focus onwhen dealing with everyday architecture that is based on where the development of tectonic thinking and methods as fundamentals is inevitably key.: What conditions the realization of everyday architecture? And how to position and release a tectonic approach within this context? What is the value of everyday tectonics and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TitelStructures and Architecture : Beyond their Limits
RedaktørerPaulo J. da Sousa Cruz
Antal sider8
Udgivelses stedLondon
ForlagCRC Press
Publikationsdato27 jul. 2016
Sider179
Artikelnummer18
Kapitel186
ISBN (Trykt)978-1-138-02651-3
ISBN (Elektronisk)978-1-317-54996-3
StatusUdgivet - 27 jul. 2016
BegivenhedInternational Conference on Structures and Architecture - School of Architecture of the University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal
Varighed: 27 jul. 201629 jul. 2016
Konferencens nummer: 3

Konference

KonferenceInternational Conference on Structures and Architecture
Nummer3
LokationSchool of Architecture of the University of Minho
LandPortugal
ByGuimarães
Periode27/07/201629/07/2016

Emneord

  • Tektonik
  • Arkitekturteori
  • Byggekultur
  • Byggeteknik
  • Lefebvre
  • Frampton

Kunstnerisk udviklingsvirksomhed (KUV)

  • Nej

Citer dette

Beim, A., & Hvejsel, M. F. (2016). Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts. I P. J. da Sousa Cruz (red.), Structures and Architecture: Beyond their Limits (s. 179). [18] London: CRC Press.
Beim, Anne ; Hvejsel, Marie Frier. / Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts. Structures and Architecture: Beyond their Limits. red. / Paulo J. da Sousa Cruz. London : CRC Press, 2016. s. 179
@inproceedings{cec936b025cc41dbbc4168783fa0a1ad,
title = "Everyday Tectonics?: Clarification of concepts",
abstract = "In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. (Hvejsel et.al 2015). Iconic works such as Salk Institute by Louis Kahn, Sydney Opera House by J{\o}rn Utzon or Brion Cemetery by Carlo Scarpa Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, J{\o}rn Utzon’s Sydney Opera or Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Cemetery that posses an ability to enrich the lives of their users are signified by an in-depth attention to the correlation ofbetween structure, materials and details. InWithin the architectural history and theorydiscourse such works are referred to, as key examples of a tectonic approach to architecture understood as a spatial unification of aesthetics and technique wherein which structure and materials carry and amplify the spatial experience. But, we as a profession we have difficulties to extract, develop, and apply this sort of tectonic knowledge related to everyday practices. This circumstance posesing a major challenges to the development and range of our discipline, an issue that and this problem we have tried to addressraised for the first timeinitially in a theme issue of the Nordic Journal of Architectural Research titled; Everyday Tectonics, and an effort that this paper and the facilitation of the mini symposium on ‘Everyday Tectonics’ at ICSA2016 continues (Hvejsel et al. 2015) (vi skal have ref. ind til vores editors note mv. fra NjoARK, skal vi m{\aa}ske g{\o}re det eksplicit, skrive at her fors{\o}gte vi f{\o}rste gsang at belyse menet?). When studying the state of everyday architecture such as our living spaces and workplaces they tend to be designed as mere rational frameworks rather than enriching spaces for residing. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, fa{\cc}ades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, fa{\cc}ades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. When observing the state of everyday architecture, where our living spaces are increasingly experienced as uniform structural frameworks rather than inviting and enriching places for residing, it is our observation that here in particular a spatial utilization of the structural elements of construction is needed. In everyday architecture there seems to be a particular need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beam, columns, window deliveries etc. as spatial gestures. Because of its etymological origin as a description of the fundamental task of the Greek tekton, to unite aesthetics and technique in the creation of architecture, it is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter. By referring to the task rather than the object itself the notion of tectonics refers to the question of approach and method in architecture; how we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potential of these structural elements? There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, fa{\cc}ades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. However, as a result of the accelerated technological development that arose with the industrial revolution, the process of realization and the number of parties involved has radically changed. This causes a technical bias where technical requirements concerning construction become detached from - or even overshadow - the vital spatial potential of architecture. Particularly in ‘everyday architecture’ this circumstance calls for redefining the architectural task. Hence, with this paperThus, it is our it is our intention to critically juxtapose the two concepts, everyday architecture and tectonics in this paper. We ask ourselves if everyday architecture can be qualified by means of general tectonic considerationsmethod and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?. To aAnswerring theseese questions entails a clarification of concepts. Methodologically we pursue this clarification through a rereading of the essay: “Henri Lefebvre’s essay of 1972 entitled ‘The everyday and everydayness” by Henri Lefebvre (Lefebvre 1972).’ The essay offersing a general definition of the term related to everyday life as such and outlinea general definition of the aspects related to everyday life, how it can manifest itself in various cultural practices that can be discussed in relation to ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonic strategies or practices of tectonic methods. As such we propose the notion of ‘the everyday’ as a critical and as a lens through which to identify examples of best practice examples and to pursue outlineing the challenges and potentialspossibilities inimbeddedherited in this field of knowledge.e term that is subsequently related to. Following we apply this rereading as a means of analysis of the present state of everyday architecture Richard Sennets’ ‘The craftsman’. Sennets’ study of craftsmanship versus mass production offers a critical means to position the term ‘everyday’ specifically in relation to architecture As a result hereof the paper outlines a conceptual and strategic link between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’. This is done by relating the nascent focus upon everyday architecture that rose in architectural discourse in the 1990’ies inspired in Henri Lefebvre’s essay, with the simultaneous reintroduction of tectonic theory in architecture led by Marco Frascari and Kenneth Frampton (Harris & Berke 1997, Read 2000, Frascari 1984, Frampton 1995kilder). Whereas the focus upon everyday architecture seems to have lost its momentum too quickly, tectonic theory in architecture has been steadily growing as a field of research in architecture, especially related to the rise of digital technology. As a result of this proposed experiment of thought, juxtaposing ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonics’, it is first and foremost evident how it forces a critical reconsideration of the role of the architect in relation to everyday practice involving a strategic ability to: - Take on a leading responsibility within the building industry with the explicit goal of transforming otherwise indifferent construction elements into sensuous spatial gestures. ToThat of fighting the tendency ofto silently accepting the existing technical and economical bias in everyday practice is a necessity and a responsibility of the architectural discipline if we applyingfollow the lines of thought suggested byof Lefebvre.e as a critical lens today Considering theWith the environmental and economical challenges that condition contemporary everyday practice of today it seems more urgent that ever to that of arriveing at a tectonic approach into everyday architectural practice is ever present and urgent. However, as discussedfound in the paper, the answer is not toa strengthening of the technical dimension of architecture as such, but toof developing playful and inventive relations between aesthetics, material consciousness, and (construction) technique. 1 Conclusions In addressing the … As st formulated by Lefebvre: ‘Why should the study of the banal be banal? Are not the surreal, the extraordinary, the surprising, even the magical, also part of the real? Why wouldn’t the concept of everydayness reveal the extraordinary in the ordinary?” (Lefebvre 1972/1987:9). In conclusion; to Hence, in concluding that of pursueing a conceptual and strategic correlationlink between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’ is intimately linked linkedwith to actions of bringing forth the vital, imaginative, and joyful possibilities of architecture - to enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Ultimately, this could be to create a view where there is none by the right design of a window opening or forming a place for social encounter where there is a formal separation. Each case offeris an interesting challenge for research, practice, and education, which focus onwhen dealing with everyday architecture that is based on where the development of tectonic thinking and methods as fundamentals is inevitably key.: What conditions the realization of everyday architecture? And how to position and release a tectonic approach within this context? What is the value of everyday tectonics and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?",
keywords = "Tektonik, Arkitekturteori, Byggekultur, Byggeteknik, Lefebvre, Frampton, everyday architecture, tectonics, Building Culture, architectural theory",
author = "Anne Beim and Hvejsel, {Marie Frier}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "27",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-138-02651-3",
pages = "179",
editor = "{da Sousa Cruz}, {Paulo J. }",
booktitle = "Structures and Architecture",
publisher = "CRC Press",

}

Beim, A & Hvejsel, MF 2016, Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts. i PJ da Sousa Cruz (red.), Structures and Architecture: Beyond their Limits., 18, CRC Press, London, s. 179, International Conference on Structures and Architecture, Guimarães, Portugal, 27/07/2016.

Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts. / Beim, Anne; Hvejsel, Marie Frier.

Structures and Architecture: Beyond their Limits. red. / Paulo J. da Sousa Cruz. London : CRC Press, 2016. s. 179 18.

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportKonferencebidrag i proceedingsForskningpeer review

TY - GEN

T1 - Everyday Tectonics?

T2 - Clarification of concepts

AU - Beim, Anne

AU - Hvejsel, Marie Frier

PY - 2016/7/27

Y1 - 2016/7/27

N2 - In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. (Hvejsel et.al 2015). Iconic works such as Salk Institute by Louis Kahn, Sydney Opera House by Jørn Utzon or Brion Cemetery by Carlo Scarpa Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, Jørn Utzon’s Sydney Opera or Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Cemetery that posses an ability to enrich the lives of their users are signified by an in-depth attention to the correlation ofbetween structure, materials and details. InWithin the architectural history and theorydiscourse such works are referred to, as key examples of a tectonic approach to architecture understood as a spatial unification of aesthetics and technique wherein which structure and materials carry and amplify the spatial experience. But, we as a profession we have difficulties to extract, develop, and apply this sort of tectonic knowledge related to everyday practices. This circumstance posesing a major challenges to the development and range of our discipline, an issue that and this problem we have tried to addressraised for the first timeinitially in a theme issue of the Nordic Journal of Architectural Research titled; Everyday Tectonics, and an effort that this paper and the facilitation of the mini symposium on ‘Everyday Tectonics’ at ICSA2016 continues (Hvejsel et al. 2015) (vi skal have ref. ind til vores editors note mv. fra NjoARK, skal vi måske gøre det eksplicit, skrive at her forsøgte vi første gsang at belyse menet?). When studying the state of everyday architecture such as our living spaces and workplaces they tend to be designed as mere rational frameworks rather than enriching spaces for residing. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. When observing the state of everyday architecture, where our living spaces are increasingly experienced as uniform structural frameworks rather than inviting and enriching places for residing, it is our observation that here in particular a spatial utilization of the structural elements of construction is needed. In everyday architecture there seems to be a particular need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beam, columns, window deliveries etc. as spatial gestures. Because of its etymological origin as a description of the fundamental task of the Greek tekton, to unite aesthetics and technique in the creation of architecture, it is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter. By referring to the task rather than the object itself the notion of tectonics refers to the question of approach and method in architecture; how we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potential of these structural elements? There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. However, as a result of the accelerated technological development that arose with the industrial revolution, the process of realization and the number of parties involved has radically changed. This causes a technical bias where technical requirements concerning construction become detached from - or even overshadow - the vital spatial potential of architecture. Particularly in ‘everyday architecture’ this circumstance calls for redefining the architectural task. Hence, with this paperThus, it is our it is our intention to critically juxtapose the two concepts, everyday architecture and tectonics in this paper. We ask ourselves if everyday architecture can be qualified by means of general tectonic considerationsmethod and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?. To aAnswerring theseese questions entails a clarification of concepts. Methodologically we pursue this clarification through a rereading of the essay: “Henri Lefebvre’s essay of 1972 entitled ‘The everyday and everydayness” by Henri Lefebvre (Lefebvre 1972).’ The essay offersing a general definition of the term related to everyday life as such and outlinea general definition of the aspects related to everyday life, how it can manifest itself in various cultural practices that can be discussed in relation to ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonic strategies or practices of tectonic methods. As such we propose the notion of ‘the everyday’ as a critical and as a lens through which to identify examples of best practice examples and to pursue outlineing the challenges and potentialspossibilities inimbeddedherited in this field of knowledge.e term that is subsequently related to. Following we apply this rereading as a means of analysis of the present state of everyday architecture Richard Sennets’ ‘The craftsman’. Sennets’ study of craftsmanship versus mass production offers a critical means to position the term ‘everyday’ specifically in relation to architecture As a result hereof the paper outlines a conceptual and strategic link between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’. This is done by relating the nascent focus upon everyday architecture that rose in architectural discourse in the 1990’ies inspired in Henri Lefebvre’s essay, with the simultaneous reintroduction of tectonic theory in architecture led by Marco Frascari and Kenneth Frampton (Harris & Berke 1997, Read 2000, Frascari 1984, Frampton 1995kilder). Whereas the focus upon everyday architecture seems to have lost its momentum too quickly, tectonic theory in architecture has been steadily growing as a field of research in architecture, especially related to the rise of digital technology. As a result of this proposed experiment of thought, juxtaposing ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonics’, it is first and foremost evident how it forces a critical reconsideration of the role of the architect in relation to everyday practice involving a strategic ability to: - Take on a leading responsibility within the building industry with the explicit goal of transforming otherwise indifferent construction elements into sensuous spatial gestures. ToThat of fighting the tendency ofto silently accepting the existing technical and economical bias in everyday practice is a necessity and a responsibility of the architectural discipline if we applyingfollow the lines of thought suggested byof Lefebvre.e as a critical lens today Considering theWith the environmental and economical challenges that condition contemporary everyday practice of today it seems more urgent that ever to that of arriveing at a tectonic approach into everyday architectural practice is ever present and urgent. However, as discussedfound in the paper, the answer is not toa strengthening of the technical dimension of architecture as such, but toof developing playful and inventive relations between aesthetics, material consciousness, and (construction) technique. 1 Conclusions In addressing the … As st formulated by Lefebvre: ‘Why should the study of the banal be banal? Are not the surreal, the extraordinary, the surprising, even the magical, also part of the real? Why wouldn’t the concept of everydayness reveal the extraordinary in the ordinary?” (Lefebvre 1972/1987:9). In conclusion; to Hence, in concluding that of pursueing a conceptual and strategic correlationlink between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’ is intimately linked linkedwith to actions of bringing forth the vital, imaginative, and joyful possibilities of architecture - to enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Ultimately, this could be to create a view where there is none by the right design of a window opening or forming a place for social encounter where there is a formal separation. Each case offeris an interesting challenge for research, practice, and education, which focus onwhen dealing with everyday architecture that is based on where the development of tectonic thinking and methods as fundamentals is inevitably key.: What conditions the realization of everyday architecture? And how to position and release a tectonic approach within this context? What is the value of everyday tectonics and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?

AB - In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. In general architectural practice many of the dwellings and workplaces, where we spend most of our time, are realized under an increasing economical pressure mainly controlled by the regime of the construction industry. The results; what we can call ‘everyday architecture’ may at large be considered as ordinary or as 'a-tectonic' made of poor materials, built at a fast pace, and poorly detailed - whereas advanced tectonic reflections are often considered as part of innovative high-end architecture. (Hvejsel et.al 2015). Iconic works such as Salk Institute by Louis Kahn, Sydney Opera House by Jørn Utzon or Brion Cemetery by Carlo Scarpa Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, Jørn Utzon’s Sydney Opera or Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Cemetery that posses an ability to enrich the lives of their users are signified by an in-depth attention to the correlation ofbetween structure, materials and details. InWithin the architectural history and theorydiscourse such works are referred to, as key examples of a tectonic approach to architecture understood as a spatial unification of aesthetics and technique wherein which structure and materials carry and amplify the spatial experience. But, we as a profession we have difficulties to extract, develop, and apply this sort of tectonic knowledge related to everyday practices. This circumstance posesing a major challenges to the development and range of our discipline, an issue that and this problem we have tried to addressraised for the first timeinitially in a theme issue of the Nordic Journal of Architectural Research titled; Everyday Tectonics, and an effort that this paper and the facilitation of the mini symposium on ‘Everyday Tectonics’ at ICSA2016 continues (Hvejsel et al. 2015) (vi skal have ref. ind til vores editors note mv. fra NjoARK, skal vi måske gøre det eksplicit, skrive at her forsøgte vi første gsang at belyse menet?). When studying the state of everyday architecture such as our living spaces and workplaces they tend to be designed as mere rational frameworks rather than enriching spaces for residing. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our observation that here a spatial utilization of the construction elements and careful detailing is particularly desirable. There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. When observing the state of everyday architecture, where our living spaces are increasingly experienced as uniform structural frameworks rather than inviting and enriching places for residing, it is our observation that here in particular a spatial utilization of the structural elements of construction is needed. In everyday architecture there seems to be a particular need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beam, columns, window deliveries etc. as spatial gestures. Because of its etymological origin as a description of the fundamental task of the Greek tekton, to unite aesthetics and technique in the creation of architecture, it is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter. By referring to the task rather than the object itself the notion of tectonics refers to the question of approach and method in architecture; how we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potential of these structural elements? There is a basic need to change the way we approach theconceive structural elements, i.e. prefabricated concrete walls, beamsstructural elements, i.e. walls, façades, windows etc. as spatial gestures. It is our hypothesis that the notion of tectonics holds a unique potential in this matter, by referring to the task rather than the object itself. The tectonic questions the approach/method in architectural construction: How do we go about the task of imagining and nurturing the spatial potentials of the elements of construction? In tectonic theory the architect is often presented as a master builder that lead the realization of the architectural work from A to Z and who is in control of all construction details. However, as a result of the accelerated technological development that arose with the industrial revolution, the process of realization and the number of parties involved has radically changed. This causes a technical bias where technical requirements concerning construction become detached from - or even overshadow - the vital spatial potential of architecture. Particularly in ‘everyday architecture’ this circumstance calls for redefining the architectural task. Hence, with this paperThus, it is our it is our intention to critically juxtapose the two concepts, everyday architecture and tectonics in this paper. We ask ourselves if everyday architecture can be qualified by means of general tectonic considerationsmethod and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?. To aAnswerring theseese questions entails a clarification of concepts. Methodologically we pursue this clarification through a rereading of the essay: “Henri Lefebvre’s essay of 1972 entitled ‘The everyday and everydayness” by Henri Lefebvre (Lefebvre 1972).’ The essay offersing a general definition of the term related to everyday life as such and outlinea general definition of the aspects related to everyday life, how it can manifest itself in various cultural practices that can be discussed in relation to ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonic strategies or practices of tectonic methods. As such we propose the notion of ‘the everyday’ as a critical and as a lens through which to identify examples of best practice examples and to pursue outlineing the challenges and potentialspossibilities inimbeddedherited in this field of knowledge.e term that is subsequently related to. Following we apply this rereading as a means of analysis of the present state of everyday architecture Richard Sennets’ ‘The craftsman’. Sennets’ study of craftsmanship versus mass production offers a critical means to position the term ‘everyday’ specifically in relation to architecture As a result hereof the paper outlines a conceptual and strategic link between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’. This is done by relating the nascent focus upon everyday architecture that rose in architectural discourse in the 1990’ies inspired in Henri Lefebvre’s essay, with the simultaneous reintroduction of tectonic theory in architecture led by Marco Frascari and Kenneth Frampton (Harris & Berke 1997, Read 2000, Frascari 1984, Frampton 1995kilder). Whereas the focus upon everyday architecture seems to have lost its momentum too quickly, tectonic theory in architecture has been steadily growing as a field of research in architecture, especially related to the rise of digital technology. As a result of this proposed experiment of thought, juxtaposing ‘everyday architecture’ and tectonics’, it is first and foremost evident how it forces a critical reconsideration of the role of the architect in relation to everyday practice involving a strategic ability to: - Take on a leading responsibility within the building industry with the explicit goal of transforming otherwise indifferent construction elements into sensuous spatial gestures. ToThat of fighting the tendency ofto silently accepting the existing technical and economical bias in everyday practice is a necessity and a responsibility of the architectural discipline if we applyingfollow the lines of thought suggested byof Lefebvre.e as a critical lens today Considering theWith the environmental and economical challenges that condition contemporary everyday practice of today it seems more urgent that ever to that of arriveing at a tectonic approach into everyday architectural practice is ever present and urgent. However, as discussedfound in the paper, the answer is not toa strengthening of the technical dimension of architecture as such, but toof developing playful and inventive relations between aesthetics, material consciousness, and (construction) technique. 1 Conclusions In addressing the … As st formulated by Lefebvre: ‘Why should the study of the banal be banal? Are not the surreal, the extraordinary, the surprising, even the magical, also part of the real? Why wouldn’t the concept of everydayness reveal the extraordinary in the ordinary?” (Lefebvre 1972/1987:9). In conclusion; to Hence, in concluding that of pursueing a conceptual and strategic correlationlink between the notion of ‘everyday architecture’ and the practices of ‘tectonics’ is intimately linked linkedwith to actions of bringing forth the vital, imaginative, and joyful possibilities of architecture - to enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Ultimately, this could be to create a view where there is none by the right design of a window opening or forming a place for social encounter where there is a formal separation. Each case offeris an interesting challenge for research, practice, and education, which focus onwhen dealing with everyday architecture that is based on where the development of tectonic thinking and methods as fundamentals is inevitably key.: What conditions the realization of everyday architecture? And how to position and release a tectonic approach within this context? What is the value of everyday tectonics and which strategies are needed to reveal its potential?

KW - Tektonik

KW - Arkitekturteori

KW - Byggekultur

KW - Byggeteknik

KW - Lefebvre

KW - Frampton

KW - everyday architecture

KW - tectonics

KW - Building Culture

KW - architectural theory

M3 - Article in proceedings

SN - 978-1-138-02651-3

SP - 179

BT - Structures and Architecture

A2 - da Sousa Cruz, Paulo J.

PB - CRC Press

CY - London

ER -

Beim A, Hvejsel MF. Everyday Tectonics? Clarification of concepts. I da Sousa Cruz PJ, red., Structures and Architecture: Beyond their Limits. London: CRC Press. 2016. s. 179. 18