Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture

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

Resumé

This paper is part of a broader research effort which contributes to the understanding of the term tectonics in the field of architectural design theory. It leads to a general theory of tectonics, which broadens and differentiates the term's comprehension. Preliminarily, I have termed it Framework for Tectonic Thinking (FTT). It provides a mapping of potential tectonic expressions and a vocabulary for their distinction. The FTT is considered to be a conceptual tool of the architect that can be employed in the analysis of buildings, in their conception, and as a trigger for imaginations of tectonic possibilities. In this paper, I will apply the FTT to the analysis of historical and contemporary brick architecture.

Research question:
Which kinds of brick architecture can be associated with the different tectonic positions in the FTT?

Research method:
The FTT approaches tectonics in a descriptive and analytic way. It distinguishes three constructional categories (loadbearing construction, conjoining construction, and constructive expression), each with two oppositional poles (loadbearing versus non-loadbearing; solid versus filigree; tectonic versus atectonic respectively). They describe a space of potential tectonic expressions, in which eight-conceptually pure-tectonic expressions can be distinguished:
"textile
"ceramic
"stereotomy (stone construction)
"carpentry
and their atectonic counter-positions:
"a-textile
"a-ceramic
"a-stereotomy
"a-carpentry

The categories and their polar distinctions are considered to be non-dualistic. They do not imply a value judgement. The expression of loadbearing construction is neither better nor worse than the expression of non-loadbearing construction. The same goes for the each of the poles of conjoining construction and of constructional expression.
The categories and the tectonic expressions that they describe are also considered to be non-essentialist. They do not prescribe ideal types of (a)tectonic expression that should be approximated as close as possible. The categories rather should be considered as vectors that occur in typical constellations, which can lead to a variety of expressions. Hybrid tectonic expressions are as valuable as pure tectonic expressions.
In this paper, I will apply the descriptive and analytic categories of the FTT to brick architecture.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TitelCA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research : Proceedings
RedaktørerClaus Peder Pedersen, Charlotte Bundgaard, Hanne Foged Gjelstrup
Antal sider10
Udgivelses stedAarhus
ForlagArkitektskolen Aarhus
Publikationsdatojun. 2018
Sider370-379
ISBN (Elektronisk)978-87-90979-78-2
StatusUdgivet - jun. 2018
BegivenhedCA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research - Aarkitektskolen Aarhus, Aarhus, Danmark
Varighed: 13 apr. 201816 apr. 2018
http://aarch.dk/info/research/ca2re/

Konference

KonferenceCA2RE
LokationAarkitektskolen Aarhus
LandDanmark
ByAarhus
Periode13/04/201816/04/2018
Internetadresse

Kunstnerisk udviklingsvirksomhed (KUV)

  • Nej

Citer dette

Garritzmann, U. (2018). Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture. I C. P. Pedersen, C. Bundgaard, & H. F. Gjelstrup (red.), CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research: Proceedings (s. 370-379). Aarhus: Arkitektskolen Aarhus.
Garritzmann, Udo. / Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture. CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research: Proceedings. red. / Claus Peder Pedersen ; Charlotte Bundgaard ; Hanne Foged Gjelstrup. Aarhus : Arkitektskolen Aarhus, 2018. s. 370-379
@inproceedings{9adcef11310140e0becf2e2cd7f1c1d6,
title = "Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture",
abstract = "This paper is part of a broader research effort which contributes to the understanding of the term tectonics in the field of architectural design theory. It leads to a general theory of tectonics, which broadens and differentiates the term's comprehension. Preliminarily, I have termed it Framework for Tectonic Thinking (FTT). It provides a mapping of potential tectonic expressions and a vocabulary for their distinction. The FTT is considered to be a conceptual tool of the architect that can be employed in the analysis of buildings, in their conception, and as a trigger for imaginations of tectonic possibilities. In this paper, I will apply the FTT to the analysis of historical and contemporary brick architecture. Research question:Which kinds of brick architecture can be associated with the different tectonic positions in the FTT?Research method:The FTT approaches tectonics in a descriptive and analytic way. It distinguishes three constructional categories (loadbearing construction, conjoining construction, and constructive expression), each with two oppositional poles (loadbearing versus non-loadbearing; solid versus filigree; tectonic versus atectonic respectively). They describe a space of potential tectonic expressions, in which eight-conceptually pure-tectonic expressions can be distinguished:{"}textile{"}ceramic{"}stereotomy (stone construction){"}carpentry and their atectonic counter-positions: {"}a-textile {"}a-ceramic{"}a-stereotomy{"}a-carpentryThe categories and their polar distinctions are considered to be non-dualistic. They do not imply a value judgement. The expression of loadbearing construction is neither better nor worse than the expression of non-loadbearing construction. The same goes for the each of the poles of conjoining construction and of constructional expression.The categories and the tectonic expressions that they describe are also considered to be non-essentialist. They do not prescribe ideal types of (a)tectonic expression that should be approximated as close as possible. The categories rather should be considered as vectors that occur in typical constellations, which can lead to a variety of expressions. Hybrid tectonic expressions are as valuable as pure tectonic expressions.In this paper, I will apply the descriptive and analytic categories of the FTT to brick architecture.",
keywords = "tectonics, architectural design theory, brick architecture",
author = "Udo Garritzmann",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
language = "English",
pages = "370--379",
editor = "Pedersen, {Claus Peder} and Charlotte Bundgaard and Gjelstrup, {Hanne Foged}",
booktitle = "CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research",
publisher = "Arkitektskolen Aarhus",
address = "Denmark",

}

Garritzmann, U 2018, Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture. i CP Pedersen, C Bundgaard & HF Gjelstrup (red), CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research: Proceedings. Arkitektskolen Aarhus, Aarhus, s. 370-379, CA2RE, Aarhus, Danmark, 13/04/2018.

Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture. / Garritzmann, Udo.

CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research: Proceedings. red. / Claus Peder Pedersen; Charlotte Bundgaard; Hanne Foged Gjelstrup. Aarhus : Arkitektskolen Aarhus, 2018. s. 370-379.

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

TY - GEN

T1 - Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture

AU - Garritzmann, Udo

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - This paper is part of a broader research effort which contributes to the understanding of the term tectonics in the field of architectural design theory. It leads to a general theory of tectonics, which broadens and differentiates the term's comprehension. Preliminarily, I have termed it Framework for Tectonic Thinking (FTT). It provides a mapping of potential tectonic expressions and a vocabulary for their distinction. The FTT is considered to be a conceptual tool of the architect that can be employed in the analysis of buildings, in their conception, and as a trigger for imaginations of tectonic possibilities. In this paper, I will apply the FTT to the analysis of historical and contemporary brick architecture. Research question:Which kinds of brick architecture can be associated with the different tectonic positions in the FTT?Research method:The FTT approaches tectonics in a descriptive and analytic way. It distinguishes three constructional categories (loadbearing construction, conjoining construction, and constructive expression), each with two oppositional poles (loadbearing versus non-loadbearing; solid versus filigree; tectonic versus atectonic respectively). They describe a space of potential tectonic expressions, in which eight-conceptually pure-tectonic expressions can be distinguished:"textile"ceramic"stereotomy (stone construction)"carpentry and their atectonic counter-positions: "a-textile "a-ceramic"a-stereotomy"a-carpentryThe categories and their polar distinctions are considered to be non-dualistic. They do not imply a value judgement. The expression of loadbearing construction is neither better nor worse than the expression of non-loadbearing construction. The same goes for the each of the poles of conjoining construction and of constructional expression.The categories and the tectonic expressions that they describe are also considered to be non-essentialist. They do not prescribe ideal types of (a)tectonic expression that should be approximated as close as possible. The categories rather should be considered as vectors that occur in typical constellations, which can lead to a variety of expressions. Hybrid tectonic expressions are as valuable as pure tectonic expressions.In this paper, I will apply the descriptive and analytic categories of the FTT to brick architecture.

AB - This paper is part of a broader research effort which contributes to the understanding of the term tectonics in the field of architectural design theory. It leads to a general theory of tectonics, which broadens and differentiates the term's comprehension. Preliminarily, I have termed it Framework for Tectonic Thinking (FTT). It provides a mapping of potential tectonic expressions and a vocabulary for their distinction. The FTT is considered to be a conceptual tool of the architect that can be employed in the analysis of buildings, in their conception, and as a trigger for imaginations of tectonic possibilities. In this paper, I will apply the FTT to the analysis of historical and contemporary brick architecture. Research question:Which kinds of brick architecture can be associated with the different tectonic positions in the FTT?Research method:The FTT approaches tectonics in a descriptive and analytic way. It distinguishes three constructional categories (loadbearing construction, conjoining construction, and constructive expression), each with two oppositional poles (loadbearing versus non-loadbearing; solid versus filigree; tectonic versus atectonic respectively). They describe a space of potential tectonic expressions, in which eight-conceptually pure-tectonic expressions can be distinguished:"textile"ceramic"stereotomy (stone construction)"carpentry and their atectonic counter-positions: "a-textile "a-ceramic"a-stereotomy"a-carpentryThe categories and their polar distinctions are considered to be non-dualistic. They do not imply a value judgement. The expression of loadbearing construction is neither better nor worse than the expression of non-loadbearing construction. The same goes for the each of the poles of conjoining construction and of constructional expression.The categories and the tectonic expressions that they describe are also considered to be non-essentialist. They do not prescribe ideal types of (a)tectonic expression that should be approximated as close as possible. The categories rather should be considered as vectors that occur in typical constellations, which can lead to a variety of expressions. Hybrid tectonic expressions are as valuable as pure tectonic expressions.In this paper, I will apply the descriptive and analytic categories of the FTT to brick architecture.

KW - tectonics

KW - architectural design theory

KW - brick architecture

UR - https://aarch.dk/about-ca2re/

M3 - Article in proceedings

SP - 370

EP - 379

BT - CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research

A2 - Pedersen, Claus Peder

A2 - Bundgaard, Charlotte

A2 - Gjelstrup, Hanne Foged

PB - Arkitektskolen Aarhus

CY - Aarhus

ER -

Garritzmann U. Tectonic Expressions in Brick Architecture. I Pedersen CP, Bundgaard C, Gjelstrup HF, red., CA2RE: Conference for Artistic and Architectural (Doctoral) Research: Proceedings. Aarhus: Arkitektskolen Aarhus. 2018. s. 370-379