Tectonic is one of the long-standing discourses in architecture that originated in Germany. Starting with Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), this concept has been discussed for over 200 years, and summarizing it succinctly could itself constitute a thesis. Therefore, what I intend to discuss is not a comprehensive overview of the lengthy history of the tectonic debate but to distill its essence to understand contemporary architecture.
Among various tectonic debates, I am particularly interested in the theory of Karl Bötticher (1806-1889). He argued that there are two forms in architecture: Kernform and Kunstform. Kernform, translated as 'core form,' relates to construction and is structural, technical, realistic, and non-historical. Kunstform, or 'art form,' is artistic, symbolic, and hence, associated with symbolism. Kunstform has a historical dimension. Therefore, if new technology introduces new Kernform possibilities, architects should not solely focus on this technical form but also integrate cultural codes or Kunstform from existing society.
In the 19th century, the West found it harder to adopt 'iron,' a new material, than the East. The East has traditionally pursued linear architecture with column-beam structures, whereas the West historically built with stone. The concept of 'mass' and drawing techniques like 'poche,' where cut surfaces in plans are filled in black, developed predominantly in the Western architectural context. 'Iron' is fundamentally a linear material, leading to numerous factions and debates in the Western world about how to integrate its material characteristics with architectural form. To put it simply, the architect who most successfully achieved this was Germany's Mies Van der Rohe (1886-1969), which is why he gained fame even among non-architects. Bötticher laid the groundwork for architects like Mies to rise to prominence.
On the other hand, understanding the tectonic debate requires illuminating not only the technical but also the philosophical background. The emergence of tectonics is closely related to structuralism. Around this time, people began to feel that essence and representation were becoming separated. For pre-modern people, essence and representation were considered one and the same. To avoid delving too deeply into philosophy, let's stick to architecture. Consider the Indian Vajra caves, particularly Cave 12, believed to be constructed around 120 AD. The right-hand photo, marked with red lines, shows part of the rock-cut (cave) structure resembling rafters. Such a structure is unnecessary in stone construction but is essential in timber construction. This is called 'false timber construction,' a structure that mimics timber construction, even though it is not made of wood.
This phenomenon occurs due to the inseparability of essence and representation. Before modern times, the abstract concept of 'architecture' and the concrete concept of 'architectural structure' were not separated. To Indian architects, for instance, 'architecture' necessarily involved certain structural elements like rafters. It was considered architecture only if it had such structures. This example is common worldwide; even in Korean traditional architecture, which fundamentally adopts wooden structures, false timber structures are frequently seen in stone pagodas.
However, with the establishment of structuralism by figures like Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and Michel Foucault (1926-1984), essence and representation began to be perceived as fundamentally separate. Bötticher's tectonic theory aligns with this temporal trend. Particularly, it does not attempt to completely separate the concrete realities from the abstract ideals but rather seeks to somehow reconcile the two. He referred to Kernform and Kunstform as 'mutually complementary relationships.' The attempt to reconcile these two, though it may seem quixotic to philosophers, is quite understandable from an architect's perspective. I believe the discussion of Kernform and Kunstform, especially in contemporary architecture, is necessary, and this is the reason I initiated this article.
The tectonic debate, sparked in Germany, is still actively evolving, mainly in Europe, and its followers have formed a mainstream in contemporary architecture. This discussion often deals with the concrete methods of construction, forming a cluster around Germany, a manufacturing powerhouse. Especially in Europe, where universities are largely standardized, architectural discourses are often experimented with in academia. As a side note, the standardization of universities is very conducive to forming architectural discourses, as non-standardized universities (like those in South Korea, for example) are forced to address very general subjects because students, as consumers of educational services, essentially choose schools based on grades. Establishing an 'architectural style' in terms of methodology is challenging. However, in a standardized university system, students can simply go elsewhere if a particular style does not suit them, enabling the formation of distinct architectural styles.
For this reason, Germany and its neighboring European countries have many academies with strong styles. The following are some representative examples.
(All pictures from University of Stuttgart - ITECH(ICD + ITKE) & ETH Zurich - Digital Building Technologies)
The ITECH program at the University of Stuttgart in Germany is currently conducting various experimental projects using robotic arms. Meanwhile, ETH Zurich in neighboring Switzerland is actively researching Digital Concrete. If one asks, 'How far has the discussion of tectonics advanced in contemporary architecture?', the work of these two institutions may provide an answer. They appear to have achieved specific aesthetic accomplishments based on technological advancements. Particularly, the University of Stuttgart has emphasized the use of a new material, Carbon Fiber, allowing us to witness the formation of a new aesthetic that did not exist before.
However, I do not view the work of these institutions entirely positively. This is because there seems to be a mismatch between the aesthetic achievements they have obtained and the intellectual work they produce (which might be a misunderstanding due to my lack of complete knowledge of their entire process). In other words, while their outcomes appear to achieve specific aesthetic accomplishments, what they produce is almost akin to engineering papers and design manuals. To use Bötticher's terms, they diligently present an alibi for Kernform but finding traces of Kunstform is extremely difficult. To criticize this, I would like to borrow the words of the German architect, Jung Hae-Wook.
"For example, they claimed that the essence of Voronoi lies in the structural principle resembling the division of cells, but in reality, it was the designer who manually mapped the points in preferred locations. This reversal has prevented participants in Parametricism from deeply contemplating the identity of the Aesthetics they induce. No one has scrutinized why it is considered good design or why it has come to be thought of as such."
The papers produced by the University of Stuttgart undoubtedly prove the structural stability of the architecture employing the Voronoi principle. However, there seems to be no document that contemplates its aesthetic concerns. In this regard, I feel a certain imbalance in the discussion of architecture. I hope architecture students reading this article will reflect on Parametricism, which Zaha Hadid propagated and is still spreading like a religion. In fact, Parametricism is not difficult to learn. Anyone can 'do it' by learning to script Grasshopper algorithms in Rhino. However, architecture is not obtained through mere algorithm scripting, nor is the world persuaded by it. The most challenging aspect of applying the Voronoi algorithm is not the 'technique' of its application, but why those 'points' need to be placed there. Not all of this can be explained through engineering alone.
Consequently, contemporary architecture has become somewhat lame. According to Bötticher's theory, architecture should be guided by a mutually complementary relationship between Kernform and Kunstform, but in reality, we are either gasping with just handling Kernform, or the discussion on Kunstform is almost religious or mystical, crudely speaking, being overlooked. I believe that the discussion on aesthetics needs to be expanded in some way.