Farewell to Professor Dalibor Veselý

Dalibor Veselý was born on June 19, 1934, in Metylovice (district of Frýdek-Místek). He studied at what was then the Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Czech Technical University, as well as art history at the Faculty of Arts at Charles University. At the same time, his encounter with the phenomenological philosophy of Jan Patočka left a lasting mark on him. His ability to place architectural themes within the context of the lived world and to view them from the perspective of human experience was demonstrated as early as 1967 in his afterword to Michel Ragon's book “Where Will We Live Tomorrow?” In this text, Veselý turned attention against Ragon's technocratic visions to the question of how architecture can help a person dwell in the world in a deeper existential sense—possibly the most penetrating architectural-theoretical text in the second half of the 20th century in our country.

Dalibor Veselý went into exile after 1968. In England, he taught at several architecture schools, initially at the Architectural Association in London, then at the University of Essex, and longest at the Faculty of Architecture and History of Art at the University of Cambridge. At all these schools, he influenced a number of later renowned personalities. His students included architects Daniel Libeskind, Mohsen Mostafavi (later Dean of the Harvard University School of Architecture), David Leatherbarrow (now a professor of architecture at the University of Pennsylvania), Alberto Peréz-Goméz (now a professor at McGill University in Montreal), and many others. His original contribution lay primarily in the fact that he brought a line of philosophical reflection based on phenomenology into British architectural education, which he deepened after leaving his homeland by studying with Hans-Georg Gadamer, the German representative of philosophical hermeneutics. However, Veselý's teaching approach managed to combine this thinking about the human connections of architecture with the real studio work of students, particularly within the framework of master's and doctoral studies, although these consultations must have often been very challenging for young aspirants to the field. When he received the Annie Spink Award for his contributions to architectural education from the Royal Institute of British Architects in 2006, Professor David Dunster said in his laudation: “His students are among the leading figures in the architectural profession. They pass on something of his message, although never in the specific way he did: they educate, teach, and lead large architectural schools in England and abroad. Dalibor Veselý's lectures are attended with respect and sometimes with understanding. His consultations stimulate, provoke, and extend the topic into areas students had not even suspected. He is internationally admired, even though he is the author of only one comprehensive book. But what a book it is! He is an example of a passionate architect, currently employed at a university, because he believes in teaching.”

The mentioned book was the work “Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Problem of Creativity in the Shadow of Production”, which was published in Britain in 2004, with its Czech translation appearing in 2008. It is undoubtedly a book he contemplated and wrote throughout his life, summarizing all his research and certainly much of what he discussed with his students regarding their projects. Although he delves deeply into the history of both architecture and human culture in many recursions, the central theme of his interest remains current: How to restore the role of architecture as a means of articulating the human world and as a lynchpin of human culture. In fact, this is a topic whose analysis he began with that afterword half a century ago. Veselý saw the threat to architecture in two extreme positions: in its narrowly rational conception, following the model of exact sciences and modern technology, where the human world and the human being themselves are reduced to a calculable and manipulable reality, and on the other hand, in a casual aesthetic game that lacks broader relevance. It is not only architecture itself, but also modern civilization that is thus internally fragmented into mutually unrelated approaches to the world. According to Veselý, the search for ways to restore a deeper connection in human culture is the main task of genuine creativity, and architecture has a key role in this “articulation of communicative space.” It contributes not only as practical building but also as a broader creative movement, which includes intellectual reflection, discussion at schools, and public debate.

When he was awarded Honorary Membership in RIBA (along with several other candidates) this past February, he expressed his thanks with his characteristic sense of humor: “The selection of candidates for this award made a truly strong impression on me, and I am pleasantly surprised by it. The choice of these people seems to indicate that something is slowly beginning to change in architecture and that a new idea of how architecture truly comes into being is emerging. The ingrained assumption that architecture is simply reproduced by pragmatically oriented offices seems to be receding and being replaced by something that has no distinct outlines yet, but is very interesting and provocative. Architecture does not arise solely in offices, where there is often very little time for exploration and discovery. Even people like Peter Eisenman assert that some of the most interesting contributions to architectural innovation in recent times have emerged from good architecture schools. But exhibitions, competitions, and publicity also co-create the environment in which something gradually crystallizes and may eventually reach architectural offices, where it becomes a reality. If this really is a tendency to which the future belongs, then I would like to conclude with two words: congratulations and thank you.”

Although Dalibor Veselý spent a significant part of his professional life abroad in England, his relationship with his homeland always remained strong, as did his help to friends back home. After 1989, during his frequent visits to Czechia, he re-engaged in domestic architectural happenings through lectures, theoretical texts, and membership in the editorial board of the magazine Architekt, where he tried to bring insights of contemporary world thought at the most intellectual level. There is nothing left to conclude but with two words: Farewell and thank you, Professor.

Petr Kratochvíl


Initial Reactions to the Death of Dalibor Veselý

—— Joseph Rykwert, Emeritus Professor at the University of Pennsylvania: “Anyone who had the fortune to work with Dalibor will personally feel the loss – his enthusiasm, sympathy, and generosity, his penetrating intellect, and vast store of knowledge. Generations of students will testify to the influence he had on their thinking and lives.”

—— Daniel Libeskind, Architect: “I knew Dalibor for 45 years. He was my teacher, mentor, a person whose ideas about architecture and the city changed my perspective on this field.”

—— David Leatherbarrow, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania: “Dalibor was an inspiring teacher and creative thinker – two great gifts that rarely come together. His thoughts and opinions will continue to live through those he taught, as well as those he influenced indirectly, not as their repetition, but as new thinking, for he himself claimed that every topic is an invitation to new thinking. The list of architects, scientists, and professors who will attest to his strong and lasting influence on their own development is long and includes important figures in today's architecture. Dalibor Veselý, despite his admirably deep knowledge in many fields, would certainly not refuse the characterization attributed to the founder of the phenomenological tradition, Edmund Husserl – that he was an 'eternal beginner.' He felt that European culture is a living reality, the renewal of which requires creative designing and disciplined reflection. Architecture was his mission and his passion.”