Antonín Engel: School of Architecture

It is necessary to elaborate once on a subject that stands out above our other professional tasks due to its seriousness and importance: the study of architecture at the Czech technical university. This topic poses considerable danger for the writer in many respects, mainly in that, despite the best will, it is often impossible to avoid the appearance of criticism of individuals, even when the criticism concerns only the matter itself. This is especially true because genuine, factual, and sincere professional criticism is almost non-existent even among us, as issues usually end with a rather unedifying picture of personal attacks; even then, if criticism arises from the most honest impulses, it is not spared this fate.
The imminent events and the undeniable seriousness of the moment, when discussing not only the future of the school itself but also, in many respects, the shaping of the future development of our construction industry, compel us to express our unvarnished opinion on this subject, regardless of right or left.
The study of architecture at the Czech technical university should have long ago been subjected to a thorough review. In no other field, which is taught at this technical university, have there been such vast oversights in the entire conceptual viewpoint in the last ten years as in architecture. In no other field is the struggle for further development carried out with such tenacity, yet with such absolute indifference and much leniency.
If other technical fields joyfully keep pace with contemporary European development, if the results of the work of Czech engineers represent a time of splendid triumphs of technical progress and the glory of this old school, the construction field remains motionless within a circle of conservative traditions, which the school of Renaissance epigones created in the 1870s to 1890s. The output of its graduates, unless they themselves sought to educate themselves in more progressive institutions or strived to improve almost as autodidacts, cannot compare even remotely to today's state not only abroad but also already here.
The causes of this, which weigh heavily on those who do not see the architecture department at the Czech technical university merely as a school educating academically trained personnel for state and land offices, but as an institution based on a very serious scientific foundation, lie deeply rooted, so that any quick improvement of the current state can hardly be contemplated.
It is impossible within the limits of these lines to exhaust the entire vast material necessary for even a somewhat objective assessment. It is sufficient to point out only some of the most characteristic phenomena that contribute to today’s unfortunate state.
First and foremost, it is the curriculum, which is, with minor variations, common to all Austrian technical schools, insofar as this field is included. According to it, the study is divided into preparatory theoretical sciences, which occupy the largest part of the four semesters leading to the first state examination, and the actual specialized subjects with various preparatory teachings, which dominate the period leading to the second state examination. This division, moreover, is common to all fields, insofar as they contain both state examinations.
Thus, the student, before reaching the study of purely specialized subjects, must cover a considerable number of abstract sciences, various auxiliary sciences, encyclopedias, etc. Concurrently, the hand drawing, so-called architectural drawing, and modeling, as well as the history of architecture, are the only subjects of a somewhat special nature.
However, even further study in the period between the first and second state examinations is still quite burdened with theoretical teachings and encyclopedias; here, however, the emphasis falls not so much on quantity as rather on the method of study.
For example, civil engineering, perhaps the most important subject, which occupies four teaching semesters, must be limited to a system of lectures and associated exercises. It certainly does not have the significance it should have if it could be taught in closer connection with actual practice and was not constrained by lack of time and space, especially for practical exercises. Of course, here it must be considered that certainly not all other departments at the technical school fared any better due to the government’s notorious frugality, as we have still not reached the level of establishing specialized workshops in Austria.
However, if many shortcomings in practical life can be compensated for, often arising from the insufficient funding of our universities, and thus a solid scientific foundation can be enhanced, a higher and deeper opinion on the essence of practical matters in the study of architecture itself and the subjects that accompany it is much more important for life.
Here, already the method of teaching, a view repeatedly expressed by authoritative figures, the method and way of working, primarily the personality of the teacher, his artistic and certainly also educational potential, create in the student a certain direction of development, which often becomes decisive for the entire future. This is precisely why mere scientific methodology is not sufficient, as all components interact here. Among them, the most significant is the developed individuality of the teacher, and indeed the evolving individuality of the student, and therefore one cannot be too cautious in the choice of system, but even more so of the teaching personalities.
Here, in short, the technical sciences cease, and art with all the consequences of this kind of human activity begins.
They should therefore, if we have the purpose of this field clearly in mind, treat all preceding sciences and auxiliary teachings as mere preparation for the own and final goal, namely to educate a technically advanced artist on the broadest scientific basis. However, if we can rightly say that this scientific and constructive preparation is certainly good, even, in many respects, too extensive, unfortunately we cannot say that what follows from this broad basis is in appropriate proportion to it. Here, it is, of course, necessary to explain the matter somewhat more closely.
First, the aforementioned theoretical sciences and auxiliary teachings absorb, at least in the first semesters, the largest part of the time allotted to the student, so the own field, in which this work is to be concentrated, receives a relatively small fraction of the teaching hours. Thus, even with good will from both the student body and the teacher, it certainly cannot be devoted as much time as the matter, which requires a certain maturation, really needs.
More importantly, however, is the division of the material and even more the way in which this study is conducted.
According to the program, the division of the material is as follows:
In the third year, architecture first course: Stylistic studies from the Greek and Roman periods 11 hours per week. Architecture second course A: stylistic studies of early Christian and neo-Roman monuments. Designs of monuments and temple structures 7 hours per week. Architecture second course B: Stylistic studies from the Renaissance period and exercises in designing buildings. Dispositions for the arrangement of public buildings, part one. 16 hours in the winter semester and 20 hours in the summer semester.
Architecture, third course A: Renaissance studies and exercises in large designs, dispositions and arrangements of public buildings, part two. 22 hours in the winter semester. Architecture, third course B: Studies of Gothic monuments. Designs of temples and large cemetery arrangements, 9 hours in the winter semester. From the above, it follows that the entire study of architecture relies solely on the so-called studies of historical styles and at most their application for contemporary purposes. It is pointless to speak of the usefulness of such studies; this is best evidenced by how they are actually carried out. It manifests itself in copying and reconstructing certain objects from these three stylistic periods, often in colossal scale with details made to actual size.
Considering the exhausting labor of such an approach, one cannot be surprised that the execution of one such study requires considerable time, even up to a whole semester. And there are at least two such studies from each period, after which the corresponding projects always follow. It is easy to see that projects are always carried out more or less under the influence of previous studies, and that we are dealing with so-called historical project design.
There has been no talk of studying contemporary life and creating modern design based on it.
The absurdity of such upbringing of today’s architect is evident in itself, and it is unnecessary to elaborate further on it.
Only one thing must be noted again.
What, therefore, is the purpose of the broad scientific preparation of the first four semesters of teaching, what is the use of all these teachings, what is the value of knowledge of modern constructions, what is the purpose of encyclopedias extending into other and even very distant fields, when all of this together leads to complete emptiness and ends up in a soulless review and application of long-dead forms to modern tasks?
Where is the young student, I ask, to find the organic connection between theoretical scientific knowledge and the final result in the organism of the building, when forms borrowed from elsewhere are pre-given to him? Where is he to gain the necessary routine for designing and solving the various tasks posed by today, when the largest part of his time must be devoted to tedious and unproductive copying, which benefits him not at all, but on the contrary, even those few projects he encounters during his studies are overwhelmed by an immense stylistic material?
One could discuss this subject for a long time, just as one could about so-called ornamental drawing, which is led by the same spirit of historicism; however, that would lead too far. Instead, it is necessary to consider the consequences of this system, which holds stubbornly and whose removal or at least rendering harmless would perhaps be considered a complete sacrilege to those who have dedicated themselves to the study of architecture at the technical university.
In what do these consequences manifest themselves? Certainly, first, in that the artistic instinct and, where applicable, real talent that can be presumed in a certain section of the students finds no satisfaction that they expected, a circumstance that surely weighs heavily on the architecture school. As a result, soon substantial boredom arises, which either ends in complete resignation, i.e., dull and obedient study of the teaching program only for the sake of finishing, or in dispersing and dabbling in other artistic fields, which usually ends in leaving school! Few find within them the strength to gain the conviction that no system, even the worst, can overcome true talent, and after graduating, they look to compensate for what they have not achieved during their private studies or by entering some better institution. Of course, if it is not too late.
And that is the most fatal aspect of the whole matter!
Few can be found who, after exhausting and expensive five years of study, have not only the courage but even the mere possibility to supplement their education in the way just mentioned.
The situation would certainly not be so fateful under different circumstances, as it certainly was not fifteen or twenty years ago, but today, when we find ourselves in a transformative stage from the stylistic epigonism that is so characteristic of the 19th century to a genuinely formal expression to which the 20th century is rushing, such a stubbornly and unyieldingly maintained system at this school represents a blatant sin, if not a disaster for young people.
To this, there is also the circumstance that meanwhile, two more schools for architecture have been established among us: one for art and industrial design, albeit leaning more towards decorative direction, and the second, recently created, by establishing a professorship for architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts. Both, regarding their leading personalities, must be considered as very dangerous competitors to the old architectural school at the technical university, certainly not least because they will always provide art-loving youth with an easier and more engaging path to their set goal, regardless of the artistic quality of their representatives.
The consequence of this will be that the more gifted, therefore more valuable candidates for study will bypass the technical university, which thus will soon face a serious shortage of truly technically trained architects. This is a circumstance that cannot be underestimated in the interest of the issue itself. At the same time, there is the danger that only bureaucratic material will be provided by the technical university, which certainly will not contribute anything to better development.
It is indeed a curious irony that at the technical universities, which with their alumni have incited a real revolution in the intellectual development of humanity and fundamentally transformed all thinking and actions of today’s human being, it is precisely in them that the most conservative direction in architecture has found refuge, an art that should be, as it once was, the crown of human creation.
It is actually difficult to discuss this subject, all the more so because there is no hope that any genuine reform might take place in the foreseeable future.
If a year ago, the students themselves deemed it necessary, on their own initiative, to submit a memorandum to the professorial body containing a very serious attempt at at least partial reform, and if no response has been provided to this memorandum even after a year, then this is indeed direct proof that at decisive places there is neither the will nor the courage to support the slightest reform initiative.
And just today, with the departure of Prof. J. Schulze, there arises the long-desired possibility of introducing a change of personnel along with a change of system; however, reports of the new appointments to the chair of architecture do not create rosy expectations that the future will represent progress compared to the previous direction, much less that it will match what has already been achieved in this regard both abroad and here.
In Prague, July 1, 1911.