Jan Víšek: On the Essence of Architecture

We live in an interesting time when the development of construction in various countries, although followed separate paths, has adhered to similar principles, and the realizations of modern architects evoke hope that the new era will find its expression in construction, which has been long sought after.
If we observe the activities of builders from historical times, we will recognize that those who built temples also constructed aqueducts, fortifications, bridges—essentially the structures that today are solely the domain of engineers.
It is true that the Greeks, for example, placed much greater emphasis on building the abodes of gods than those of men. As civilization grew, the needs of humanity naturally increased, and more attention was devoted to buildings where the gods do not dwell. The Romans were a civilized nation par excellence, and our admiration is reserved for their utilitarian structures, in whose construction they operated very independently and with remarkable ingenuity, creating types of buildings that were completely unprecedented.
Civilization and culture are prerequisites to architecture in general, and it is important to realize that they do not always progress at the same pace. Greek architecture speaks more of culture, while Roman architecture speaks of civilization.
I cannot dissect history from this perspective, but I do draw attention to this prerequisite of architecture. A lively interest from the finest minds has always concerned both realms. Consider the example of the activities of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Dürer, who in the field of technology, as part of civilization, demonstrated the ingenuity of their time. The ancient architects did not regard the constructive aspect of their buildings as secondary and did not invite builders into their studios as inferior elements, relegating them to sketching only what was "artistic."
The technical problem was their first concern, to which they devoted their best efforts.
Historic architects were also engineers; they mastered the knowledge of both fields, built, and, as was entirely natural, they knew how to utilize all means that led to bringing the building object to life for the purpose for which it was intended. Because of their versatility, they achieved perfection in their work, depending on the perfect means available at the time.
Neither the plan nor the budget was viewed as their final work, but as a means of communication with their collaborators.
The mastery of architectural and engineering disciplines by a single person continued until the beginning of the 19th century when construction tasks became so diverse. Since that time, civilization has been expanding ever more, along with associated greater demands of humanity; construction tasks, concerning the diversity of purpose, multiply, and technical advancements with the invention of machines present architects with ever new challenges that astonish them, leading to a growing focus on the dwelling of people, the division of architecture and engineering occurs. Architects retain the nobler role concerning deities, while engineers take on the less noble role concerning people and their needs. Architects and builders diminish, while engineers rise. Architects become sentimental, reminiscing about bygone beautiful times, losing connection with the present, retreating into studios, starting to produce art instead of homes, playing at formal revolutions, outbursts, and returns, going through every phase of development from antiquity to Baroque and back again, abandoning the construction sites that engineers have taken over; life continues without them until they finally realize that they find themselves outside the mainland, dominated by the engineering spirit of our time.
Engineers are educated by theoretical knowledge, mathematics, mechanics, constructive insights, and awakening a bold pragmatic spirit and practice based on theoretical knowledge on subjects of general usefulness. In engineering schools, the development of machines is not widely explained, but attention is primarily drawn to the most perfect machines, and the spirit of logical thinking is awakened, so that improvements can be continued on existing designs if they are viable, or to seek new, better possibilities.
In practical life, the young engineer learns from more experienced colleagues, guided by a solid professional spirit, adopting their experiences so that they can independently continue in their work.
His creations, whether machines, bridges, railways, concrete structures, or airplanes, arise through the same mental process in design and a similar process in execution, constructed according to the same principles. An engineer does not try to invent a completely new type without knowing the last used type with its advantages and disadvantages, and new means the same to him as better.
Engineers do not stumble over the problem of nationality in their work; they do not produce airplanes that are Czech, French, or American, but manufacture airplanes in the Czech Republic, in France, and in America. An engineer does not work only with imagination—though imagination is always the starting point of epochal discoveries—achieving results that are directly fantastic, but through exact guidance, experience, logic, and striving to create the most perfect machine or structure that meets needs as perfectly as possible.
It is the economy of energy and materials that is his first commandment. Economy leads to organization, division of tasks, and work without sentimental moods and individual caprices.
The work of architects must be guided by similar ideas.
If we observe engineering structures concerning their overall appearance and proportionality of individual parts, we will recognize that they do not satisfy all those on whom engineers worked. There are far more structures that seem perfect, where beauty cannot be found even with the best will, than there are technically perfect yet beautiful constructions. This is the mentality of the average product of today’s engineering creations, which must be acknowledged, for by its nature, average technical perfection is valued more in such structures than their beauty. Progress in engineering constructions requires that not only repeated types emerge but also new types, and local site differences and the specifics of the task lead to the accommodation of the type. In these cases, the engineer is compelled to demonstrate his creative abilities and prove their intensity and quality. It is interesting that studying these cases leads to individualities and engineers emerge with professional sovereignty, highly cultivated, whose structures are technically perfect and beautiful. Their cultured sensitivity demands a design solution that meets the feelings of proportionality.
If we consider common practice, we find that the civil engineer, who interests us most due to his close relationship to architectural practice, works more on details in design; the average engineer tends to end his design with calculations right where the design actually begins. Structural mechanics is a science with hypotheses based on empirical evidence, and calculations always allow for movement within certain limits, considering the quality of the materials used and necessitating a choice; the purpose of the object and local conditions may eventually require correction of the calculations. We must not forget that epoch-making technical inventions do not arise solely from calculations; for example, reinforced concrete was discovered by gardener Monier; let’s recall mushroom ceilings that were discovered through practice, to clarify that calculations are a means to an end and that the engineer is compelled to design with all the pleasant and unpleasant consequences and to express his sensitivity, which, depending on its intensity, leads to more or less harmonious shapes and effects in visible constructions and spaces. In these cases, the architect solves architecture in a completely modern sense and awakens in himself a good, better, or worse architect.
If we accept the engineering spirit in construction, we do not say that we accept all engineering creations, which vary in quality just as much as the works of architects, with the difference that if the average of engineering structures stands at plus and minus zero, the present average of structures created by architects is significantly below zero, and it is desirable that both achieve positive levels.
Freyssinet's structures are much more beautiful and bolder than the works of other engineers. Freyssinet possesses qualities to a great extent that must be awakened in modern architects: a cultivated sensitivity combined with constructive inventiveness grounded in theory and practice.
A perfect engineering structure is beautiful not for its engineering essence, but for its perfection, for which the author is responsible. The engineer’s sensitivity, where cultivated, is necessarily modern, as it is unburdened by anything, and it is a sensitivity manifested in the objects of our needs, as products of today's civilization.
This modernity is expressed in perfect engineering structures through clarity, purity, practicality, proportionality, and convincing constructive self-evidence.
It is very interesting that first and most perfectly, this formal character is received by transport means: ships, cars, locomotives, airplanes, crafted by engineers who, by the nature of these objects, had the opportunity and the necessity for intimate contact with global civilization.
The new architecture of houses must grow from the same assumptions and have the same formal qualities as good engineering objects.
The first and most important problem is the house; this is where we must start. Several houses create a street and a square, animated by their frequency, and their routes condition the most important today’s communication based on entirely rational reasons; several streets and squares make a city.
A perfect house, like a machine, must serve its purpose as perfectly as possible, utilizing all modern advancements. All its parts are constructed from the most economically and hygienically suitable materials, which withstand external weather influences and internal use. Their selection requires knowledge and experience, both positive and negative, and all the more so if the house is an invention. The correlation of rooms—disposition—is primarily governed by the operations within the house based on principles of economy and comfort and must be clear, comprehensible, simple, and allow for the use of the most advantageous constructions. To meet these principles again requires knowledge of operation and experience.
In internal spaces, whether apartments or workspaces, we require them to be hygienic, bright, airy, and clean, and meeting these requirements, just like those of specific purposes, again necessitates positive knowledge and experience.
From these self-evident assumptions, the shape of the house emerges naturally on the outside and inside, and their perfect fulfillment constitutes the architecture that we perceive visually first and only has legitimacy if it has grown from these technical prerequisites. By organizing perfect constructions and technical facilities, thus order, new architecture arises. Constructions, as products of technical activity, are perfect when their production is driven by the demands of economy and functionality, and as an architectural element when their use is organized in such a way as to evoke a sense of order, calmness, and self-evidence.
From these principles, the role of the architect arises: To satisfy numerous and seemingly contradictory demands using the most suitable technical means as perfectly as possible, so that a simple, calm, and proportionate building object emerges both as a whole and in its individual parts, serving its purpose as precisely as a perfectly functioning machine.
In order to solve this task, the architect must acquire knowledge of specialized technical knowledge and experience, of civilizational achievements, an understanding of life, and cultivate a culture of sensitivity. Then, his activities can lead to houses as perfect as machines, locomotives, airplanes, and ships, because they are worked under the same assumptions and the same spirit as these, without employing their functional forms, obtaining their internal elegance and style, thus becoming objects endowed with legitimacy by the modern era.
We no longer live in a time of stylelessness. However, it is up to builders, as modern people, to want to live and work in houses with modern conveniences, and up to architects to rid themselves of unmodern sentimentality and individual whim, to work in solidarity for the perfection of their work, and to express their individuality to the degree of achieved perfection.
Our construction does not face the question: historically or modernly; our problem is the demand for quality. Architecture is not a matter for dilettantes or individual whims, but a serious issue of national economy that stands at the forefront today.
The phrase "constructivism" has been expressed. It would be reckless and frivolous for this phrase to become an opportunity for romantic adventures, expeditions, and returns. What is at stake is not constructivist architecture, but constructive architecture. The aim is for purposeful construction as a means not only to be respected but also to be used as a primary element alongside need in shaping the house both outside and inside, leading to new architecture as a non-whimsical product of the new age.
We are aware that we are still on its threshold. The new architecture is not, however, a utopia, as it is built on solid foundations.