Constructivism in Architecture - Essay Example

? Constructivism in architecture – impact of the concept on society The involvement of architectural concepts and trends in society and politics has been a common phenomenon in all countries worldwide. Such issue appears in the case of constructivism. As a concept, the constructivism first appeared in Russia, approximately at 1920s (Palmer 2009). In its initial form, the concept was highly influenced by specific architectural trends, especially the futurism and the cubism (Palmer 2009, p.82). The various aspects of constructivism, as a valuable architectural trend, are described in this paper. Particular emphasis is given on the potential relationship between the constructivism and the society. The literature published in regard to the specific concept reveals that constructivism has been used for explaining various aspects of social and political life. During this process, the rules of constructivism have been alternated so that they are aligned with the local social and political environment. This paper explores the following argument: constructivism, as an architectural concept, is differentiated from constructivism as a social and political concept. The appearance of constructivism in Russia in 1920s was highly related with the changes in the country’s politics. In fact, it seems that constructivism has been used in order to reflect the introduction in the country of a new political and economic framework, based on the communist ideas promoted by Lenin (Palmer 2009). For this reason, many of the aspects of constructivism of that particular period are aligned with the rules incorporated in the ‘‘New Economic Policy’ of Lenin’ (Palmer 2009, p.82). According to Conrads (1975) the basis of Russian constructivism has been the ‘Realist Manifesto’ (Conrads 1975, p.56). In the study of Conrads, emphasis is given on the efforts of ‘Gabo and Pevsner, brothers, who both were sculptors’ (Conrads 1975, p.56), to establish the constructivism through the above paper. In fact, the Realist Manifesto incorporated all the basic rules of constructivism and highly affected Russian architectures from 1920s onwards; examples of constructivism can be identified in the work of ‘Tatlin and the brothers Vesnin’ (Conrads, 1975, p.56), well known Russian architects. In other words, Conrads (1975) set a different criterion for the appearance of constructivism; according to the above researcher, constructivism was not established for responding to specific political needs, as related to the change in Russia’s political system in 1920s, but rather to promote particular architectural rules and principles, which were considered as valuable according to the creators of the Realist Manifesto. The rules of constructivism, as incorporated within the above paper, seem to promote specific ideas: simplicity in regard to lines and decorative elements and avoidance of excessive decoration (Conrads 1975). Additional elements have been incorporate in constructivism during the development of the concept through the decades, meaning especially the constructivism as used in the architecture. The literature developed in regard to constructivism seems to lead to a contradictory result, at least at a first level: constructivism is presented as an architectural trend, which was mostly used for interpreting social trends. However, a careful review of the views developed in this field opposes this view: it is clear that constructivism, in its original form, is involved mostly in the development of works of art, including architectural designs. When being used for interpreting social or political trends, constructivism has been modified, being radically different from its initial form. Thus, it can be stated that the rules of constructivism used for explaining social or political trends are highly differentiated from the initial rules of the particular concept; constructivism as related to the society and politics is, in practice, a different framework from that used in architecture; in this way, it cannot be claimed that constructivism, as an architectural concept, has been mostly related to society and politics. It has been always remained related only to architecture. The rules and the characteristics of the two different modes of constructivism, as related to the architecture and as related to the society/ politics, are analytically presented and evaluated below. Moffett et al. (2003) have studied the development of constructivism as an architectural concept; according to the above researchers, the appearance of constructivism in Russia has been related to the need ‘to keep the classical forms of the Stalinist period’ (Moffett et al. 2003, p.352). Another explanation for the development of constructivism in Russia has been the following one: in the period where constructivism appeared in Russia the expansion of industrialization globally was rapid (Moffett et al. 2003). Constructivists used the particular concept for reflecting the influence of industrialization on social life and art (Moffett et al. 2003). The establishment of the concept that could relate the rules and the trends of industrialization with architectural design has been unavoidable (Moffett et al. 2003). The issues highlighted in the study of Moffett et al. (2003) in regard to constructivism reveal the following fact: constructivism has first appeared as an architectural concept; however, it has been used for reflecting the characteristics of Russia’s political system in 1920s. In other words, constructivism, in its initial form, has been related to a specific political movement, as also proved by the fact that the key buildings related to the Communist party in Russia in that particular period, i.e. 1920s, were constructed using the principles of constructivism, indicating the preference of the specific political system for the particular architectural trend. However, it could be also argued that the use of constructivism for supporting specific political projects cannot justify the direct relationship between constructivism and society; constructivism has appeared as an architectural trend, even if through the years it has been used, appropriately transformed, for explaining various aspects of the social life. One of the most known architectural designs representing the rules of constructivism has been the ‘design of the Monument to the Third International Communist Congress in 1919’ (Moffett et al. 2003, p.352); the above monument, designed by Tatlin, has not been feasible, in terms of construction, representing a building ‘about 1300 feet high, cylinder with cones’ (Moffett et al. 2003, p.352). Despite the architectural errors that made this building non feasible, the specific architectural design has been considered as one of the most representative examples of constructivism in architecture (Moffett et al. 2003). The key principles of constructivism, as related to architecture, are presented in the study of Conrads (1975): a) space should be represented in such way, so that emphasis is given on the depth of the building involved, b) construction should emphasize not on ‘the closed mass but on the development of plastic bodies stereometrically’ (Conrads 1975, p.56), c) the use of colour as a key element of decoration should be rejected; instead, concrete material should be used in their original form; the painting of the surfaces, internal and external, should be avoided since the view that colour can be a decorative element of high value is rejected; d) from the same point of view, lines should not be used for decorative purposes but just to shape the form of the building involved (Conrads 1975). The above characteristics of constructivism can be identified, more or less, to all the architectural designs based on the particular concept. For example, the Pravda Newspaper Building developed by Vesnin brothers (Moffett et al. 2003, p.352). The researchers who have studied the development of constructivism as a social concept promote a different view: constructivism, as an architectural concept, has been resulted by constructivism as a social concept. Such perspective is included in the study of Tobias (2009) on constructivism; according to the above researcher, constructivism exists as long as exists the cognitive ability of individuals. It is explained that learning has been an indispensable part of human life (Tobias 2009); indeed, no human activity would be developed without a prior learning process that sets, more or less, the rules on which this activity will be based (Tobias 2009). From this point of view, it is noted that every human needs ‘to construct mental representations of the external world in order to live in this world’ (Tobias 2009, p.127). In this context, ‘the learning process of humans is entirely constructivist’ (Tobias 2009, p.127). It is implied that constructivism, as an architectural concept, has been based on the rules of constructivism as a social/ learning concept. From another point of view, Roberts (2007) notes that constructivism, as an architectural concept, can be used for explaining the variation in human behavior within societies. This issue is made clear in ‘Rawls’s constructivism’ (Roberts 2007, p.68). According to Rawls, in social life constructivism can be used for explaining the relationship between ‘the society, as a fair system, and the person, as an equal citizen’ (Roberts 2007, p.68). The simplicity in lines and the equality, as possible, in forms, as promoted through constructivism when being used in construction can be also applied in society. The view of Rawls on constructivism as a social concept, is not based on the principle that constructivism, in its primary form, has been related to the society. In other words, Rawls seems to support the idea that constructivism has been borrowed by the construction sector and has been successfully used for exploring social issues, such as the relationship between the society and the individual. However, it is noted that constructivism, as a social concept, is related to democracy; it can be implied that the constructivism in its social/ political concept cannot be based on the same rules as when being used in construction. Of course, the use of the basic principles of constructivism, as related to architecture, for exploring social issues cannot be fully rejected since these principles can be used not in their initial meaning, as used in construction, but as metaphors, i.e. for reflecting social ideas and rules that are similar to certain rules of architecture. Guzzetti and Hund (1998) note that different forms of constructivism can be used for explaining scientific knowledge: ‘a) the traditional form, b) the integrated form and c) the social form, or social constructivism’ (Guzzetti and Hund 1998, p.77). In its traditional form, constructivism refers to the inability of sociologists to fully explain scientific knowledge (Guzzetti and Hund 1998, p.77). The social constructivism promotes the idea of explaining scientific knowledge ‘after reviewing the lab results involved’ (Guzzetti and Hund 1998, p.82). In its integrated form, known also as the methodological constructivism, constructivism promotes the idea that scientific knowledge ‘should be explained by world viewers’ (Guzzetti and Hund 1998, p.85), i.e. people who are well informed on the subject to which the knowledge refers. However, this view leads to the following risk: each of these world viewers can use different criteria for interpreting knowledge; in this way, the methodological constructivism can be characterized as ‘fully subjective’ (Guzzetti and Hund 1998, p.85). The above forms of constructivism, which are highly differentiated from the form of constructivism used in architecture, prove that the specific concept can be highly differentiated across different areas for responding to the needs of each sector. Kukla (2000) emphasizes on a particular weakness of constructivism: its inability to explain effectively the relationship between knowledge and science. More specifically, constructivism as a social concept has to refer to issues related to two different frameworks: ‘the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of science’ (Kukla 2000, p.7). Trying to over-simplify the reasons of social or scientific events, since simplification is a key characteristic of constructivism, can offer lead to false assumptions (Kukla 2000). According to Kukla (2000) the relationship between the constructivism, knowledge and science cannot be doubted; from the moment that a science has been established, it can be considered as ‘constructed’ (Kukla 2000, p.8), a similar phenomenon developed in the case of knowledge; the latter, when acquired, it is considered as ‘constructed’ (Kukla 2000, p.8). However, the forms of constructivism, when being used for explaining a scientific behavior or phenomenon it is different compared to the forms of this concept when involved in the explanation of specific pieces of social knowledge (Kukla 2000, p.8). It is made clear that constructivism, as related to society, can have many different forms; the forms of constructivism, as used in other areas, for instance, the architecture, are normally expected to be quite different. In any case, the study of Kukla (2000) verifies that constructivism can be highly involved in society, for interpreting various aspects of knowledge or science, as elements of social life. However, Shannon and Kowert (2011) support that constructivism cannot be effectively used for explaining social behaviour. It is explained that constructivism, in its common form, does not allow change, or at least, does not recognize the change as an indispensable part of society (Shannon and Kowert 2011). From this point of view, the use of constructivism, as a social concept would not be acceptable, since its value would be limited. However, the above view would be criticized as of its following point: change is part of social life; however, under specific terms, change in society can be quite slow, as for example in the case of political systems that exist for a long period of time. In such case, the use of constructivism for explaining the social behaviour in a particular society can be feasible, under the terms that changes across the society will be quite limited or difficult to be distinguished. The view that constructivism can be a key part of social life is also promoted in the study of Hashidah and Hamid (2006). The above researchers focus on the potential value of constructivism for a particular aspect of social life: learning. It is explained that constructivism in the learning process promotes ideas that are opposed with the traditional rules of the particular process (Hashidah and Hamid 2006, p.3). For example, in its traditional form, the learning process is based on the superiority of teacher over the pupils/ students (Hashidah and Hamid 2006, p.3). However, constructivism promotes a different idea: each learner should take initiatives in regard to the learning process, even at a level that the superiority of the supervisor/ teacher is doubted (Hashidah and Hamid 2006, p.3). The above view of Hashidah and Hamid (2006) in regard to constructivism and its relation to learning is quite valuable indicating that constructivism can be part of the society, of the learning process in the particular process; moreover, not only the specific concept is part of the society but it can be involved in initiatives for introducing changes in social life. Indeed, in the above case, constructivism can be used for developing the learning process according to the perceptions and will of the learner. At the next level, the view of Hashidah and Hamid (2006) on constructivism and its relationship to society can lead to the following assumption: the forms of constructivism in society and architecture are differentiated. In the above, case, i.e. as a concept involved in the learning process, constructivism focuses on the independency of the learner towards the supervisor. In architecture, constructivism is primarily related to simplicity in lines and in decorative elements. Under these terms, the argument of this paper that constructivism in architecture is differentiated from constructivism in society, is fully verified. In a report published by the Council of Europe in 2003 reference is made to the potential use of constructivism for developing the learning process. More specifically, in the context of the learning process, constructivism can be used for achieving specific targets: individuals can become more independent; in this way communication between individuals is promoted (Council of Europe 2003). It is made clear that curricula could be more effectively developed using ‘a constructivist approach’ (Council of Europe 2003, p.23). However, it is not explained whether the use of constructivism in education could be valuable only in promoting communication or for achieving additional targets, as for example, of supporting the increase of learners’ cognitive ability. It can be assumed that constructivism, due to its emphasis on simplicity, could help learners to understand easier the issues included in the curricula, a fact that would allow the increase of knowledge acquired in educational institutions worldwide. The relationship between constructivism and society has been also analysed in the study of Jackson and Sorensen (2007). Emphasis is given on the following fact: constructivism is not appropriate for exploring all aspects of social life. For example: constructivism would be useless when having to explain anarchy (Jackson and Sorensen 2007, p.175). According to Jackson and Sorensen (2007) the inability of constructivism to explain social behaviour can be considered as expected: constructivism has been derived from capitalism; therefore it cannot be used for analysing social behaviour or other aspects of social life. The specific view is based on the ‘Wallerstein’s world system theory’ (Jackson and Sorensen 2007, p.175), which emphasizes on ‘the material structure of global capitalism’ (Jackson and Sorensen 2007, p.175). From this point of view, constructivism cannot reflect the social life but just the material elements of capitalism. The specific view is aligned with the rules of constructivism as related to architecture. As explained in the beginning of this paper, constructivism has been introduced in order to align the architectural design of the 1920s in Russia with the rules of industrialization, the growth of which then was rapid worldwide. Moreover, industrialization has been promoted by capitalism, for enforcing the power of the capital towards the high percentage of the population, acting as workers. Therefore, constructivism is actually related to capitalism. The view of Jackson and Sorensen (2007) on constructivism further verifies the argument promoted in this paper, that constructivism has different forms when used in architecture and when used in society. The first mode or constructivism, the one related to architecture, can be considered as the original one. As also proved through the other studies developed in regard to this issue, constructivism in architecture is differentiated from constructivism, as a concept used in society and politics. Of course, it has been revealed that constructivism in its initial form has been related to the political system of Russia. Still, the role of constructivism as a key architectural concept has not been eliminated. References Conrads, U. (1975) Programs and Manifestoes on 20Th-Century Architecture. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Council of Europe (2003) Learning and Teaching in the Communication Society Higher Education and Research. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Green, D. (2002) Constructivism and Comparative Politics. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Guzzetti, B., and Hund, C. (1998) Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World. Oxon: Routledge. Hashidah, N., and Hamid, A. (2006) Analysis of Changes in Teachers Concerning Constructivist Perceptions, Philosophies, and Practices Resulting from the Year-long. London: ProQuest. Jackson, R., and Sorensen, G. (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories And Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kukla, A. (2000) Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. Oxon: Routledge. Moffett, M., Fazio, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2003) A World History of Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing. Palmer, A. (2009) The A to Z of Architecture. Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Roberson, B. (2002) International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Roberts, P. (2007) Political Constructivism. Oxon: Routledge. Shannon, V., and Kowert, P. (2011) Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations: An Ideational Alliance. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Tobias, S. (2009) Constructivist Instruction: Success Or Failure? Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Read More