Tectonics as Architectural Expression

The authors’ defense of tectonics seems to be a strange one. Whereas Semper seems to be more in favor of using materials in ways that nature would intend, many of the other authors seem to be taking a much more shallow perspective. Tectonics is considered a means of detailing a building as much as anything else. In its fundamental core, tectonics as an expression of structure needs to be something deeper than a detail. It needs to be something that can be perceived at any and all levels of the architectural work, not merely at the smallest levels of meaning. All of the authors seem to agree that tectonics as a means of architectural expression is more powerful than ornament. If it is truly so much more powerful, it should not be described as something to be applied. In some of the arguments, such as the ones describing Carlo Scarpa, it seemed to be a contradiction of terms. The tectonics were in the details, so the details were of supreme importance. He walked around the site with a flashlight in order to focus only on the details, and not on the architectural work as a whole. If this is all true, the tectonic expression sounds to be as much an afterthought that is determined during the construction of the building as it is something that he planned on his drawings. How meaningful can a means of expression be if it is applied in a seemingly whimsical manner? With this said, it is important to note that the connections created through this means of expression were in fact powerful as details in a building. It is certainly better detailed than many other buildings, but it remains that detailing a building seems a strange way to express a concept.

The best explanation for these statements seems to arrive at the origin of the statements themselves. The works are all based on the writing of Semper, who wrote in the mid-nineteenth century, shortly before the Arts and Crafts movement began in England. Something like a detailed joint would be praised in the architectural culture of his society, so it is possible that this means of thinking heavily influenced his writings. Most of the later authors were speaking against postmodernism as much as for tectonics, and so it makes sense that they would focus on the details. They were frustrated with the way architecture was heading and wanted to make some sort of radical change. By campaigning for the expression of tectonics through details, it effectively cancels out the large number of decorated sheds and deconstructive forms that arise for form’s sake. Instead, it would bring architecture back into the realm of art, back into the realm of something that must be assembled by skilled craftsmen. This type of thinking was summarized best by the quote from Kahn:

“The joint is the beginning of ornament
And that must be distinguished from
decoration which is simply applied.
Ornament is the adoration of the joint.”

This clearly summarizes the view of tectonics as detail and ornament, which seems to be the location to which it was relegated in many of the articles.

One must not forget that Semper did indeed create some of the more compelling arguments for tectonics, which do not all involve the use of tectonics merely as detail. He felt that any applied content should overtake the original meaning of the object. He wanted material choice to suit the climate and material interventions to suit the character of the building. He felt that tectonic perfection a goal to work for. This portion of his writing seems much more applicable to a more traditional view of tectonics; that is, tectonics would be the whole focus of the construction, rather than merely the applied detail at the end. It is no wonder Semper is the original writer, for the other articles seem to do little more than echo his arguments in regards to the authors’ personal dilemma with the current architecture. Tectonics as a whole is certainly a form of architectural styling with great merit, for rather than focusing on something mundane, it returns to the idea of using materials how the materials should naturally be used. One would not use wood in tectonics to defy gravity in an unnatural way, but any means of using wood that was joined with great craft and therefore withstood its architectural purpose would be deemed acceptable. This architectural theory seems to embed a great deal of meaning into architecture without overwhelming the building or forcing the building into solely one mode of expression. Even when only seen in the details, it adds to the local meanings of the building, and the combined effect of such details can result in a meaningful whole. Therefore, tectonics is more broadly applicable than most theories, which is probably the reason that so many architects have skillfully employed it.