Transcript of the discussion of the report by V.F. Markuzon at a meeting of the methodological
seminar under the A. Rappaport and B. Sazonov "Problems of design"
04/21/1971. From the personal archive of A.G. Rappaport

Markuzon V.F. When talking about the informational essence of architecture, there are no doubts. But when people talk about artistic expressiveness, about the language of architecture, this question has not been developed at all or almost at all until now. In the works on this issue, the points of view that developed in the time of Vitruvius are still expounded. And when they talk about the language of architecture, they use this expression rather in a metaphorical sense. Usually, this means the sum of all the funds used by the architect. Let's try to find out whether this amount of funds is not an integral specific system. Let's begin our consideration by clarifying the relationship of architecture to other arts, since we will be mainly interested in artistic structures. When considering a building, we first of all talk about the purpose of it as a whole and its parts, about the structures and about the space, without which the function is unthinkable. The meaning of the existence of architecture is space. The function is not expressed otherwise than through organized matter or, if by this we mean simply the structure, then through architectonics. Further, these functions are expressed in terms of space. Space expresses functions with the help of architectonics. Without space, there is no architectonics. There is a third specific thing in architecture, and more specifically in architectural aesthetics, and that is proportions. Proportions exist in all other arts, as do space and architectonics. In architectural aesthetics, proportions are usually considered non-specifically. It seems to me, however, that the proportions also have a tectonic meaning. The ratio of spatial figures that we perceive when looking at a building is a combination of its fragments or the ratio of elements of its tectonics. There are no proportions at all. Thus, the main characteristics of the architecture, i.e. utilitarian function, space and proportions are expressed through architectonics. It is the content connection that turns the building into an integral artistic structure and is the basis of the artistic language of architecture.
Sazonov B.V. When you talk about the language of architecture, it is not clear what meaning the word “language” itself carries. And if you use it in the accepted sense, then what restrictions do you place on it?
Marcuson. We are now talking about the means of creating an artistic structure in construction. If such means exist, then they represent a specific language of expressive means of architecture. In the literature, there is still a point of view that this is something indefinite that architecture uses. We are now talking about the ability of an architect to assemble artistic structures.
Rappaport A.G. When you say "language", is this not a metaphorical use of a synonym for "architectural expressiveness".
Sazonov. When they talk about language, they reveal its scope and content, denoting and signified, the process of communication, etc. Will you consider all these language components?
Marcuson. I will try to cover the most important ones. We are talking about the extent to which the methods of semiotics are applicable to the means of architecture, to what extent they allow us to speak of these means as a language. This is the subject of my little research. It can be argued that the means of other arts are also drawn into the sphere of tectonics. For example, rhythm is inherent in the means of all kinds of arts. Naturally, in architecture it acquires a tectonic meaning. Until now, the fact that the rhythm is not the same horizontally and vertically has been overlooked. This difference stems precisely from the tectonic nature of the rhythm. This allows us to assert that the basis of semantics is hidden in each element of the structure and in it as a whole. And semantics rests on tectonic concepts. This allows us to talk about a specific architecture language. The range of tectonic concepts is constantly expanding, starting with the menhir and ending with modern architecture.
Rappaport. What is a tectonic concept?
Marcuson. This is, for example, the fight against gravity, stiffening, etc.
Rappaport. What exactly is a tectonic concept?
Marcuson. The tectonic concept is derived from ideas about how to build. In the beginning, there are very few such representations. I believe that the erection of the menhir was as much a discovery as fire.
Rappaport. Is it possible to understand that tectonics for you is not the structure itself, but the basis of its reflection, that it is an education in the sphere of consciousness.
Marcuson. Yes, this is a phenomenon of the sphere of consciousness, which is obtained in the process of working with a stone and so on. Things.
Rappaport. Do you mean that the reflection of an architectural structure is superimposed on what you call tectonic concepts, and tectonic concepts are reflected ways of designing architectural structures.
Sazonov. Thus, in this is the specificity only for the consciousness of the one who perceives in a certain way brought up?
Marcuson. Both for the perceiver and for the builder. As for the educated in a certain way, a person perceives everything on the basis of existing knowledge, on the basis of what he already knows. All perception is based on apperception. Architecture, being a mass medium, relies on the simplest tectonic concepts that have developed by the appropriate time.
Rappaport. I doubt that after the division of labor in construction, perception is characterized by the model you have drawn. I even suspect that such a model has grown out of the special architectural studies that you, in particular, are engaged in. Indeed, this is a kind of school language of architectural critics, who very often used the word "tectonics".
Marcuson. I want to talk about what distinguishes tectonics in the use of the XIII century. from what is expected. For the 19th century, architectural form was related to tectonics as argument is related to function in mathematics. The connection was clear. In the proposed concept, tectonics is understood as the semantic basis on which the architect relies, like a poet, relying on the grammar of the language, when creating a work of art. Playing with tectonically meaningful forms - this is architecture. Architecture is born from construction precisely on the basis of general concepts of construction.
Izvarin E. You called the topic of your message the elucidation of the possibility of applicability of semiotics methods to architecture. Will you talk specifically about these methods? Secondly, when you compare the architect with his semantic basis, which is the tectonics of architecture or construction in general, with the poet using the grammar of the language, are you not combining syntax and semantics, or will these issues also be specially covered?
Marcuson. It is useful to continue the analogy between poetry and ordinary language, as well as between architecture as art and construction. Pushkin advised to learn the language from prosvirens, and the architect should learn from mastered building forms and concepts. When creating a truly artistic work, the poet even violates the established norms of the language, i.e. grammar. Here, all aspects of semantic consideration should be taken into account - both syntactic, and pragmatics, and semantics. The architect does the same. Just as the spoken language is polished in the works of great artists who break the norm, in architecture the masters also break the norms they have been taught and make discoveries. These innovations in both poetry and architecture affect back the general state of language and construction.
Sazonov. I don't understand the analogy between the relationship of poetry to grammar and the relationship of architecture to tectonics. For example, for me the grammar used by the poet is a means, but not a product. It cannot be said that the poet produces this or that type of grammar. He uses grammar when he produces a work of art. According to your point of view, the tectonics used by the architect is a means, but at the same time a product. What is the architect's product, as opposed to tectonics, understood as a means?
Marcuson. I understand tectonics not as following the physical laws of tectonics, but as a game. For clarification, I turn to the history of the interpretation of the architectural order. I want to reconsider the historically established views on the origin of orders, which now do not correspond at all to the available archaeological data.
Based on the historical tendency to compare the stone order with wooden architecture, I want to say that there is a metaphor here, i.e. the shortest form of comparison. And display modeling and comparison are the first stages of our knowledge.
Gagkaev. I want to return to what was said above. When it comes to the Greek order, the play of tectonic means is more or less clear. And what can be said about the architecture of the Baroque, where tectonics blurs and acquires a formal, or rather amorphous sound?
Marcuson. I want to answer this question below.
So we have established that there is a picture in architecture, a comparison in the form of a very specific form of metaphor. And this immediately sets the perspective of semiotic research.
Sazonov. What is the semantics of architecture?
Marcuson. Semantics, i.e. the semantic field of an architect is a set of tectonic ideas, the soil on which building rules grow, and then the game of these rules.
Sazonov. Why is this a semantic field?
Marcuson. The fact is that architecture is always full of meanings for every person. You have to be spoiled by a special education to perceive architecture as a purely abstract art. In the proposed concept, it is tectonic ideas that are put forward as the main ones.
Sazonov. Did I understand correctly that the semantic is used in the sense that there is meaning behind what?
Marcuson. And above all, the value of construction.
Sazonov. Why does the fact that some element performs a function give the right to talk about meaning? Is it possible to confine ourselves to mentioning the function and not talking about meaning at all? Could you do without the term "semantic field" at all? Do you need it for your personal purposes, or is the person looking at the building obliged to resort to it? If a person is employed in the field of construction and really resorts to such a method, then it does not follow from this that this property is inherent in a person in general and gives the right to a universal approach.
Marcuson. What I mean to say is that my goal is to find out if the architecture has specific features. It seems to me that such means exist and they are connected by tectonic concepts, i.e. tectonic values ​​that are seized over time.
Sazonov. I don't understand why you are resorting to values. For example, the Pythagoreans used numbers. They resorted to a number series, believing that it expressed the universal structure of the world. In architecture, this structure is expressed in numbers and relationships. They didn't use any value. They had a concept by which everything else was interpreted. Why should a person, looking at a building, see not just a column, but understand that an element has a function, a function has a value, etc.?
Marcuson. When you look at the column, you understand that it is a support.
Sazonov. I understand it. I do not perceive the column as a support because I was not brought up that way.
Marcuson. From my point of view, a person needs to be specially taught so that he perceives something in this way.
Sazonov. Do you think that our consciousness has a structure that defines just such a perception?
Marcuson. Yes. First of all, our consciousness sees the meaning of all these things. By the way, the Pythagoreans in relation to aesthetics were not limited to the values ​​of the number series. They attributed perfection to numbers, and then they began to translate this perfection into various meanings. In music, mathematics very successfully found its physical embodiment. But this is also not aesthetics, it is only the physical basis of music. And then already there relations acquire purely sound meanings, it also happens with architecture. But here we mean building values.
Rappaport. It is important to note that Marcuson does not provide a proof, but only a brief summary of the concept. From the foregoing, the following semantic rods can be distinguished: 1) refutation of the theories that derived the structure of Greek temples from wooden architecture, i.e. the order was genetically derived from a wooden structure. Mark. Claims that these forms did not grow genetically, but were consciously transferred during the design process. That is, the consciousness once saw them in reality, separated the form and content, then transferred this form to stone and thereby gave this form an image of a wooden structure, emphasizing its conventionality, distorting it to a small extent; 2) It was also about the nature of aesthetic perception. It has been argued that such an image became the basis of the building's vision. The building was beautiful not because it had any function, but because this mimesis helped recognition. People looked at the houses and cognized their some ideal meaning. This can be argued with various arguments. I propose to listen to the report to the end, and only then formulate a system of counterarguments, without arguing in the course of the report.
Sazonov. My questions are for understanding. Multi-subject movement, I think, I feel. But terminological material is constantly used, the need for which is unclear to me. It is possible to describe all of the above without resorting to various semiotic terms.
Marcuson. Let's drop the term "semantics". It's not about terminology. Certain tectonic representations appear in the forms. Certain tectonic representations appear in the forms.
Rappaport. If the speaker claims that the shapes of the stone are significant, then Sazon's claims are satisfied. Separate form and content.
Sazonov. The form depicts something, i.e. is a form.
Rappaport. If there is an image, then both the depicted and the depicting are present. And if the depicted is some kind of reality, then the fact of referring to it as the meaning of some specific depicted reality is possible.
Sazonov. If the image is an artistic value, then how does tectonics relate to this?
Rappaport. Art has not yet been mentioned. In my opinion, “depicts” already makes it possible to talk about language: there is a depiction, there is an act of communication ...
Sazonov. The question is, does it represent...
Rappaport. There is a sign, there is an image ...
Sazonov. It is not known if there is a depicted and an image, then it does not follow that there is a sign and a signified.
Rappaport. This is a substantive question. Can we talk about semiotic reality?
Sazonov. When we talk about a sign, we must also consider its social use, its functioning, i.e. besides this “signified-signifying” link, there are many other links in which this reality is included in order to call it sign.
Marcuson. In foreign literature, the question of whether it is possible to use the terms "sign" and "language" in architecture, if the depicting is depicted at the same time, was discussed. A window is a window, and so on. Signs must be divided into pictorial and non-pictorial.
Sazonov. This is for Pierce.
Marcuson. We do not know any other semiotics. It's just a sign - it's quite a conventional sign. A figurative sign is a sign that carries some moments of the depicted. In practice, there can be so many of these moments that it is possible to merge with the depicted.
Rappaport. Let's look at this question genetically. If the sign does bear some features of representation, for example, in hieroglyphics, then later it turns out that they are insignificant and they are abandoned. Cursive changes hieroglyphs beyond recognition, and it continues to perform the function of a sign better and better.
Marcuson. Agree. We will see the same thing in architecture.
Rappaport. Here it is important to find out on what basis architecture overturns the function of the sign. It may turn out that such a thing is random, as illustrated by the example of hieroglyphs. The fact that there is representation does not yet prove that there is a sign. Returning to metaphor, the question arises: how can we talk about it when, in the cases of metaphorization known to us, what is identified with metaphorization is present independently of the act of metaphorization and of the metaphor itself. The fact is that the temple, regardless of the metaphor, does not exist. The temple itself was generated by metaphor and had no independent meaning before it.
Marcuson. And it didn't even exist. But when the temple exists, it is read in a general context so that the image and the actual structure, the play of tectonics and the actual tectonics are separated. Although it may be unconscious.
Rappaport. For such a statement, another round of evidence is needed.
Sazonov. Is it possible to understand that the temple is being built as an image?
Marcuson. It has visual elements.
Sazonov. Is it possible to say that the temple is artistic because it has pictorial elements? Or is it artistic, and besides the fact that it contains pictorial elements?
Marcuson. The artistic does not exist apart from the visual. In isolation from the pictorial and meaningful.
Sazonov. Pictorial or meaningful?
Rappaport. Can a temple be considered a caricature of a building?
Marcuson. Caricature as a satirical image?
Rappaport. No, it's like a distortion.
Marcuson. Metaphor is always a distortion. Already the collision of two ideas in one form is a distortion of each of them.
Rappaport. There is no metaphor here. The temple does not accurately depict a wooden structure, but there is also a game of tectonics, i.e. changing these realities, i.e. distortion. To distinguish between stylization and caricature, it is necessary to have an already developed aesthetic reality.
Sazonov. All this reasoning presupposes that art has already taken shape, that such "art" is already known. There is an image, there are different ways of image, and it so happened that another element was added to this existing reality by means of a stone. And if there is a difference between stylization, caricature, etc., then this also applies to stone. Thus, this reasoning does not show the genesis of art in general, or the genesis of the artistic, but subsuming under this category one more reality, let's say architectural.
Marcuson. The history of the development of the Greek order provides an opportunity to illustrate the selection of tectonic elements and the play with them, presented in such masterpieces as the Parthenon. It is very interesting that the standards used by architects in the construction of temples were violated by outstanding craftsmen. For example, Iktin. Continuing this characterization, we can talk about the problem of the minimum sign in architecture, etc.
Sazonov. It seems to me that you impose two heterogeneous schemes, two types of reality on your reasoning. First, are we, in considering the Parthenon or the temple of Apollo, doing some modernization by imposing our ideas of what is behind it on the author himself. At the same time, we believe that he did it. It may turn out that the task of teaching an architect, the availability and study of samples, gave rise to a special research language that acted as a norm for subsequent architects. It follows from this that for the analysis of the history of architecture that you need, a wider reality must be included in it: the education of the architect, the change in the forms of culture, and so on. And it may be that semiotics appears in the process of translation of culture, and not in architecture as such (if you can break it down that way).
Marcuson. I'm not sure about this, it needs to be considered. If we talk about the learning process, then it is necessary to explore changes, distortions of the norms that the architect is taught. The same Iktin, the author of the Parthenon, changed the norms he received from the archaic. Consider, for example, the scale of the Parthenon, noted both by me and by the Andes. Burov, and other researchers. From a distance, it seems very large, but close up, on the contrary, a person seems to be big next to him. Such a game of scale was not used by archaic architects.
Rappaport. Why was it a game?
Marcuson. Because those proportions that had been formed as typical the day before were changed.
Rappaport. Why did Iktin need this game?
Marcuson. In order to create a certain effect.
Rappaport. And how do we know this?
Marcuson. Do you need evidence from contemporaries or later researchers?
Rappaport. I need the author's opinion of Iktin himself.
Marcuson. It can be indirectly judged by its later buildings.
Rappaport. In such things, only the author's evidence can be reliable, because in other cases we are dealing with interpretations or interpretations of the author's intentions.
Marcuson. Vitruvius read Iktin, but was too compilative to convey something to us.
Izvarin. You say that Iktin violated the norm, but was it fixed?
Marcuson. Vitruvius assures that it was recorded in their treatises by the 3rd century.
Rappaport. W It is important to emphasize two points here. On the one hand, we can assume that Iktin did not follow the norms that were fixed before him in the archaic. It is a fact. The question is why did he do it. There may be different interpretations here. Let us conditionally assume that he was a mystic, changing the proportions of temples, following other norms, the norms of numerical mysticism, and not at all the language game that you attribute to him. And you do this in order to form a concept with which you hope to explain the art of architecture.
Marcuson. Of course, and if someone puts forward a stronger concept, this one will have to be abandoned.
Rappaport. However, in addition to other concepts, there are also counterarguments. I'll give you an example. If the result obtained by you in the analysis of the order architecture of antiquity is universal, then it can be used to explain the architectural creativity of other countries and eras. Can you apply it to the analysis of the artistic means of Russian wooden architecture, in which, as it seems to me, there are no meaningful pictorial elements at all, but only the wooden structure itself.
Marcuson. I'm not saying that visual elements are necessary, the game goes on with all sorts of tectonic ideas (the length of the ends, the depth of the cut, the height of the roof, etc.). The simplest wooden structure is a log house. This is just the basis on which the game is played. I offer another example - a pyramid. The pyramid had many sacred and other meanings that need to be revealed in a general cultural analysis and which are unknown to the modern viewer. However, the architecture was supposed to perpetuate the memory of the pharaoh and the symbol of eternity it has is quite distinct. It turns out this is due to the fact that its shape is subject to the laws of repose (as when you pour sand). This form is absolutely inert, the form of absolute rest, i.e. eternity. Everything that was symbolically laid down in it was expressed in a very bright tectonic way - peace and immutability. Iktin, for example, used images of perpetual motion (Plutarch notes that the buildings of Iktin seemed to grow forever, always seemed young).
Rappaport. It seems to me that there is a significant deviation from the original models. As for the sand, poured into a pile and symbolizing eternity tectonically, it seems to me that this is an accidental parallel. A pile of sand does not carry any image of eternity in itself.
Marcuson. It carries the image of immobility, absolute stability.
Rappaport. He poured a bunch, destroyed it and moved on. No immobility, no eternity.
Marcuson. But such a pile as a pyramid had the shape of a monolithic stone cube 100 meters high, then, in your opinion, would it no longer symbolize eternity?
Marcuson. If you propose some kind of hypothesis for the symbolic effect of the cube, like the hypothesis for the effect of the pyramid, then your argument will gain interest. For now, it's completely abstract.
Rappaport. From my point of view, this is quite enough to object to you. Recall at least the cube of the Kaaba. But not necessarily him. It is easy to imagine that the shapes of a bell, a sphere, a hemisphere, a column, etc. can quite figuratively symbolize eternity. It seems to me that in such a type of culture as the Egyptian one, symbolic meaning formation is so complicated that the direct move "sand - the law of repose - eternity" is research unjustified.
Marcuson. I think they are justified insofar as they continue to affect us.
Rappaport. This is another matter. We were brought up in such a way that the pyramid is associated with eternity, because once at school they learned that pharaohs were buried in the pyramids. It is important for me to emphasize that you, speaking about the pyramid, changed the way of thinking that you demonstrated when discussing the origin and development of the Greek order. If there you relied on such a set of facts that allowed you to reason quickly, all the time correlating your hypothesis with counterarguments and real facts, now you have adopted a method that could be called mythological and which is so common in our aesthetic and theoretical-architectural literature.
Sazonov. Previously, you talked about tectonic meanings and about playing with them, and moving on to the pyramid, you began to talk about the symbol and symbolism.
Marcuson. I would like to separate these things and leave the pyramid only what is related to tectonics. In any case, our tectonic ideas are no poorer than the Egyptian ones, and the Egyptians perceived the pyramid in much the same way as we do.
Sazonov. Is it possible to understand you in such a way that at first the architecture used the means of depicting the structure, and then moved on to the game?
Marcuson. Not certainly in that way. The original metaphor for Greek architecture was the depiction of a wooden structure in stone. But then it became common or, as they say in linguistics, a lexical metaphor. Then the stone, order architecture itself becomes the subject of the image. And that is the point of the game.
Order architecture began a second life in Greece. In the Roman era, when builders mastered concrete and how to cover large spaces, the order begins to play an even more secondary role, moving from the category of tectonic elements to the category of decoration. The column is attached to the wall and openly does not bear any load. In the Renaissance, when the order reappears, it already has the meaning of a social code. Public buildings and palaces of noble nobles are decorated with the order. His connection with the tree is completely erased from memory. If in antiquity the order was used only for the construction of temples and public buildings, then after the Renaissance, it primarily marks the nobility and wealth of a private owner. In the Baroque era, the order is used quite arbitrarily (bends, bends) in order to emphasize the massiveness of the wall.
Rappaport. And were other meanings, not tectonic, for example, an ancient temple, depicted with the help of an order?
Marcuson. Temples were created, but not depicted.
Rappaport. I mean the Madeleine Christian Church in Paris.
Marcuson . This is a different era: classicism, empire, etc. The fact is that after the emergence of the academies of art and architecture, what is called the dance of styles, stylization began. In this era, the use of the order further departs from its tectonic basis. The use of a warrant in this form is ineffective, almost does not appeal to our feelings, referring to our education. It took the architectural revolution of our century for all these decorative devices of architectural speech to be discarded by the new architecture, which again began to look for means of architectural expressiveness in tectonics, i.e. in construction, first declaring that simply showing new constructions was enough to make a building beautiful (declaration of the early constructivists). However, the constructivists themselves, creating their works, did not adhere to these declarations. They not so much exposed the structure as depicted it, played with constructive forms. This is the tower of Einstein, Eich Mendelssohn, depicting concrete in brick structures, these are the works of constructivists of the 20s, who made ribbon windows on the facade that did not correspond to the structure of the building. It is best to trace this game on the example of such an outstanding architect as Le Corbusier. He began with calls for prefabricated housing construction, with a naked structure, he ended up with the Ronchamp Chapel, in which one can no longer see the structure, but the "hand of the master", harmony with the landscape. The forked piers of his house in Marseille are not but represent them. In fact, these are cases for communications. Thus, Corbusier, starting with calls to expose the structure, ended with a game, its image. The best works of modern architecture bear witness to the same method. In the sports facilities of the Tokyo Olympics, Kenzo Tange uses cable-stayed structures, and he himself admits this, other pictorial elements: sails, barges, etc. Space plays an increasingly important role in modern architecture. However, space is created by construction and does not exist without it (like a hole without a donut). Therefore, tectonic meanings continue to be the basis of the architectural language. Of course, elements of the languages ​​of other arts penetrate into architecture: painting, cinema. But the works obtained with their help can no longer be classified as purely architectural and, let's talk about it directly, they turn out to be something like an opera. Perhaps some architect will create a work as synthetic as those sought by Wagner. But this will no longer be pure architecture. At the same time, the specific language of architecture will remain, at least as long as there are structures, gravity and the need to overcome it in construction, as well as the possibility of violating established architectural norms. On this I finished, the rest is questions.
It is still not clear to me myself to what extent semiotic analysis can be applied in architecture. We have seen that in architecture there is a metaphor, comparison, architecture is somewhat reminiscent of natural language, because it develops simultaneously with the development of thinking (architectural thinking). Architecture, like language, is influenced by the process of learning. But to what extent their analogy is applicable is not clear. There are also contentious issues. For example, the question about the minimum sign. A. Ikonnikov in his article on the language of architecture in Zh. "Construction and Architecture of Leningrad" defines the minimum sign as two columns, an architrave and a space between them. But if we agree with this understanding of the minimum sign, then the difference between the light order of the Parthenon and the heavy order of Paestum disappears. Maybe one column can be taken as the minimum sign? The same does not work out, since the column itself is already intoned, it can be light and heavy, have or not have entasis, although its full meaning is revealed only in the context of the entire structure. In order to understand where is the limit of the application of semiotic concepts in architecture and to avoid mistakes like Ikonnikov's mistake, it is necessary to deal with this issue.
Sazonov. Is it possible to understand you in such a way that architecture has always developed at the intersection of constructive building activity and art, as a way of its sculptural understanding, expression?
Marcuson. No, this cannot be done, because I call architecture only artistic buildings in which art is not superimposed on the structure, but uses it for artistic purposes.
Sazonov. Is it possible to oppose your view of the nature of artistic architectural thinking to one that can be called Gestaltist. From your point of view, artistic creation is a play or arrangement of elements that have a certain tectonic meaning into an artistic whole. From another point of view, the whole does not compose, but precedes as a whole in artistic thinking with its element. From this point of view, the question of elementary meaning is meaningless.
Marcuson. I haven't thought about this possibility, but it doesn't seem to change anything fundamentally.
Sazonov. Then I would ask you to sum up your report yourself and say what follows from it, whether this result serves any purpose or represents itself valuable.
Marcuson. Let's start from the end. Acceptance of my position requires a complete revision of the teaching system in architectural universities. First of all, the teaching of the history of architecture, since the old schemes for explaining the history of the order, for example, break down under the onslaught of archaeological facts.
Sazonov. So your schema captures history.
Marcuson. Secondly, it is reflected in the formation of the thinking of a young architect. She teaches him to pay attention to the possibilities that are still hidden in new designs (Mark gives examples of the use of a tectonic pipe in Japanese architecture as an example of such a successful use and handling of new design possibilities). My findings will allow the architect to be more conscious of any new design possibility in the field of construction. This scheme does not close the architecture of the possibility of further development.
Izvarin. I didn't understand the role of grammar. Let's say it can be fixed. But, as your historical review suggests, a good architect necessarily breaks grammar. It is not clear to me how one can use the established grammar if, in order to create a work of art, it must be violated.
Marcuson. The grammar itself doesn't break very often. And its breaking means that a new grammar is being created. But on the basis of the old, a sufficient amount of good works of architecture can be created (just as good prose can be created on the basis of a language grammar).
Sazonov. The task of the historian, therefore, is to identify the grammar for each stage in the development of architecture, and the educator is to create a grammar for today.
Marcuson. Not only. The teacher should train the architect to be able to break the grammar if the opportunity presents itself.
Rappaport. It seems to me that it will not be useless for the members of our seminar, and perhaps for the speaker, to try methodologically to analyze this interesting and very informative report. First of all, the fact is that it touches upon, poses and offers solutions to many problems and questions, and these problems and questions themselves sometimes lie in different plans and levels of the theory of architecture, and sometimes turn out to be generally outside the theory of architecture and may relate to the general problems of the theory. creativity, art theory, semiotics. So, it seems to me, the report made an attempt to substantiate the view on the nature of “artistic”, including artistic creativity, as a game within the framework of some culturally legalized system of symbols (grammar). This idea applies not only to architecture, but to art in general. In connection with this idea, several significant problems remain open to me. 1. How the grammar in question is defined and defined within its boundaries. Why is this character set generally identified with grammar, i.e. ultimately with language. 2. From this a direct question to the problem of the game. Why is language primarily used not for "talking", i.e. not in the communication function, but in the function of material for the game. Finally 3. What does play mean in this context, what are its conditions, external characteristics, internal rules, how they are set, and how, in general, a game type of activity is specifically determined. These questions are related to one analysis plan, one of your ideas.
Another group of questions is related to your attempt to see, define and describe the nature of the use of a particular language of art, the language of architecture. The question of language in your report falls into several groups of problems. The first of them concerns the genesis of the language of architecture, its origin from tectonic symbols and meanings. In connection with this question, the general semantic nature of architectural thinking seems to be clarified. Another group of problems concerns the use of ready-made language forms. This use, again, breaks down, on the one hand, into use in creativity, in the design process, and on the other hand, in the process of perceiving architecture, in other words, in the life of culture as such.
Finally, a completely new range of questions, which could be called methodological, is connected with the discussion of the possibility of applying the concepts and models developed by modern semiotics to discuss architectural and, more broadly, artistic issues. In order to proceed systematically in this study, it is necessary, in my opinion, to first clearly outline the range of issues and tasks that have arisen within the framework of artistic or architectural practice (theory) and those semiotics tools that are considered suitable for their solution. And although at the beginning of your report you focused on this particular range of issues, there was no discussion of them.
Perhaps I made a mistake in my attempt to reflect the semantic structure of your message, or reflected it incompletely, missed something. You must correct me. But in any case, it is possible to discuss all the issues raised by you only by dividing them in advance, since each of them requires special logic and special rules.
As for the content of the report itself, I have only one, but very serious, doubt or remark. It seems to me that it does not pay attention to historicism or the historical development of the object itself (architecture) and all the mechanisms included in it. At some period in some country, architecture may have developed a certain language, its semantic basis was tectonic representations in the form in which you described it. But in other conditions, everything could be different.
Marcuson. In what?
Rappaport. From my point of view, Russian wooden architecture does not contain those tectonic meanings that you are talking about.
Marcuson. But what about the transfer of forms of stone architecture to wood and vice versa?
Rappaport. This phenomenon is associated with the penetration of Byzantine and Western architecture into Rus', and it is also strictly localized. The example of the pyramid, discussed above, further strengthened my belief that the problems of architecture are always organically intertwined with the problems of general cultural evolution. Both architectural creativity and the perception of architecture are each time specifically conditioned by the sum of cultural norms of social existence. When they see them as a single mechanism, they most often do it from the point of view of their culture and in the name of the goals that lie within it. More specifically, to see a single mechanism of architectural creativity and perception means to see the whole architecture through the prism of its own norms of architectural creativity and perception of architecture.

Oksana LOKTEVA,
candidate of pedagogical sciences,
lecturer at the Moscow Institute
open education

The language of art:
how to reveal the secret of architecture to children

Continuation. See No. 12, 13, 15/06.

At the MHK lesson, the teacher repeatedly has to analyze and disassemble architectural structures. Not fully knowing the features of architecture, its differences from other forms of art, its linguistic means, we involuntarily try to replace art history analysis with other, more accessible material. But if we understand the language of architecture, it will help us as a universal tool on many topics.

Topics can be studied sequentially, or you can devote the entire 5th grade to a detailed passage of the languages ​​of the arts. And then the guys will receive a guiding thread from the very beginning, with the help of which they will easily comprehend the subsequent material. If it seems to you that it is not worth “spending” the entire 5th grade on this, spend two or three lessons in each art form, and give the rest of the knowledge at the beginning of each year. This will also greatly facilitate the study of the languages ​​of art.

Principles of studying arts:

Examination of the scheme - the classification of art forms, the definition of the studied art form, its linguistic means.

Comparison with other types of art, highlighting the features of the studied.

Orientation in the types, genres and forms of works of art of a given type.

Analysis of the artistic image created by the author, the initial definition of his attitude to a particular work of art.

Determining the purpose of creating a work of art, characterizing those artistic means that work for this purpose.

Composition.

Characteristic features of this type of art (for architecture - styles).

Expression of one's attitude to a work of art.

The first two principles are implemented in the lesson, the rest, as they are studied, are drawn up in a memo, which at the same time is suitable for the analysis of specific works.

memo

1. Determine the type and subtype of architecture to which the work in question belongs.
2. Explain what kind of artistic image the building gives rise to, characterize it, expressing your own attitude.
3. What is the purpose of the building and how is it reflected in architectural forms?
4. Describe the design of the structure, what are its features.
5. Describe the material used in the construction and the features of its decor.
6. Consider the composition of the building:

Shape and silhouette
- plan,
- symmetry - asymmetry,
- contrast in juxtaposition of parts,
- how the compositional center is revealed,
Is the structure architectural?
- whether the proportions are observed or violated,
- rhythm - how it manifests itself, what it is,
- whether the structure is large in relation to a person or its dimensions do not take into account a person,
- how the building is connected with the environment - natural, urban,

7. Describe the architectural style.
8. Once again return to your attitude, confirm or change it.

The material can be divided into classes as follows.

5th class:

The concept of architectural image,
- the shape and silhouette of the building,
- architectural forms,
- designs,
- material.

6TH GRADE:

Plan,
- symmetry-asymmetry,
- contrast of parts,
- selection of the compositional center,
- rhythm,
- connection of the building with the natural environment.

7TH GRADE:

Architectonics,
- proportions,
- scale.

8TH GRADE:

Stylistics.

We will acquaint readers with a detailed explanation of the material for each item of the memo in a number of following articles, and today we will talk about comparing architecture with other types of art, about the features of architecture, and also provide brief material on the types and subspecies of architecture.

The definition of an art form, familiarization with its language, repetition of the concept of "artistic image" and expression in words (second point of the reminder) will be presented in the form of an introductory lesson on the topic "Architecture as an art form".

general information

- comparison of architecture with other types art (the material can be used in a lesson in the 5th grade);

- highlighting architectural features(only for the teacher);

- types and subspecies of architecture(the material can be used in a lesson in grade 5).

Comparison of architecture with other arts

• Architecture is related to the arts and crafts by its utilitarian practical purpose. As in the decorative arts, ancient materials are valued in architecture, the methods of processing of which can traditionally be repeated or beaten anew. An example is wood, which did not disappear for architecture with the advent of metal, glass and reinforced concrete. As huts were erected in ancient times, so they do it now. The same thing happens in ancient crafts, such as Dymkovo or Filimonov toys - traditions are preserved and enriched.

• Architecture is related to sculpture by volume, but at the same time, as we have already noticed, the volume of architecture is more complex, including external and internal space. The second difference is that the form for sculpture is in many cases the determining factor for understanding and revealing the artistic image. The form is contained in modeling - the interpretation of volume, in the poses and gestures of the characters, and in the location of the sculpture, it is closely related to dynamics or statics. In architecture, a more difficult art form to understand, the form is only the first step in the disclosure of the idea, the disclosure of the image will be influenced by many other factors that we have to understand.

• Architecture, like other types of art, is related to painting and graphics by the possibility of creating an artistic image (more on this later), although in painting and graphics the artistic image often bears the imprint of individuality, subjectivity, while architecture is more inherent in the objective features of social development at one stage or another. What distinguishes these types of art is that flatness is clearly expressed in painting and graphics, and complex three-dimensionality in architecture. Chromaticity acts in painting as a determining factor, and in architecture as a secondary, additional factor. Another difference lies in the unequivocal utility of works of architecture, because not a single building is built simply for beauty, to the detriment of its practical application; painting and graphics do not have such a pronounced practical significance. But why do we compare architecture with these particular art forms? Why not with music, literature, cinema, dance, theater? The fact is that architecture is part of the family of spatial arts. In contrast, there are temporary art forms that last in time and do not occupy a specific place.
  Being a spatial art form, architecture, oddly enough, turns out to be at the same time temporal. s m view. Why? But because, walking along the facade of the building, along the enfilades of rooms, we discover more and more new angles and views. Over time, we are imbued with the artistic image of architecture, we get to know it better. Therefore, a feature of architecture is its spatial and temporal existence as an art form. What are the other features of this art form?

Architectural features

The Roman architect Vitruvius, in his work Ten Books on Architecture, put forward three requirements for buildings: usefulness, strength and beauty. It is clear that the benefit comes first, because we have already said that any architectural structure is built for something, for some purpose. It is this expediency that determines its appearance, material, size, decor, place in the building, etc. Thus:

1. The main requirement is "benefit", or the functional side of architecture, that is, what the building is being built for. The purpose of the building affects, firstly, the choice of materials, and secondly, the use of certain architectural forms - the components of any structure: from the foundation and supporting walls to the roof.

2. The second requirement of Vitruvius - "strength" includes understanding designs underlying the structure, or constructive side of architecture. We have to get acquainted with the post-beam, cross-dome and frame Gothic systems, the system of the arched vault. From the enumeration alone, it is clear that architecture as an art form has its own specifics, it is not so much a fine art as a constructive art, more related to technology. Any innovation in technology or materials immediately affects the development of architecture: new designs and architectural forms appear that use more advanced materials.

If the structure is strong and the building is stable, then people contemplating it have a sense of satisfaction. If we feel instability, then involuntarily there is a rejection of the structure, a desire to look away. This is how a person works, and this has always been taken into account and is now taken into account during construction.

3. The third requirement is "beauty", or aesthetic side of architecture. Both usefulness and strength must be expressed in a beautiful form, and this is the aesthetic side of any structure. It includes decorative elements, and the use of color. The aesthetic side is extremely important for a person, because we see works of architecture more often than works of painting, graphics, sculpture. Even the most indifferent to art person, who has never entered an art gallery or a museum, who has not opened an illustrated book or stopped in front of a sculpture, is forced to walk around the city, involuntarily absorbing the appearance of buildings, obeying their rhythm and beauty. And since buildings surround us from all sides, they bring up our aesthetic taste and must be beautiful.

Having understood the three features of architecture, we will determine the topic of conversation about this type of art. First you need to understand the functional side, then the constructive and aesthetic. Having understood the essence of these aspects of architecture, we can easily move on to the features of the composition. Having got acquainted with them, we will consider the features of styles. And then the language of architecture will reveal its secrets to us. Let's write down for ourselves the plan of our conversation in the form of a diagram.

SCHEME

But before talking with children about all these aspects of architecture, it is necessary to start with the most important thing - the artistic image that creates this or that architectural work. How to explain to the guys what an artistic image is? The concept of an artistic image, its objective and subjective nature were revealed in the introductory lesson. In the lesson on architecture, this material is only repeated.

Types and subspecies of architecture

The definition of types and subspecies of architecture is very well given by A.M. Vachyants in the manual “Variations of the beautiful. Introduction to the MHC. Let's use this material.

There are three types of architecture: architectural structures, landscape architecture and urban planning. Each species has its subspecies. So, buildings can be public (the guys themselves can give an example, be sure to look at several images), residential and industrial. Landscape architecture includes city squares, boulevards, parks (you can put several slides mixed up: Tverskoy Boulevard, a new residential building, a factory, Tsaritsyno Park, the Bolshoi Theater, the Kuskovo estate - the guys must determine what type of architecture the buildings belong to). Urban planning is engaged in the design of cities, towns (you can talk about how Moscow expanded and developed by itself, in contrast to St. Petersburg, which was originally created with the help of a ruler and a compass). A.M. Vachyants gives a schematic interpretation of the types and subtypes of architecture. Having slightly modified it, we bring to your attention.

SCHEME.

introductory lesson

topics "Architecture as an art form" in the 5th grade

1. The concept of "architecture", the language of architecture.

Teacher.Now you have to solve the riddle. You are ready? (Children answer.)

I won't say more, but I'll show you something. Whoever looks carefully will see what kind of art we will talk about today.

The teacher assembles a house from wooden blocks of the designer. He does this on a stool or on a chair that stands on the first desk. It is better to create a house from parts of two colors - so that the parts of the designer alternate with each other. The structure may resemble a Greek temple of columns, and on top is a sheet of paper in the form of a roof and a pediment, or it may be an ordinary house, but always with an entrance and an interior. Finally the building is ready.

Teacher. What have I created?

Students. Ordinary building.

Teacher. What kind of art is this building?

Students. To construction.

Teacher. You are almost right, because in Greek "architecton" means "builder". How can you call the art form associated with construction?

Students. Architecture.

Teacher. That's right, architecture, architecture is the art of constructing buildings.

(Writes the topic of the lesson on the board.)

And who will come up with a symbol for this type of art?

The guys find the symbol of this art form in the scheme - the classification of art forms. His symbol is once again sketched in a notebook (if the children are sufficiently prepared, architecture can be compared with other art forms).

Teacher.Think about what language architecture has - with what help does an architectural structure communicate with us?

Students.Architecture speaks to us in the language of wooden blocks.

Teacher. Yes, our house was created from them. Architecture speaks to us in the language of a certain volumetric mass, how could it be otherwise, because we build from volumetric massive blocks! For a hut, these volumetric masses are wooden trunks, for a stone structure - stone, for a residential building - reinforced concrete. But in all structures there will be a mass, a mass of material.

What creates mass? So we saw that there was an empty chair, and then suddenly a house appeared. What was created with the help of the mass?

After much thought, amendments and disputes, the guys come to the conclusion that a space has been created, and two at once - internal and external (that's why we created a house with an entrance, with the ability to put a doll inside).

Teacher.Architecture creates internal and external space - we see the external from the outside, the internal opens to us when we enter the building itself.

And how did I stack the mass of material that creates space? I did not just put one wooden block on top of another. I observed something, some kind of order. Who can guess which one?

Students.You built a house by laying out blocks of different colors in succession, alternating them, that is, you kept the rhythm.

Teacher. Right! In architecture, rhythm, that is, alternation, always appears. Let's look at the buildings and try to see the rhythm.

The children are shown the Winter Palace. The teacher asks to find the same architectural forms, shows how they alternate. Being close to each other, they create a cheerful, joyful rhythm. The students notice that half-columns, windows, and cornice balusters, and a sculpture on the roof alternate. (Until the children are familiar with architectural forms, it is difficult for them to see what should be paid attention to, so the teacher can do it with them for the first time.)

Teacher.If the rhythm at the Winter Palace is peppy, frequent, and, passing by this building, we want to walk just as cheerfully and joyfully, then the rhythm at the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin is completely different.

The guys look at the picture.

What alternates in this structure? What creates rhythm?(Semi-columns, zakomara - arches, narrow windows.) How do we want to walk around this building? Just as cheerfully, quickly?

No, decorously, thoroughly, solemnly, because the semi-columns, and zakomaras, and windows are far from each other, they give rise to a feeling of peace and solemnity.

You see, each building, thanks to the rhythm, carries its own mood. And now the difficult task. Please listen to the children's song and say how it looks like an architectural structure.

The song "A grasshopper sat in the grass" sounds. During the performance, the teacher begins to clap to the beat, involuntarily encouraging the children to do so. Soon the whole class is clapping to the music.

Teacher.What did you hear the same?(Silence.) And what did we do while singing?

Students.They clapped.

Teacher.And how we clapped, just like that - who goes where?

Students.No, we clapped to the beat, rhythmically.

Teacher.What is the same in music and in architecture?

Students.Both in music and in architecture there is a rhythm, only in music we hear it, and in an architectural work we see and feel it.

Teacher.It is true that we have made one most important discovery, which not all people know about, but only the most attentive, sensitive ones. And perhaps now you will explain to me why architecture is called "frozen music"?

(Children express their opinions).

The architecture language is written as a schema. Students, taking part in the creation of the scheme, then transfer it to a notebook.

SCHEME.

2. Types and subspecies of architecture

Teacher.We talked about the language of architecture. What is this art form anyway? What works does he create?

The children express their opinions. After listening to the answers, the teacher asks to look at the “Types of Architecture” diagram and for three minutes, working in pairs, name what works architecture creates - what types they can be divided into. After checking the work, the teacher offers to talk about the subspecies of architecture, showing slides. The scheme is written in a notebook.

3. The concept of an artistic image, finding the right words to express it

Teacher.We talked about the means by which architecture speaks to us. But a person can also speak: in words, phrases, but it is very important what he will tell us about. It often happens that the meaning of speech depends on who is speaking. Let's imagine that boys and girls came to visit you, they began to talk about their favorite computer games. Do boys and girls talk about the same thing?

Students.No .

Teacher.Why different games?

Students.Because they are different, they have different interests, each chooses his own.

Teacher.Exactly as you said - choose your own. The guys choose different games for themselves, and adults choose their lifestyle, their clothes, their home. And when we create, we create completely different works of art. And why?

Students.Because we are all different, we express ourselves in different ways.

Teacher.And what is the name of this complex concept - "to express oneself in one's own way"?

If the guys remember the introductory lesson or open the notes in the notebook, they will call: “artistic image”.

Teacher.Image - vision, representation; artistic - created according to the laws of an individual, "unique".

The work of architecture was also created by people. What do you think, and it was created according to the laws of the artistic image, in it people expressed themselves, their desires, their thoughts, feelings?

Let's look at different works of architecture and try to read the thoughts and feelings of the people who created them.

(A Russian northern hut and a skyscraper are on display. Children are asked to express their opinion: did people express themselves in the same way, did they have the same idea of ​​\u200b\u200bbeauty?)

What did the people who built the hut appreciate, what did they consider beautiful?

Students.Strong, large, well-protected, made from huge trunks - reliable .

Teacher.And our contemporaries, who erected a skyscraper, loved the same thing?

Students.They liked something completely different: tall, barely standing on the ground; lined into squares; like a leaf, lined; made of metal and glass; everything is artificial .

Teacher.You are right, if our ancestors, the Slavs, valued reliable protection, a fortress in their houses, then the people of the twentieth century also wanted to see large houses, but not at all like huts pressed to the ground. They boldly rushed the house into the sky, demonstrating their power. We only talked about the height of the building, but already realized that people saw beauty in completely different ways. Can I ask where is she, real beauty: in a hut or a skyscraper?

(Children express their opinions).

Both there and there there is beauty, only it is different and you need to be able to see it and convey it in words. So let's practice choosing these words.

The class is divided into teams. The task is to find an antonym for the word named by the teacher as quickly as possible. Words-definitions are written in a column under the heading: "What words can you express your opinion about the structure."

High Low
Powerful - fragile
majestic - humble
Spread - ascending
Dwarf - graceful
heavy - light
smooth - rugged
Calm - mobile
Smooth - stormy
Strict in appearance - playful, soft appearance
Straight lines - curved lines
Simple - complex
Lush - humble
Plain, natural - festive

Teacher.I invite the teams to prepare a story in three minutes about the artistic image that gives rise to the Parthenon - the pride of Ancient Greece. Choose words from the list to describe it and guess what the Greeks saw beauty in.

(When one group names the words, the second should only add what is missing. A separate point is for the word found on its own.)

Students . Parthenon: high; powerful; majestic; moderately elegant, but not weak, it is clear that the columns are hard, but they withstand the load, proudly carry it; the temple is calm; strict in appearance; it has many straight lines, and from this it seems even more majestic and motionless; he is simple, but not a simpleton - everything is in moderation; he is not lush and not modest - everything is as it should be.

The ancient Greeks saw beauty in simplicity, so that everything was balanced, calm. As you can see, children who know nothing about the history of art, only by analyzing the external form, were able to see the most important thing that was laid down by the architects of ancient Greece.

It remains for the teacher to add that the columns personified free members of society who carried the burden of state power on their shoulders.

And of course, the teacher should praise the guys, because they made a huge step forward - they tried to understand the architecture, and they did it by expressing their own opinion, and not repeating the words said by the teacher.

Continued in No. 21

Topic 1. Problems of understanding and interpretation of works

The development of ways to interpret art. Antique descriptions of works of art: Pliny the Elder, Philostrates. G. Vasari: a description of the life of artists and their works. Age of Enlightenment and the emergence of art history. I.-I. Winkelman. Systematization of the history of art and organization of museums. Iconographic approach: E. Mal. Psychological and psychoanalytic approaches: Z. Freud, K.-G. Jung. Formal analysis: G. Wölfflin. Vienna School: M. Dvorak. Semiotic and cultural methods in the interpretation of fine arts. The problem of interpretation of works of art in Russian art history. Works by A. Yakimovich and others. Artistic criticism and the history of art, their common goals and different tasks. Features of the interpretation of art of the twentieth century.

Topic 2. The concept of the work and its creative implementation

The problem of intent. Factors influencing creative ideas: social and individual-personal. The artist as a "clinician" of the era. The problem of the contemporary work. Searching for ways to embody an artistic idea. Individual and objective difficulties in the implementation of the plan.

Topic 3. The concept of means of artistic expression

Art form, its elements and structure. Sign, symbol, allegory and image. Features of the artistic image.

Topic 4. General and unique-individual in the work

The problem of traditions and canons in art. The canonicity of ancient Egyptian art. Byzantine and ancient Russian canon. The problem of innovation in art. Synthesis of traditionalism and innovation. Analysis of works from the point of view of the general and uniquely individual.

Section 2
Description and analysis of architectural monuments

Topic 1. Artistic language of architecture.

Architecture as an art form. The concept of "artistic architecture". Artistic image in architecture. The artistic language of architecture: the concept of such means of artistic expression as line, plane, space, mass, rhythm (arrhythmia), symmetry (asymmetry). Canonical and symbolic elements in architecture. The concept of the building plan, exterior, interior. Style in architecture.

Topic 2. The main types of architectural structures

Monuments of urban art: historical cities, their parts, sites of ancient planning; architectural complexes, ensembles. Monuments of residential architecture (estates of merchants, nobles, peasants, profitable houses, etc.) Monuments of civil public architecture: theaters, libraries, hospitals, educational buildings, administrative buildings, railway stations, etc. Cult monuments: temples, chapels, monasteries. Defense architecture: prisons, fortress towers, etc. Monuments of industrial architecture: factory complexes, buildings, forges, etc.

Garden and park monuments, garden and landscape art: gardens and parks.

Topic 3. Description and analysis of an architectural monument

a) Combination of convex and concave surfaces

b) Abundance of architectural decoration

c) Smooth wall surfaces

d) Brightly colored walls

24. What style made water an element of architecture (an abundance of fountains)?

a) Classicism

b) Baroque

25. What style is characterized by a lancet arch?

a) Romansh

b) Gothic

c) Baroque

26. What is a "rib"?

a) Flip arch

b) Stone rib vault

27. What is a "buttress"?

a) Flip arch

b) Stone rib vault

c) Vertical support extended outside the temple

28. What is a "flying butt"?

a) Flip arch

b) Stone rib vault

c) Vertical support extended outside the temple

29. What is a "Gothic rose"?

a) Sculpture of a flower

b) Picturesque image of a flower

c) Round window in a Gothic temple

30. What is a "portal"?

a) Entrance to the temple

b) Central nave of the temple

c) Side nave of the temple

31. What is "nave"?

a) Interior longitudinal room of the temple

b) Eastern part of the temple

c) Western part of the temple

32. What is a basilica church in terms of?

a) Equal Greek Cross

b) Latin cross

c) Octahedron

33. What is the maximum height of a Romanesque church?

34. What is an "apse"?

a) Western part of the temple

b) Eastern part of the temple

c) Entrance to the temple

35. What is a "transept"?

a) Eastern part of the temple

b) Central nave

c) Transverse nave

36. What style is characterized by the rejection of the order system?

a) Classicism

b) Baroque

37. What is a "bas-relief"?

a) High relief

b) Recessed relief

c) Low relief

38. What is "high relief"?

a) High relief

b) Recessed relief

c) Low relief

39. What is "tempera"?

a) Aniline paints

b) Egg based paints

c) Watercolors

40. What is "glazing"?

a) Translucent layers of paint

b) Pasty smears

c) Parallel strokes

41. What portrait is called "representative"?

a) Chamber

b) Front

c) Psychological

d) Self-portrait

42. What composition is typical for a painting in the style of classicism?

a) Personnel

b) rocker

c) Circular

43. What is "tondo"?

a) Oval painting format

b) Round painting format

c) Square painting format

d) Rectangular picture format

44. What style of portrait often has a landscape background?

a) Classicism

b) Sentimentalism

d) Realism

45. What style is characterized by the flatness and ornamentation of painting and graphics?

a) Baroque

d) Romanticism

46. ​​In which style of painting does drawing, line play the main role, and color play a secondary role?

a) Classicism

b) Romanticism

c) Impressionism

d) Baroque

47. What is the "animal" genre?

a) Image of objects

b) Image of animals

d) Depiction of mythological scenes

48. Which of the paintings cannot be called easel art?

b) Painting

c) Thumbnail

49. Which of the paintings cannot be called monumental art?

a) Mosaic

b) Thumbnail

50. What is a "marina"?

a) Portrait of a woman

b) Seascape

c) Decorative composition

51. What is "linocut"?

a) Woodcut

b) Metal engraving

c) Engraving on linoleum

d) Stone engraving

52. What is "etching"?

a) Woodcut

b) Metal engraving

c) Engraving on linoleum

d) Stone engraving

53. What is "woodcut"?

a) Woodcut

b) Metal engraving

c) Engraving on linoleum

d) Stone engraving

54. What is "lithography"?

a) Woodcut

b) Metal engraving

c) Engraving on linoleum

d) Stone engraving

55. Which engraving uses the gravure printing technique?

b) Monotype

c) Lithography

d) Woodcut

56. What is a "monotype"?

a) Glass engraving

b) Woodcut

c) Stone engraving

d) Metal engraving

57. Which engraving uses the letterpress technique?

b) Woodcut

c) Linocut

d) Lithography

58. Which engraving uses the flatbed printing technique?

b) Woodcut

c) Lithography

d) Linocut

59. What type of engraving is “cutting engraving”?

a) Linocut

c) Lithography

d) Woodcut

60. Which engraving has more "the effect of unpredictability of the result"?

b) Monotype

c) Woodcut

d) lithography

REFERENCES

Main literature

· Analysis and interpretation works of art: artistic co-creation: textbook. allowance / [and others] ; ed. . - Moscow: Higher School, 20s.

· Glazychev, Vyacheslav Leonidovich. Architecture. Urban planning. Monumental art: materials for the MHK lesson: methodological material / . - Moscow: Chistye Prudy, 20s.

· Zabalueva, Tatyana Rustikovna. Art History: Styles in Fine and Applied Arts, Architecture, Literature and Music: Proc. / . - Moscow: Association of Construction Universities, 2003.

· Petrov, Vladimir Mikhailovich. Quantitative methods in art history: Proc. allowance for university students: no. 1. Space and time of the artistic world / Petrov, Vladimir Mikhailovich. - Moscow: Meaning, 20s.

· Composition problems: studies . allowance. - Moscow: Visual Arts, 20s.

· Miklashevich, Sergey Viktorovich. Engraving: part 2: Gravure engraving (etching) / ; Ed. N. Ivanov. - Moscow: Young artist, 20s.

additional literature

· Aleksakhin, N. N. Artistic crafts of Russia: textbook / . - Moscow: Public Education, Research Institute of School Technologies, 20, p.

· Gabrichevsky, Alexander Georgievich. Morphology of art: scientific. edition / ; comp., approx. -Pogodina; total ed. . - Moscow: Agraf, 20, p.

· Braginsky, V. E. Pastel: methodical material / ; Ed. N. Platonov. - Moscow: Young artist, 2002.

· Bridgeman, George B. Man as an artistic image; per. from English. : study guide / J. B. Bridgman; Per. M. Avdonina. - Moscow: Eksmo, 2005. - 349 p.

· Konstantinova, Svetlana Sergeevna. History of arts and crafts: lecture notes: course of lectures / . – Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 20s.

· Maloletkov, Valery Alexandrovich. Ceramics: methodical material / ; Ed. N. Ivanov. - Moscow: Young artist, 20,

· Space in other words: French poets of the twentieth century about the image in art / comp., trans., notes, and foreword. . - St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbich Publishing House, 20p.

· Sergeev, Yu. P. Secrets of icon-painting skill: methodological material /; Ed. N. Platonov. - Moscow: Young artist, 20s.

· Eisenstein, S. Psychological issues of art: textbook for university students / S. Eisenstein; ed.-st. . - Moscow: Meaning, 20s.

Electronic and video publications

BBC: World History of Painting [Electronic resource] = Sister Wendy "s Story Of Painting. - Electronic data. - Great Britain, 1996 = Moscow: Video", 2004. - 3 electronic optical disc (DVD-ROM): sound ., color: 12 cm.

· Modern Russian art [Electronic resource]. – Electron. Dan. – Moscow: and Methodius +”, 1997. – 1 electron. opt. disc (CD-ROM) : sound, color : 12 cm - System. requirements: CD - ROM for Windows.

· BBC: World History [Video]: From the history of architecture "Temples of the World". - Moscow: Video studio "QUADRA". - 1 wk.

Internet resources

· History of fine arts. Museums and galleries [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www. *****/museum. htm.

· History of painting [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www. *****/articles/show-15.htm

INTRODUCTION.. 2

THEMATIC COURSE OUTLINE.. 3

Daytime education.. 3

Correspondence form of education.. 4

PLANS OF SEMINAR LESSONS.. 17

TASKS FOR INDEPENDENT WORK ... 21

TESTS FOR CHECKING THE DEGREE OF MASTERING OF LEARNING MATERIAL .. 22

REFERENCES.. 29

ArchitectureHowart many
centuries ago, so the history of its origin and development can be compared with
just the history of mankind itself. Word "architecture" V
translated from Latin means the art of creating the simplest and most
other buildings, and then build various structures on them. Resulting in
a person creates for himself a materially ordered area of ​​\u200b\u200bresidence, necessary
him both for a full life and for work.

Architecture is often compared
with frozen music: obeying its own laws, it reminds
musical writing, where the main components of any work are the idea and its material personification. To achieve harmonious fusion
these elements, whether it is the activity of an architect or a design, the result
their participation in the architectural business will be really elegant and delightful.

Every human
civilization developed with its characteristic architectural style, which
symbolized a certain historical period, its character, main features and
political ideology. Architectural monuments are able to convey the age-old
information about what people valued at the time of their construction, which at that time was
the standard of beauty in the art of architecture, as far as
enlightened in terms of cultural development was their way of life, etc. The largest ancient
civilizations are still very often associated with incomparable architectural
masterpieces that have survived after them to this day. This is fabulous Egypt with
with its marvelous pyramids, and the Great Wall in exotic China, and
majestic Colosseum as a historical architectural trace of the existence of the Roman
empires... Such examples are endless.

The history of architecture is
independent science of two profiles at the same time: theoretical and
historical. This feature is predetermined by the specifics of the subject itself, where
includes the history of the emergence and development of architecture in general, theoretical
knowledge about architecture, architectural composition, architectural language, and
observation of common features and features of the architecture of a certain time and
places, which makes it possible to recognize its various styles. More about
This can be seen from the following diagram:

History of architectural art:

The era of turbulent technical
development in the modern world gives architects an infinite number of
opportunities to translate into reality the most daring ideas and ideas, thanks to which
today there are such architectural styles as high tech And modern. They, in comparison,
for example, with a controversial baroque or ancient Romanesque trend,
courage and perseverance of decisions, brightness of ideas and variety of materials.
However, despite the rapid and assertive movement of new modern
currents, ancient mansions, palaces and cathedrals that play an important role
a kind of symbol of the city or state where they are located, never
will not lose their charm and attractiveness. These buildings seem to exist
beyond all time, causing awe and delight among true connoisseurs of the art of architecture.

Architecturelike the art of building,
which forms the conditions of a person's living space through a set of specific
buildings and structures, is divided into certain types:

1. Volumetric architecture
   structures . This includes residential buildings, public buildings (shops, schools,
   stadiums, theaters, etc.), industrial facilities (power plants, factories and
   factories, etc.)
2. landscape architecture . This view is directly related to the organization of the landscape gardening zone: streets,
   boulevards, squares and parks with the presence of "small" architecture in the form of gazebos,
   bridges, fountains, stairs;
3. urban planning . It covers
   creation of new settlements and cities, as well as the reconstruction of old urban
   districts.

Each individual building or
their complexes and ensembles, parks, avenues, streets and squares, entire cities and even
small towns can evoke specific feelings and moods in us, make us worry
inexpressible emotions. It does this by influencing them.
a certain idea and semantic information that the authors have invested in their
architectural works. Any building is subject to a specific purpose,
what its appearance should correspond to, which sets people up for the established
fret. The basis of the work of an architect is to find the most successful
compositions that will most harmoniously combine various
parts and details of the future building, as well as the surface finish of the created "masterpiece"
architecture. The main artistic technique of emotional influence on the contemplator
is the shape of the building and its components, which may be light or heavy,
calm or dynamic, monophonic or color. However, a prerequisite
here is the coordination of all individual parts with each other and with the whole building
as a whole, creating an inseparable impression of harmony. Various artistic techniques help the creators of the art of architecture to achieve this:

• symmetrical and
  asymmetric composition;
• horizontal and vertical rhythm;
• lighting and color.

Great help for architects
is certainly provided by modern technology. These are the latest designs
and materials, powerful construction machines, thanks to which, day by day,
more and more advanced types of buildings, the scope and speed of construction is increasing,
thinking of new cities.

The modern art of architecture is based on complete freedom of opinion and ideas, priority areas and how
such a style is practically absent, and all the concepts that go
development, have freedom and equality. Creative fantasy of today
architects is not limited by anything, but the opportunities provided to the fullest
make our life more expressive and brighter are embodied in modern buildings with
elusive speed.

The architectural style reflects common features in the design of building facades, plans, forms, structures. Architectural styles were formed under certain conditions of the economic and social development of society under the influence of religion, state structure, ideology, traditions of architecture and national characteristics, climatic conditions, and landscape. The emergence of a new kind of architectural style has always been associated with technological progress, changes in ideology and geopolitical structures of society. Consider some types of architectural styles that served as the basis for various trends in architecture in different periods of time.

archaic architecture

Buildings erected before the 5th century BC are usually referred to as archaic architecture. Stylistically, the buildings of Mesopotamia and Assyria (the states of Western Asia) are related to the buildings of Ancient Egypt. They are related by simplicity, monumentality, geometric forms, the desire for large sizes. There were also differences: symmetry is characteristic of Egyptian buildings, asymmetry is present in the architecture of Mesopotamia. The Egyptian temple consisted of a suite of rooms and was stretched horizontally; in the Mesopotamian temple, the rooms seem to be attached to each other randomly. In addition, one of the parts of the temple had a vertical orientation (ziggurat (sigguratu - peak) - a temple tower, a characteristic feature of the temples of the Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations).

antique style

Antiquity, as a type of architectural style, refers to Ancient Greece. Greek buildings were built in the likeness of a residential building "megaron" of the Cretan-Mycenaean era. In the Greek temple, the walls were made thick, massive, without windows; a hole was made in the roof for light. The construction was based on a modular system, rhythm and symmetry.

Megaron - means in translation "great hall" - a house of a rectangular plan with a hearth in the middle (beginning 4 thousand BC)

The ancient architectural style became the basis for the development of the order system. There were directions in the order system: Doric, Ionic, Corinthian. The Doric order appeared in the 6th century BC, it was distinguished by its severity and massiveness. The Ionic order, lighter and more elegant, appeared later, and was popular in Asia Minor. The Corinthian order appeared in the 5th century. BC. Colonnades became a sign of this type of architectural style. The architectural style, the photo of which is located below, is defined as the antique, Doric order.

The Romans, who conquered Greece, adopted the architectural style, enriched it with decor and introduced the order system into the construction of not only temples, but also palaces.

Roman style

View of the architectural style of the 10th-12th centuries. - received its name "Romanesque" only in the 19th century. thanks to art critics. Structures were created as a construction of simple geometric shapes: cylinders, parallelepipeds, cubes. Castles, temples and monasteries were built in this style with powerful stone walls with battlements. In the 12th century towers with loopholes and galleries appeared near castle-fortresses.

The main buildings of that era are a temple - a fortress and a castle. The buildings of this era were simple geometric figures: cubes, prisms, cylinders, during their construction vaulted structures were created, the vaults themselves were made cylindrical, cross-rib, cross. In the early Romanesque architectural style, the walls were painted, and by the end of the 11th century. volumetric stone reliefs appeared on the facades.