Pažymys architektūros meno kūriniui - misija neįmanoma? : šiuolaikinės architektūros kūrinių išorinio vertinimo objektyvumo problema

Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Knygos dalis / Part of the book
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Pažymys architektūros meno kūriniui - misija neįmanoma?: šiuolaikinės architektūros kūrinių išorinio vertinimo objektyvumo problema
Alternative Title:
Grades for architectural works - mission impossible?: on the issue of objectivity in external evaluation of contemporary works of architecture
In the Book:
Architektūros kokybės užtikrinimo priemonės / sudarytojai: L. Nekrošius, V. Petrušonis, E. Riaubienė, A. Štelbienė. Vilnius: Technika, 2017. P. 92-115. (Architektūra: objektai ir kontekstai. T. 3)
Aarhuso konvencija; Architektūra; Architektūros kokybė; Architektūros menas; Estetinė raiška; Kokybės vertinimas; Meninė raiška; Meno kūrinys; Meno samprata; Orhuso konvencija; Pastatytoji aplinka; Tvarus vystymasis; Visuomenės dalyvavimas.
Aarhus Convention; Aesthetic expression; Architectural art; Architectural quality; Architecture; Artistic expression; Artistic manifestation, aesthetic manifestation; Built environment; Concept of art; Public participation; Quality evaluation; Sustainable development; Work of art.
Summary / Abstract:

ENThis paper analyses, whether and to what extent is it theoretically possible and sensible to assess architectural structures as artwork within a context of architectural quality. The author states that the definition of architectural quality cannot be taken separately from generic concepts of quality and quality management, and that quality in the broad sense means a degree of suitability to purpose. Since quality is measured quantitatively, it has no other alternative, except for only a higher or a lower degree of suitability to the same predefined tasks. While designing built human environment, both predefined tasks, as well as measuring the quality of their implementation are complex and multifaceted, ranging from building standards to the index of happiness. Based on a preliminary motivational framework, these predefined tasks fall into two major groups: external - public interest (based on legal regulations or sociocultural ad hoc) and internal - private interest (artistic and aesthetic - defined by the creator and (or) recipient). However, the architectural quality is not an objective axiological category. It is determined culturally and diachronically - quantitative and qualitative assessments both depend directly on a matrix of concepts of architecture and architectural activities. It is only based on this common understanding that task makers and task evaluators (societies, as well as their sociocultural groups) can set up tasks for architecture and evaluate results of the implementation of these tasks.The author outlines three different aspects in assessing architecture: architectural quality, artistic manifestation, and aesthetic manifestation. She emphasizes the necessity of their proper differentiation, because the criteria of architectural quality are not suitable to evaluate artistic manifestations. In conclusion, the entire process of architectural evaluation (procedures, as well as both social and professional groups and qualifications of the evaluators) needs to be differentiated and legitimated according to the types of predefined tasks in order to ensure comprehensive and objective assessment of architectural objects - either existing, or under creation. Finally, the author provides some suggestions for possible legitimation of the processes, related to assessing architectural quality, as well as evaluating artistic manifestations of architecture. [From the publication]

2020-04-18 07:25:43
Views: 4