Research in Architecture: Looking Backward and Forward: Forty-Year Experience in Architectural Research at the Faculty of Architecture STU

The introduction of my contribution contains a brief information on the Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava (FA STU) and the architectural research performed at this institution. Schemes and priorities of our research in architecture have changed several times since the very beginning in early 50’s. The most significant change occurred after “the velvet revolution” in 1989. Since 1990 there have been several sources to support research at universities. The significant part of my contribution is rooted in my own research experience since the time I had joined FA STU in 1975 as a young architect and researcher. The period of the 80’s is characterized by the first unintentional attempts to do “research by design” and my “scientific” achievements as by-products of my design work. Some of them resulted in the following issues: conception of mezzo-space, theory of the complex perception of architectural space and definition of basic principles of ecologically conscious architecture. Nowadays I continue my research by design within the application of so called solar envelope in urban scale with my students.

ARX, model thinking: taxonomy and operativity of an architectural process

The purpose of this work was to establish a taxonomy of hand made model construction as a platform for an approach to project an operative method in architecture. It was therefore studied and catalogued in a systematic approach a broad model production in the work of ARX. A wide range of families and sub-families of models were found, with different purposes according to each phase of development, from searching steps for a new possible configuration to detailed refined decisions. This working method revealed as most relevant characteristics, the grounds for a potential personal reflection and open discussion on project method, its flexibility on space modeling, an accuracy on the representation of real construction situations and its constant and stimulating opening to new suggestions. This research helped on a meta-reflection about this method, having been useful on creating a consciousness of processes that pretend to become an autonomous language, knowledge that might become useful to those who pretend to implement a haptic modus operandi in the work of an architectural project.

A Reabilitação face à Sustentabilidade : Casa Burguesa do Porto

Os centros históricos são o resultado de um parque habitacional corrente, com uma grande uniformidade, coerência construtiva e espaços urbanos de modo a proporcionar uma identidade própria. Um dos grandes problemas urbanos são as vastas áreas degradadas do ponto de vista arquitetónico como também social, cultural e económico. Conhecidos os principais problemas dos edifícios de habitação e suas causas, para sua resolução existe necessidade de adaptar o processo de reabilitação tradicional ao conceito de sustentabilidade. Estes dois assuntos conjugados são atualmente emergentes, devido à necessidade de reabilitação do parque habitacional, nomeadamente centros históricos. A casa burguesa do Porto apresenta um elevado grau de degradação, porém apesar de existentes as ações de intervenção que sobre ela reincidem, não são proporcionais à necessidade atual. A cidade do Porto é marcada, maioritariamente, pelas Casas Burguesas, das quais foram executadas segundo padrões de conforto e de utilização da época. É, então, fundamental um estudo pormenorizado da casa burguesa do Porto, avaliando o contexto em que esta se encere (na cidade e na respetiva habitação), os subsistemas construtivos e as praticas de reabilitação.

Museum training to develop the social awareness of cultural identity in a time of universalization

The main theme of the ICTOP'94 Lisbon meeting is museum personnel training for the universal museum. At the very beginning it is important to identify what the notion universal museum can cover. It is necessary to underline the ambiguity of the term. On the one hand, the word 'universal' can be taken to refer to the variety of collected museum materials or museum collections, on the other hand it could refer to the efforts of the museum to be active outside the museum walls in order to achieve the integration of the heritage of a certain territory into a museological system. 'Universal' could also refer to the "new dimensions of reality: the fantastic reality of the virtual images, only existing in the human brain" (Scheiner 1994:7), which is very close to M. McLuhan's view of the world as a 'global village'. Thus, what is universal could be taken as being common and available to all the people of the world. 'Universal' can imply also the radical broadening of the concept of object: "mountain, silex, frog, waterfonts, stars, the moon ... everything is an object, with due fluctuations" (Hainard in Scheiner 1994: 7), which will cause the total involvement of the human being into his/her physical and spiritual environment. In the process of universalization, links between cultural and natural heritage and their links with human beings become more solid, helping to create a strong mutual interdependence.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)