Contemporaneity

Holism as a determinant of culture in architecture

Małgorzata Solska

Abstract

The phenomenon of culture formation takes place as a result of sociological reaction of ‘double feedback’: natural environment impinges on Man, Man – in the process of civilization building – processes and creates the environment, while the environment, in turn, as cultural reality, surrounds and forms Man by improving Man’s personality.

Originally, the notion of cultura was connected with land cultivation and it referred to transforming the natural state of the environment through human work into a state that was more useful for man. In the ancient times, the meaning of culture changed to refer more to man, his mentality and environmental interdependence1. In the Middle Ages, culture had a more universal character, however, because of the significance of religion (i.e. Christianity) in human life, its particularistic aspect was emphasized. The meaning of culture as a motivator of all conscious efforts aimed at developing and assessing the quality of a given object, talking about for instance ‘culture of wheat’ or ‘culture of trades’ was in use at the beginning of the 16th century.

Some symptoms of connecting culture with the intellectual sphere of human development referring to ancient philosophies appear in history in the 17th century when Voltaire uses the word culture in the context of process of human mind formation and improvement by enlarging the scope of acquired skills with various domains of science, art and knowledge of conventions and manners. In the subsequent periods of history in the 18th and 19th centuries, culture is associated with improvement of an individual as ‘a whole’, with qualifications and skills, including both technology and the intellectual side of life as part of these achievements.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

Full article

2010

Nr 2(28)

Culture and holism; place of culture in the holistic world system

The phenomenon of culture formation takes place as

a result of sociological reaction of ‘double feedback’:

natural environment impinges on Man, Man – in the proc-

ess of civilization building – processes and creates the

environment, while the environment, in turn, as cultural

reality, surrounds and forms Man by improving Man’s

personality.

Originally, the notion of cultura was connected with

land cultivation and it referred to transforming the natural

state of the environment through human work into a state

that was more useful for man. In the ancient times, the

meaning of culture changed to refer more to man, his men-

tality and environmental interdependence

. In the Middle

Ages, culture had a more universal character, however,

because of the signicance of religion (i.e. Christianity) in

human life, its particularistic aspect was emphasized. The

meaning of culture as a motivator of all conscious efforts

aimed at developing and assessing the quality of a given

object, talking about for instance ‘culture of wheat’ or

‘culture of trades’ was in use at the beginning of the 16

century.

Some symptoms of connecting culture with the intel-

lectual sphere of human development referring to ancient

philosophies appear in history in the 17

century when

Voltaire uses the word culture in the context of process

of human mind formation and improvement by enlarging

the scope of acquired skills with various domains of sci-

ence, art and knowledge of conventions and manners. In

Cracow University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Institute

of Urban Planning, Department of Residential Environment Formation.

Cicero ( 106–43 BC ) used the word cultura , to dene philosophy

and emphasized moral and intellectual education of an individual which

elevates a human being to a higher level (quoted from: Hartman, Słownik

lozoi). The following types were distinguished: Cultura animi – culture

of farming; cultura mentis – culture of mind, because: cultura animi

philosophia est – philosophy is farming, formation of spirit (quoted from:

Landowski, Woś, Słownik cytatów łacińskich).

Małgorzata Solska*

Holism as a determinant of culture in architecture

the subsequent periods of history in the 18

and 19

cen-

turies, culture is associated with improvement of an indi-

vidual as ‘a whole’, with qualications and skills, includ-

ing both technology and the intellectual side of life as part

of these achievements. A new domain of science appears,

‘Anthropology of culture’, which slowly aims to separate

civilization achievements from culture by humanizing the

latter through a range of research on human life environ-

ment, in particular with regard to customs, beliefs, art,

family and social life, talents and habits, laws and even

morality of a given community.

Division of the notions of civilization and culture, as

well as an analysis of cultural phenomena are dealt with

contemporarily by many scientic domains; the most sig-

nicant ones are research in the scope of sociology and

cultural anthropology as well as social ethnology.

During the last 100 years of human history, the no-

tions of ‘culture’ and ‘cultural studies’ underwent signi-

cant evolution or even ‘paraphrasing’ – because of many

important and profound social changes, transformations

in the way of valuating phenomena and behaviours, as

a result and simultaneous effect of political, economical,

social and civilization globalizing universalizing process-

es. In the contemporary reality there is a visible cultural

dissonance brought about by a universal trend of uni-

cation of principles and phenomena, their ephemerality

caused by the creation of ‘hybrid cultural structures’ – and

the need to accept distinctness and uniqueness of cultural

community.

The notion of culture presents a dichotomy as regards

expressions and meanings:

– culture, with regard to symbols of meanings or be-

haviours; collection of elements and synthesis of phenom-

ena, signs, skills adapted or created anew by perception

and its reference to conscious actions directed at creating

new ideological and model values in the social human en-

vironment; and

198 Małgorzata Solska

– culture as a social phenomenon, but basically refer-

ring to an individual or a social group; it is a collection

of formulas of the so called ‘cultural lifestyle and being

human’ – resulting from ethnical conditions marked by

history that determines the course of political and social

changes [7]

There are numerous denitions of the idea, notion, phenomenon

and entry of ‘culture’, depending on the accepted criteria resulting from

their authors’ range of interests, time of their formulation and purpose

By a ‘statistical’ person, culture is usually understood as

follows: lifestyle of an individual within a social group, de-

termined by history and ethnical conditions and apart from

that, synthesis of phenomena, signs, skills adapted or cre-

ated through perception and its reection in form of creating

new esthetical values in the existing social environment.

of usage. In the present work, the author introduces her own laconic,

popularized and somewhat paraphrased interpretation of the notion of

‘culture’ for the purpose of this essay.

Culture and architecture

Culture is de facto a notion/phenomenon which is ab-

stract as such and does not refer to any particular being or

thing, yet, it actually effects the concepts of development

of phenomena and interpersonal relations. When dening

culture from the philosophical viewpoint, in the most la-

conic way, it is best to perceive it as …a mobile signi-

cant element which allows discussing human activity in

various manners

. Many factors inuence the process of

culture formation, of which nowadays the most expres-

sive and signicant ones appear to be ethnical, political

and social factors [1].

However, human history undergoes evolution and it is

determined by system, economic and social transforma-

tions and each era brings new values into social culture,

its form and content. Fascination with ‘the new’, discov-

ering new spheres of spiritual development and material

civilization goods have always been – as a psychological

and sociological phenomenon – logical consequences of

man’s permanent search and aspirations to improve living

conditions, to perfect the form of the surrounding space

and to subjugate the forces of nature.

Architecture is understood as the things which are

built, shaped by talent and knowledge, things which serve

man and possess esthetic features. Lack of these features

excludes ‘thing / work’ from being part of architecture.

According to the Vitruvian canon, architecture is charac-

terized by: being solid, useful and beautiful

. We can ask

whether this canon also marks the limits of architecture.

Variety of denitions of architecture as a work which is

Quoted from: Barker Ch., Studia kulturowe, p. 516.

Vitruvius (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio), 1

century BC; Treaty De

architectura. Vitruvian triad: rmitas, utilitas and venustas, i.e. – being

solid, useful/usable and beautiful.

real and completed, presented by ne and humanistic arts

authors allows us to formulate the most adequate and con-

cise denition which says that Architecture is an organi-

zation and art of space formation

. In theory, things from

beyond the denition scope do not belong to architecture

(for instance, engineering constructions), however, they

do complement it as regards ideas, structures, landscape.

Is architecture art? The answer seems to be simple

as throughout the centuries, especially during the Renais-

sance and Baroque periods, architecture was regarded as

the queen of ne arts and although historically their mu-

tual connotations were perceived variably, we must admit

that art and architecture originate from the same ‘cultural

root’. It is logic that ne arts are an indispensible part or

even the basis of each type of culture (culture of being, so-

cial culture, symbolic culture) and they determine culture.

Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that architec-

ture is a signicant part of culture as it is social, universal

and it ‘touches’ almost every being, every gure.

Nowadays, however, the abovementioned rule is un-

derstood in a broader sense – the importance of the space

which surrounds, complements and so to speak promotes

the architectural work is emphasized

Therefore, from the axiological point of view, in order

to maintain or upgrade the cultural value of places and

space, at the time of permanent uniformity, it becomes

signicant to combine the architectural structure with its

natural and cultural context as regards ideas, functions

and even forms.

This is also the main assumption of the idea of habitat (author’s

footnote).

Quoted from: Krakowski P., O sztuce nowej i najnowszej, PWN,

Warszawa 1984.

Symbiosis or partnership;

Holistic relationship of architecture with art and environment

The notions of value and assessment have always ex-

isted in architecture. Man, while transforming Nature for

the needs of his own existence, interfered in the surround-

ing environment in consent and harmony with it – or not,

protecting nature and cultural goods – or not, anyway, he

always introduced new content, forms and structures into

the environment, he introduced a new quality which was

not always positive. These new forms brought in civiliza-

tion values and by forming places of worship, work and

social contacts, man created the cultural value of a place

Holism as a determinant of culture in architecture 199

Fig. 1. The problem which is discussed in the essay with regard to connections of culture and architecture, their ideological, mental, historical,

social, architectonic, spatial and esthetical connotations is multi-dimensional, broad and inter-disciplinary. It was merely outlined here

by presenting for discussion (non-verbal) its signicant aspects. The illustration is a type of author’s graphic recapitulation, synthesis

– referring to symbols of the alphabetical Greek letters: α–ω from the Greek alphabet, between which ‘a diverse reality’ is contained,

not only graphic, linguistic, cultural – referring to one culture. α–ω this is the symbol of beginning and end, but rst of all of stages.

Culture also has its beginning, perhaps its end, but it certainly has the stage of philosophical, social and esthetic reections. And similarly

– architecture, too. While Vitruvius dened the canon, Plato – principles of beauty, Corbusier – the topic of economical exploitation,

Wright – organicity, Zaha Hadid – extravagance and expression, etc., so we can conclude that in architecture almost everything has been said.

Well, but architecture in itself can be nothing more but ‘…a collection of stones’ (quote)…

200 Małgorzata Solska

with an appropriate dimension – local, regional or na-

tional.

As architecture is created for a community, it is only the

architecture accepted by the community that can become

assimilated with the natural, or cultural environment, thus

forming a symbiotic work. This mainly refers to architec-

ture of residence, which should have ‘certicate of social

acceptance’ as a whole.

Uniform, unied and modern technical and technological

solutions, which are used in the scope of improvement of the

human environment quality (pro-ecological system solutions

as regards usage of natural sources of energy or recycling),

have a civilization character. By combining technological

achievements with architecture as a domain of art, we can

achieve two goals for civilization and culture. This opera-

tion humanizes architecture, it is accepted by its recipients,

provides framework for unique architecture in places and

spaces which are culturally transparent and ideologically

and esthetically readable. More and more frequently, we can

observe the employment of spatial solutions in urban plan-

ning and architecture which combine totally different and

characteristic trends of building the contemporary esthetics:

modernistic elements/motifs combined with organic ones;

bound by ideas and structures and expressing connection

with the context by means of form and content/function.

In the modern world, culture is subject to econo-

mization and becomes a product, the source of ubiq-

uitous commerce

. This phenomenon generates social

and cultural transformations which are based on the ne-

cessity to improve the daily life organization, to make

forms of consumption and relaxation more attractive,

including entertainment, which can particularly be seen

in cities and their public, social, sports and relaxation

spheres.

Similarly to the unique architecture that ‘celebrates’

the cultural environment determining the place and space

– we can perceive the universalism propelled by the mar-

ket situation and inclusion of green areas as a dangerous

symptom, perhaps an equally dangerous phenomenon is

– although apparently socially ‘pro-educational’ – inclu-

sion of name/entry dening the idea of architecture for

commercial products and services.

Let us have a look at the following examples: archi-

tecture – meaning organization of place (symposium,

meeting, social event), architecture – ‘of the subject mat-

ter’ (concept of arranging a matter), architecture – of light

(shop with lamps), architecture – of space (ordinary, util-

ity space, e.g. backyard, store area), architecture – of g-

ure (physiognomic appearance), architecture – as a name

adapted for cosmetics of a popular company: ‘Skin Archi-

tect’ (facial cream and other products)

. Linguists could

certainly provide us with some more of such ‘pompous’

phrases.

Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002, French sociologist of culture, anthro-

pologist and philosopher) names the modern process of commercializa-

tion of culture as ‘symbolic goods market’ in which we can observe

a synergy effect between market, technology and afuence of the society.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu

These are only some of the examples that the author could spot.

According to this essay’s author – apparently, when

we familiarize the society with a notion, we deprive it of

its ideological superstructure which is reserved for one

culturally important domain of science and art and which

forms the space and society’s sense of esthetics. Culture

has a time dimension, it has its own history, it undergoes

development, i.e. it ourishes or it declines depending on

political and economical conditions of the society

Architecture as an integral part of culture is a mate-

rial result of many generations’ work, structural trans-

formations of societies, evolution and diffusion of forms

‘shaped’ by ideas, fashions and civilization innovative-

ness [8]. Architecture, similarly to culture, refers to or-

ganization of places and space, but, since it is not a place

itself, it can only create a system

This elaboration is not aimed at conducting an analy-

sis of criteria used when comparing elements and charac-

teristic features of the phenomena of culture and architec-

ture; we only wish to signal the existence of a connection,

a symbolic one, between Culture – Architecture and hu-

man Environment as regards ideological and psychologi-

cal spheres as well as behavioural and material ones.

Knowledge is built on facts, like a house is built of

stone; however, a collection of facts is not knowledge,

like a pile of stones is not a house – Jules Henri Poincare

(1854–1912, mathematician, physicist, philosopher).

Holism is dened as a philosophical, pragmatic and

pro-ecologic idea of symbiosis. This superior ecumenical

idea and mechanism combine all the complexes of the

sustainable development system. It acts in the natural ec-

osystem space and in creating urban premises of cultural

space: historical, ethnical, multi-cultural, public, social;

mental or verbal.

Architecture as a plane/bridge/element of an agree-

ment between a widely understood environment and man

is contained in this holistic cultural ecosystem and it ecu-

menically cooperates with it in the following scopes:

– locating/residing,

– formation of social space connected with profes-

sional and educational activity,

– formation of public and recreation space (sports and

relaxation).

These various types of space and places are marked by

codes, symbols, utility architecture and narration, which

distinguish residential architecture and utility architecture

from ‘the big one’ of theatres, concert halls, ofce blocks

etc. – creating a specic climate of places, zones, pub-

lic and social space, in which architecture occurs as the

area and image of civilization and cultural transforma-

tions.

The connection of architecture with culture is indis-

putable, similarly to the connection of architecture with

art

. We can observe cultural feedback between these

Quoted from: A. Kłoskowska, Socjologia kultury.

Ibidem; referring to characteristic qualities of culture as a philo-

sophical and social phenomenon / complex of phenomena.

For more about connections of ne arts with architecture in modern

culture, see: Piotr Krakowski in: O sztuce nowej i najnowszej, PWN,

Warszawa 1984.

Holism as a determinant of culture in architecture 201

three domains: culture – architecture – art. Art, of which

architecture is an integral part – because as a whole it is

an expression, testimony and motivation of culture.

Nowadays, culture is discussed in the context of the

two particularly expressive social phenomena: informa-

tion and mutual interpersonal communication [6]. How-

ever, it seems that the theory of creating culture accord-

ing to individualism and full voluntariness, which is ex-

tremely promoted in our times, is controversial from the

viewpoint of the social order. ‘Individualized voluntari-

ness’ gives rise to ephemerality of actions and relativism

of assessments. As a consequence, there is no place for the

modern universalism of culture which is supposed to form

the basis for the modern character of architecture in order

to accomplish its idea and mission at the same time and

outline a perspective of development.

In relation to the problem which is the topic of the

conference, namely, mutual connotations of architec-

ture and culture, we ought to focus our attention on

time and space of the modern (end of the rst decade

of the 21

century) environment of Man’s life and out-

line a sphere of recipient’s needs (an individual being or

a community) by dividing it into two groups as follows.

One is a demand for utility architecture which takes into

account basic functions connected with the environment

of living and recreation, while the other deals with access

to the so called higher social and cultural values, con-

nected with great architecture, but also with small one

of public and social spaces as well as green landscape

architecture.

All the types of architecture are de facto extremely sig-

nicant for symbiosis of Nature and Culture through Man

who, by his creative activity, complements and executes

holistic system of environmental and cultural ecumene.

An attempt to ‘answer’ the second part the question

which is formulated in the topic of the conference is not

simple and the problem itself is ambiguous. We can only

venture to say that the level dening the content of (con-

temporary) ‘culture in architecture’ is directly proportion-

al to the intellectual level of the society, nancial possi-

bilities, creative predispositions, knowledge, respect for

the existing, laboured by generations values – connecting

humbleness towards Nature and distancing oneself from

periodic fashions, with transforming the creative design-

er’s ego into a creative – pro-ecologically and esthetically

– organization of space.

We can ask the following question: where is the place

and intellectual space for innovativeness – experiment,

formal expression of a newly created work of art, or even

a formal test awaiting social acceptance? The choice of

place and formula, innovative in content, form and mean-

ing of the architectural work, must result from versatile

studies in the domains of urban planning, architecture

and environment, employment of timeless canon of order

and harmony in space, which is formulated in the Vitru-

vius principles

as well as the contemporary principles

of sustainable and permanent environment development,

contained in the entire idea of ‘New Green Deal’

– with

the principal holistic statement

The traditional view on culture was expressed in the

holistic permanent moral and axiological order referring

to the cultural and natural environment; according to the

contemporary one, this spatial order and harmony ought

to be ‘enriched’ by an economy which gives possibilities

of realization of modern architecture as innovative, mod-

ern, unconventional, however, with a ‘note’ of organic

stylistics which provides conditions for the formation of

environmental empathy.

Vitruvian triad: rmitas, utilitas and venustas, i.e. – being solid,

useful and beautiful contains an ideological creed for architecture and

it is reected in the modern principles of sustainable development, par-

ticularly with regard to: dispositio (appropriate arrangement of elements

of a building), symmetry (harmonious conformity between elements and

the entire work) or distributio (appropriate attitude towards economy of

the building process)

Initiator of building and employment of the new formula is the UN

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon; this policy allows stimulating economi-

cal growth and concurrently restrains the climate changes.

In the documents on establishing ‘Principles of sustainable develop-

ment’ there is no explicit reference to the role of culture in the creation of

a new architectural structure or its revitalization; lack of a doctrine gives

rise to liberty, freedom of interpretation; excess of liberty – gives rise to

chaos. Only the principle of holism can determine the direction of culture

and of cultural activity (author’s footnote).

References

[1] Barker Ch., Studia kulturowe. Teoria i praktyka, Wydawnictwo Uni-

wersytetu Jagiellońskiego, seria Cultura, Kraków 2005.

[2] Hartman J. (ed.), Słownik lozoi, Wydawnictwo Zielona Sowa,

Kraków 2004.

[3] Kłoskowska A., Socjologia kultury, PWN, Warszawa 2007.

[4] Krakowski P., O sztuce nowej i najnowszej, PWN, Warszawa 1984.

[5] Landowski Z., Woś K., Słownik cytatów łacińskich; wyrażenia,

sentencje, przysłowia, Wyd. Literackie, Kraków 2002.

[6] Mikułowski-Pomorski J., Kultura wobec społecznej transformacji,

Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Kraków

2005.

[7] Solska M., Urok i uroda miasta – rozważania dialektyczne, Wy da-

wnic two Teka KU i A O/PAN, Kraków 2004/5.

[8] Zamiara K. (ed.), Kultura. Komunikacja. Podmiotowość; Szkice

epistemologiczno-kulturoznawcze, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM,

Poznań 2005.

Holizm jako wyznacznik kultury w architekturze

Idea holizmu w kategorii lozoczno-estetycznej i proekologicznej

jest kierunkiem realizacji wszelkich zadań i działań na rzecz KULTU-

RY.

Architektura i kultura, to dwie damy kroczące w równym rytmie

dziejowego korowodu przez szlak życia, góry, doliny, salony i rozstaje

społeczeństw w kolejnych okresach epok dziejów ludzkości.

202 Małgorzata Solska

Keywords: sustainable development – holism, culture – architecture,

universalism and symbiosis

Słowa kluczowe: zrównoważony rozwój – holizm, kultura – architektura,

uniwersalizm a symbioza

Architektura jest bowiem rzeczywistym i trwałym obrazem kultury

duchowej oraz dorobku cywilizacyjnego i materialnego społeczeństwa

i epoki.

Czy jednak we współczesnym multikulturowym świecie architektura

nadal zachowuje pozycję ‘mentora’ i świadka dziejów? Czy jest w stanie

podtrzymać, bądź wskrzesić unikatowość miejsc i przestrzeni?

Czy współczesna architektura, którą cechuje uniwersalizm formal-

ny, a nowoczesne rozwiązania techniczne i technologiczne stają się jej

domeną, nadal utrzymuje status królowej sztuk?

Sama nazwa ARCHITEKTURA – symbol kreatywności – uległa

pauperyzacji i zawłaszczeniu przez najprzeróżniejsze dziedziny wy-

twórczości i logistyki.

Czy owa wulgaryzacja nazwy służy właściwemu odbiorowi

architektury, jej idei, celebry w przestrzeni kulturowej i jej związku

ze środowiskiem życia Człowieka?