If you google two words - architecture formula - two clues appear. One of them is the Vitruvius formula, the second is the Novikov formula. If you click the first one, the famous Vitruvius triad - (Vitruvius) - will open - benefit, strength, beauty, which in the original Latin script looks like this - Firmitas, Utilitas, Venistas.
The Roman builder and engineer, author of the equally famous treatise "Ten Books on Architecture" dedicated to Emperor Octavian Augustus, wrote it in the distant 1st century AD, in other words, 2000 years ago. It has been published many times since 1492 in almost all languages of the world, including for the first time in Russian in 1797. The significance of this work in the centuries will not fade, but after it other architects built remarkable buildings and approved their ideas in new treatises. Alberti wrote his Ten Books, Palladio left us Four Books on Architecture, and Viollet-le-Duc wrote the book Conversations on Architecture. Likewise, in modern times, masters of architecture not only built, but also expressed their ideas in scientific and literary works, as did Frank Lloyd Wright and the "architect of the book" Le Corbusier. And, in turn, Soviet architects did it. And just as the book "Style and Epoch" by Moses Ginzburg affirmed the ideas of the avant-garde, Andrei Burov in his book "On Architecture" reflected on the problems of mastering the classical heritage. And in every time, the works of all these masters, with all due respect to the authors of ancient treatises, asserted new ideas consonant with changed social needs, new trends, new aesthetic ideals. And only one triad of Vitruvius, sometimes represented like a formula:
ARCHITECTURE = USE + STRENGTH + BEAUTY
remained an untouched "sacred cow" for all these past times.
But is it right? Is it so relevant today? Does it cover all the variety of problems of modern architecture? I will allow myself to answer these questions in the negative. Nothing is eternal under the Moon. And the whole history of architecture confirms the validity of this statement. I believe that it is high time to recognize the Vitruvius triad as a subject of historical heritage.
And then the question arises: how to replace it? I first encountered this problem when, in 1977, I received an invitation from the Voprosy Filosofii magazine to take part in a round table meeting on the topic “Interaction between science and art in the context of the modern scientific and technological revolution”. Both the topic and the community that discussed it were new to me. In this dispute, I was asked to be in charge of the architecture. In the eighth issue of the journal of the same year, my answer to this challenge appeared, where the alternative triad was first published and, along with it, the architecture formula:
ARCHITECTURE = (SCIENCE + TECHNOLOGY) x ART
For the second time it appeared in a short essay in the journal "Architecture of the USSR" No. 6 - 81 and, finally, in the book "Formula of Architecture". And if you now click the second Google tip, and then the website ozon.ru, you will see an image of its cover and information that the book was published in 1984, the publishing house "Children's Literature", 144 pages, circulation 100,000 and the message - not on sale. This book has its own story. It was written in 1975 and in the same year excerpts from the manuscript "The Blue Bird of Architecture" got on the spread of the "Literary Gazette", published on the opening day of the VI Congress of Architects of the USSR. Four years later, the Znaniye publishing house issued a 64-page brochure In Search of an Architectural Image, which contained a selection from the same text. But the book itself, lying on the author's desk and twice rejected by Stroyizdat, without any adaptation to the age of the young reader (the editors thought that the tenth grader would understand everything) with a new name and the very formula was published 9 years later. Of course, I could cite here its rationale, contained on page 47, but now, after almost 30 years, the argumentation has noticeably multiplied and the need for a new triad seems obvious.
Recently, I read the Manifesto of the famous St. Petersburg architect Yevgeny Gerasimov on the site archi.ru, where it was written: “The triad“benefit, strength, beauty”has not been canceled. And if one of the above is missing, then the building can be considered flawed. " However, obviously useless and fragile buildings are rarely built. Beauty is another matter. The Romans of the 1st century handled her better than us. The author of the triad did not know what "Rapetism" was and was not familiar with Luzhkov's legacy. But I think that today a solid and useful building, even if it seems beautiful to the author of the manifesto, can be considered flawed in many other ways that Vitruvius knew nothing about. There were other times then and the evaluation criteria were different. The triad is clearly outdated. And if you count from that round table, then I proposed cancellation thirty-six years ago. But, as Evgeny writes, he became an architect by accident and, apparently, did not read my "Formula", unlike Alexander Lozhkin, who, upon meeting and acquaintance, said: "That's why I became an architect because I read your book." Based on the current state of affairs, I will present here the evidence for the relevance of my triad.
Benefit does not imply all the requirements for a modern structure that ensure its proper urban planning position, compliance with the environment, clarity of the functional system, solution of transport problems, proper performance, economic feasibility, etc., etc. In the 21st century, all these issues are in the process designs should be thoroughly researched. It is no coincidence that in our days in reputable design firms, special units are created to provide a detailed justification for each decision. And this is a serious scientific work.
Strength does not in any way cover the entire complex of issues, without the solution of which the building does not meet the requirements of today. And what is the distance from it to high-tech and deconstructivism! The engineering equipment of modern buildings creates the proper climate, provides power supply and communications, and much more, which was not in sight 2000 years ago. And Vitruvius had never heard of ecology and "green" architecture. The equipment of buildings is constantly being improved, requires innovations, breakthroughs in the coming time, which can only be provided by SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY.
Ancient beauty is received with admiration by us. But in this antiquity there were no concepts of tradition and innovation, genius of place and globalism, and even the Romans of the 1st century did not even know what design was. Behind the word beauty these days can be bad taste and vulgarity. The aesthetic dignity of a modern architectural structure is ensured by creative activity that can create more than beauty - an artistic phenomenon, in other words, a work of art. ART is another component of the triad.
Of course, you can try to put in a row all the advantages required from a modern building, but then the decade will not be enough. The modern triad of architecture contains the following generalizing components:
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ART
Now take another look at the formula and delve into its meanings:
ARCHITECTURE = (SCIENCE + TECHNOLOGY) x ART
It is not by chance that SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY are in parentheses and appear as terms. It is also no coincidence that ART appears as a multiplier. And if the latter turns out to be zero, the result will be the same - there will be no architectural work. There will be a building, structure, object, nothing more.
And the last question remains. Who, then, should a modern architect be? He must be a researcher with analytical skills, be a technically educated specialist who will not be hindered by a penchant for invention, finally, be an artist endowed with spatial imagination and capable of creating a work of art. And I will say in conclusion - the true vocation of an architect from the ages is to spiritualize the material world that humanity creates for itself. The rest it can do without us.
With sincere respect for the genius of Vitruvius and his works, Felix Novikov
