Creativity, autonomy, function in architecture ARCHTHEO’13/ III. International conference of theory of architecture

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The ARCHTHEO Conference was held under the theme "Theory for the Sake of Theory" in 2011 and under the title "House & Home" in 2012. With the participation of over 250 academics and their valuable presentations, the conference has secured a unique position within the field of architectural theory.

ARCHTHEO '13 sets sail for new debates under the theme "Creativity, Autonomy, and Function". The question of whether architectural creativity is grounded in autonomous aesthetic production or in a problem-solving approach akin to engineering remains a topic of ongoing discussion.

Aesthetic autonomy can be seen as a refuge for the architect’s self-declared creative authority. It may be argued that, with the emergence of the modern world, architecture claimed independence from the traditions of the past and asserted its right to operate as a distinct field of expression. At the same time, however, architecture was also drawn closer to engineering under the modernist dictum: "Form follows function."

This tension played out in the early 20th century between figures like Henry van de Velde, who represented Jugendstil, and those like Hermann Muthesius and Walter Gropius, who attempted to reconcile the divide through the Bauhaus model.

Yet the question "Which has more influence on the final form — aesthetic decisions or function?" remains elusive. Neither Adolf Loos’s Raumplan nor Mies van der Rohe’s universal spaces can offer definitive answers. The same ambiguity is evident in both Gothic cathedrals and examples of Near Eastern architecture, where aesthetic qualities often emerged through complex engineering principles.

In the postmodern era, this debate has taken on new dimensions: Where does architectural autonomy end, and where does function begin? If we define functionality not merely as spatial organization but as social function or even social determination, then the architect — as an artist — must assert their autonomy even more fervently.

However, numerous examples and theoretical frameworks suggest that creativity need not be born from a perfect synthesis of these opposing poles. The search for alternative sources of architectural creativity remains an open and fertile field.

The ARCHTHEO ’13 Theory of Architecture Conference primarily aims to examine the historical and contemporary definitions of creativity. By revisiting concepts such as aesthetic autonomy and function through historical examples and purely theoretical approaches, the conference seeks to provoke critical dialogue within the field of architectural thought.

Efe Duyan