What is the truth of architecture and does it require courage? This question is not just about architecture and the architect alone. Treating truth in architecture as an important category requires a new view of the relationship between the built environment and nature. Their common denominator is man - the creator-architect and the viewer-user. How to verify the truth of architecture? What criteria to use? How and whether to value it at all? Something that we consider to be the truth may turn out after time to be a lie that sinks the ideals of architecture, understood as the art of shaping space. And on the contrary , something that did not initially gain a reputation, only after some time may become, in the opinion of others, truly successful. From an ethical point of view, the truth is better than a lie, but from an evolutionary point of view - no longer.
Man, in order to survive, from the very beginning of his existence used defensive techniques, which included, among other things, lying. This was a mechanism developed in the course of evolution. This is why we lie so often, even though lying is more intellectually demanding than telling the truth. Lying is an embarrassing foundation in human communication, even though it creates no small problem for the liar himself. More mental energy is required to formulate a lying statement and then to argue it logically. Lying is a strategy for avoiding tension and conflict in the short term. It is believed that a lie is a falsehood spoken naturally. However, a false statement is just a cognitively incorrect judgment or logical contradiction. A lie, on the other hand, is a deliberate misrepresentation, done deliberately for temporary self-gratification. To act in accordance with the truth, therefore, does not require sacrifice, but courage in the long term1.
Thetruth of architecture is an interesting field of research, rarely explored in the literature. The conditions of civilization are contributing to the growing demand for architecture that represents the highest standards in the field of quality of life and aesthetic appeal, while at the same time offering a welcoming social environment. The study of the truth expressed in architecture seems important in the process of creating a good quality of physical space, but, like the study of the beauty of architecture2, it does not find due recognition in the scientific discipline of architecture and urban planning. This is due to the difficulty of developing an appropriate research methodology in the context of the transdisciplinary nature of architecture. This article presents a narrow slice of considerations focused on trying to identify the manifestations of truth in architecture. Let the justification of the validity of the research be the motto from "Lapidarium" by Ryszard Kapuscinski:
There is no complete representation of reality. Only a choice3.
The basis and inspiration for my research were the analysis of the literature on the subject, my own architectural practice and the technique of observing or experiencing the built environment. Observation of selected fragments of spatial reality is an element that allows to verify the logic of reasoning, as well as the veracity of the presented judgments, assessments, opinions and conclusions about the studied phenomenon or issue. According to the definition of science adopted by the Polish Academy of Sciences
(...) science, encompassing the sciences, natural sciences, social sciences and economic sciences, constitutes systematized knowledge obtained by observation and experimentation, investigation and deliberation4.
It is noteworthy that observation is listed here as the first method leading to the expansion of knowledge. This is gratifying especially in the case of problems of establishing the conceptual apparatus and research methods and techniques in architecture and urbanism, as Professor Zbigniew Zuziak points out5. Observation leads to the formulation of research problems, their analysis and verification, as it cannot take place in isolation from reality. All the more so, in connection with the issue addressed in this article, the search for truth should be carried out through logic and experience, according to Klemens Szaniawski6.
The research method presented in the article is inspired by theories of truth in philosophy and logic. It carries out a zero-one evaluation (truth-false) of contemporary architectural realizations in several distinguished categories. The categories according to which the ex post evaluation was made were formulated in the form of affirmative sentences containing logical value. These judgments describe the positive aspects of the building and its relationship to the surrounding urban, functional and formal structure. The main research objective is to integrate the issue under discussion into the stream of research focusing on valuing the built environment.
Metropol Parasol in Seville, design: Jürgen Mayer
photo: Anna Martyka
definition of truth and falsity in philosophy
Several theories of truth are known in philosophy and especially in epistemology. The classical theory, also called the correspondence theory, was formulated by Aristotle and relies on the correspondence of judgment to fact: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. It defines truth in an unattainable sense. Its weakness is that we can understand it in such a way that we are allowed to compare our thoughts about reality with reality itself, thus two things of different nature. The strength of this definition, on the other hand, lies in the fact that it does not apply any criterion of truth that would limit how it can be known7. And here arises the problem of understanding the terms "conformity" and "reality." If thoughts or judgments are supposed to be congruent with reality, can they represent a certain part of it, or only a thing as a representation of reality? Is congruence a comparative process, if this comparison is meaningless anyway, because it is not objective, when we start comparing the thing with the word, that is, with objects of different nature? And, after all, the essence of truth should be founded precisely on objectivity. The question of truth can be expanded to include questions about the state of our knowledge of the world. Because, after all, the truth can be separated from knowledge if this knowledge is incomplete8. Thinking that something is true, we often only have the conviction of knowledge. A perfect example of this is time dilation - a phenomenon predicted by Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, confirmed experimentally. It turned out that the rate of passage of time, considered constant until the discovery made by Einstein, can vary depending on the reference system, i.e. the place where time is measured. The results of empirical cognition are therefore, as we can see, uncertain and revocable. All this does not mean, however, that we should give up our search. We can arrive at truth through observation or by relying on inference, reasoning, or theories and judgments grounded in experience.
Two others compete with the classical theory of truth. The first , coherence theory, formulated by Francis Herbert Bradley, makes the truthfulness of a sentence dependent on whether it is a component of a coherent whole. The harmony and coherence of the whole system are more important than the logical inconsistency of a single sentence. The rationale here is that truthfulness should not be adjudicated on the basis of single, isolated sentences, but in the context of the entire system of statements. The decisive criterion for accepting or rejecting a given assertion is its compatibility with assertions already accepted. It consists in the harmonious integration of a particular assertion into the whole system of assertions.
In turn, according to the pragmatic theory, true are those views, ideas or beliefs that prove useful in practice, useful in a given reference, good for the one who proclaims them in a particular situation. A good example to explain the essence of this theory, in which truth is captured in terms of the effectiveness of actions, are scientific theories used in practice. Both of the above theories of truth - both coherent and pragmatic - agree on the need for a criterion of truth, but restrict truth to non-contradictory or utilitarian systems. Meanwhile, new judgments and convictions are constantly emerging, often contradicting the previously accepted system9. An interesting proposal for solving the dilemmas accompanying the clarification of the essence and interpretive complexities of truth was put forward by British philosopher Peter Frederick Strawson. He introduced the concept of acceptance into the theory of truth, which is that truth is not used to state facts, but to accept prior statements. Speaking the language of logic, it is unnecessary to logically value the truth of a sentence10.
As can be seen from the theories outlined above, truth in ontological and epistemological dimensions is difficult to grasp, define, know and establish its criteria. In order for us to truly determine what is truth or what is not, we would need to know all truth in the absolute dimension. The cited theories of truth, developed by philosophy, have inspired me to search for truth in architecture.
Casa da Música in Porto, designed by Rem Koolhaas OMA
Photo: Anna Martyka
brave truth - brave lie
We usually judge things in simple categories: good-bad, tasteful-kidish, practical-extravagant. The intuitive distinction between the truth and falsehood of architecture brings up specific examples. The truth of architecture is revealed, for example, in Scandinavian architecture, which is often characterized by respect for the environment, the conscious use of climate-friendly building materials and technologies, and an elegant aesthetic. Actually, this is architecture hidden in the shadows, not expecting applause, close to people - giving them shelter and a sense of security, and at the same time not cutting them off from the landscape. It is created out of love for nature, in respect for nature and local heritage.
Meanwhile, at the other extreme, in our native backyard, we have a distinctive architecture stretching along the main roads connecting Poland's largest cities. The first association of this spatial mess - a souvenir stall - is kitsch, but kitsch would at least be falsehood, and in this case we have a conscious flattery of the worst tastes and laws of free market economy - the lie of architecture11. Lying is a way of interpersonal communication, it is an atavistic strategy of evasion, used in the face of even minor conflicts. So it's hard to be surprised or express outrage at the lie of architecture, since lying is an extremely attractive, albeit short-term strategy. Mimetic building complexes maintained in the trend of New Urbanism and various types of plagiarism drawing on history enjoy the approval of conservatives, despite the fact that they lack creativity and the courage to take the risks associated with operating in the contemporary language of architecture. Mono-functional suburbs with low-density housing and total dependence of their residents on cars are also a clear lie of architecture, despite the fact that when they were created, they were promoted as the best - modern and comfortable - urban environment. And here it should be emphasized that the truth, unlike a lie, requires courage and a long-term assessment of reality. A lie, on the other hand, is more profitable in the short term and requires not courage, but bravado and more intellectual effort than the truth. Since lying is so popular in interpersonal communication, it is hardly outrageous that it also occurs in architecture and art, for as the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke claimed,
A true artist should deceive the audience (...). No art can be great if it does not deceive12.
Examples of the heroic truth of architecture, in which the great courage of its creators is also manifested, include the Georges Pompidou Center in Paris and the Higher Seminary of the Congregation of the Resurrectionist Fathers in Cracow. The first realization, with worldwide fame at the time of its inauguration, aroused considerable controversy13. International cultural authorities took extreme positions in its assessment. Here, the truth and courage of the architecture were expressed in the concept of exposing the entire technical infrastructure to the outside - it was made a full-fledged element of the facade. Over time, the architecture achieved its value - the building became an attraction for residents and tourists and one of the most important landmarks of the historic center of Paris, despite the fact that it does not formally fit into it. The second referenced building, or rather, a composition of buildings, was realized during the difficult period of political and economic transition for Poland14. Built over a period of eleven years, from 1985 to 1996, it is an uncompromising and bold manifesto of postmodern architecture, which was neither particularly known nor appreciated in Poland at the time. It clearly shows the analogy between language and architecture, infused with narratives, metaphors, symbols and signs, introducing a strong element of metaphysics. The aesthetics of the building represent an elegant and noble truth that does not seek publicity and acclaim. The complex is "written" in an extremely poetic language of architecture. The authors of the project, like a brilliant writer, have masterfully conducted a game with the audience, blurring the line between truth and fiction, as confirmed by Dariusz Kozlowski, saying:
Architecture is building fictional things so that they look like real things15.
From this assertion comes the interesting conclusion that the truth of architecture can be revealed in the process itself and in the creator's efforts to remain true to his ideals, authorities and values.
