Vladimir Milenkovic Mariela Cvetic University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architecture, Belgarde, Serbia 267
the process of its genesis, but that the form is, in the final outcome of this aspect,
the process itself. This jumble of ideas may seem theoretically untrue. Its purpose is
not defining, it is understanding, not of the form itself, but the process, especially
of the context in which this issue is considered (Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture).
The design context or state can also replace the form in which all known content
values, meaning or pure artistic qualities of architectural form are refracted.
Changes in architectural education were echoed by changes in architectural
practice. In contrast to every-day problems that architects encounter and solve
in relatively clearly established social ambient (rules of game) for the priorities in
changes of architectural pedagogy that are placed in the awareness of ability and
understanding its proofs during the progress in designing. Studding design is not
possible in non designing procedure, nor are the both parties excluded from this act.
To make this procedure clear, the method has to be adapted to it. In this sense it
is possible to set following comparisons: selectivity and criticism, usefulness and
morality, confidence and talent. The question of aesthetics is transferred from goal
to method, from form to formula (Rowe & Slutzky, Transparency). This does not mean
that the form does not exist, on the contrary, it speaks volumes of understanding
its architectural strength, independence, purity and transparency (Hill, architecture
- the subject is matter).
Unity of Opposites
The nature of designing in education does not differ from designing in general, and
still there are things that could not be a priori applied to professional reality. Research
is an important component of education in the same way the final form of design is
an integral part of the process that shapes it. If we see this as a quality and not as
a problem, we are enabling the continuation of the process and its creative future
(Bergson, L’evolution creatrice), equally based on knowledge as on skill, in other
words intellect as much as intuition.
If the role of technology is defined by nature of the way it was brought to our
life, than its part in design is natural as well. This is not just about application of
computer technologies, although it is the most obvious example of the statement
we are discussing about, but about meaning that is assigned to technology or space
that is set aside for it. It is easy to present all the advantages of modern technology
for designing and building architecture, but the question about the future of this
relation stays completely open, not just as an architectural particularity. Although
embodied in opposites between imagination and reality, artificial and natural, digital
technology is everyday architectural environment. This equally belongs to the existing
architecture as much as to the one that is about to vanish or be discovered. That
does not mean that architectural design is impossible without it, nor architecture,
but certainty in verity of design is diminished, not to mention beauty of such form
or its value of use.
In the methodological sense contemporary relation of designing and digital tech-
nologies can be defined through two extremes: the means of use and the usage
of means. The form of partnership evolves into a specific interconnection among