Rudolf Steiner's Theories and Their Translation into Architecture

The philosophy and architecture of Rudolf Steiner both aim to give formal expression to his esoteric worldview, however, the means of articulating this worldview fundamentally differ within each discipline. Philosophy and architecture are separated by both process and product, and while an interdisciplinary reading of Steiner’s work does make certain connections between them evident, the incorporeal nature of thinking and the physical reality of building inevitably require different skills of their author, as well as different standards by which to assess them. Although he had no formal training as an architect, Steiner believed that his system of Anthroposophy provided a conceptual framework that would inspire a new style of modern architecture imbued with a spiritual dimension. As such, architecture provided Steiner with a means of visually expressing what words could not, and was therefore a necessary and important part of his philosophical pursuit. This paper explores the tension that exists between Steiner’s philosophy and architecture in its translation from theoretical ideas into built form. Steiner’s approach to architectural design was less concerned with the methods and techniques of the craft than with achieving what he saw as architecture’s true purpose - namely to give voice to the inner spiritual content of the work. However, in order to achieve this ultimate goal, a certain level of architectural competence is required. Therefore, Steiner’s ability as an architect to articulate such lofty ideals will also be assessed. Conceived on the edge of theory and practice, Steiner’s work serves to demonstrate the richness and depth that such an approach has to offer the field of architecture.

European Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2022

The Goetheanum is one of the masterpieces of Twentieth Century architecture. The present building is the second iteration of Dr Rudolf Steiner's ideas of organic architecture for the site on a hill overlooking the Swiss village of Dornach. The Goetheanum was intended as a theatre and the global headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society. Goetheanum I was a quaint all timber structure, opened on 26 September 1920. In 1921, Rudolf Steiner considered that a rebuild would be quite different. On 31 December 1922, Goetheanum I was destroyed by fire. By July 1923, funds were guaranteed for a new build. Shortly after the Christmas Conference of 1923, Rudolf Steiner presented a 1:100 scale clay model of Goetheanum II. In June 1924, the building application was submitted, and in November approved. Site work began in Rudolf Steiner's lifetime, but he died on 30 March 1925. On 29 September 1928, Goetheanum II was officially opened with plays, lectures and Eurythmy performances. This was a building, unlike any other, a grand sculpture in reinforced concrete. The furbishing of the interior proceeded over the following decades. The present paper relates the story of Goetheanum II, citing contemporary sources and illustrated with historical and present-day images.

2018

“Architecture is a thoughtful making of space” -- Louis I. Kahn If theories are a set of systems or suppositions that undergird how a certain thing operates, the theory of architecture, according to the architect Louis I. Kahn, must entail a thoughtful making of space. So, what then constitutes a “thoughtful making of space?” And a thoughtful making of space for whom? Many scholars, architects and thinkers have been trying to answer this question. The fundamental problem with answering this question lies in the nature of architecture as a “practical” rather than a theoretical discipline. What does it mean for space to be thoughtfully made – comfort, function, and aesthetics? All of these qualities are not merely architectural: Comfortable buildings can be designed by engineers who understand conventional and artificial ventilation; in a similar way, aesthetic edifices only need to be designed by those trained in the fine arts of composition and motif replication. Is there mere theory of architecture? It is an accepted norm that architects “make” things -- buildings, spaces, landscapes; yet, the difference between “simply making something” and “thoughtfully making something” is enormous. Unlike the natural sciences or mathematics, architectural can hardly be undergirded, explained, or experienced by a set of fixed ideas or suppositions. As the historian and theorist Stanford Anderson argues, architecture is “quasi-autonomous,” which may explain why any attempts to see architecture as something else often, if not always, fail. The prime example being that any architectural approaches that end, stylistically, with “-ism,” such as modernism, postmodernism, deconstructionism, to name a few. In this course, we will focus on this very quasi-autonomous quality of architecture in its capacity to “make space” thoughtfully.” In the spirit of skepticism, we will investigate the claims that (a) architectural theory exists and (b) the central elements of such claims are humans and their social relations. By oscillating between reading closely related ideas and oppositional ideas, students will be exposed to a selected range of concepts developed by philosophers, historians, and social theorists in their attempts to come to terms with what they believe to be architecture. These attempts are something we may call “architectural theory.” Chronologically, we will examine socio-cultural ideas in which architecture plays a role as either the source or the outcome. In this course, we will seek to understand architectural theory through the exploration of the economic, political, and cultural roles of architecture. Two sets of readings will be introduced for each topic: classic theoretical and philosophical writings, and writings specific to architecture.

This text is the result of an interdisciplinary reflection that tends to lay the foundations for a new concept of architecture, a new architectural paradigm. In light of the transformations occurring at an increasingly rapid pace in the world of science, the sectors of classical knowledge must review their structure and role. In this context, to rediscover its role and cultural meaning, architecture must review its position within the process of transformation of knowledge for which it must somehow account. In other words, to do this, architecture must re-establish the basic assumptions and redefine its specific universe of discourse. Author Graduated in Architecture in the 1970s, he taught at the Italian faculties of Architecture in Rome (Chair of architectural composition, years 73-77) and Naples (Institute of architectural methodology, years 82-83 and 2004) as assistant-presenter of seminars, working on the themes of semiology, representation and design logic. He is currently an independent researcher and for many years has been involved in epistemological and cognitive research on architecture with investigations, currently under development, with fMRI techniques aimed at analyzing the response of the human brain towards architecture.

Footprint, 2007

2013

Zugleich gedruckt veroffentlicht im Universitatsverlag der TU Berlin unter der ISBN (print) 978-3-7983-2555-5

Exercíses. In: Heynen, H., Rauta, a. (Editors) - Proceedings Of Four Eaae-Enhsa Subnetwork Workshops On Architectural Theory - Hasselt (2006), Trondheim (2007), Lisbon (2008), Fribourg (2009), Thessaloniki 2009. pp. 307-317. ISNB: 978-2-930301-40-2, 2009

The highly formal discipline and control in the architectural profession and practice which derives from many famous architects and theorists since the 1920s such as Le Corbusier, Peter Eisenman, Frank Lloyd Wright, Aldo Rossi, and many others, have huge influences and defines the current practices and framework in most architectural education and culture. This led architects to have false perfection in the architecture design process, as they are defined and restricted to the various ideologies, yet forgetting that the current context can be completely different. This paper follows a British architect, educator, and writer, Jeremy Till's (2009) book “Architecture Depends”, in resistance to the formal practice, as he argues the concern of architecture produced by highly shaped architects that detached from the realities and overlook the contingency in architecture.