TRANSFORMATION OF THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF COMPOSITION MEANS IN ARCHITECTURAL FORM MAKING ON THE XX AND XXI CENTURIES
Authors:   architect, editor-in-chief of the culturological   magazine   Civilization,, Svystun I. 
Published: April 2021

The article provides an analysis of the characteristics of the artistic means of composition used in the architectural form making at the turn of the 21st century, helps to determine their role in the hierarchical structure by the degree of significancefor modern evolutionary processes in architecture. An overall decrease in the influence and effectiveness of the composition means for this period was noted. A significant redistribution of their influence over the basic hierarchical structure was revealed.One of the major problems in the evolution of architecture at the turn of the 21st century is the discrepancy between provisions of the compositional theory of architecture -a traditional means of shaping and findings the of worldwide experimental construction practices. Here, science was facing the new phenomena based on radical changes in the nature of the architectural form and its plasticity, when the clear, unambiguous rules for constructing the form of the basic theory of composition no longer fully carry out their organizing functions. The collision of science with unrecognized processes that appeared in original architectural forms that have no analogue in everything that existed in architecture in the past, created using modern digital technologies, has not yet become the subject of a serious study by modern theory.It should be noted that for almost entire 20th century, architecture relied on the traditional compositional base in the formation of the figurative characteristics of objects (regardless of their stylistic affiliation), considered it universal and did not respond to emerging new trends that had a significant impact on the volume and plastic properties of architectural forms. As the analysis confirms, during this period the foundations ofa new architecture with non-standard form-forming characteristics were laid.Characteristic in the development of architecture at the turn of the century was the desire of individual innovative authors (Kalatrava S., Hadid Z., Libeskind D., Gehri F. O., Maine T., Moss E.O., Koolhaas R. and creative teams: Coop Himelblau, MAD, Snochetta, etc.) create original objects using digital technology, complex geometry and the inclined position of the object or its parts in space. Here, traditional compositional means did not become the basis for the construction of innovative forms. This transformation took place fairly quickly in the late 80-90s of the XX century, which did not allow architectural science to simultaneously comprehend and formulate the corresponding theory, as well as to adjust traditional approaches that can cover the whole variety of emerging ideas and methods of shaping in architecture.In connection with these radical changes in architectural shaping on the cusp of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a need arose both to rethink the general theory and to clarify the role and place of each means of composition in the hierarchical structure.Among the literary sources that consider the basic principles of the theory of architectural composition, the most important are textbooks and manuals for preparing architects at universities, since they primarily affect the formation of professional thinking. What is the information on the theory of composition in this literature and how much the recommendations contained in them correspond to modern trends and the requirements of architectural shaping?In connection with the task, a number of published in the twentieth -early twenty-first centuries. textbooks and manuals on the theory of composition, intended for the preparation of architects in higher educational institutions of the USSR and countries that formed after its collapse, by such authors: Arauho I., Idak Yu. V., Ikonnikov A. V., Klimenyuk T. M., Krinsky V.F., LamtsovI.V., Lyaskovsky O.I., Malgin V.I., Melodinsky D.L., Mikhailenko V. Є., Stepanov A.V., Tits A.A., Turkus M. A., Chin F. D. K., Shapoval N.G., Yakovlev N.I. et al. [1-14] have been analyzed. These sources present the traditional classical ideas about the construction of forms, highlighting composition as the main means: proportions, rhythm, scale, symmetry, asymmetry, statics, dynamics, contrast, nuance, identity, etc. But if in the XX century their significance was not in, doubt, then in the XXI century -symptoms appeared of a decrease in the influence of the compositional apparatus on the processes of shaping and the role of each of them in the hierarchical structure [21].Considering the importance of composition in the historical and newest period of the development of architecture, we can make sure that despite the fact that in classical architecture all means of composition were necessary for building the form and were applied comprehensively (in modern times only selectively), the order of their significance fixed the priority of proportions and proportionality ( the first group), identified by the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius [16], and did not change throughout the development of European architecture. They are given more attention in treatises and textbooks [1-19]). The rhythm, meter, scale, symmetry, tectonics, statics, contrast, nuance, and identity performed the basic organizing functions (second group). Dynamics, asymmetry, geometric center, center of composition, emphasis, dominant (third group), although they were used in practice, but without special theoretical justification, occupying secondary places and being additional tools (they practically did not receive attention in treatises and textbooks [.. .])