Architektūros politika. Tarp politics ir policy

Abstract

Straipsnyje bandoma atsakyti į klausimą - kodėl rengiamas Lietuvos architektūros politikos 2014-2020 metmenų projektas nėra LAS ar LAR ideologinė platforma, bet yra LR aplinkos ministerijos rengiamos plėtros programos dalis. Apibrėžiama architektūros politikos samprata, aptariama architektūros vieta Lietuvos kultūrinėje tradicijoje. Konstatuojama, kad mokslininkai praktiškai nedalyvauja architektūros politikos metmenų rengime. To priežastis - klaidinga architektūrologijos samprata, kuri yra pateikta Lietuvos humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų strategijoje. Kokybišką architektūros politiką parengti trukdo neapibrėžta architektūros vieta bendroje šalies kultūros ir ūkio sistemoje bei neidentifikuota architektūrologų kompetencija. Bandoma išsiaiškinti realią padėtį, susijusią su architektūros politikos koncepcija ir jos realizavimo mechanizmu. Išvadose atsakoma į klausimą, kodėl architektūros diskursas transformavosi ir ar įmanoma konstruoti diskursą kultūros, o ne tik ūkinėmis dimensijomis?

There are two organizations that curate the field of architecture - the Union of Lithuanian Architects (LAS) and the Society of Lithuanian Architects (LAR). LAS is an independent and voluntary creative organization that unites certified architects having a higher education diploma in architecture. To some extent, it can be viewed as a trade union. LAR is an organization of professional self-governance of the country's certified architects, meaning that it is a purely vocational organization consisting of active architects. Logically, LAS and LAR should create an official discourse associated with the strategy, science and specific activity of architecture. Paradoxically, the aforementioned organizations hardly participate in building the national cultural tradition. The article defines the conception of architectural strategy and discusses the place of architecture in the educational tradition of Lithuania. Although the necessity for this kind of strategy is realised, it can be stated that there is no sufficient intellectual potential to prepare quality dimensions of an architectural strategy. The problem lies in that an architectural strategy is out of place in the overall system, meaning that it is not an ideological platform of LAS or LAR, but rather a part of a development program prepared by a completely different institution, the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. The goal of this article is to try to understand the real situation associated with the conception of architectural strategy and the mechanics of its implementation. A question that needs to be answered is why the discourse of architecture has transformed itself and whether it is possible to construct the discourse using not only economic, but also cultural dimensions. There is also another important question: who prepares the concept and dimensions of architectural strategy? Inexplicably, barely any representatives of architectural science participate in the preparation of this type of document. It includes doctoral supervisors, members of scientific commissions, editorial boards of scientific magazines and many more. Also, it would include whoever is responsible for the process of architectural studies and the preparation of the fields and degrees of study. In this way, the fundamental systematic relation between science, study and practical activity is violated. The standards of theoretical thinking and theoretical models are frequently used as an argument in landscaping. The conception of landscaping lies between the socio-economic development, natural and social sciences, creation (architecture) and cognition of reality (gnoseology). This scheme/model does not have a place for urban spatial dimensions or things called genius loci. In this case, it is possible to discuss a strategy that can be understood in two ways - 1) a course of action determined by the government (politics - decision-making); 2) any course of action, which is considered useful or purposeful (policy - decision implementation). There is no readiness to prepare the dimensions of an architectural strategy in Lithuania for 2014-2020. There is no vocabulary of architectural and urban terms, no law on architecture or urban code. A conclusion in the discussions on what an architectural strategy is and a consensus on essential things, such as how to understand if a document is of high quality, has not been reached. LAS and LAR discuss architecture in general terms, even though there should be a separation between architecture as a phenomenon (part of culture) and architecture as a process of designing buildings. In order to prepare the dimensions of the Lithuanian architectural strategy, a competent workgroup with certain authorizations, work regulation and funding has to be formed. It should have a clearly defined final result, indicators of its quality, evaluation experts etc. Scientists should play the main role in this process, although not without a condition - they have to be competent representatives of architectural science rather than art critics or people flaunting academic degrees and university positions. Currently, the formation of such a workgroup and quality work conditions is the primary task.