The relation between intuition and cognition is probably the most complicated topic in the profession of architecture. While intuition is the insight which enables us to understand the building instantly, cognition forces us to engage our mind. Hence, one can say that every architectural creation expresses a combination of sorts between intuitive conception and a cerebral understanding of it, i.e. between expressions of the architects psyche and a rational analysis of the building’s purpose. The prevailing tendency to focus entirely on the rational aspects of design is considered erroneous by architect Danny Reuveni. In his opinion, one can skip over limitations of the thought by enhancing intuition.

 

In order to illustrate the difference between rational knowledge and intuitive thinking, we asked ten architects to illustrate the abstract concept of relaxation.  The interesting results show that although the basic understanding of a concept is similar, its realization is utterly different.

 

Distinction between ‘intuitive’ and ‘rational’ can also be interpreted as ‘inherent ideas’ in contrast with ‘acquired knowledge’. Can one infer from this that architects can forego professional education and rely on talent alone?

 

“I dont underestimate theoretical knowledge, yet I am confident that the process of creative intuition can be improved. My experience in the teaching milieu in the past ten years certainly verifies this. I believe that one can teach students to use their intuition to express their internal world, in order to examine the external world.

 

Can one expect someone to write a song before he has learned to speak?

 

“If we skip the question of the chicken and egg, my basic assumption is that cerebral thinking, by virtue of its boundaries, can suppress the ability to create. Associations, sensations and feelings, which are the core of creativity, have no limitations.

 

There is a fundamental difference between art per se, and architecture, whose purpose is to order space, though it clearly incorporates artistic aspects. In other words, the order in architecture is reversed; the 'why' - the purpose of a building, comes before the 'how' - the building itself.

 

“I agree with you, basically, although I see things differently. In my opinion, there is no difference between architecture, sculpting or selling tomatoes in the market. In all cases, we speak of doing something for a cause, creative or not, the 'how' serving the 'why'.

 

Lets focus on architecture. What parts of the building do you think express the objective knowledge necessary to define the 'why', and what parts of the 'how' are subjective?

 

“I think the best way to answer that question is to recall architects from the fifties and sixties who searched for rational solutions to correct problems that had been caused by rational architecture. Eventually, no system solved the problem, and the answer came from several architects who disengaged from the rational paradigm. Each created his personal and local intuitive version of architecture that finally managed to break through the rational code.

 

The process you describe is reminiscent of the two basic principles of every evolutionary system: ‘random mutation’ and ‘natural selection’. However, it is necessary to remember that this process does not filter out surplus characteristics which neither add to, nor diminish, the ability of the organism to survive. How can one identify the parts of the building that are not necessary for its “survival”? For instance, we assume that reading spaces in libraries should not be open to views so as to minimize visual stimulus, while resting areas should face views in order to refresh the mind. How do you teach a student, who is not versed in library planning, to sieve through all the objective information from a building which also carries subjective implementations?

 

“I think that every thing that can be described or quantified is objective information, e.g. - quantity, size, proportion, form and materials. All the rest is abstract, and therefore open to subjective interpretation.

 

Let me sharpen the question: what do you do with subjective information embedded in a building which expresses, for example, the mood of an architect whose wife threw him out while he was planning a library? I mean - all the emotional baggage that distinguishes one interpretation of a concept from another.

 

“That is, of course, more difficult to describe, because architectural expression of abstract terms like ‘imbalance’, ‘disquiet’ or ‘relaxation’ are measured in terms of quality. However, this is precisely how I address my students: to turn abstract qualities into quantifiable information, such as color, material, proportion, texture, shape and space.

 

But the students interpretation remains subjective. What is the benefit of such rationalization if at the end we still remain with subjective information?

 

“The intention is not to rationalize information, but to objectify it, so I have no problems with the subjective interpretation of a student, as that is the way to lever creative design. I believe that intuitive expression and the use of association are crucial in enabling the student to disengage from objective knowledge, precisely by using a lack of knowledge, and the coincidental to break through the boundaries of logic. Such a process enables the student to enrich objective requirements with subjective contents.

 

Its not easy to be a practical engineer nowadays...

 

“True, but I see amazing results, and I am sorry to see graduates employed as ‘computer operators’. The major problem is that their status prevents them from continuing their education and becoming better professionals.

 

Dont you think that it is logical for architects to deal with architecture, and for practical engineers to adhere to the technical aspects? Does unification  of the professions not disrupt the principle of ‘division of labor’?

 

“The question is what is ‘practical engineering’. I don’t think that improving the level of an employee disrupts the division of labor. We should not place, within the workforce, restricted professionals. The problem is social and not professional, because the law allows them to plan buildings, without supplying them with the necessary tools.