Krisarion as a Conceptual Tool for the Tectonic Inquiry of Crisis in Architectural Epistemology

Abstract

Throughout history, societies have encountered numerous crises—including economic, ecological, political, warfare, and pandemics—that frequently intersect with architecture. These crises impose challenges and present new opportunities, necessitating a reexamination of architectural theory and practice. Architecture is compelled to navigate both external pressures of societal crises and internal epistemological dilemmas within its disciplinary framework, fostering innovative interpretative models. This study reconceptualizes crises as alternative analytical tools that advance architectural epistemology by adopting the metaphor of kriserion, a noun derived from the Greek language that meets the meaning of the word sieve in modern English language, drawn from the etymological origins of the term crisis, to investigate the production of architectural episteme. Focusing on tectonic theory, the research employs content and discourse analyses to scrutinize a corpus of texts, thereby identifying a selection representative of each sieve (kriserion) within this domain. The investigation engages with seminal works by figures such as C. Bötticher, G. Semper, E. Sekler, K. Frampton, M. Frascari, V. Gregotti, P. H. Kirkegaard, and I. K. Andersson, whose contributions have shaped the discourse on architectural tectonics. By offering a perspective on crisis as a tool in architectural epistemic production and introducing the crisis–tectonic intersection, this study demonstrates how architectural epistemology evolves from dichotomies to relationships and opens possibilities for interpretations.

1. Introduction

1.1. Literature Review on Crisis

Architecture inherently embraces crises, which underpin its praxis and epistemology. This paper examines how the concept of crisis is addressed within architecture’s epistemic domain and how its potential—despite negative connotations—can be interpreted through a tectonically grounded approach. In this context, a review of the literature reveals that studies exclusively addressing the concept of crisis are structured around two principal approaches. The first views crisis as a performative language that not only identifies and solves crises but also constructs narrative explanations of their causes and remedies [1]. The second approach, which is the focus of this study, treats crisis as a formal or conceptual phenomenon. Here, the emphasis is on uncovering the origins, meanings, and linguistic functions of crisis as a conceptual tool [2,3,4,5].

Following the second approach, this discussion adopts a metaphorical perspective rather than a merely descriptive or analytical one. Koselleck notes that since the nineteenth century, the term “crisis” has experienced an expansive quantitative growth in its meanings [6]. The concept has been historically linked with modernity, revolution, avant-garde, paradigms, and critique—largely due to its etymological roots. Critiques arise precisely because of the term’s ambiguity, urging greater clarity regarding its functional role as a concept [7,8,9,10]. Consequently, crisis should not be seen simply as a phenomenon waiting for understanding but as a paradigmatic tool that merits critical examination rather than serving as a mere instrument of legitimation [1].

Typically, treating crisis as an immediately comprehensible object provides an ontological starting point that leads to theoretical or historical accounts of crisis. Although calling for research and theory in times of crisis is both pragmatic and logical, discussions often focus on narrative constructions about causes, symptoms, and solutions, thereby overlooking the process by which crisis discourse itself is constructed [3]. When one questions the conceptual dimensions of crisis, it is typically to render it operational; that is, to redefine an existing crisis by exploring how its paradigm functions.

The text then continues to explore how crisis interrelates with modernity, as well as modern and postmodern processes, and how these interactions can be conceptualized within the realms of architecture and philosophy. Koselleck posits that modernity is inherently a discourse of crisis, fundamentally redefining the term as a result of emerging historical consciousness or a new philosophy of history [7]. Bordoni further argues that postmodernity marks the culmination of modernity’s crisis. Bauman, in supporting Bordoni’s claim, suggests that the crises of modernism and postmodernism are intertwined, representing a continuous process of transition rather than a simple rupture [11] (p. 110). Bauman underscores the significance of the fragmentation, deconstruction, and eventual destruction of modernist works—a process that began with architecture—illustrating a shift toward what he terms “liquid modernity”, which favors flexibility and innovation over rigid order [11] (p. 111).

Bordoni’s positive reinterpretation of crisis is particularly significant here. He contends that crisis has not always borne a negative connotation; historically, it has often been used to denote necessary transitional phases that pave the way for improvement. Thus, crisis may represent not a state of despair but rather a passage to growth, a trigger for change, and a threshold to new opportunities and creative outcomes.

Hay distinguishes failure from crisis, arguing that failure, while establishing the conditions for a crisis, is insufficient on its own to evoke the broader perceptions and discourses that define a crisis [12] (p. 64). Similarly, Tafuri describes moments of crisis in architecture as junctures where the discipline’s capacity for recall fails, thereby demanding that architecture reflect upon the processes behind these failures and transform them into critique [13]. Hays further notes that by the 1970s, modernity was reduced to the remnants of an irretrievable past and an unattainable future—an acknowledgment of a profound architectural crisis [13]. Historical crises in architecture have been influenced by pandemics, wars, and economic fluctuations, which have in turn guided the evolution of urban forms and architectural practices. To fully grasp these dynamics, it is instructive to trace the evolution of modern architecture from the nineteenth century, examining how tectonic theory emerged and how shifts in production modes and social orders demanded epistemic changes.

The term “modern architecture” emerged in the late nineteenth century to describe buildings that, despite their diverse manifestations and intellectual backgrounds, shared common attitudes and formal characteristics. The intellectual and formal evolution of modern architecture was marked by a departure from historical forms, the adoption of new materials and construction techniques, and the formulation of a contemporary architectural language. As the twentieth century unfolded, movements such as the Werkbund and Bauhaus crystallized these ideas through manifestos, design products, and declarations. In this context, examining the sources of crisis within manifestos—particularly through the lens of Corbusier’s work—is instructive. In “Towards a New Architecture”, Corbusier [14] explores industrial production-based solutions to social and economic challenges. His vision of a universal design approach, epitomized by the “Modulor”, sought not only to revolutionize architecture but also to standardize mechanical design processes [15].

Debates about the origins of modern architecture persist. Giedion interprets modernism as an expression of the Zeitgeist, with earlier developments serving merely as precursors to its eventual emergence [16]. Pevsner, on the other hand, locates the modern period between William Morris and Walter Gropius [17]. Other historians, such as Frampton, trace modernity’s critical developments back to the mid-eighteenth century, aligning the rise of modern architecture with the Enlightenment’s positivist rationality and technological progress [18]. Vidler similarly seeks the historical roots of modernity, suggesting that modernism is perpetually engaged in a process of reinvention [19]. Since the 1950s, the crises incited by modernism have prompted diverse interpretations, leading to proposals for alternatives or critical modernities across fields such as literature and art. Barthes, for example, argued that the authority of the author had diminished, positioning the reader’s interpretation as paramount [20]. Eco supports the postmodern elevation of reader interpretation [21]. In architecture, Venturi’s “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” exemplifies this shift: he criticizes the rigid, simplistic language of modern architecture in favor of complexity, distortion, ambiguity, and contradiction [22]. Such postmodern approaches not only critique the crises of modern architecture but also propose new pathways by reinterpreting or even exploiting these crises. Vidler’s idea of re-centering the city as the new typological root, for instance, reflects an attempt to harness the crisis inherent in both historical typologies—those of the Renaissance and Enlightenment—and modernist machine ideals [23].

From a contemporary standpoint, Brott underscores the multi-dimensional nature of crisis in iconic architecture by examining modern and postmodern structures [24]. He posits that iconic architecture functions not merely as an aesthetic style but as a sharp critique of dominant capitalist and modernist systems. Through “false immediacy”, the iconic image projects a superficial reality while masking deeper social, economic, and ideological contradictions, thereby reinforcing modernity’s crisis [24]. Influenced by technology and media, modern architecture thus evolves from a purely functional or aesthetic vehicle into a transformative arena, exposing social inequalities and cultural tensions. The literature further stresses that the crisis of modern architecture is deeply intertwined with capitalist production, technological advances, and ideological paradoxes, underscoring how critical perspectives reshape architectural discourse. Collectively, these diverse perspectives highlight how crisis has been variously depicted within architectural discourse.

In philosophy, crisis also occupies a prominent role. Phenomenological inquiries by Heidegger, Husserl, Nietzsche, Derrida, and others have all grappled with the notion of a perpetual crisis. Husserl, for instance, argues that the crisis emerged from neglecting the foundations of rationalism; he sees it as a crisis of meaning precipitated by the reduction of phenomena to mere natural or historical facts and mathematical formulas [25,26]. Heidegger, meanwhile, conceptualizes crisis as one of possibilities—where subjective acts are constricted by a narrowed domain, producing what he terms an “action crisis” [26,27]. Şan emphasizes that for Heidegger, crisis is both transcendent and immanent; in “Being and Time”, the crisis is not an external disturbance but an inherent aspect of failing to grasp the mystery of Being, which he equates with truth (alētheia) [28]. Megill, in “Prophets of Extremity”, explores the interpretations of crisis by four philosophers. For Nietzsche, the death of God epitomizes crisis, while for Foucault, the traditional historiographical model is upended in favor of writing contemporary history—a shift that transforms humanity’s epistemic status [29]. Derrida, whose work is fundamentally rooted in destabilizing fixed foundations, constructs crisis situations by removing any external grounding from a given situation [29].

It is observed that the phenomenon of crisis appears in the literature either implicitly or explicitly across different contexts (

Table 1. Classification of theories and key references on concept of crisis.

Categories	Characteristics	Evaluation	References
First Approach [Crisis]	As a performative language.	It not only identifies and solves crises but also constructs narrative explanations of their causes and remedies. Political, ecological, economic…	[1]
Second Approach [Crisis]	As a formal or conceptual phenomenon.	Its emphasis is on uncovering the origins, meanings, and linguistic functions of crisis as a conceptual tool. In this approach, this discussion adopts a metaphorical perspective rather than a merely descriptive or analytical one.	[2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
Relation A [Crisis and Philosophy]	This group examines crisis in philosophy, highlighting its treatment by Heidegger, Husserl, Nietzsche, Derrida, Barthes, and Eco.	Although each thinker examines crisis from distinct perspectives—scientific rationality, value systems, language, meaning, Being…—the phenomenon is seen as an opportunity to initiate new beginnings, establish alternative frameworks, or reexamine foundational questions.	[25,26,27,28,29]
Relation B [Crisis and Architecture]	The grounds of the crisis’ relation to modernity, and to modern and postmodern processes.	This section explores modern architecture born of epistemic shifts and rethinks modernism amid crisis. Since the 1950s, reinterpretations of modernity’s crises have produced modernisms and postmodern approaches that critique or offer alternatives, while recent views highlight how architectural crisis intertwines with capitalist production, technological change, and ideological paradoxes.	[7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]

). A review of the literature reveals that the concept of crisis is approached with a critical perspective within architectural epistemology, particularly on the grounds of modern and postmodern architecture, and is discussed as a performative language in line with the primary approach inherent to the field of architecture. In other words, crisis tends to be analyzed by generating evidence that points to solutions or lessons, as well as by providing explanations concerning its causes and symptoms. However, within the framework of architectural epistemology, the concept of crisis is not encountered in its secondary approach content [as a formal or conceptual phenomenon]. At this point, the contribution of this study is to fill the gap in the literature by developing a reading method based on the formal, conceptual, and semantic content of the crisis concept, thereby advancing architectural epistemology. It is anticipated that the analogical perspective developed regarding this concept in the field of architecture will unveil various potentials both from a discursive perspective and in practical applications, thus enabling alternative interpretations within the discipline.

1.2. Research Objectives and Inquiries

The aim of this study is to examine crisis from a conceptual and analogical standpoint via architectural epistemics and to make visible the possibilities that arise when applying these perspectives to architectural epistemics built on the concept of tectonics. In particular, the study investigates how crisis can serve as a catalyst for rethinking architectural design processes and theoretical frameworks by stimulating new design methodologies, encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration, and fostering innovative material practices. This endeavor is crucial not only for revealing the breadth of the tectonic concept but also for clarifying the evolution of architectural epistemology by exploring how crises can disrupt established paradigms and open pathways for both theoretical and practical reconfigurations in architecture. Drawing on the sieve analogy linked to the etymological roots of crisis, the article approaches the epistemology written around tectonics by means of these sieves, thereby making visible, at the crisis–tectonic intersection, an architectural epistemology production that shifts from more dichotomous structures to more open relations. It is important to consider how the discipline of architecture will address the notion of crisis within its own epistemic domain and how, despite the predominantly negative connotation it bears, crisis might present new potentials for architecture (Figure 1).

Inquiries and Hypotheses:

• What does the notion of crisis signify in architecture, and why is it relevant?

For something new to emerge, one must break from a situation’s absoluteness and transcendence; in that sense, crisis is understood as a means for escaping transcendence and producing new discourses, a phenomenon the article treats as beneficial within the context of architectural epistemology.

• How does the absence of crisis situations affect the architectural discourse?

Without crisis situations, everything in architecture becomes uniform; genuinely new discourses emerge only in times of crisis, and from past to present, many subjects—explicitly or implicitly—depict crisis situations and build discourses upon them.

• Could a discussion at the crisis–tectonic intersection, embracing a critical and creative standpoint in architecture, serve as a tool to interpret the content and evolution of architectural knowledge?

Architecture ensures its praxis through crises. As a multifaceted discipline obliged to respond to the epistemic regimes in which it resides—often constructing itself while simultaneously challenging itself—architecture exhibits the distinct realities of crises, demonstrating that they can serve as a tool in the production of architectural epistemology. In a reading strategy positing that history does not evolve linearly but rather in a rhizomatic manner, acknowledging the significance of crisis nodes is essential (Figure 2).

1.3. Scope of Research

This article is organized into five main sections—“Introduction”, “Materials and Methods”, “Tectonic Krisarion in Architectural Epistemology: An Intertextual Topography of Architecture Episteme”, “Results”, and “Discussion”—along with their subsections. The “Introduction” presents the theoretical foundation of the research problem, expounding on crisis and architecture. It reviews two principal approaches to crisis in the literature, subsequently examining the potential ways of reading crisis in architecture. Moreover, this section states the objectives, inquiries, and hypotheses of the study.

The “Materials and Methods” section is divided into two main subsections: “Analogical Approach: Crisis” and “Sieval Approach: Tectonic”. In “Analogical Approach: Crisis”, the article elaborates upon the etymological roots of crisis, introduced in the Introduction, offering an analogy for the concept. By linking crisis etymologically to the term sieve, it constructs a conceptual analogy. “Sieval Approach: Tectonic” employs these sieves to discuss the concept of tectonics. In this subsection, primary materials include the texts of leading authorities who have contributed to shaping tectonic theory. A discourse and content analysis is conducted on these texts, providing the foundation for the next section, “Tectonic Krisarion in Architectural Epistemology: An Intertextual Topography of Architecture Episteme”, in which each sieve is discussed in detail.

In the “Results” section, it is anticipated that the core argument of the study will be sufficiently substantiated, showing how the concept of crisis can become a tool in the production of architectural epistemology and, by means of the intersection between crisis and tectonics, how it can render that epistemology visible—particularly through the different ways in which the notion of tectonics has been interpreted through history. Moreover, deeper categorizations around these intersections are expected to emerge. In the “Discussion” section, the findings will be contextualized within the broader question of whether today’s architectural epistemology is constructed through dichotomies or more plural relationships. The limitations of the research are defined, and directions for future studies are offered. The framework of this research process, meticulously delineated and structured, is comprehensively illustrated in the visual diagram presented below (Figure 3). This diagram provides a detailed overview of the systematic approach adopted in the study, highlighting the key components and their interrelationships.

2. Materials and Methods

The research materials are structured in two interconnected domains, each serving as a prerequisite to the other. The first involves the etymological foundation of the concept of crisis to develop a metaphorical approach. The second concerns the epistemic domain of the concept of tectonics, which various thinkers have theorized from the nineteenth century to the present. The temporal scope of the referenced works extends from the early nineteenth century to the present. The texts selected here are authored by leading authorities who have contributed to the formulation and advancement of this theory.

Table 2. Classification of theories and key references within the present study.

Categories	Characteristics	Evaluation	References
Krisaria 1: Techne	Techne in ancient Greek represents the unity of art and craft. Heidegger defines it as a form of the logos of making. It covers practical skills and knowledge in various fields such as carpentry, sculpture, and architecture.	The ancient meaning of Techne is open to diverse interpretations in modern architecture.	[30,31,32,33]
Krisaria 2: Aesthetics–Purpose [-iveness]	This group shapes architectural expressions. Kant’s ’purposiveness without purpose’ serves as a philosophical foundation for architectural design.	Kant’s aesthetic theory provides a foundational framework for modern and postmodern architectural critiques.	[34,35,36,37,38,39]
Krisaria 3: Core-Form–Art-Form	Bötticher’s concepts of core-form and art-form define the structural and decorative components of architecture.	The dichotomy between core-form and art-form helps evaluate the balance between structure and aesthetics in architecture.	[34,40,41]
Krisaria 4: Anatomy (Components and Organization)	Semper’s four elements—hearth, roof, mound, and enclosure—serve as the basis for understanding architectural components and organization.	Organizational structures based on the building’s components can be assessed for spatial coherence and integrity.	[34,42,43,44,45,46,47]
Krisaria 5: Construction–Structure	Semper and Sekler distinguish between structure, construction, and tectonics, exploring their functional and aesthetic relationships in architectural design.	Construction and structural concepts integrate functionality and aesthetics in architectural design.	[42,43,44,46]
Krisaria 6: Material	Material selection plays a crucial role in structural systems and aesthetic expression. New technologies expand the potential for innovative designs.	The role of materials in structural systems and their contribution to aesthetic expression is crucial in evaluating architectural designs.	[41,43,44,48]
Krisaria 7: Ornamentation–Cladding	Semper’s Bekleidung theory emphasizes the symbolic role of cladding and its cultural references, tracing its origins to textile traditions.	The relationship between ornamentation and structure offers cultural and aesthetic interpretations in architecture.	[49,50,51,52]
Krisaria 8: Detail–Joint–Assembly	Tectonic concepts are linked with detail, joint, and assembly processes, highlighting structural integrity and visual expression.	Details and assembly processes have a direct impact on the durability and aesthetic value of buildings.	[30,31,32,33]
Krisaria 9: Atectonic–Ontology– Poetics–Digital Tectonics	Atectonic negates the tectonic, while ontological approaches investigate the existential, spatial, and temporal dimensions of architecture. Poetics highlight artistic and aesthetic values, and digital tectonics focus on parametric design and digital fabrication.	Atectonic design enables lightweight structures beyond norms, ontological approaches deepen spatial philosophy, poetics foster artistic connections, and digital tectonics offer flexible, innovative solutions.	[34,35,36,37,38,39]

was compiled on the basis of the references these figures employed in constructing their theoretical perspectives on tectonics. These foundational references were evaluated in terms of the theory’s range of influence, as well as the originality and depth of their approaches to the issue. Consequently, an intertextual topography of architectural episteme has been constructed through the lens of tectonics, and its details have been examined in depth.

The classification of theories was based on clearly defined criteria reflecting their relevance to tectonic epistemology. The selected frameworks address core dimensions of architectural discourse—namely, structure, aesthetics, and construction—while also offering significant historical and methodological contributions. For example, the concept of techne (ancient Greek practical knowledge), Bötticher’s core-form–art-form dichotomy, and Semper’s Bekleidung theory were evaluated for their ability to illuminate the interplay between crisis and tectonics. Theories that met these criteria were systematically categorized (see Table 2), whereas those that did not—such as purely digital or parametric approaches that focus solely on contemporary form-generating techniques without a historical or theoretical engagement with tectonic theory—were excluded, as they fail to emphasize the historical, epistemic, and critical dimensions necessary for revealing the crisis–tectonic interaction.

The first approach establishes an original perspective on crisis, while the second approach clarifies the notion of tectonics comprehensively. It provides a historical and conceptual/sieval outline tracking the evolution of tectonic theory from the nineteenth century to the present, situating these theories within a broad historical and theoretical framework.

2.1. Analogical Approach: Crisis

The word “crisis” derives from an ancient Greek term encompassing concepts such as judgment, decision making, turning point, selection, distinction, competition, criterion, critique, and critical relevance [6]. Etymologically, it stems from the Greek root krin-, forming the basis of “critique”, “crisis”, and “criterion” [6,53,54]. The root krin- is Proto-Indo-European in origin, deriving from krei-, meaning to sift, separate, decide, or choose. In Greek, the verb κρίνω (krínō) directly corresponds to these actions. From this root and verb, we obtain the following: κρίσις (krisis): crisis (a turning point, a moment of decision), κριτής (kritēs): judge, κριτήριον (kritērion): criterion, measure, κριτικός (kritikos): evaluating, critical (the source of critique and critical), and κρισάριον (krisarion): “sieve”, referring both physically and metaphorically to a filtering or sifting function.

Kρíσις (krisis) indicates the moment at which a decision is about to be made, where the future remains open, and two alternative paths reveal themselves [6]. For the ancient Greeks, κρíσις, tied to human perception and requiring an observer, encompassed both a real, material, or objective crisis and its subjective evaluation or critique [1]. Koselleck similarly stresses that crisis refers not to objective conditions but to the performance of a subject’s evaluations and judgments [7]. Rooted in the word’s etymology, crisis involves a moment in which a choice or distinction must be made or a decision must be reached, putting the subject and object in confrontation and thereby surfacing a dichotomous perspective. If something is in crisis, it implies suspending ordinary understanding and deviating from the usual thinking or action routines [4]. A crisis necessitates critique: in engaging in critique, we observe problematic or deficient objects, identifying them as being in crisis. According to De Man, all genuine critiques occur in a crisis mode, a mode that compels us to question a scenario, our prior knowledge, or our expectations, bringing us closer to something previously unnoticed [55] (p. 8). Crisis implies that present circumstances could be otherwise and, moreover, that there may be a more correct, moral, or authentic alternative [3]. Conversely, critique functions by identifying a crisis in the world and clarifying that the current version of reality is neither inevitable nor desirable. In other words, crises decide whether something continues or not, a process requiring subjective evaluation, selection, filtering, and sifting.

This article constructs a metaphorical network based on a common etymological root—encompassing sieving, critique, lack of criteria, crisis, and the possibility of critique, as seen in Figure 4—and employs the term “krisarion” both as a literal object and as an analogical device. Here, “krisarion” refers not only to an action (sieving) but also to a concrete object, a usage that draws on its ancient Greek meaning: rendered as κρισάριον (krisárion), it literally signifies “sieve” and connotes the act of separating or sifting. As a derivative of the verb krínō, which embodies actions such as sifting, separating, and deciding, the term “krisarion” encapsulates an abstract instrument that performs a function of separation or filtration; this function, in turn, parallels the conceptual role of a “criterion”, that is, the guiding principle or framework employed in the evaluative process, and it further extends to the notion of “crisis”, defined as the condition in which the sieve—symbolizing established criteria—breaks or ceases to function, thereby precluding the possibility of critique. Moreover, the etymological depth of the term reinforces its dual significance: while initial consideration was given to English equivalents like “sieve” or “filter”, these alternatives were deemed insufficient for conveying the multifaceted processes of sifting and critical differentiation inherent in the concept, leading to a deliberate preference for “krisarion” in order to emphasize the intimate connection between the act of separation and the subsequent confrontation or collision between subject and object. When the act of sifting is disrupted or when we begin to question how or why we surpass—or fail to surpass—certain parameters, the sieve is placed on an immanent trajectory; if it is fractured, its existence is interrogated and subjected to critique, prompting inquiries aimed at comprehending or legitimizing the sieve itself, and at that critical juncture—this dichotomous moment, or crisis—the sieve is either absent or supplanted by an alternative sieve or a new set of criteria.

2.2. Sieval Approach: Tectonic

As a second approach, the architectural epistemics written on tectonics are examined through the aforementioned sieves, establishing the intersection of crisis and tectonics; thus, tectonics offers an intersection for crisis in producing architectural epistemology. The concept of tectonics is adopted here because it encompasses space, function, symbolism, construction, representation, material, aesthetics, and ontology, along with the intricate relationships among these, facilitating a comprehensive reading of architectural epistemology. Indeed, there is no single definition in the literature that fully captures the meaning of tectonics; rather, one finds a range of sieves—krisarion [kriseria]—through which the term has been studied, or in other words, for which an epistemic framework has been proposed over time. In this context, it is noteworthy that when used in the plural form, the ancient Greek term κρισάριον (krisarion) transforms into κρισάρια (krisaria), paralleling the morphological shift observed in κριτήριον (kritērion) to κριτήρια (kritēria), the latter commonly rendered in English as “criterion” and “criteria”; this shift not only provides an etymological foundation but also offers conceptual clarity in discussions that emphasize processes of critical filtering or selection.

From this vantage point, it appears that the theoretical transformation of tectonics into an episteme emerged at a moment of crisis. H. Hübsch, C. Bötticher, and G. Semper—nineteenth-century thinkers concerned with the alignment or misalignment of art and construction—responded to what they perceived as a crisis, wherein the former rococo and baroque periods, with their heavy emphasis on ornamentation, had established a system of norms that, from their perspective, ceased to function effectively, thus necessitating a fresh approach. Whether one interprets these issues through any concept, through the changing or disappearance of sieves, or through the introduction of new sieves over time, such moments of transition are aptly described as crisis–tectonic intersections. Changes in norms, which expose or explore the ontological structures within different sieves, or that simply aim to reveal them, represent significant steps toward the production of new epistemology. Accordingly, each sieve regarding tectonic epistemology is tied to a specific selection of texts—those of C. Bötticher, G. Semper, E. Sekler, K. Frampton, M. Frascari, V. Gregotti, P. H. Kirkegaard, and I. K. Andersson—which are considered pivotal in forming and developing the theory of architectural tectonics (Figure 5).

3. Tectonic Krisarion in Architectural Epistemology: An Intertextual Topography of Architecture Episteme

3.1. Krisaria 1: Techne

“Tectonic” derives from the ancient Greek word “tekton”, meaning carpenter or builder. Over time, the term broadened to refer to the tools, processes, and end products of constructing a building. Yet, as Frampton observes, the earliest poetic connotations of the term emerged when the ancient Greek poet Sappho used the term tekton to denote both artisan and poet [30]. The word “tectonic” is also etymologically linked to techne, “technique”, and “technology”. In ancient Greek, techne represents an ontic totality wherein art and craft are not separated; it encompasses not only practical skill but also the knowledge entailed in producing objects in carpentry, sculpture, music, poetry, medicine, agriculture, and architecture [31]. According to Meagher, techne is transforming something that it is not into something that it becomes; engaging in an act that does not follow its own inherent aims but rather involves conscious intervention [32]. Techne can be described as the deliberate transformation or reworking of material into something it was not but that we will it to become.

Heidegger transcends the superficial meaning of techne, suggesting it denotes a type of knowledge (the logos of making) [33]. In his view, conflating art and craft as a single concept is somewhat acceptable in Greek practice yet remains shallow because techne is neither purely art nor craft nor “technique” in today’s sense, nor merely a performative practice [33]. In brief, he indicates that the essence of architectural tectonics emerges from techne and that techne is a mode of bringing forth. Even though the notion of tectonics seems to change over time (often explored via a dichotomous paradigm), the fundamental premise is that the concept continues to merge structure, construction, aesthetics, poetics, material, and meaning, representing an ontic whole. This first sieve, therefore, highlights the wholeness of the tectonic concept through techne.

3.2. Krisaria 2: Aesthetic–Purpose [-iveness]

Tectonic, as a concept, first emerged in the nineteenth century, influenced by the dynamics of the period. In mid-1800s Europe—particularly in Germany—tectonic theory developed as a reaction to contemporary architectural practices. Neoclassicism, which revived ancient Greek and Roman styles via extensive study and research, stood against previous ornament-heavy styles. Tectonic theory, arising in this environment, pivots on the notion that the structure beneath a building’s surface–cladding–ornamentation is at least as significant as its outer layer or ornamentation. Essentially, it proposes giving external expression to the underlying structural systems and mechanics that shape the built environment.

During this era, Germany offered a rich environment for architectural discourse. The first German architecture school, Bauakademie (1799), was established in Berlin and later led to the founding of similar schools in Dresden, Stuttgart, and Munich, fostering critical academic dialogue [34]. German intellectual currents in both architecture and non-architectural domains heavily influenced that time, and figures like Bötticher, Schinkel, and Semper in this academy produced the foundations of tectonic theory. Before delving into Bötticher’s writings (who coined the term tectonics first), it is necessary to address the aesthetic–purpose [-iveness] concept that shaped the origins of this sieve.

To contextualize these architectural discourses, it is helpful first to consider Kant, who laid an extensive foundation for aesthetics. In “Critique of the Power of Judgment”, Kant [35] explores judgment, taste, and aesthetics from the standpoint of purposiveness—specifically purposiveness without a (determinate) purpose—and identifies a clear distinction between the aesthetic of a work of art that has no greater aim (i.e., so-called “free beauty”) and that of an object or building created for a certain purpose (i.e., “adherent beauty”). This discussion resonates with the question of whether architecture belongs to the category of “free beauty” or “adherent beauty”, considering that architecture must be subject to mechanical rules and structural systems, thus forging the conceptual link that leads to the term tectonics in the nineteenth century.

Before “tectonic” was coined (1828), and under the influence of Kant’s aesthetic theory, Hübsch [38] advocated implementing structural rationalism to adopt the purposive essence of architectural expression entirely through structural systems—an approach that, according to Schwartz [34], signaled the modern movement of the next century—while artists and thinkers such as Schelling and Schopenhauer sought to incorporate the purposeless essence of art into architectural practice in different ways [36,37,38].

Schelling distinguishes purposiveness into subjective and objective; the former refers to the building’s form fulfilling its primary role and thereby manifesting its intended function—essentially emphasizing the structure’s intrinsic purpose. By contrast, the latter concerns the building’s appearance, which is set apart from its structural essence. According to Schelling, ornamentation or decorative elements should be derived from nature, reflecting an objective purposiveness that stands in dialogue with the natural world [36]. He proposes that one can derive such ornamental motifs by directly imitating simple plant forms, imitating more developed natural forms such as the human body, or reproducing nature’s higher laws using arithmetic and geometry. Schopenhauer shares a similar objective but bases his work on what he calls “Ideas”, such as gravity, harmony, the solidity of the building, the intrinsic properties of stone, and universal natural forces [37]. Schopenhauer notes that the key is to display the conflict between these forces as clearly as possible. Gravity constantly exerts a force on the building, while the building’s solidity and rigidity resist that force. This tension reveals architecture’s purely aesthetic aim for Schopenhauer. Consequently, each architectural component’s position, dimension, and shape are important, as removing one element might compromise the entire system [37]. Schopenhauer argues that the interplay between gravity and the rigidity or solidity of materials, along with each component’s precise carrying capacity, is crucial; architectural beauty emerges from this balanced conflict [37].

Drawing on the ideas of Schelling and Schopenhauer, the German architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel framed his architectural discourse around the notion of purposiveness, asserting that architecture fundamentally concerns building—an activity in which every element must be correct—and that any masking or concealment of the structure constitutes an error, since the true purpose lies in ensuring each component preserves its own aesthetic character while also contributing to the building’s overall unity, thereby underscoring the importance of integrative design elements [39]. Schinkel’s influence spread through the Berlin academy, shaping the trajectory of his students Bötticher and Semper, as they developed tectonic theory.

3.3. Krisaria 3: Core-Form–Art-Form

This sieve is based on the approach of Karl Bötticher, a German archaeologist who studied under Schinkel and is credited with introducing the concept of tectonics for the first time. In 1844, Bötticher published “Die Tektonik der Hellenen”, which quickly became a foundational architectural text in the Bauakademie [34]. Influenced by Schinkel, Bötticher believed that contemporary architecture should be designed according to principles and rules derived from ancient sources—especially Greek examples—and maintained that Greek architecture formed a well-articulated totality, while seeking a synthesis of the ontological status of a building (the structural mechanism) and the representative role of ornamentation [40]. For Bötticher, the ornamentation–cladding of a structure should not conceal the building; instead, the underlying structure must be expressed. He conceptualizes this system as Kernform (core-form), a mechanically essential system that is functional, structural, and enduring, thereby ensuring the building’s load-bearing reality. Each member of the core-form has a specific structural or architectural function mandated by technical requirements, reflecting Kant’s notion of purpose. Bötticher asserts that the core-form can adapt to future demands and innovations arising from technological progress or cultural influences, requiring both formal and tectonic creativity [41]. This belief played a pivotal role in the evolution of tectonic thought, and it is precisely this form of integration that Bötticher sought to realize. In his view, the element defined as art-form (Kunstform)—the covering layer of the building—should not obscure the underlying components; rather, as an ornament, it ought to visibly express the structural forces, principles, and physical manifestations beneath the surface [40]. The relationship between the mechanical role performed by an individual structural component in isolation and the degree of its connection to every other part of the overall form appears proportionate and harmonious to the eye, owing to analogous proportions and the formal articulation of its ornamentation. For example, a simple cylindrical column carries the gravitational load of the structure. However, if an ornament is added to the column’s capital such that it visibly animates the reception of this load, the column becomes an order [34].

In the relationship between core-form and art-form, the decisive force is the core-form. Stripped of ornamentation, it alone has the capacity to fulfill all building functions. This structural system is the heart of the building; ornamentation (art-form) is derived from that core-form and transforms a mere building into a work of fine art by evoking an ideal beauty—reminiscent of Greek forms [40]. While Bötticher admired Greek ornamentation, he also looked to Gothic structures for building technology, acknowledging that core-form could be drawn from the Gothic style, and decorative elements from the Hellenic. In this context, the primary critique of architectural epistemology emerges from its concept of tectonics, which is constructed within the dichotomy/crisis between the structural (ontological) reality within and the ornament (representational) exterior.

3.4. Krisaria 4: Anatomy [Components and Organization]

The fourth sieve, referred to here as “Anatomy”, introduces an approach that scrutinizes the concept of tectonics via its constituent components and organizational frameworks, and although the archaeologist–architect Semper—building upon Bötticher’s theory—acknowledges a distinction between the technical/structural framework and the symbolic layers, he ultimately departs from Bötticher by rooting these elements in a more primordial basis, namely the four elements, and thereby formulating the tectonic concept in terms of their interrelationships [42]. During this period, the archaeological excavations Semper conducted in Italy and Greece, together with the emerging field of anthropology at the time, guided him to analyze his work through what he saw as primordial elements. Influenced by anthropology, Semper examined not only built forms but all human artifacts, and diverged from previous studies by prioritizing ritual use and cultural expression rather than purely aesthetic considerations [34]. His anthropological inquiries during this time enabled him to develop principles concerning the origins of architecture. Semper maintained that enclosed spaces derived from the human need for shelter rather than from the act of construction itself, and in this vein, he formulated his renowned theory of “cladding” (Bekleidung), proposing that the advent of building occurred concurrently with the advent of textiles. Accordingly, he directed his research toward scrutinizing the relationship between the production of crafts and the making of architecture [42].

Whereas Bötticher sought the foundational principles within Greek architecture, Semper instead looked to a more primordial context that preceded it, employing the concept of the primitive hut as his point of departure. He disagreed with a misguided Hellenic approach that neglected the underlying roots that made Greek architecture possible, suggesting that genuine Greek architectural achievements stood on more fundamental material and cultural ground [43]. Schwarzer, supporting Semper’s view, states that archaeological research by Hirt concluded that the stone construction found in Greek architecture evolved from earlier wooden constructions [44]. Schwartz adds that this idea was not new, having been previously raised in the eighteenth century by Marc-Antoine Laugier in “An Essay on Architecture” [34,45]. Yet Frampton clarifies that while Semper’s position aligns with Hirt in attributing the origin of the Greek temple to timber-based forms, Semper does not entirely adopt Hirt’s reasoning; rather, he believed that what appeared as timber-like elements in Greek temples derived from structural features originally used for fastening textile canopies, turning them into ornamental references [46].

Though Bötticher and Semper both claim that the Greeks derived building principles from nature and that contemporary ornamentation ought to be inspired by Hellenic ideals, Bötticher does so from a more purely classical viewpoint, asserting that both structure and ornamentation should be drawn from nature-based Greek precedents. Semper, however, argues that symbolic ornamentation should not slavishly imitate nature but rather take inspiration from its underlying principles. He therefore explores more fundamental origins, such as primitive local architectures, as seen in Figure 6, identifying four basic elements based on his analysis of a Caribbean hut exhibited at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851 [42].

• Hearth—ceramics: The hearth represents the interior center of the building and its living space. For Semper, the hearth is the social and cultural core of architecture, the point where communal and familial interaction begins.
• Roof—carpentry: the roof signifies the upper covering of the building, protecting and unifying the structure.
• Mound—earthwork: the mound refers to the base or foundation, providing the building’s attachment to the ground.
• Enclosure—textile: the enclosure is the protective layer or walls, which Semper believed originated from textile-based partitions used in early ritual enclosures.

According to Semper, among the four components that constitute a shelter, two—namely, the mound and the roof—serve to protect against the earth and the sky. Semper regards the mound as the element that elevates the building for its protection, functioning as the locus of connection between the structure and the ground. The other significant component that envelops and delineates architectural space is the enclosure, which Semper argues evolved from the practice of draping fabric to partition spaces [42]. Consequently, he distinguishes between two distinct wall typologies: the Maurer and the Wand. The Wand is conceived as a light, curtain-like partition responsible for dividing space, thereby underpinning his notion of cladding, whereas the Maurer is characterized as a barrier—a protective element and an extension of the foundation—constructed through the accumulation or stacking of materials [42]. Drawing on his analysis of wall archetypes in Caribbean huts, Hvattum contends that Semper posits the original wall was not a solid construction of stone and wood (Maurer) but rather a primitive fence derived from the interweaving of twigs and reeds (Wand) [47]. For Semper, the lattice formed from twigs and reeds constitutes the very essence of the wall, as this woven wall encapsulates both the intrinsic material quality and the process of its manipulation, ultimately transforming into a structural element imbued with cultural expression—a notion upon which Semper’s tectonic theory is fundamentally predicated [42]. Both the mound and the enclosure serve to protect the hearth, with the hearth itself being an integrated component of the mound. Originally emerging as a simple fire used for warmth, the hearth expanded to symbolize the social or public realm and came to function as a catalyst for humanity’s imperative to construct shelter [34]. For Semper, the relationship between the nature of materials and the techniques of their production is of paramount importance, as the mound alludes to earthwork, the roof to carpentry, the enclosure to textile production, and the hearth to ceramic manufacture. Thus, Semper asserts that the purpose inherent in an artwork or an architectural product resides within its intrinsic essence [42]. The main critique on architectural epistemology here emerges with what Semper emphasizes—namely, that tectonics does not represent or symbolize an essence beyond itself, and is therefore inherently a cultural expression. Tectonics symbolizes solely its own structural nature; in other words, it represents the structural expression of space.

3.5. Krisaria 5: Construction–Structure

This sieve focuses on the content of tectonics in terms of construction and structure. It begins with Semper’s distinction between tectonic and stereotomic, then proceeds to Sekler’s interpretation of modern tectonic discourse in the mid-twentieth century, elucidating the relationship between construction, structure, and tectonics.

According to Semper, each architectural element is predicated upon the principles of either stereotomy or tectonics, contingent upon its structural function and the technical methodologies employed [42]. Stereotomy is conceptualized as the approach whereby stone or other rigid materials are meticulously cut and shaped to coalesce into a coherent structural system. This methodology is intimately associated with the art of stonemasonry and is predicated on the direct manipulation and transformation of material form. For Semper, both the mound and the hearth epitomize the embedded, nature-anchored aspects of a building and are thus grounded in stereotomic principles [42]. The mound, serving as the intermediary between the building and the ground, is inherently in direct contact with the earth and is therefore construed as an embedded structural component. In alignment with the stereotomic paradigm, the foundation is typically fashioned using durable materials such as stone or concrete, ensuring its seamless integration with the substrate. Conversely, the hearth is envisaged as the internal nucleus of the structure and the locus of social interaction; Semper interprets the hearth and its concomitant fire as emblematic of the genesis of communal life. The hearth, as an intrinsic, central element, is sculpted from stone and other enduring materials. Both these components are realized through the precise cutting and deliberate placement of natural materials, thereby affirming their reliance on the stereotomic concept. Their primary function is to establish a structure that is profoundly rooted in nature and integrally embedded within it.

In contrast, Semper delineates tectonics as the process through which architectural elements are interconnected to form a functionally and aesthetically coherent whole [42]. A central critique of architectural epistemology is revealed through the examination of how building components are assembled and the selection of materials and techniques, particularly within a tectonic framework that emphasizes assemblies, joints, and structural equilibrium. Semper associates the elements enclosure and roof with the tectonic paradigm because, while constituting the external envelope and the superstructure of a building, they are intrinsically more adaptable, connection-centric, and visually dynamic [42]. Enclosure defines the interface between the building and its external milieu through components such as walls, windows, and doors. From a tectonic perspective, the mode of interconnection among these elements, the synergistic functioning of materials, and the visual integration of the facade are of paramount importance. Likewise, the roofing system—through its materiality and connection details—ensures the robustness and durability of the building’s uppermost portion. Tectonically, the roof is constituted through a network of connections and joints, rendering it a critically significant element in terms of both structural integrity and aesthetic appeal. Semper contends that these dual approaches—the stereotomic method, which epitomizes a construction ethos characterized by massive, monolithic techniques (such as carving or piling), and the tectonic method, which signifies a light, modular system constructed through articulated joints—are foundational to the genesis of architectural forms in both their constructional and aesthetic dimensions [42].

In the mid-twentieth century, as tectonic theory underwent a process of semantic expansion, Sekler contributed to the discourse by delineating distinctions among the concepts of structure, construction, and tectonics [48]. Although each of these terms conveys a distinct connotation, they are examined as interrelated constituents within an integrated system. According to Sekler, structure denotes the load-bearing framework that ensures the physical stability of a building, adhering to principles of load distribution and spatial organization, and fundamentally concerns itself with the transmission of forces [48]. Construction, in contrast, pertains to the practical realization of the structure; it encompasses the construction process, the selection of materials, and the methodologies of assembly. For Sekler, construction represents the procedural enactment of the structural concept [48]. Tectonics is subsequently construed as the aesthetic manifestation of these constructional processes. It accentuates visual composition, the expressive qualities inherent in materiality, and the artistic arrangement of architectural elements—thus conveying an interpretive language that transcends mere physical assembly. For Sekler, tectonics is not solely concerned with the physical act of building but also with its mode of expression [48]. In synthesis, while structure encapsulates the physical and static principles underpinning a load-bearing system, construction explicates the procedural and technical aspects of its realization, and tectonics transforms this realization into an aesthetic expression. Through tectonics, an edifice can vividly articulate the intense, concentrated experience of reality—namely, the experiential potency of form—thereby allowing the abstract notion of structure to be materially and visually actualized through the processes of construction and tectonic expression [48]. Structure entails the establishment of a series of abstract principles or rules that are activated through construction, remaining independent of any specific material and thus permitting diverse realizations. Conversely, construction confers materiality upon the structural system; it involves the optimal synthesis and spatial arrangement of materials in accordance with predetermined structural principles. Sekler’s architectural paradigm likely evolved from Bötticher’s theoretical framework; Bötticher’s tectonic theory concentrates on the existence of a fundamental core-form, designated as the kernform, which undergirds a building. The kernform is mechanically indispensable—functional, structural, and enduring. While this core-form fulfills the role delineated in Sekler’s definition of structure, it simultaneously actualizes the built, load-bearing reality of the system.

3.6. Krisaria 6: Material

The sixth sieve explores how the internal and external expression of tectonic theory shifts according to the expanding array of materials enabled by technological innovation. Bötticher’s notion of a “core-form” evolves in tandem with advances in technology and with changing cultural demands or innovations [44]. Vallhonrat describes technological progress as a transformational tool, arguing that progress cannot occur without a unifying relationship between formal and tectonic creativity [41]. Though Bötticher acknowledges iron construction, he struggles to reconcile it fully with tectonic theory; he wants to integrate iron construction but faces challenges in achieving that [34]. Semper largely resists adopting iron construction, primarily because iron can carry the same loads as masonry at a fraction of the volume [43]. Considering himself a proponent of material purity, Semper believes one should not coerce one material to function as if it were another. For him, cheap industrial simulation of one material by another—via casting, stamping, or molding—undermines a building’s capacity to communicate symbolic meaning [46].

Contemporary fabrication techniques expand in scope, and new materials have the potential to alter both the structural essence and expression of the core-form. For Sekler, the choice of materials is crucial in shaping the structural system of a building [48]. Different materials require distinct load-bearing approaches: stone and concrete resist compression well and thus lend themselves to stereotomic structures, while steel and wood withstand tension and bending and allow for lighter, skeletal frames. Material also fundamentally determines factors of production—prefabrication, assembly, craftsmanship. Sekler’s theory underscores that details such as joints and assembly techniques hold critical significance. The main critique on architectural epistemology here emerges with what is revealed by the fact that, beyond its structural and functional role, material also influences the aesthetic narrative of architecture. It is not merely a functional component but also a contributor to architectural meaning [48].

3.7. Krisaria 7: Ornament–Cladding [Bekleidung]

This sieve extends from Bötticher and Semper’s dichotomy between the internal structural mechanism and the external expression of architecture (i.e., ornament or cladding), explaining how the meaning of the tectonic concept has evolved, including its modern architectural implications.

Semper’s primary contribution to the representational dimension of tectonics emerges from his theory of Bekleidung (cladding). While analyzing one of the four elements, enclosure, he concludes that the wall’s origin stems from weaving or textile [49]. For Semper, early walls were formed by weaving or braiding reeds, mats, or carpets as enclosures for events and rituals, and rather than being load-bearing, they functioned as boundaries or symbolic screens [49]. Over time, these woven forms metamorphosed into more permanent materials, such as stone or plaster, yet the weaving patterns survived as decorative motifs. Hence, Semper perceives the earliest role of the wall as a functional and symbolic enclosure rather than structural [49].

Semper maintains that ornament originates from purely functional necessity and in early woven enclosures, visible seams were a technical requirement, but as weaving motifs were transposed onto stone or plaster, they became purely decorative, retaining historical and cultural meaning [49]. Semper’s perspective forms a foundational basis for modernist critiques of decoration; in his view, ornamentation should not be relegated to a mere superficial decorative adjunct but must instead be regarded as an element that reflects the historical origins and cultural context of the built form. In this regard, Schinkel’s structurally based work—which minimized the use of ornamentation and excised historical referents from his designs—served as a precursor to Semper’s theoretical framework. Semper’s theory shaped modernist critiques of ornament, paving the way for architects such as Walter Gropius, Otto Wagner, and Adolf Loos, who advocated the reduction or elimination of ornament, yet retained Semper’s distinction between core and cladding. In discussing how surfaces and materials in modern architecture increasingly became transparent or permeable, Frampton links Semper’s Bekleidung theory to the dematerialization of architecture and the transformation of form through light [30]. In modern architecture, there is a pronounced emphasis on the increasing permeability of surfaces and materials, facilitating dynamic interactions with light and transparency, and thereby shifting the focus from a solely stereotomic (mass- and volume-centric) approach to one defined by principles such as lightness, permeability, and surface organization (reticulation) [30]. Deplazes’s observation that the architectural community has embraced a renewed enthusiasm for ornamentation further underscores an ongoing reappraisal of decorative elements within modern architectural discourse [50].

Additionally, Kahn’s insights in “Light is the Theme” may be relevant here. For Kahn, ornament is not a superficial addition but something integral to the building’s essence. Light acts as ornament in its purest form, outlining the fundamental element that defines the atmosphere and spirit of architecture. Kahn’s assertion that “the joint is the beginning of ornamentation” demonstrates that, in architecture, ornamentation transcends its conventional role as a mere decorative add-on to become significant at the very junctures where structural details and materials converge. This perspective advocates that ornamentation should be regarded not as an extraneous embellishment but as an aesthetic expression intrinsic to the building’s formation process. Kahn’s approach thereby reconsiders the role of ornamentation in contemporary architecture, enabling the integration of technique with aesthetic expression. He posits that the joint represents the convergence of architectural components; these junctions reveal the building’s spirit by articulating how the structure is assembled, the inherent properties of the employed materials, and the nuances of the construction technique. In this context, joints are not merely elements that conceal or simplify technical details but are aesthetic agents that define the character of the structure—each material possesses its own character, every joint conveys a narrative, and each surface carries distinct meaning. By advancing the tectonic theories of Bötticher and Semper, Kahn contends that ornamentation must originate from the structure itself, reinterpreting these ideals within a contemporary framework through the interplay of materials, joints, and the dynamics of light.

3.8. Krisaria 8: Detail–Joint–Assembly

Both Semper and Bötticher note that, by uniting components, the builder displays knowledge of construction and symbolic meaning [46]. Frascari, expanding on Bötticher’s ideas, characterizes architectural details as minimal meaning units, drawing an analogy between the relationship of detail and building to that of word and sentence [51]. For Frascari, detailing does not merely involve trivial technical solutions but is a fundamental tool revealing a building’s tectonic potential [52]. Details possess the potential to communicate meaning in a built environment, and the same detail might not be equally effective in every context. Frascari contends that each detail has the capacity to narrate its own story and that joints are not merely functional or technical components but also bear semantic significance [51]. Unlike isolated details, these intersections, embody crucial points of dialogue among systems, principles of order, narrative pathways, and other frameworks that profoundly influence the interpretation of architecture. Frampton similarly implies that such intersections emerge at the juncture between the tectonic assembly of parts and the stereotomic accumulation of mass, are articulated in a syntactical manner, and ultimately constitute the essence of architecture [46]. Frascari differentiates between material joints (physical connections) and formal joints (spatial or conceptual relationships), noting that they are interdependent [51]. A bolt or bracket connecting a wooden slat is a material joint, while a portico bridging exterior and interior spaces can be both a physical connection and a ritual or symbolic threshold, thus also a formal joint [51].

According to Frascari, details indicate a deeper design of material or formal joints, such that every joint can function as a detail; however, a detail is not merely reducible to a joint but is part of a more holistic design concept [51]. For example, the junction between a column and a beam is a joint; yet, the material employed, along with the profile’s form and its visual expression at that junction, simultaneously elevates it to the status of a detail. In Frascari’s terminology, assembly is understood as the process whereby disparate elements are brought together, with these junctions carrying spatial, physical, and conceptual meanings. This process is not solely about the integration of structural components but also serves as an instrument that represents the design language, aesthetic sensibility, and cultural context of the built form. The joint is the most critical phase in the assembly, for it is at the point of connection that both physical functionality and aesthetic meaning are generated.

Here, the critique of architectural epistemology emerges from Frampton’s emphasis that tectonics represents the point at which structural systems converge with aesthetics, and his argument that, as tectonics becomes autonomous, joints, assembly processes, and details are evaluated not only for their technical functionality but also as elements that generate design meaning [30]. His approach centers on the notion that materials and structural systems in architecture inherently possess aesthetic and spatial significance. The detail is where the architect expresses the essential nature of a building’s construction, transforming the manner in which material is processed and integrated at the joints into a tectonic narrative imbued with both technical precision and poetic, aesthetic depth. In this regard, the joint is not only the point of physical conjunction among building elements but also the locus at which the building’s tectonic identity and spatial relationships are articulated. Frampton asserts that the joint occupies a pivotal role in the aesthetic dimension of design, determining the character of the structure, and is not merely a technical necessity but a tectonic expression mediating between structural integrity and aesthetic meaning. Similarly, assembly is conceived as a holistic process whereby the functional imperatives of architecture are transcended, allowing the built form to manifest a poetic expression that unites details and joints into a coherent tectonic whole.

In addition to Frampton’s tectonic thought and Frascari’s meaning-generating detail approach, Gregotti offers a complementary perspective by contextualizing these concepts within the framework of place and its physical environment [52]. Gregotti regards the detail as an instrument through which the topography and context of architecture become legible; in his view, a detail is not solely a technical or aesthetic component but also embodies the manner in which material is integrated with the context and the relationship the architect establishes with the site [52]. The detail thus serves as an interface between place and structure—for instance, the detail of a wall, floor, or roof junction offers an opportunity to interpret both the topography and the surrounding environmental context. In Gregotti’s framework, the joint transcends its role as a mere connector and becomes an expressive tool that reveals how the building is integrated with its structural and topographical setting. In a manner analogous to Frascari’s differentiation of material and formal joints, Gregotti conceives of joints as articulating both structural and spatial relationships, though invariably in relation to place and nature [52]. Moreover, for Gregotti, assembly denotes the design practice through which materials are organized and elements are brought together—a process that, while constituting a part of the construction, simultaneously generates meaning in relation to the site.

Thus, the discussion demonstrates that the concept of tectonics is no longer understood solely as a dichotomy between a building’s intrinsic and extrinsic expression but rather as a comprehensive whole that encompasses relationships, meaning, poetry, aesthetics, and underlying structural elements such as construction and materiality. Even within a single framework, different theorists approach these concepts in varied ways, thereby validating the examination of the inclusive term “tectonics” through multiple interpretative lenses/sieves.

3.9. Krisaria 9: Atectonic–Ontology–Poetic–Digital Tectonics

The final sieve traces the notion of tectonics from the late twentieth century to the present, discussing concepts such as atectonic, ontology, poetics, and digital tectonics.

Atectonic refers to conditions that negate or contradict typical tectonic ideas. Sekler indicates that construction and structural principles might be incongruent—for instance, when a material is used in a way that obscures its actual properties—leading to ambiguous expressions or atectonic conditions [48]. Such examples might feature exaggerated structural elements, or the visual concealment of load and support. Frampton cites the Crystal Palace by Joseph Paxton, pointing out that all cast-iron columns in the building share the same diameter, even though their internal cross-sectional thickness varies, thereby carrying differing loads [30]. This design strategy cloaks the actual mechanical system, contradicting the fundamental ideas of Bötticher and Semper. Similarly, atectonic can involve materials masquerading as another or ignoring the inherent properties of the chosen material, undermining any tectonic legibility [48].

From a poetic standpoint, Frampton highlights references to the word “tectonic” in ancient Greek architecture, noting that tekton—though literally carpenter—had connotations of poetry in some texts [46]. Thus, in transferring tekton to architecture, the dimension of poetic skill emerges. Frampton differentiates three categories of architectural objects: the technological object (responding to instrumental requirements), the scenographic object (where structural material is absent or masked), and the tectonic object, which has both an ontological and representational aspect [30]. Ontological tectonic objects convey their constructive function and cultural role; representational tectonic objects can function as symbols as well. For instance, a Doric column can be read as an ontological tectonic component reflecting load-bearing and cultural significance, while that same column can be read as a representational element conveying religious or civic symbolism [30]. If a building’s aesthetic emerges from the intrinsic form and structural system—rather than superficial layering—Frampton deems it ontologically tectonic [30]. His interest in the constructivist tradition and wariness of architecture reduced to superficial image leads him to emphasize the ontological mode of tectonics [56].

The concept of ontological tectonics also underpins Frampton’s theory of critical regionalism, which posits that a local culture’s architectural approach opposes hegemonic architectural power, asserting an ontological tectonic stance. For Frampton, local culture—expressed as tectonic form in relation to topography, context, climate, and light—contends with dominating forces [57]. Architectural autonomy arises not from scenographic illusions but through tectonic expression. He states that autonomy is embodied in how a building syntactically articulates its resistance to gravity [58].

Recent changes in design processes (particularly digital morphogenesis) have shifted the interplay between the ontology of making and the representation of form. Digital technologies now move beyond mere visualization tools to actively shape design. Digital tectonics merges the foundational ideas of tectonic theory—emphasizing material, construction, and expression—with computational possibilities [59]. Earlier discourses emphasized the aesthetic display of joints, assembly, and detail; digital tectonics often focuses on form-finding, a concept Kolarevic defines as the shift from making of form to finding of form [60].

Kirkegaard and Andersson exemplify this with the BMW Pavilion, digitally simulating the interactions between two spheres in a virtual environment by introducing force fields, eventually generating an emergent form [59]. In parallel, Lynn addresses blob architecture, referencing fluid, dynamic geometries digital tools generate [61]. He contrasts tectonics as a norm-bound and static approach with topology, which allows for continuous transformations and more flexible geometry, concluding that topological designs better reflect contemporary fluidity [61]. Nonetheless, in digital tectonics, one can see an effort to reconcile topological fluidity with the structural logic of tectonics.

4. Results

This study has undertaken a thorough and in-depth exploration of the ways in which architectural epistemology is transformed in response to crisis, with particular attention given to the integral role that tectonic theory plays in this dynamic process. By examining the epistemic responses embedded within tectonic concepts during various crises, and by conceptualizing these responses as functioning through metaphorical and constructive “sieves”, the analysis reveals multiple layers of transformation and adaptation. These layers are explicated in the following detailed subsections.

This paper’s contributions to the literature can be framed under four main points. Firstly, it reconceptualizes crisis as a generative mechanism—referred to here as the “krisarion”—thus bridging ephemeral disruptions and deeper structural transformations within architectural epistemology. Secondly, it establishes a structured framework for analyzing tectonic theory through the lens of crisis, enabling a clearer examination of how architectural thought evolves under pressure. Thirdly, it elucidates the opportunities defined by crisis, particularly in reevaluating and extending tectonic concepts to address emergent design and theoretical challenges. Fourthly, it clarifies the personal contribution of this research by systematically applying and refining the “krisarion” concept, thereby filling a gap in the literature and offering a replicable model for future inquiries.

4.1. Crisis and Architectural Epistemology

The concept of crisis is reinterpreted in this study not solely as a negative or disruptive turning point but rather as a catalyst for the emergence of new epistemological paradigms within the architectural domain. Historically, moments of crisis have served as significant junctures at which traditional epistemological frameworks are challenged, leading to the generation of innovative discourses. This transformative potential underscores architecture’s unique capacity to reconfigure its conceptual underpinnings and produce novel, contextually resonant discourses even under conditions of systemic uncertainty.

4.2. Tectonics and Crisis Intersections

Throughout various historical crises, tectonic theory has been subject to profound epistemic reconfigurations that extend beyond purely technical or structural considerations. These reconfigurations manifest across multiple dimensions including aesthetics, technology, materiality, and structural composition. The analysis employs the metaphor of “sieves”—each corresponding to distinct conceptual filters such as techne, aesthetic sensibility, construction, and ornamentation—to illustrate how each aspect of tectonic theory mediates the response to crisis. In doing so, the study reveals that these sieves act as both interpretive and generative mechanisms, facilitating the evolution of architectural thought by opening up new avenues for inquiry and practice.

4.3. The Temporal Transformation of Tectonic Sieves

A historical analysis of tectonic epistemology, spanning from the nineteenth century to the contemporary period, highlights a dynamic transformation in the content and application of tectonic sieves. This evolution is closely linked to the shifting character of historical crises. In the modernist era, for example, there was a pronounced emphasis on structural rationality and aesthetically driven conceptions of architecture, whereas the postmodern period witnessed the emergence of a more pluralistic and heterogenous epistemological landscape. This diachronic examination illustrates that as the nature of crisis has evolved, so too have the strategies and conceptual frameworks through which architectural knowledge is constructed and reinterpreted.

4.4. Epistemological Openness and New Discourses

The findings of this study suggest a paradigmatic shift in the architectural discourse regarding the concept of crisis. Rather than being seen as a definitive endpoint that precipitates closure, crises are increasingly perceived as opportunities to establish more open, flexible, and relational epistemic frameworks. This openness is characterized by a readiness to embrace multiplicity and innovation in both theoretical and practical dimensions of architecture. As a result, new discourses emerge that not only accommodate but actively encourage the reexamination and rearticulation of architectural practices in response to contemporary challenges. This shift points to a broader reconceptualization of the role of crisis in shaping the evolution of architectural knowledge, underscoring the discipline’s capacity for resilience and reinvention.

From a practical standpoint, this study identifies key insights that can inform architectural design processes and educational curricula. By applying the metaphor of tectonic “sieves” to ongoing crises—be they environmental, technological, or socio-economic—practitioners can pinpoint critical junctures in design thinking, thereby guiding decisions on material use, structural expression, and spatial organization. These practical outcomes highlight how theory can be operationalized to address real-world challenges, offering a pathway for architects, educators, and policymakers to develop adaptive strategies that resonate with the transformative potential of crisis.

In summary, this study offers a comprehensive account of the complex interplay between crisis and architectural epistemology, highlighting the transformative potential of tectonic theory as mediated by various epistemic “sieves” (Figure 7). The insights derived from this analysis contribute to a deeper understanding of how architecture can adapt and innovate in the face of ongoing challenges, thereby reaffirming its capacity for critical and constructive tranformation. Building upon these findings, the study underscores both the practical outcomes—applicable to design processes, pedagogical frameworks, and policy-making—and the methodological contributions that enhance future inquiries into the crisis–tectonics nexus.

5. Discussion

This study’s findings contribute substantially to the literature by elucidating the profound interplay between architectural epistemology and crisis. Through an exhaustive and critical engagement with a range of theoretical perspectives, the study has illuminated how crises act not only as disruptive forces but also as transformative catalysts that reshape architectural discourse. By meticulously analyzing the contributions of multiple theorists, the research demonstrates that crises, far from merely exposing vulnerabilities within the built environment, serve as fertile grounds for the emergence of new conceptual frameworks—specifically, novel tectonic sieves that filter and refine architectural thought.

Central to the study is the argument that crisis functions as both a critical lens and a dynamic stimulus for creativity in architectural production. During periods of upheaval, established epistemological structures are challenged, thereby creating opportunities for innovative reinterpretations of the architectural canon. Tectonic theory, in particular, is portrayed as a malleable and adaptive paradigm that evolves in response to shifts in aesthetic, structural, and technical dimensions under crisis conditions. The work of influential thinkers such as Bötticher, Semper, and Frampton is drawn upon to illustrate the intersections between crisis and tectonic thought, providing compelling evidence of how these intersections can be integrated into contemporary architectural theory.

Moreover, by employing the sieve metaphor, the study underscores the inherently dynamic nature of architectural epistemology. Tectonics is depicted not as a static or monolithic system, but rather as a continually transforming and self-reproducing process. This perspective challenges traditional views that tend to perceive architectural frameworks as fixed and immutable. Instead, the research posits that the adaptability inherent in tectonic theory allows it to absorb and reflect the multifaceted impacts of crisis, thereby generating new avenues for conceptual exploration and practical application.

While the corpus of texts examined in this study is extensive and the insights derived therefrom are robust, the analysis also acknowledges the potential for further expansion. Integrating additional historical contexts or interdisciplinary perspectives could enrich our understanding of the complex interactions between crisis and architectural epistemology. Future research might extend this inquiry by exploring how diverse architectural movements across different epochs have responded to crises, thereby offering an even broader and more nuanced perspective on the subject.

In addition, this study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, the analysis is primarily based on a selected set of foundational texts, which may not fully capture the broad spectrum of contemporary architectural responses to crisis—particularly in light of recent digital advancements in architecture—and their applicability to other historical periods. Secondly, although the tectonic “sieve” (krisarion) metaphor offers an innovative analytical framework, its applicability across different contexts and interdisciplinary domains requires further investigation. Thirdly, the texts spanning from the nineteenth century to the present may constrain the scope of our findings. Future research should address these limitations by expanding the dataset, incorporating alternative theoretical perspectives, and testing the proposed model in diverse contexts, while also providing concrete recommendations for practical applications to enrich both the theoretical and applied dimensions of the field.

The personal contribution of this research is embodied in the systematic development and application of the “krisarion” concept, which serves as a unifying lens through which crisis can be analyzed within the architectural field. By consolidating historical and theoretical perspectives on tectonics, this approach isolates key epistemic layers—techne, aesthetics, construction, and ornamentation, among others—that undergo transformation under crisis. Identifying and examining these layers clarifies how new architectural knowledge is generated, thereby establishing a framework that can be adapted for different contexts and periods. This work also underscores a gap in the literature; although crisis is often discussed as a moment of upheaval, it has rarely been methodically dissected as a generative force in architecture. Addressing this gap opens opportunities for future studies to test the “krisarion” approach in diverse scenarios, such as ecological sustainability, advanced digital fabrication, and urban policy reforms, thus deepening our collective understanding of crisis as a catalyst for epistemic and practical innovation. By highlighting these possibilities, the research positions itself as a catalyst for further inquiries, offering both conceptual clarity and practical recommendations that can inform ongoing explorations in architecture and related disciplines.

In summary, this study not only broadens the theoretical framework within which we understand the relationship between crisis and architectural discourse but also provides methodological tools—such as the metaphor of the tectonic sieve—that enhance our capacity to critically interrogate and creatively re-envision architectural practice.