Cite this article
Ilkovičová, Ľ. (2025) ‘Editorial’, Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, 30(4), pp. 1-2. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/alfa-2025-0018
Many of us, students and young scientists in particular, ask ourselves why we should engage in academic writing. Why would someone write when there is artificial intelligence which can help you create a text about a given topic in a relative quality, linking information, being fast and also brief as encyclopaedia? The reason why lies in the expression ‘a relative quality’. Artificial texts lack reasonable arrangement of information, one’s own opinions, a detached view, the exclusion of insignificant and misleading data, simply put, what they lack is the personal contribution of the author. Another doubt often undermining the writer’s self-confidence is scepticism whether authorial texts would be read or appealing to readers at all. This uncertainty is also fuelled by the fact that the competition and quality in the field of academic writing keep growing, while their musts include a perfect text structure, numerous citations and references and an original, innovative perspective. Will I have anything to offer the audience, anyway? Here, citing Francis Scott Fitzgerald is surely in order: “You don’t write because you want to say something, you write because you have something to say.” If there is an interesting idea or research outcome, there is also a reason to share it. This not only helps the readers gain new information, it also helps the authors perfect their capacity to present what is substantial, to refine the purity, manner, and originality of expressing themselves. No need to fear the meaningful dialogue that may begin afterwards.
Likewise, the current issue of Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU brings numerous interesting ideas from various fields of architectural research. Even though the issue is not dedicated to a specific topic, we can find certain common threads and current areas, studied by authors from various cultural and social backgrounds. The articles mainly echo the relationship of architecture and psychology, the identity of architecture in relation to architectural heritage.
Mohammad Samarzadeh Vajdeh Far in the article “Theoretical review of aesthetic principles in architecture to enhance urban quality of life” studies essential aesthetic components and their integration in architectural solutions, which fundamentally affects the mental state of those who use the space. Architectural research and production can significantly benefit from the knowledge presented as the application of aesthetic principles in urban building design. No doubt that aesthetics, quality context-related architecture, and mental well-being are all ‘on the same page’.
Psychology also plays its part in the following article “On memorability of place and installation” authored by İpek Özer and Senem Kaymaz. A strong emotion and working with psychological aspects are required to make a place and work memorable. The subjective factor plays an important role, too: this is supported by philosopher A. de Botton and art historian J. Armstrong (in the book Art as Therapy) claiming that we want to remember what truly matters. The degree of memorability is, however, difficult to measure. The authors accentuate interdisciplinarity, they mention new methods and scientific measurement techniques to help objectivise the measurements and explore physical responses of artwork viewers. Artistic installations also require ‘educating’ the viewers who should make time and find their own way of slow looking at installations, which can influence them to develop a more intensive relationship with the given place and thus impact the memorability.
In her article “Ornamentation as a tool of social architecture,” Csenge Faur addresses architecture of social buildings and its specific expression. From the large database of architectural tools, the author selects ornamentation and the application of ornamental motifs. The study clearly aims to view and understand ornamentation as architectural heritage in connection with the identity of social architecture in Hungary. This way of architectural expression is close to the style called Socialistic Realism. The author correctly suggests the today’s ambiguity in the definition of decoration. For contemporary architects, the use of décor in modern architecture is similar to walking on the edge of a precipice. When they fail to master the shape transformation and abstraction, decoration can easily become kitschy.
The article titled “Divriği’s architectural plasticity: Study in Seljuk innovation and cross-cultural analogy” by Nagehan Yağmur Şimşek Sönmez, contributes to praising the identity of Anatolian Seljuc architecture. It dives into the architectural aspects of the unique ensemble of the Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği. The author seeks analogies with later European styles, whereby underlining the relevance and originality of the complex. Plasticity, a play with shadows, dynamic images, visual artistry and craft of the builders render this work of architecture a sculpturesque look. The purpose of the study is indisputable—to emphasise the quality of the ensemble as a work of great value among the architectural and cultural heritage.
Identity of architecture reflects a phenomenon which responds to current affairs. Identity is dynamic, it mirrors the context and as such it is not strictly unchangeable, which can be observed in conserving architectural heritage. New circumstances, the context of an architectural work bring the change not in the work’s expressional essence and authentic expression, but in a broader context, in relations. This can also be seen in the published papers.
Dear followers of Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, I believe you will find the articles in our current issue enriching, expanding your horizons, and also motivating to essential writing and research work.