LRC£MA "KtUi 27" KCl fwacus HLQ OLIaTZ 'CLE ZA *B!ir3.TtfüQ tp Ja LatcL «., Ii ii j ft 1 fcnfrt. ljH«l ■ r*5-Iijy I »afile uTis c.L d L ii dtp z p traces h pcj^g», koriti d«|i)tELjt v laik a ja L ft ton L T S«ac, da a« vb« tdk BluSaj.na All cm LuSajiiu, «IM« ie prakn** * fltLBl» «fiter» IC O*«4b e»Ip ■ltü»cL|ft w iF#ri Brnktaktur*. Ear aa tripnTljaaa m pa*i, boj-up Iii ¿"»Lüh iü JrL.hAja;;od*. i- I» J* bclj V k¥B£ti& • r ÜU*TM PK#rgk Jft, ke-l ¥ Pill d.£ kOB--B.L 1B I^pDlbk -LtHL. Lak«? r« Kol r anl llel knjigi, t&ftiiPr ja tPh-ika f rojak lj-mjiJb. 11 S LftJUrmBJB Ä k k 1« TfT.dar peVfjlil !• i ft s til Lei "aafcftati" i «i■ ■•= Lipa, m i»l bi L J tria« Ti* f 4« BlBiSaga Sle »tu vadL^o V ¥ L l EUlnlv ppj*TBk ft i«, H3 risi j i*rm* M i rt na« »bSmiJiVb 4ftflß»lff L j», Ea r» lE^lk* od fPB vüctRi.JjnI'«»ü*£'»i rMiPtCi» .K* ßw .J»lii¥i»njap ka 3« MjVB^mi, H£aTii.r r« "»■d« Brtir^h pcHHiRSb e-a±elit*v e* s.:l imf.k iEr"r.-;»iL v ¿L*¥ftVn SJS drufcl vndrLecili^ '.i ¿i take r»ds piiLkacs »iL -««tu r.ffi=-3¥Lthft ninn#i fr* t-iz** J £> tf finVn-j Lb IlVvL'tfl fllDdiFHB« kr**"Sljep i I ru. J l^J^Bail I ft l*] u UjRia M- .I'D . -ja V» t»F:c4c« Lhbku piridl L« I I - LnaUJ lT*!^ ¿m* Jiiosia» IÜ jilin-irüfij«. Vr»l* It-siljt-l-lh fctläf ti pqiga K ^f-D^aJ-j« a t« rillSkD kc| nakaj pcrmfm ID DL-.-.rs kal na ¥.r ■ 10 hbiria »jra^i-nJ. lakaj P9 Vt.iL f BL"Ka til-3 ill k [HUtUjflJ. i i L k U9i ta M±«Ltit»i» in l/i f.LtakfJ«d k± bob tati Jrr-l r^Snjl^ 411 bi 3«a, ia taka EoJ*¥b skIbbm iLffiPtl k*% n-jvf LtrbMiitL Sta rftaLsHJBi. h L »f »n tu rr-r- ia Me» frcliw Ii»l;Biijikit all, df. isr^is «I*aa ■■ b:«p= toJ-'" t kulti^iraajB. KLj^b t »au, nabin koawMlBk Biülpc nI. ia - a^tn'kpvti. In äpla XI Bk ¥fti faj-npipUAt ^irnifi scan ja tri akutnih. ftäa dclinl 1pj ruälftbl nip ia b>"ft* i-Lfci-^^.-'T'iri. Euii ca cp¥idu> EPftftC. a MHliufi'. dOiftihcju J-.-BBib ti b* LuUtMiJl,, kakt'fbk, 1« j-, «b [4k la k^t akcija. Tudi tal Ifc'J'üBliL.'r Li J -L'ft VcL'U'J L l¥ft 40 14 C ti i LT: Lav ttdlvdliibv ¿Wfrk :ab,2«i d* jft rüu jrib^äLb Vjillkpj na t«B (.udriiZ'Ju ElbLLJ! P|. rB=«Bua b L L La V |p:ilBbifUjU.a ^Ek.u.ktccftl* CJa, kl Ja obar.ax tuit xaradL «rc-bkh. «kaiFafc-laclJ hu pil!« car unti »na rp^a^pla. pfr- ka#» p-an ia rurL xlra. lc Ja ca!#tlr pil tej. J KabC#¥paE paaaltaiMTj p h i pi ¥ L la Lpa r<1 aa , « rt»M; Lap novas, atJapii. kaj pijsaak aiialk sd »a aa fppj.odaxak.3 — lar..',L ! ls(m k druitar. L Lp. iicT«i.kL prti blacallk L. ta J jjft V bia".¥u .nal a¥ Coe.Fbl L S na, katc temj Cudl dftjaji Alt» tbrakl ij-adl 6b =*ftal L"¥*e.Lb crfcL'-aJi ltd. Hi 'a oapraj iak#tL li¥l jaisjalcb t bl aiaakRi igaalUi Lb aianilaa L ^ ah, [ila-bakib Ljiar ib a i;alibül4«i,j« B?irk4*¥BZiJ.a¥ kot da ja ea!a daJalB 1b njaii utrkp i+an^fttBTlja bo pruftri ^LT ¥ü i siTTj ijsdb p tri J akajta V üb cftiea,. Bi »ki bi«lB4kk rai kakavih t-ulaiu ¥ Kciiiuft, ¥ojt*kk atntalkk al k anjavL li Leniči 11 n j s ^ Uli ai¥aik4 k. L jih j# jft a ao^L-Ja Bhtix.au: Lii #41i £ na pad j. h ei. ib k jar ja lückKa »uno Baz-oroa. iu ¥i-2cc PAEaja č*kj# bftf«4bd tik POta fiii kaj | Lanftk«|a 4al«¥aB]B ¥ i 1 ¥l j.ftC.jp4 Fri* ip die»jiiJija im j* ja srp raUaaga imun, k| fru. Ja »Pfpl« faöija ayainaii l" p t iitp a bcsemp,. i akpij« ib pioblraai,! i.äkrj»bf.jci lb * ppfjaoa u B-ier ia ■ ü .;ion,d • aat« bolj^a aabdptcj nopt) « aiamaliBa^ijO'i ki odjLra BO¥a uit d in ]» fco-ljpt üd b;a«lallaiüvaitä ib bj.L ub. B lij^iij« V VcdBb BtVLh. bta-fh. Z auraläa^a aa w ita «ali-lv Tili Leu bot Lakaje L upi t* rt»', na * »veja Lukalcac pxoatprur » »¡"IVTL cjnnTti inart/vnpati t«k« «1«4P J Pkra j i B4 LB «ataik r.pr naia «tlolB* akrcua blTalB* kultura« Edvard Ravnikar: skan iz AB No5, 1972 Arhitektura kot oblika družbenega angažmaja Dr. Pavel Gantar »Jaz se zavedam, vi pa mi morate verjeti na besedo, da svet počasi postaja naš, mi postajamo družba in oblast. Zato moramo nemudoma prenehati zapravljati moči v nesmiselni borbi proti obstoječemu sistemu. Zdaj je to naš sistem.« Marko Švabič: Kritika medenega cvetličnjaka. Tribuna 1-2, 18-29 leto XXII, 14. maja 1973. Ne morem se odločiti, ali pred skoraj štiridesetimi leti zapisane besede v bril-jantnem eseju Marka Švabiča, ob izteku študentskega gibanja, pravzaprav pomenijo le sprotno duhovno refleksijo tedanje realnosti, ali se pač, kot že rečeno štirideset let pozneje vračajo vsem nam kot uresničena utopija sveta, ki je postal 'naš' in oblasti, ki nas dela nemočne? Od znamenitih let študentskega upora pa vse do danes se nam je zgodila cela vrsta utopij in kontrau-topij, premešale so se družbene strukture, vzvodi moči, ideologije, poklici, pomeni, družine, države, iz plasti spomina se dvigujejo utrinki preteklosti in iščejo navezave s sedanjim doživljanjem razmer, hiše, nekatere še stojijo, ulice, nekatere še tečejo, ampak zdi se, da niso več iste in tiste v katerih smo stanovali in po katerih smo hodili. Soba 25 in AB, pozna šestdeseta in zgodnja sedemdeseta leta, so vtisnjena v spomin nekdanjih protagonistov, študentov arhitekture in opazovalcev tedanjega dogajanja kot svojevrstna in neponovljiva življenjska izkušnja. Kako ta izkušnja deluje danes, kaj pomeni, kako je oblikovala pomemben del, če že ne celotno generacijo študentov arhitekture in tiste, ki so bili tako ali drugače povezani z njimi? Ali lahko te izkušnje beremo v pomenu 'medenega cvetličnjaka', torej sveta, ki je postal naš, tako da je zavladal nad nami, ali v pomenu selektivne aktualizacije tedanjih idej, ali pa samo kot spomin in nič drugega. Odgovora na to gotovo ne bom dal, saj ga ima vsakdo že sam. Preden obnovim in reflektiram svojo izkušnjo tedanjih časov je prav, da orišem svoje razmerje do Sobe 25 in AB. Seveda s Sobo 25 kot študent sociologije nisem imel nikakršnih izkušenj, razen razmeroma rednega obiskovanja odprle katedre na katerih so poleg ljudi z arhitekture kar pogosto predavali tudi drugi ugledni intelektualci predvsem iz družboslovnih krogov. Stiki z AB-jem so bili seveda tesnejši, v ta krog sem bil povabljen kot študent sociologije, ki se je ukvarjal z urbanizmom in razmerjem med družbo in grajenim prostorom. Kako je do tega prišlo, ne vem natančno, znašel sem se tam in na petkove sestanke AB zahajal kar do konca sedemdesetih let. Pri tem je treba povedati, kot se spomnim, AB v skladu z radikalno demokratično tradicijo sploh ni imel klasičnega uredništva, pač pa so bila v kolo-fonu zapisana samo imena, ki jih je zahteval zakon in nič več. Moje sodelovanje s AB se je počasi izteklo konec sedemdesetih let z znamenito številko Arhitektura + Beseda, ki je nakazala preobrat v usmeritvi revije, čeprav je bilo sodelovanja pozneje še kar nekaj. Redno in občasno sodelovanje z AB se je okrepilo tudi s tem, da sem od druge polovice sedemdesetih let kot asistent profesorja Mlinarja sodeloval pri predmetu Sociologija in politologija, ki naj bi sicer študente učil »pravilnega« pogleda na socializem, z Mlinarjem pa sva ga, prepričana, da arhitekti premalo vedo o 'družbeni pogojenosti' arhitekture in urbanizma, preoblikovala v Razstava Soba 25, 1971 Architecture as a Form of Social Engagement. Dr. Pavel Gantar »I am aware, and you have to trust me on this, that the world is slowly becoming ours, we are becoming the society and the authority. Therefore, we must immediately stop wasting our efforts in a futile fight against the existing system. It is our system now.« Svabic, Marko. ''Criticism of Honey Flower Garden." Tribuna 14 May 1973:1-2, pp.1829. I can't decide whether the words, written in the brilliant essay by Marko Svabic almost 40 years ago at the decline of the student movement, actually represent the ongoing spiritual reflection of reality at the time, or, they return to us 40 years later as a fulfilled utopia of a world which became 'ours' and the government which makes us powerless. We experienced various utopias and dystopias since the memorable years of student rebellion. Social structures, levers of power, ideologies, professions, meanings, families and states were shuffled. Glimpses of the past rise from the layers of memory and seek affiliation with the current expert -ence of the conditions, some houses are still standing and some streets are still there, but they seem to have changed and are different from the ones in which we lived and walked on. Room 25 and AB, late 60s and early 70s, are imprinted in the memory of former protagonists, students of architecture and observers of those events as a unique and unrepeatable life experience. So how does this experience work today what does it mean; how it shaped an important part, if not a whole generation of architecture students and those, in one way or another, connected with them? Can we interpret it in the meaning of the 'Honey Flower Garden', i.e. the world which became ours by ruling over us, or in the meaning of a selective actualization of those ideas, or even just as a memory and nothing else? I certainly won't provide an answer, but I think you already have it. Before I renew and reflect upon my own experience from those days, I find it appropriate to outline my relationship to Room 25 and AB. Of course, as a student of sociology, I had no experience with Room 25; except for a fairly regular attendance at open chair, at which, alongside people from the Faculty of Architecture, many distinguished intellectuals, mainly from the social science circles, held their lectures. Contacts with AB were of course closer. I was invited into this circle as a student of sociology, who was involved with urban study and the relationship between society and built space. I don't know exactly how this happened; I found myself there and attended those Friday meetings at AB until the late 70s. It has to be said, that as far as I can remember, AB didn't have the classic editorial board but only listed those names in the header which were required by law and nothing more, in accordance with the radical democratic tradition. My collaboration with AB slowly ceased by the end of the 70s with the famous number called Architecture + The Word, which indicated a shift in the direction of the magazine, although there was some more collaboration later on. Regular and occasional cooperation with AB in the second half of the 70s was strengthened by the fact that I was an assistant to Professor Mlinar in the course called Sociology and Political Science, which was supposed to teach students the 'correct' LETOŠNJA "Soba 2 5" KOT POSKUS ZELO ODPRTE ŠOLE ZA ARHITEKTURO To je letnik,ki si je v našem univerzitetnem življenju pridobil oznako kritične in akcijske enote s pravico na naslov eksperimentalne "antiuniverze", popolnoma odprte univerze in univerze živega dogajanja. Če je to dogajanje spremljalo trajno razgrajanje, ekscesi s posledicami, upiranjeter nasilje nad pedagoškim kadrom in inventarjem, je vendarle nastalo nekaj,kar pomeni skoraj toliko kot nov začetek, vsekakor zelo zanimiv in spodbuden. Vemo namreč, da je treba univerzo približati viharnemu dogajanju v moderni družbi, da pa je mogoče potrebno preureditev univerze v glavnem želeti kot notranji proces z vitalnimi začetki v aktivnih seminarjih. Zato ob poizkusu obračuna z vsem dosedanjim in ob prostovoljnem srečanju z nečim novim ni moglo biti brez mučnih stranskih pojavov, korist dogajanja v Sobi 25 pa je le tudi v tem, da se vse to, slučajno ali neslučajno, ujema in prekriva s splošno svetovno in obenem našo situacijo v sferi arhitekture. Ker se pripravljamo na bodočnost, moramo gojiti posluh za prihajajoče, to pa je bolj v kvantih spoznavne energije, kot v celi dokončni in popolni sliki, tako rekoč v eni sami knjigi. Dosedanje Grafični tečaj 1971; Bogdan Reichenberg predavanja iz urbane sociologije in sociologije urbanizma. Ob vsesplošnem čiščenju 'ideoloških usedlin' v izobraževalnih programih ob koncu osemdesetih let je tudi ta predmet izginil iz arhitekturnega kurikuluma na tedanji FAGG, ponovno in pod novim imenom je vzniknil v sredini prejšnjega desetletja, ko je fakulteta harmonizirala svoje programe v skladu z evropskimi zahtevami. Arhitektura in družbeni angažma - Soba 25 Najkrajše bi lahko fenomen Sobe 25 opisali in nekoliko poznejši prehod dela akterjev iz Sobe 25 na AB opisali kot prizadevanje za družbeno angažirano arhitekturo. S tega vidika bi lahko zapisal, da vse to ni nič novega. Ni Soba 25 izumila angažiranosti arhitekture, ta je pravzaprav na različne načine zapisana v temelje novoveške arhitekture, vsaj od Albertija naprej. Seveda se zgodovinskim okoliščinam primerno pojavlja v različnih oblikah, ampak vedno z določenim etičnim imperativom, da dobra arhitektura služi dobremu ali boljšemu življenju in je tudi njegov izraz. Da ne govorimo o prelomu, ki ga je izvedlo 19. stoletje z razcepom na arhitekturo kot umetnost gradnje in inženirsko arhitekturo in njeno ponovno integracijo v visokem modernizmu prve polovice 20. stoletja. Arhitektura je postala močno podvržena imperativu uporabnosti ter nekakšnemu implicitnemu ali eksplicitnemu 'socialnemu programu' s katerim so tudi s pomočjo reorganizacije prostora za nove potrebe, ki jih je narekoval industrijski kapitalizem stremeli k družbenemu napredku in harmoniji. Ta 'transformacijska' vloga arhitekture in z njo povezanega urbanizma je še posebej prišla do izraza po družbenih prevratih, recimo v nastajajoči Sovjetski zvezi, pa tudi pri nas po izvedeni revoluciji po 2. svetovni vojni. Programi obnove dežele, stanovanjska gradnja za nastajajoči delavski razred, gradnja industrijskih objektov, zadružnih in kulturnih domov, zasnova in gradnja novih mest vse to nikoli ni bilo dojeto in razumljeno samo kot organizacijsko tehnični in gradbeni podvig ampak kot prispevek k temeljiti družbeni preobrazbi s pomočjo arhitekture. Družba, če se hoče v temelju spremeniti, mora te spremembe vpisati tudi v prostor, ki ljudem oblikuje vsakodnevno življenjsko okolje. Čeprav se številni 'socialni programi' seveda niso uresničili ali pa so celo spodleteli, lahko na splošno rečemo, da nam je obdobje socialistične družbene rekonstrukcije zapustilo razmeroma kvalitetno arhitekturo in urbanizem, ki presega omejitve časa v katerem je bila zgrajena. Kaj je torej tisto 'novo' kar je protagoniste Sobe 25 in nekoliko pozneje tudi AB razlikovalo od siceršnjih oblik družbene angažiranosti arhitekture? Gotovo družbene in politične okoliščine, ki so jih po eni strani zaznamovali vzponi in padci 'tržnega socializma' in študentsko gibanje 1968-1972. Protagonisti Sobe 25, čeprav med seboj precej različni kar zadeva motive angažiranja, so prevzeli temeljno značilnost, ki je spodbudila študentski upor, ki je sprva začel s 'sindikalističnimi zahtevami', se pozneje predvsem z zasedbo Filozofske fakultete radikaliziral v ostro družbeno in politično krizo sistema, ki je temeljila na razkoraku ali celo prepadu med normativnim in dejanskim v družbi. Normativni in idealizirani koncept socialistične družbe, ki je bil zasnovan na načelu enakosti, se je soočil z realnimi razmerami, ki so jih povzročale krize socializma, naraščajoče družbene neenakosti, nastajanje 'rdeče buržoazije' in sploh razkorak med 'teorijo in prakso socializma'. Če se je družbeni aktivizem povojnih arhitektov osredinil na izgradnjo bolj pravične družbe s Pavel Gantar Bogomir Motoh THIS YEAR'S "ROOM 25" AS AN ATTEMPT FOR A VERY OPEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE This year's students can be labelled in our university life as critical action oriented group which earned a title of experimental 'anti-university' completely opened university full of lively real events. Although there was constant noisy disruption in the halls excesses with consequences, resistance and violent behaviour against the staff and inventory, something was created which I consider as a very interesting and encouraging new beginning. We know that our university has to be recreated according to intense changes in modern society but this can be achieved only as internal vital processes in the studios. Therefore, in the attempt to settle accounts with all previous practices and to begin with self incentive introducing innovations the painful side effects are to be expected. The benefit of events in Room 2 5 is the fact that all this is happening simultaneously with general international situation which also includes ourselves in the field of architecture. When preparing for future, we have to be sensitive to everything new what is coming, and this is more in atoms of cognitive energy and not in final and complete pictures, a unique book. view on socialism. However, Professor Mllnar and I believed that architects know too little about 'social conditionality' of architecture and urban planning, so we transformed it into lectures on Urban Sociology and Sociology of Urban Planning. During the widespread cleansing of 'ideological sediments' in the late 80s, this lecture also disappeared from the architectural curriculum. It reappeared under a new name in the middle of the last decade, when the faculty harmonized its programme in accordance with the European demands. Architecture and Social Engagement -Room 25 The shortest way to describe the phenomenon of Room 25, and the subsequent transition of participants from Room 25 to AB, would be to call it an effort for socially en- gaged architecture. From this point of view I could say that all of this is nothing new. Room 25 didn't invent the engaged architecture, it is actually enshrined in the foundations of modern architecture in various ways from Alberti onwards. It appears in various forms, according to the historic circumstances, but always with a specific ethical imperative; good architecture should serve to better life and is its expression. Especially the turning point, which came about in the 19th century by separating architecture as art of building and engineering architecture and their reintegration in High modernism in the first part of the 20th century. Architecture has become heavily subjected to the imperative of usefulness and some kind of implicit or explicit 'socialprogramme' by which they, with the help of reorganization of space for new needs dictated by the industrial capitalism, aspired to social progress and harmony. This 'transformational' role of architecture and related urban planning came to the fore after the social upheavals, for example, after the emerging Soviet Union and in our country when the revolution after WWII was carried out. Programs for the reconstruction of the country, housing for the emerging working class, construction of industrial buildings, cooperatives and houses of culture, design and construction of new towns - all of this was never understood solely as some sort of organizing technical and building achievement, but as a contribution to a profound social transformation through architecture. If society wants to change fundamentally, must inscribe these changes into areas, which shape people's living environment. Although many 'social programs' remained unrealized or even failed, we can say that in general, the period of socialistic social reconstruction left a legacy of relatively high- quality architecture and urban study, which transcends the limitations of time in which it was constructed. So, what is the 'new', which distinguished the protagonists of Room 25 (and AB later on) from the usual forms of socially engaged architecture? Social and political circumstances for sure, marked, on one side, by the ups and downs of 'marketsocialism' and the student movement of 1968-72 on the other. Although quite different in terms of motives, the protagonists of Room 25 assumed the basic characteristic which motivated the student rebellion. This began at first with 'syndical demands' and was later radicalized, especially with the occupation of the Faculty of Aits, into a fierce social and political crisis of the system, which was based on the gap or even a precipice between the normative and the actual in the society. The normative and idealized concept of the socialist society, tehnike projektiranja in plani-ranja, ki so vendar povečini že v sterilni "estetski" fazi,so lepe, a žal bolj primerne, da mladega človeka vodijo v vlogo bodočega birokrata, vpreženega v načrtne in planske probleme ter lebdečega nad samo merljivimi stvarmi kot so okorni trendi, demografski faktorji, gospodarstvo in promet. Vedno bolj očitni razmak med študijami takih zunanjih gibanj in resnično, največkrat v vsakem oziru nelagodno resnično problematiko, ki bi rabila nujne pomoči, pa je ne moremo vključiti v svoje iskateljsko delo, opozarja na pripravljenost, da prisluhnemo dvomom z mnogih strani. Bolj kot notranje razpravljanje o ciljih in vrednotah dobro ali manj dobro konstruiranega plana, je zanimiv opravek s tem, kaj naj bo, posebno pri nas občutljiva deontologija. Za razliko od psevdoznanstven-ega raziskovalnega delovanja, ki je največkrat zagovor ne vedno srečnih političnih odločitev na podlagi površne znanosti o človeku in družbi vedežnosti, ki ji tako radi natikamo etiketo neodvisne resnice, gre torej bolj za v človeku in stvareh fundirano kreacijo, ki naj nadomesti že zelo majavo zmoto, da ta resnica lahko pride le iz "znanstvenega" urbanizma in planiranja. Vrsta študijskih nalog iz Sobe 25 opozarja prav na to razliko kot nekaj novega in obenem kot na vrsto novih vprašanj. Zakaj se togi geometrični stanovanjski blok umi -ka samolastnosti in na nikakršen kanon vezani črni gradnji? Ali še ni čas, da take pojave začnemo gledati kot novo urbanistično realnost, elementarno in tako polno življenjskih sil, da lahko upamo na njeno bodoče kultivi-ranje. Kljub temu, da noben komunalni sistem ni več učinkovit in sploh ni več reprezentant javnega mnenja pri skupnih stvareh, smo dolžni tej samoslatni, če hočeš samoupravni, samo na nevidno zvezo občanov navezanemu dogajanju pomaga ti ne kot institucija, kakršna že je, ampak le kot akcija. Tudi pot naše industrije od osvoboditve do zadnjih let odločilno potrjuje prepričanje, da je eno glavnih vprašanj na tem področju razvojnih gibanj sprememba stila v planiranju. "Ekzaktnost" opazovanja, ki je obenem tudi površnost zaradi grobih ekstrapolacij samo otipljivega, pušča vnemar bistvena vprašanja, npr. koga plan favorizira, kje začeti, pri bolj zahtevnem nameščencu ali pri vitalnejšem, a revnejšem novem občanu, kaj pomeni odmik od samo gospodarsko - tehničnega k družbeni in človeški problematiki, kaj je v bistvu naš avtomobilizem, kako bomo tudi dejansko zbrali ljudi ob naselitvenih orbitah itd. Ali še naprej iskati življenjsko pot v sistemih, modelih in simulacijah planskih iger in s tehnologijo spraševanja, kot da je naša dežela in njen utrip poenostavljeno primerljiv vodstvu industrijskega koncerna, široki biološki raziskavi, poletu v koz-mos, vojaški strateški ali majavi Stran iz AB No 5 pomočjo arhitekture (in urbanizma) se je ak-tivizem in s tem pogled na vlogo arhitekture generacije Sobe 25 osredotočil na kritiko 'spodletelega projekta', bolj kot ne na nehoten in nezaveden način ter z opozarjanjem na izstopajoče 'družbene ekscese' kot pa v obliki nekega zavestnega arhitekturno političnega programa. Akterji so očitno tudi na začudenje politične oblasti vzeli 'samoupravljanje zares' in ga soočili njegovo realno družbeno 'tehnomanagersko' karikaturo. Mogoče je bilo celotno študentsko gibanje najbolj subverzivno prav v tem, da so ideal socializma in enakosti vzeli zares in ga niso jemali samo kot neke vrste ideološke legiti-mizacije početja oblasti. Druga najbolj izstopajoča značilnost Sobe 25 je predstavljal sam način študija, potem ko je profesor Ravnikar po pripovedovanju akterjev odpustil svoje asistente in študente v svojem seminarju prepustil samim sebi in sam prevzel nase bolj ali manj sporadično usmerjanje in nadzor. Zgodovina odnosov med karizmatičnim profesorjem in študenti v Sobi 25 je polna anekdot, odpustitev asistentov (o čemer sem bil obveščen že tedaj) se mi je najprej zdela kot 'profesorska nečimrnost', mogoče je tudi dejansko bila, ampak z današnje perspektive se mi kaže kot izjemno domiselna, nemara celo revolucionarna pedagoška poteza s katero je profesor študente, ki so sicer že v prvih dveh letnikih dobili bazično izobrazbo iz stroke, odrezal od uveljavljenega in kodificiranega strokovnega znanja na ravni 'običajne stroke' in jih potisnil v iskanje vsebin, arhitekturnih pristopov in seveda rešitev za probleme, ki so se jih lotevali. Na nek način jim je profesor preprečil, da bi se prehitro kodificirali kot arhitekti in se utirili v običajno 'arhitekturo po naročilu'. Sodeč po pričevanjih1 nekaterih tedanjih ak- terjev Sobe 25 je takšen pedagoški pristop po načelu 'do it' 2 do določene mere omajal porajajočo se samopodobo študentov kot (bodočih) arhitektov in jih napotil na druga študijska področja. Tako smo prišli do tretje pomembne razsežnosti Sobe 25, ki jot tudi pomembno razlikuje od načina družbene angažiranosti povojne arhitekture. Če je slednja razumela reševanje arhitekturnih in urbanističnih problemov v luči družbenih sprememb na poti k boljši družbi, je aktivizem Sobe 25 začel iskati rešitve za arhitekturne urbanistične probleme tudi izven domene same stroke. Temu dejstvu, polegi siceršnjega splošnega angažiranja, lahko pripišemo oziranje za drugimi predvsem družboslovnimi znanji in strokami, kot so filozofija, sociologija, etnologija in ekonomija. Po eni strani je šlo za poskus utemeljevanja arhitekture ne samo iz nje same ampak tudi iz njene družbene, filozofske ali kakršnekoli že osnove. Po drugi strani pa se je začel razvijati analitski pristop k problemom, ki so se jih lotevali, kot na primer, če se ukvarjaš s črnimi gradnjami ni dovolj, da proučiš samo njihove fizične gradbene in oblikovalske značilnosti, ampak tudi socioekonomske vzroke za njihov nastanek ipd. Treba se je odreči samozadostnosti arhitekture in iskati odgovore tudi zunaj nje. Svobodna katedra, na katero so vabili ugledne družboslovce in ki je imela javni značaj, je neposreden nasledek takšnega razmišljanja, drugi nasledek pa je bil ta, da so se nekateri lotili vzporednega študija filozofije, ki naj bi jim nekako pomagala pri samoutemeljitvi njihovega poklica. Narava družbene angažiranosti Sobe 25 Pavel Gantar The techniques of designing and planning until now are mostly in the phase of sterile aesthetics, there is beauty in them but are more suitable to convert young person into future bureaucrat who is harnessed into design and planning problems by quantitative understanding of awkward clumsy trends of demographic, economic factors and transport. There is increasing difference between the studies of such external and mostly unpleasant reality which would most urgently need our attention but we cannot include it in our research. We have to carefully listen to everything doubtful around us. It is not so important to debate about our internal goals and values and beautifully designed plans, we should concentrate on what should be the sensitive deontology applicable to our own environment. Unlike the pseudo-scientific research mostly for defending the political decisions on the basis of very trivial social science about man and society which we love to label as objective truth, the idea is to release the creativity hidden in man and his environment, to replace the confusion that such truth can be only the result of scientific planning and urbanism Many projects from Room 25 touch on this difference as something new and relate to many new questions. Naslovnica AA No 2 Why is the rigid geometric block of flats being replaced by informal-illegal self built houses? It is time to start looking at this phenomena as new urbanistic reality, very basic and full of life energy, where we can hope to its future civility. Considering the fact that no communal infrastructure system is efficient neither based on democratic public decision making, it is our duty to assist the spontaneous local communities and their self initiatives, the self management, but not as institution of any kind but just through action Also our industrialization after liberation until recent years con -firms that the very basic question in development regulation activ -ities is the change of planning style. 'Exactness' of observation which is negligent in rough extrapolations reduced to tangibles, neglects the essential questions such as -who is privileged by local plan -with whom to start, the more de -manding employees or more vital and energetic but poorer urban newcomer, -what does it mean to move away from barely economic - technical to social and human problems, -what is essentially our car transport problem -how can we improve settlement density around the orbits. Do we continue to search solu- based on the concept of equality, was faced with real circumstances caused by the crisis of socialism, increasing social inequality, the emergence of the 'red bourgeoisie' and the gap between the 'theory and practice of socialism'. If the social activism of the postwar architects focused on building a more just society with the help of architecture (and urbanism), the activism and the view of the Room 25 generation on the role of architecture focused on the critique of the 'failed project'. This was done rather unintentionally and not consciously pointing at the conspicuous examples of 'social excesses', and not really in the form of a conscious architectural-political program. They took 'self-management seriously', to the amazement of the political authorities, and confronted it with the social 'techno-managerial' caricature it had become. The way they took the ideal of socialism and equality seriously and didn't view it as some soil of ideological legitimation of the government, was perhaps the most subversive element of the whole student movement. The second most prominent characteristic of Room 25 was the way the study was conducted. Professor Ravnikar dismissed his assistants and left the students on their own, as far as his seminar was concerned, after that he only sporadically guided and controlled the study process. The history of relations between the charismatic Professor and the students in Room 25 is rich with anecdotes, the dismissal of assistants (of which I was informed at the time) seemed to me, then, a sign of 'professorial vanity', maybe it actually was; but from today's perspective it appears highly inventive, perhaps even a revolutionary pedagogical method. Students, who recieved their basic education in the first two years of their studies, were cut off from the well established and codified expertise on the level of the 'usual profession ' and pushed into seeking new contents, architectural approaches and solutions to tackle problems. In a way the Professor prevented them from codifying themselves as architects too soon and becoming the usual 'architects for hire'. Based on the testimonies1 of some of those involved in Room 25, such pedagogical approach, on the principle 'do it'2, somewhat undermined the self-esteem of students as (future) architects and directed them to other fields of study. So we come to the third important dimension of Room 25 which again differs significantly from the social engagement of postwar architecture. If the latter understood the solving of architectural and urbanistic problems in the light of social changes on the way to a better society, the activism of Room 25 searched for solutions for these problems outside the confines of the profession as well. They, beside the usual general engagement, drew on knowledge from various, mainly social scientific, professions and fields of expertise; like philosophy sociology ethnology and economy On one hand, it was an attempt to substantiate architecture by using not only its own framework, but also social, philosophical and so on. On the other hand, an analytical approach to problems they tackled began developing. For instance, if you are dealing with illegal buildings, it is not sufficient to only study their physical construction and design features, but also the socio-economic reasons behind them. It is necessary to abjure the self-sufficiency of architecture and search for the answers outside it as well. The Open Chair, which hosted many distinguished sociologists and was open to the public, was the natural consequence of such frame of mind. The other lingvistični teoriji, same stvari, ki jih je res mogoče matematično odlično podpreti in kjer je logika silno nazorna, pa vedno ostaja nekje nerodno na robu nič kaj planskega delovanja v življenju. Prav to dogajanje pa je jedro velikega premika, ki ga je mogoče bolje spoznati le s sondami v živo a neznano, z akcijo in pionirskim odkrivanjem in s pogumom za mogoče še okorno a zato boljšo samostojnost, s specializacijo, ki odpira nova okna in je boljša od special-istovstva in sploh s tipanjem v vedno novih smereh. Z moralnega stališča se v tem smislu vidimo kot iskalci univerzalnega v svojem lokalnem prostoru, v njegovi osnovni naravnanosti tako glede pokrajine in ostali ne, naše splošne skromne bivalne kulture, naših mest in vsega drugega. Tak pogled pa nas sili k direktnim metodam vrednotenja, to je k osnovam lastnih izhodišč, kjer si vsi življenjski pojavi v tem prostoru pomenijo pravo resničnost brez za-letavega občudovanja, pa tudi brez poniglavega zametavanja. In iz te resničnosti se je mogoče razvijati in razviti res s pomočjo vsega znanja, ki nam je dosegljivo, pa tudi tu kot gospodarji, ki vedo kaj hočejo. Izbor predstavljenih nalog kaže kako so tako zastavljeni cilji teoretično zahtevni in težko, obenem pa življenju in razumevanju blizu, kot dokaz usmeritev v plansko demokracijo ne pomeni zmanjšanje strokovnosti, prej narobe. - ali naj vključimo monorail, ki za ljubljansko velikost postaja že komercialen med faktorje bodočega razvoja? - ali je mogoče komplekse gramoznic po eksploataciji preoblikovati v rekreacijska področja? - bodoča težišča ljubljanske in mariborske univerze - zakaj so v resnici stanovanja draga? - kaj s podstrešji v centru mesta? - ljubljanska cestna mreža kot ogrodje življenja malega, glavnega mesta itd. prof. EDO RAVNIKAR prepis iz AB Jovo Gobovšek Dela letošnje Sobe 25, razmišljujočega zadnjega semestra na, kot rečeno, včasih začetniški način odkrivajo nakazano pot in morda je ravno v ogla -tosti in nedovršenosti del tisto nepogrešljivo znamenje vsakršne novosti in bistvene inovacije. Tomo Čakardič, Božo Podlogar: Monorail v Ljubljani, 1972 Že sam izbor problemov, katerimi so se ukvarjali študentje v Sobi 25, pove dovolj o naravi in oblikah družbene angažiranosti: črne gradnje, preurejevanje podstrešij v stanovanja, skvoterstvo, mestni javni promet, prostorski razvoj univerze (še posebej v Mariboru), da ne govorimo od 'do it' akcijah, kot je znamenito barvanje Fabianijeve ograje pred Frančiškansko cerkvijo, akcija s »sintetičnim drevesom« v protest zoper podrta drevesa na Vegovi. Protagonisti Sobe 25 so se tako rekoč brez izjeme lotevali 'ekscesnih problemov' socializma, ki jih pravzaprav ne bi smelo biti: stanovanjske stiske (podstrešja, črne gradnje), ki jo glede na uradne deklaracije ne bi smelo biti, zanemarjanja javnih površin, poskusov, da bi z izgradnjo 'kampus univerz' študente izločili iz mesta in jih kulturno ter politično osamili, med prvimi so načenjali 'ekološke proble- me', kar so posebej lirično izrazili v letaku ob akciji-happeningu na Vegovi: »... brez predsodkov in zadržkov lahko izrazimo svojo v podzavest odrinjeno kreativnost. to naj bo eksperiment spontanosti in preizkus njenih meja in zmožnosti. spoznavajmo nenavadne in do sedaj neznane forme in poteke medčloveških komunikacij. mogoče bomo razumeli zarodke nove senzibilnosti, pa tudi ustreznejših oblik revolta proti obstoječi zdravi pameti, konformizmu, normam oku-som.«3. Oblike družbene angažiranosti skorajšnjih diplomiranih arhitektov postajajo prepoznavne in v primerjavi s predhodnimi povsem samosvoje: ne samo analitski pristop k problemom, kar smo omenili pri podstrešjih in črnih gradnjah, pač pa tudi prepričanje, da se delo ne ustavi pri izgo-tovljenem načrtu ali rešitvi, temveč je treba iti do konca na teren, poprijeti za delo, prebarvati ograjo, postaviti drevo, preurediti podstrešje ... 'Do it' aktivizem je še posebej cenil in negoval spontanost, na primer pri črnih gradnjah, kjer primarno vprašanje ni bilo kako jih preprečiti, ampak kako 'vpreči' spontanost črnograditeljev, barakarskih naselij in skvoterjev, kako družbeno afirmirati njihove potenciale za reševanje stanovanjskih in drugih vprašanj. Arhitekt ne nastopa s pozicije absolutne vednosti, ampak to kar zna in razume deli z drugimi. Svoje strokovno delovanje so razumeli kot javno delovanje in ne v sklopu 'naročniškega razmerja', ki obvladuje današnjo arhitekturno dejavnost. Z današnjega zornega kota, ki ga v urejanju prostora v širšem smislu obvladujejo različne ideologije participativnosti in NGO aktivizem se zdi takšna pozicija do določene mere naivna. Ampak prav ta naivnost je resnična vrednost aktivizma Sobe 25, ker omejitev, ki jih postavlja družbena realnost, ni sprejela kot samoumevnega dejstva ampak kot priložnost za spremembe. Odprte dileme ostajajo odprte. Poznejši razvoj oblik družbenega angažmaja ki ga je spočela Soba 25 je bil v veliki meri pogojen z publicistično dejavnostjo Arhitektovega biltena, kamor se je v glavnem po končanem študiju preselilo kar nekaj akterjev iz Sobe 25. Spremenile so se okoliščine. Študentsko gibanje se je po znamenitem Titovem govoru v Splitu v letih 1972-74 izteklo, oziroma je bilo zatrto, avtonomne oblike študentske organiziranosti so spravili pod 'socialistično mladino', nekatere pa ukinili. Pravkar diplomirani inženirji arhitekture so stopali vsak na svojo pot, soočali so se z zahtevami, ki so jih akterji gradnje postavljali prednje . Na prva vrata je vstopil post-modernizem, ki je bil v arhitekturnih krogih različno dojet, sprejet in skoraj obenem tudi Dare Poženel: Študija o stanovanjskem vprašanju, 1973 tions for the future life through systems , modelling, simulations and decision making theories where mathematical logic is prevailing, as if our country and its character of development could be simply compared to management of industrial concern, extensive biological research, excursion to the universe, military strategically or shaky linguistic theory. Despite all there are always awkward marginal life developments outside of every plan. These marginal developments are actually the core of bigger transformations which can become recognizable only by tackling the living unknown by action and pioneering discoveries and the courage to accept the freedom and independence, which can be non defined but stronger in self confidence and specialization opening new windows and is reaching out for new directions. From the moral point of view we see ourselves as searching for universal and global in our locality defined by its characteristic landscape, history and also our overall modest living culture, our cities and everything else. Such a view is forcing us to concentrate on direct evaluation methods, towards the origins of our own background, where all life occurs in our home space and our people and present the truthful reality without pretentious admiration but also no hypocriti -cal or malicious discarding and downgrading From such reality it is possible to channel development, with all the available knowledge but also as masters in charge who know what they want. This year's projects in Room 2 5, through thinking last semester, although sometimes still naive and clumsy are revealing the indicative path. And maybe just in the squareness and unfinishedness there is the indispensable sign of every novelty and innovation. The list of the projects presented shows how difficult and theoretically demanding they are but also how realistic and to the point as a proof that the very orientation into planning democracy does not mean less professionalism, more on the contrary The projects were dealing with questions like: 1. Should we consider monorail as a factor for future development in Ljubljana which is economical for this size of city. 2. Is it possible to reuse the gravel pits for recreation areas. 3. Central locations of universities in Ljubljana and Maribor. 4. Why are the new built flats expensive. 5. How to use the attics in city center for social housing. 6. Ljubljana road network as development backbone for small size national capital. 7. others. Prof. Edo Ravnikar Transcription from AB Jovo Gobovsek one was the fact that some students took parallel studies on philosophy, as they believed it would help them to self-substantiate their profession. The Nature of Room 25s Social Engagement The selection of problems with which the students of Room 25 occupied themselves speaks of the nature and forms of their social engagement: illegal buildings, rearrangement of attics into apartments, squatting, urban public transport, spatial development of the university (especially in Maribor), not to mention the infamous painting of Fabiani fence in front of the Franciscan church, the 'synthetic tree' campaign (against the trees on Vegova being chopped down) ... The protagonists of Room 25 tackled the 'excessive problems ' of socialism, which should not exist in the first place: the plights of housing (attics, illegal buildings), which, according to the official declarations, shouldn't exist, neglect of public spaces, attempts to build 'campus universities' and thus exclude students from the city and culturally and politically isolate them. They were also among the first to raise questions about the 'ecological problems', as seen on the especially lyrical flyer during the happening on Vegova Street: ».,. without prejudice or hesitation we can express our suppressed creativity. Let this be an experiment of spontaneity and a test of its limits and possibilities. Let us learn about the unusual and so far unknown forms and ways of interpersonal communication. Perhaps we will be able to understand the embryos of new sensibility and more appropriate forms of revolt against the existing common sense, conformism, norms of taste.,.«3 .The forms of social engagement of the future architects are becoming identifiable and, compared to the previous ones, unique: not only the analytical approach to problems, which we mentioned when we talked about attics and illegal buildings, but also the conviction that the work doesn't stop with the finished plan or solution, you have to go on the field and do some work, paint the fence, plant a tree, rearrange the attic. 'Do it' activism valued and nurtured spontaneity, i.e. illegal buildings, where the primary question wasn't how to prevent them, but how to 'harness' their spontaneity, and of shantytowns and squatters, and how to socially affirm their potentials for solving housing and other issues. The architect doesn't speak from the position of absolute knowledge; he shares what he knows and understands with others. They understood their professional activity as public operation and not some sort of 'subscription relationship', which has become common nowadays. This position might seem somewhat naive from today's perspective, which is governed by various ideologies of participation and NGO activism. But this naivety represents the true value of the Room 25 activism, where the limitations posed by social reality, weren't accepted as obvious facts, but were seen as opportunities for change. Open Dilemmas Remain Open. The subsequent development of various forms of social engagement, initially conceived by Room 25, was largely conditioned by the publishing activities of Architect's Bulletin, where many of those active in Room 25 moved on to after graduating. Circumstances had changed. The student movement slowly faded away in the years 1972-74, or more correctly, was suppressed after the famous Tito speech in Split. Autonomous forms of Strani iz AA zavrnjen v njegovih najbolj profanih oblikah. Hkrati pa je odprl razpravo o avtonomnosti 'arhitekture kot arhitekture' o jeziku arhitekture in nakazal spremembo paradigme, ki jo je najbolj zaznamovala znamenita številka AB o 'arhitekturi in besedi'. Toda pred tem so se skozi debate v krogu AB vrtele teme, ki jih je načela že Soba 25. Ena od teh tem je bila razprava, še kar dobro se je spomnim, o tem, ali je arhitektura sploh stroka z visoko kodificiranimi znanji, standardi in pravili, ki jih lahko obvladajo samo tisti, ki so po njenih pravilih končali študij arhitekture. Če je jasno, da za kirurško mizo ne moremo poklicati nekoga iz ulice, ali je to v enaki meri jasno tudi za arhitekturo? Ali je arhitekt lahko vsak, ki se nauči osnovnih tehnik, skoraj tako kot je vsakdo izmed nas spontani družboslovec - sociolog, na primer. Dilema je bila pomembna: ali ima arhitek- tura neko samo njej lastno vednost, ki ni nadomestljiva z katerokoli drugo vednostjo in torej daje poklicu specifičnost in unikatnost. Na argumentativni ravni, če se prav spomnim, dilema ni bila nikoli razrešena, je pa že pomenila diferenciacijo med udeleženci razprave, dejansko pa je bila razrešena z že omenjeno številko AB o arhitekturi in besedi. Drugo značilno vprašanje se je nanašalo na razmerje med teorijo arhitekture in arhitekturno dejavnostjo, ki pravzaprav razen pri samosvojem hodcu Janku Zlodretu, ni bila eksplicitno izpostavljeno. Izhajajoč iz Tafuri-jeve recepcije kritične teorije, je teorija arhitekture možna samo kot kritika arhitekture, kar pa seveda pomeni, da arhitekt profesionalno obmolkne in se prepusti raziskovanju in pisanju. Prepad med teorijo in dejavnostjo arhitekture, ki bi pomenil, da se arhitektura kot dejavnost odpove razmisleku o sami sebi ni mogel uspeti. Razmislek o arhitekturi, kot ga je začel postopoma prakticirati AB se je postopoma usmeril v raziskovanje jezika arhitekture njene notranje razvojne logike v tematizacijo tega, kar arhitekturo naredi specifično obliko dejavnosti. Začela so se leta profesionalnega udejst-vovanja, začela se je mukotrpna 'hoja skozi institucije' birokratske države gradbenih dovoljenj, soglasij, investitorskih omejitev in iskanje svobode arhitekturnega izraza skozi okenca, ki so ostala odprta. Vsakdo je šel po svoji poti, nekateri bolj skupaj, nekateri bolj narazen ... Polje družbenega angažmaja se je v osemdesetih letih in pozneje premaknilo, Švabičevi 'fantje s pištolo' iz medenega cvetličnjaka še niso na verigi. Pričevanja štirih udeležencev Sobe 25 v obliki nestandardiziranih intervjujev so zbrana v diplomskem delu Maruše Špitaler z naslovom Arhitektura in družbeni angažma. Sociološka analiza arhitekturnih konceptov obdobja 19651980. (Mentor doc. dr. Pavel Gantar) Ljubljana, FDV, 2009. Sklic na znamenito mobilizacijsko načelo študentskega spontanizma in aktivizma, ki ga je v knjigi »Do It« uveljavil Jerry Rubin, seveda ni naključen. Kot bomo videli, lahko z njim vsaj delno pojasnimo marsikatero akcijo študentov arhitekture. Objavljeno v: Skupina avtorjev: Študentsko gibanje 1968-1972. Krt, Ljubljana, 1982., str. 328-329. 2 3 pnevmatska arhitektura Borut Burger, Božo Podlogar, Tomaž Souvan: Pnevmatska arhitektura, 1972 student organization were put under the so-called 'socialist youth', and some were disbanded. Freshly graduated engineers of architecture went their separate ways and faced the demands presented to them by the construction business.... Postmodernism became prominent, though its reception was lukewarm; it was both accepted and rejected (in its most profane forms). It also started the discussion on autonomity of 'architecture as architecture', on the language of architecture and suggested a change of paradigm, which was most notably marked by the infamous AB volume on 'architecture and the word'. Before all that, the themes debated in the AB circle were themes already started by the Room 25. One of the issues discussed, I remember it fairly well, was whether architecture is a type of profession with highly codified knowledge, standards and rules, which can only be mastered by those who actually finished the study of architecture. If it's obvious that you can't call someone from the street to perform surgery, does the same apply to architecture? Can anyone, who masters the basic techniques, be an architect, just like almost anyone among us can become, for example, a spontaneous sociologist? The dilemma was significant: does architecture have its own specific knowledge, unlike any other, which gives this profession its uniqueness and specificity. If I remember correctly, the dilemma was never resolved on the argumentative level, yet it caused differentiation among the participants of the discussion and was actually resolved in the aforementioned volume of AB on architecture and the word. Another significant question was related to the relationship between the theory and practice of architecture and was never ex- plicitly exposed, except by the unique individual Janko Zlodre. Based on the Tafuri's reception of critical theory, the theory of architecture can only exist as the critique of architecture, which actually means that the architect silences his professionalism and delves into research and wrifing. The gap between the theory and practice of architecture was destined for failure, as it meant that architecture would waive its own self-reflection. Reflection on the architecture, as practised by AB, gradually shifted into architectural language research, its internal development logic (or logics) into a themati-zation of what makes the architecture such a specific form of activity. So began the years of professional engagement, the strenuous 'march through the institutions' of the bureaucratic state of construction permits, consents, investment restrictions and searching for the freedom of architectural expression through the windows, which remained open. Everyone went their own separate way; some remained close, some farther apart... The field of social engagement changed in the 80s and later on, Švabič's 'boys with a gun' remain unchained. 1. The testimonies of the four participants in Room 25 in the form of unstandardized interviews are collected in the Maruša Spitaler's thesis Architecture and Social Engagement. Sociological Analysis of the Architectural Concepts in the Period 1965-1980. (Mentor Dr. Pavel Gantar) Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, 2009. 2. A reference to the famous mobilizing principle of student spontaneism and activism, established by Jerry Rubin in his book 'Do It', is not coincidental. As we will see, it can help us to at least partially explain many architecture students' actions. 3. Pubiished in: Group of Authors: The Student Movement 1968-1972. Krt, Ljubljana, 1982, pp.328-329..