Essay
Architecture is Responsibility – Because It Endures. On Place, Space, and Design as Inquiry.
Architecture today is often understood as decorative optimization: spaces should please, surfaces should appeal, interiors should create mood. This view reduces design to taste management and strips it of responsibility. Architecture is not an aesthetic service. Architecture sets conditions and shapes dispositions; it opens and limits possibilities for action without fully determining behavior. Perception, behavior, and action arise in the interaction of built structures, cultural practices, and individual judgment.
Place and space must be distinguished, yet remain inseparable:
- Place describes what is: built structure, order, geometry, statics, joining, materiality. This level is quantifiable and enduring.
- Space describes how it feels: atmosphere, light, acoustics, haptics, thermal and olfactory qualities—the qualia of experience. This level is not directly measurable, but it is not arbitrary.
Architecture shapes places to bring forth spaces. A place is not a container into which life moves; it sets life in motion by enabling proximity or distance, accelerating or slowing processes, opening or constraining attention. Precisely stated: decisions about the place alter the probability of certain perceptions and actions in space; they create legibility and orientation without producing certainties. When architecture is understood as surface or interior as a stylistic gesture, the discipline loses its subject. Design then becomes the administration of preferences. That is where the profession begins to erode.
If architecture is conceived as a space of consciousness, the focus shifts: design is examined, not judged. Projects are not products but investigations into the relationship between place and space. They ask, under defined conditions, how decisions at the level of place make the experience of space more likely. They test how objects structure affordances for action. They explore how reduction renders complexity legible rather than concealing it. The goal is not to make something “beautiful,” but to produce evidence for effects that carry responsibility.
Reduction is not an aesthetic attitude but a decision to direct attention at the place, so that in space the task becomes visible. It is not the “absence of form” that acts, but the conscious formal decision that shifts salience: from object to use, from surface to order. The optimal level of stimulation is context-dependent; reduction is situational and serves legibility.
Teaching follows the same stance. It is not a promise, not advertising, not a recruitment tool, but a commitment. Education is not about learning a style or applying methods to produce attractive results, but about understanding the consequences of spatial decisions. Design is not production but inquiry. The project is not proof of skill but an evidentiary process. The method follows a clear sequence: Language → Art → Architecture. Begin analog to sharpen judgment through embodied experience (touch, light, material, proportion, drawing, model); then refine digitally to make decisions at the level of place traceable. Students learn to prioritize responsibility and legibility over attractiveness.
The same applies at small scale. A piece of furniture is not an object in space but space at the scale of the body. It demands anthropometry, ergonomics, and variability of use so that it opens possibilities rather than constrains them. A surface is not a finish but a strategy of perception across all senses: visual, tactile, acoustic, thermal, olfactory. Decisions at the level of place (material, texture, joining) shape the atmosphere of space. It is not form acting in isolation, but the consequence of its restraint and the legibility of order.
This approach is neither spectacular nor pleasing. It does not follow trends, emotional design needs, or the desire for quick recognition. It does not seek approval. It prioritizes responsibility over attractiveness without excluding aesthetics as a mode of knowledge. Architecture without ornament is not a nostalgic return to old dogmas; it is the decision to place the responsibility of space above the sign-value of appearance. Ornament, symbolism, and material semantics can be valid when they support legibility, orientation, and purpose—not when they obscure them.
Spatial structuring touches power, participation, and acceptability. Whoever organizes use influences access and behavior. Therefore: clarity of intent, transparency of means, evaluation of side effects, avoidance of manipulation, and accessibility for diverse users. Architecture should enable, not conceal; orient, not dominate.
There is no call to action. No invitation to “join in.” No prompt to make contact. Whoever shares this approach will recognize it when they encounter it. Whoever rejects it has reasons. Both are acceptable. What matters is that the discipline regains a concept of itself: Architecture is responsibility—because it endures. It shapes places that bring forth spaces. Architecture does not create a backdrop for life. It sets the conditions under which life becomes possible.
– Felix Schwake