By Edna Bozyski
The early years of the 20th century witnessed a radical transformation in the visual arts, where concerns about form, space, and structure took on new dimensions. A group of artists, emerging from various avant-garde movements, began to explore the relationship between geometric shapes, architecture, and space in innovative ways. Although these artists were diverse in their approaches, they shared a common fascination with the structure and organization of forms within the flatness of geometric abstraction. Today, we might group them under the term “tectonic“, a name that, while not official in their time, encapsulates their unique vision of art as a visual, spatial, and conceptual construction.
The notion of the tectonic has been a recurring theme in architectural theory, particularly in the 20th century. It refers to the expressive potential of construction, where the articulation of materials and structural elements conveys meaning beyond mere function. Architects such as Gottfried Semper and Kenneth Frampton have explored this concept, emphasizing the poetic dimension of construction and its ability to manifest cultural and artistic values. This approach has influenced numerous contemporary architects, who seek to integrate the logic of construction with an expressive, almost sculptural, quality in their projects.
Acrilic on Cartridge paper | 49x31cm.
Throughout history, some architects have transcended the mere technical representation of their projects, turning their drawings into artistic expressions in their own right. Figures such as Aldo Rossi, Zaha Hadid, and Tadao Ando have used drawing not only as a design tool but as a means to explore the aesthetic dimension of their architecture.
Their representations, often imbued with a strong pictorial and expressive quality, can be linked to the notion of the tectonic. However, in these cases, rather than an autonomous exploration of materiality and construction, the drawings function as a conceptual extension of their architectural projects. These illustrations, which could be considered a kind of “manual rendering,” combine the plasticity of the stroke with a composition that grants them their own artistic identity, without losing their essential purpose: to communicate the architectural idea. Therefore, rather than strictly fitting within the tectonic framework, these works can be understood as architectural manifestations with a clear artistic and pictorial vocation, assimilable to the tectonic tradition yet always tied to the design process. This intersection between tectonics and representation reveals the complex relationship between construction and artistic intention in architecture. While some architects insist on a strict material and structural logic, others see in drawing a way to transcend physical constraints and explore new spatial and conceptual possibilities. In both cases, the act of drawing—whether as an analytical tool or as an autonomous artistic expression—plays a crucial role in shaping architectural thought and practice.
This difference becomes even clearer when comparing the work of tectonic artists with that of those who worked with flat geometric abstraction. Artists of flat geometric abstraction, influenced by movements such as Constructivism or De Stijl, created pure geometric compositions on a two-dimensional plane. The fundamental difference with tectonic artists lies in how the latter transcended the limitations of the plane to explore geometry in three-dimensional terms. While the artists of flat geometric abstraction confined themselves to the surface of the canvas, the tectonic artists extended geometry into the creation of structures that evoked architecture and construction, suggesting a broader spatial vocation.
Artists such as Piet Mondrian, Ilya Chashnik, Vasily Ermilov, Kurt Schwitters, Lajos D’Ebneth, Marcelle Cahn, Willi Baumeister, and Lyubov Popova, representatives of flat geometric abstraction, primarily operated on a two-dimensional surface. Their works focused on the arrangement of geometric shapes on the canvas, with a primary interest in the formal relationships between figures and colors. In these compositions, the forms were static, with no particular concern for volume or depth. The pursuit of visual purity in these works did not imply any reference to three-dimensionality or architecture but concentrated on the visual ordering of forms within a flat space.
In contrast, tectonics artists such as Kazimir Malevich, Ivo Pannaggi, Theo van Doesburg, or Sándor Bortnyik incorporated a more complex approach that involved three-dimensionality. Instead of working solely on the plane, these artists explored the creation of structures that suggested volume and depth. Architecture played a crucial role in their work, as they not only focused on geometric form but also on how these forms could be integrated into real physical space. Their works functioned as models for hypothetical or abstract constructions, challenging the traditional notion of painting as a two-dimensional medium.
While flat geometric artists created a visual experience within a single plane, the tectonics sought to generate a spatial experience with greater depth. Architecture and structure were key to their approach, as they adopted a vision of artworks as constructions that were not limited to the surface of the canvas but could extend into three-dimensional space. The relationship with physicality also marked an important difference: while flat geometric abstraction artists tended to use traditional painting techniques on flat surfaces, some tectonics developed works that involved sculpture or installation, treating the artwork as something with a physical presence in space. Malevich, for example, with his “Architectons,” built three-dimensional models that were not only meant to be seen but also experienced in their spatial context, almost as if they were real, albeit abstract, architectural elements.
Theo van Doesburg, although initially close to Mondrian, was, along with Malevich, a key figure in the development of the tectonic in geometric abstraction. However, his approach was slightly different. Van Doesburg not only used lines and colors to create balanced compositions but also introduced the use of space and dynamism in his works. He advocated for the idea that art should not only reflect spirituality and universal order but also engage with a perception of space that transcended the two-dimensional.
In Italy, Ivo Pannaggi was one of the most representative artists of this pursuit. Influenced by Futurism, Pannaggi used geometry and dynamic lines to represent movement, but he did so in a way that was not only visually appealing but also suggested a deep, organized structure in the composition of his works. His paintings did not merely depict speed or action, typical of Futurism, but also meticulously organized space, bringing them closer to the notion of a structural construction.
David Yakerson, in a similar style, used geometric abstraction as a means to represent industrial and urban environments. His works were a reflection on modernity and the machine, but they were also imbued with a strong sense of structure and space, creating a feeling of solidity and organization. The way Yakerson’s pieces interact on the two-dimensional plane reflects the same precision that an architect might apply to the design of a structure.
Sándor Bortnyik (see the artwork represented in the cover image of the article) and Enrico Prampolini also fall within this line of artists who saw art as a way to explore structural relationships, but with a more constructivist inclination. Prampolini, for example, sought to merge art with architecture, pushing abstraction toward forms that, while not literally representing buildings, suggested the same precision and solidity that characterizes an architectural structure. Precisionists such as Charles Sheeler, on the other hand, took the American metropolitan and industrial landscape as a field of study and broke it down into geometric shapes, reflecting a fascination with construction and the organization of urban space.
Giorgio de Chirico, although more associated with Surrealism, can also be considered part of this group of tectonics artists. His series of “metaphysical walks” is filled with arches, columns, and unstable perspectives that challenge the conventions of spatial representation. De Chirico not only used architecture as a compositional element but also as a way to question the perception of time and space, reinforcing his connection to tectonics principles.
Aldo Galli and Louis Lozowick continued to explore the possibilities of geometry within structure. Both adopted the language of abstraction to highlight the importance of space and the arrangement of forms. The precision with which they organize elements in their works underscores the idea of an artwork not only as a visual expression but as a construction, something that emerges from a process of assembly and organization, similar to the creation of a building or infrastructure.
Roberto Aizenberg, with his solitary towers and polyhedral constructions, creates compositions that evoke both geometry and the fragility of architecture. His work not only reflects an admiration for Renaissance architecture but also reveals a tectonic restlessness in constructing a space that appears structured yet remains open to interpretation. Aizenberg’s forms, though fragmented, suggest an underlying structure that gives meaning to their organization, much like the tectonics artists who focus on internal order and structure over immediate visual form.
Ben Willikens, known for his depictions of empty and uninhabited architectural spaces, can also be considered a tectonic artist. His works, laden with geometry and desolation, pose a reflection on architectural space and its relationship with human perception. Through the representation of empty interiors and uninhabited geometric structures, Willikens constructs a structural space where emptiness and form are intrinsically linked. Like the tectonic artists, his work suggests that even in the absence of life, space remains a construction with an underlying logic and organization.
Enric Mestre, with his sculptural and ceramic approach, merges geometric forms with an architectural structure that evokes tectonic notions. Through the creation of pieces that seem part of an unfinished or fragmented construction, Mestre employs sculpture as a means to explore the relationship between space and materiality. Like the others tectonics artists, his work is a constant dialogue between the abstract and the architectural, showing how forms are not merely aesthetic elements but parts of a structural whole that seeks to integrate physical space with its internal organization.
As we have seen, collectively, these artists share a vision of art in which the object is not just a representation, but a conscious and thoughtful construction, with a direct relationship to space, structure, and organization. Through their works, they explore how visual elements can be assembled and organized to create a coherent experience, almost as if we were facing a visual architecture rather than a painting or sculpture. Thus, these artists developed what we have defined as the “tectonic idea” in art: a proposal that considers the artwork as a structure to be understood in terms of its composition, organization, and the relationship of the parts that constitute it.
This architectural and structural approach to art, which we have defined as tectonic, has remained present in the visual arts over time, but it has evolved through conceptual and artistic transformations. Today, a new generation of artists continues to explore and reinterpret this idea of the artwork as a construction in itself, not necessarily following the same methods as their predecessors, but building upon and transforming the foundational notion. These contemporary artists might be called neotectonics.
The works of these artists delve into the metaphysics of art, exploring the very essence of existence and reality through the symbolic representation of evocative forms. Their three-dimensional compositions evoke a sense of mystery and enigma, challenging the viewer to reflect on the nature of being and its relationship with the environment. This new tectonics fuses the revolutionary vision of Malevich with the conceptual richness of De Chirico’s metaphysics, creating a bridge between different artistic and philosophical currents.
It is relevant to emphasize that the tectonics artists, operating in a time when modern architecture was beginning to take shape, did not have the references of contemporary architecture that the neotectonics, a century later, would almost take for granted. The neotectonics have as references an entire modern architectural tradition, with nearly a hundred years of evolution in terms of styles and conceptions, including deconstructivist and brutalist architecture, which would mark a starting point in their reflection.
Illán Argüello is a good example of how the neotectonic takes architecture as a starting point but moves away from strictly functional representation. In his work, geometric forms and architectural elements appear fragmented, almost like remnants of a city or structure that once existed but is now crumbling or incomplete. Argüello does not conceive architecture merely as a functional container but as a generator of emotions. The texture of his works, the density of his forms, and the relationship between voids and filled parts create an atmosphere of uncertainty, inviting the viewer to reconsider the meaning of what is “structural.” His art is not a simple homage to architecture but an exercise in reflection on how physical structures can harbor and transmit sensations. This approach shows how the neo-tectonic is not just a matter of form but also of context and the ability of structure to communicate a deeper sense of what is “in sight.”
Similarly, the Spaniard Rafa de Corral presents a body of work that could be considered a dialogue between geometric structure and atmosphere. His paintings and sculptures seem to contain the order, perfection, and rigidity that define architectural constructions, but they also suggest an inherent fragility. The interaction between forms seems to question stability, establishing a relationship between the fixed and the dynamic. Like the tectonics of the first half of the 20th century, De Corral uses space as another material to be worked with, but with an interest in cracks and voids, in the unstructured parts that allow the form to be understood in all its complexity. Ultimately, what stands out in his work is the way geometric lines and planes are never entirely closed but resist strict structural logic, creating a reflection on what is understood as “complete” in architecture.
Canadian artist David Umemoto fuses sculpture and architecture, exploring the interaction between form, space, and structure. His concrete sculptures present geometric compositions that evoke the solidity and permanence of architectural constructions. These pieces, though small in scale, suggest the presence of monumental structures, inviting the viewer to reflect on the relationship between art and architecture. The connection of his work to the tectonic idea is evident in his focus on materiality and structure. Umemoto uses materials such as concrete to create works that are not only visually striking but also convey a sense of solidity and permanence. His sculptures, with their geometric forms and modular structures, evoke the aesthetics of brutalism and modern architecture, highlighting the intrinsic beauty of materials and structural honesty. Moreover, his work reflects an exploration of the intersection between art and architecture, challenging conventions and proposing new ways of interaction between space and form. This approach resonates with the principles of the tectonic movement, which seeks a harmonious integration between structure and aesthetics, celebrating materiality and construction as fundamental elements of artistic expression.
The painting of Spanish artist María Luisa de Mendoza approaches the city from an abstract and emotional perspective. Her work is characterized by the representation of desolate and monumental urban spaces, where architecture, though present, is detached from functionality to become a poetic and metaphysical setting. Mendoza seeks to convey a sense of calm and reflection through her compositions, eliminating mundane details to focus on the essence of space. The tectonic element in her work is manifested in the way she uses architecture as a starting point to explore the tensions between light, void, and structure. In her works, architectural forms seem stripped of their functionality, as if they were part of a larger puzzle. The interaction between smooth surfaces and light generates an atmosphere that invites introspection, and the monumentality of her buildings recalls more abstract architecture, as in the case of modern architects who emphasized form over function. De Mendoza not only employs geometry and structure but uses them as means to convey emotions and concerns about space. The city becomes an immaterial place, a reflection of the soul, taking the viewer on an inner journey that is both physical and metaphysical. In this sense, her work deeply resonates with the tectonic tradition, as it perceives architecture as a sensory form rather than a utilitarian construction.
British artist Dan Broughton draws inspiration from brutalist architecture, fusing geometric forms and bold structures with the aesthetics of contemporary abstract painting. His compositions explore the interaction between light, shadow, and form, evoking the solidity and permanence of architectural constructions. Broughton uses painting to represent architecture in a way that highlights the intrinsic beauty of materials and structural honesty. His works, with their geometric forms and modular structures, evoke the aesthetics of brutalism and modern architecture, emphasizing the interaction between form and space. Moreover, his work reflects an exploration of the intersection between art and architecture, challenging conventions and proposing new ways of interaction between space and form.
On the other hand, Spanish artist Juan Ortí takes ceramics to a completely different territory. His approach, strictly artisanal, moves away from industrial finishes and immerses itself in the purity of the material, which, however, is part of a whole, almost as if it were a structural piece within a larger construction. The forms Ortí creates are often geometric and subtly monumental, but their primitive and natural appearance plays with the perception of what is “alive” in architecture. Ortí’s ceramics seem to convey the sensation of a structure that is about to emerge, maintaining its form but also cracking, suggesting that the architectural is not something immutable but a continuous process. The way he handles space and form in his ceramic pieces offers a reinterpretation of the tectonic: it is not only the structure that matters but the mutability of form within an architectural context that is always evolving.
Italian artist Gianfranco Spada, known for his ‘neopurist’ approach, inspired by the purism of figures such as Ozenfant and Le Corbusier, creates works marked by geometric simplicity, where forms are reduced to their essentials to reveal their purest and most fundamental structure. Spada uses space and form in a way that architecture and art merge into a single visual proposal. Through minimalist compositions, he seeks to generate a sense of order, balance, and harmony, which resonates with the ethos of the tectonic movement. The connection to the tectonic in Spada’s work lies in his concern for the relationship between form and space. Like the tectonics artists of the early 20th century, Spada creates compositions that function almost as architectural constructions but using painting as a medium. Architecture is for him a starting point, not only as a habitable space but as a conceptual space that can be represented through pure and essential forms. In this sense, his work moves away from ornamentation and seeks a visual efficiency that recalls the tectonic notion that form not only has a structural function but also an intrinsic aesthetic sensibility.
On the other hand, American artist Monica Dixon manipulates light, shadow, and space in her works, where she explores an atmosphere of solitude and strength. Her landscapes, both interior and exterior, are marked by the contrast of light and shadow that structures the visual space. The use of a limited palette of white, black, and red reinforces the emotional intensity of the compositions, leading the viewer to an introspective reflection on the relationship between physical and emotional space. The tectonic in Dixon’s work emerges in her ability to transform pictorial space into a formal construction that invites reflection on spatial relationships, but in a subtle way. Although her style is not architecturally precise, the space in her works seems to have an internal structure that recalls architectural design processes. The manipulation of light and shadow creates a sense of volume, suggesting a constructed space where the elements of the work are perceived as parts of a whole. This aligns with the tectonic idea that artworks are not just visual compositions but also complex structures that allude to an underlying order, even when they appear fragmented or chaotic.
Dutch artist Cécile van Hanja focuses her work on the representation of architectural spaces, particularly interiors and modern structures. Her artistic approach stands out for the creation of multicolored labyrinths that generate an illusion of depth and complexity, inviting the viewer to explore the interaction between rational and intuitive thought. The connection of her work to the tectonic is evident in her ability to emphasize the immaterial aspect of buildings, creating open spaces that invite reflection on structure and form. Van Hanja explores the interaction between form and space, using painting to represent architecture in a way that highlights the structure and materiality of the spaces depicted. Moreover, her work reflects a search for order in a globalized world saturated with mass culture, responding to the intrusion of idealized aesthetics and daily impressions. Through the creation of unique, handmade art, she seeks to open space for individual expression.
All these neotectonics artists, though diverse in their approaches and techniques, share a common vision of the artwork as a complex construction, a structure that goes beyond the visual and delves into the emotional, conceptual, and material realms. These artists, like the tectonics of the early 20th century, explore the relationships between forms, space, and structure, but they do so from a contemporary perspective that takes into account both the history of architecture and the social, cultural, and technological transformations of the present.