From editor

The semiotic approach prevails in contemporary architectural schools and the architectural theories. It seeks to describe architectural reality as a system of signs and concept of communication. Indeed, like any cultural phenomenon,
architecture is a form of manifestation, thus it is subject to interpretation and subject to perception. But system of signs is introduced from the outside of architecture and does not belong to the architecture. Signification is added to the building by human perception, but it is not included before perception. A priori meanings of architecture remain hidden. Therefore we can assume that the being of architecture contains something that is ineffable or inaccessible for denomination. We think the understanding of nature this remainder will help pull the architecture from the semiotic captivity. Architecture produces something unspeakable and unrecognizable, but it works within the anthropological code and uses a recognizable language. But the unfamiliar is not the set of familiar, it transform the old code and shift the place of signification. Familiar get the properties and meanings, due to the performing of architecture in reality. Architecture incorporates outsider codes, but it repeats them in reality, annihilates them and deprive of any meaning, which can give the viewer. Act of its existence of particular building takes architecture beyond system of signification.
Keywords: modernism, postmodernism, semiotics, communication, code, form, function, performativity, real