In the evident interweaving of history with contemporaneity, the relationships between the present and the past do not always currently succeed in clearly explaining the prerequisites of those theories defined as innovative.
In the study and analysis of architecture, we try to keep well in mind the teachings of the figures who developed this subject in its innumerable aspects, with the desire to achieve those goals that others have already been able to transfer from theory to practice, from an idea graphically set out on a sheet of paper to everyday reality.
At every moment, we have always sought inspiration from the great masters of the past, from those who before us had found optimal solutions for good living, taking this to be the ultimate meaning of engaging in architecture.
We are, therefore, faced with works of the past and the present, and we are preparing to consider what the correct method is to understand what has failed in one work and what has worked in another.
Beyond the subjective considerations that each of us may have regarding the aesthetic value of certain artifacts, what we will discover and analyze will be more closely linked to the effects they generate in daily life; in this way, we will connect to the use of architecture, which in my opinion precedes the notion of space; by use, I do not mean utilitas, but giving it a broader meaning that embraces all the sensations of those who identify with it and are part of it, with the architecture itself becoming an integral element of our life, of our daily emotions… sorrows, joys, loves, sunsets, and nights spent watching over its walls.
They enter into us with their means, with their language, the language of materials and of the forms of these same materials.
Ultimately, these are the elements that inspire us, precisely because the final purpose of architecture is simple and tested, assimilated by those who utilize its spaces.
And this is precisely what I mean by use, a term that we will, however, explore further at other times; for now, we only want to highlight the difference in approach, what I have concisely called method, and which stems from practical observation, comparing types of elaborations created by following the dictates of presumed originality linked to volumetric interweavings, and explaining how in many of their aspects they may have failed in reality.
We will elaborate a convenient comparison between what we will call the moments of ancient architecture and those of modern architecture without necessarily wishing to establish a clear division between historical periods, but only serving as a supplement to the understanding of a general framework that aims to highlight the differences related to the results obtained throughout history, indicating the right path for us to understand the errors that some “modern” works have evidenced since their appearance.
As mentioned, we will talk about moments and not historical periods to avoid, by setting overly rigid barriers, channeling the discussion into a clash between successive eras, when in reality we intend to compare not two technologies but one way of thinking with another: the way of ancient architecture and the way of modern architecture.
In these writings, there will be no exaltation of the past; it is not our intention, as we will find the ways of ancient architecture even in contemporary works, and we will appreciate the results in them.
Here, then, is a brief explanation of our approach, which will make it clear how the quantitative leap in architecture that has affected our cities has not gone hand in hand with the qualitative leap; and the advance of “modern” urbanization has not only disrupted our cities but has constructed an entirely foreign extension of its own.
© Arch. Alessandro Plini
www.archihouse.it
www.plini-leone.com
Contacts for projects: studioarchihouse@gmail.com or plini.leone@gmail.com
Mob. +39 3496039795
Bibliography: Tadao Ando: Sketches – Zeichnungen – ed.Birkhauser Verlag (image preview)
