I am an architect and researcher based in Innsbruck. My work moves between the boundaries of architectural theory, history and architectural design. I am currently a PhD candidate with Peter Trummer at University of Innsbruck and research assistant at the department of architectural theory. Previously, I worked as a teaching assistant at the University of Genoa and as an architect and external collaborator for various offices, including Coop Himmelb(l)au in Vienna and Space Caviar in Genoa. Since 2013, I have been a member of Burrasca: a platform devoted to the exploration of architectural design and theory in the form of publications.
This paper is divided in three main parts – a-human future; a-human
present and a-human- past. Th... more This paper is divided in three main parts – a-human future; a-human present and a-human- past. These sections – with a fourth (Imagining a[-] Human Time) – are meant as thoughts on our relationship with technology. The paper starts with the anthropocentric definition of modernity, in architecture, developing the following hypothesis: technology might become an ahuman affair, independent from us. Consequently, architecture may become a self-regulated object while we will be extinct. The second section – a[-]human present – develops further the investigation by showing that we have always been in a recursive evolutionary process in which technologies and languages influence each-other, to the point that the human may be defined as the outcome of the ahuman. The third part – a[-] human past – investigates how technology redefines our past by means of post-production and remixing of information. Finally, it is discussed how one of the few practices we can focus on in order to maintain a certain cultural relevance – as architects, at least – is to focus on aesthetics in order to re-present viable alternatives to the present-state of things.
A short introduction to an issue of a magazine I edited. It is a short paper about architecture t... more A short introduction to an issue of a magazine I edited. It is a short paper about architecture theory, its production and its legitimization
In this paper it is analysed the way our knowledge and architecture it legitimized with the excus... more In this paper it is analysed the way our knowledge and architecture it legitimized with the excuse of presenting “Theorem”, an anthology I have been working on for Viceversa Magazine. First, are introduced three case studies: 1) K. Micheal Hays’ anthology, 2) Harry Francis Mallgrave’s and Christina Contandriopoulos’ anthology and 3) Charles Jencks’ and Karl Kropf’s one. This operation is done in order to address a meta-theoretical question: how is theory theorized? what are its ways legitimation? In the first one, it is spotted the idea of a “discourse” (referring to Jürgen Habermas); In the second one, the presence of different discourses. In the third one once can easily see the critique of the idea of discourse. More specifically, through the last one, it is discussed the status of architectural knowledge today in relation to social media, new ways of producing and sharing knowledge, by referring to the theory of “media ecology” and authors such as Manuel Castells or Douglas Rushkoff. As sort of way of dealing with such a reality, it is presented a work I have been developing in the last months for Viceversa magazine: an anthology of contemporary theoretical texts entitled “Theorem”. The idea of the “theorem” is presented as a way of imagining a sort of legitimization of theory that is produced by inquiring and a by constant dialogue. Such an objective is attempted by the development of a “critical anthology”. The contributors have in fact at first selected a recent text (published since 1989, as the date of the invention of the Internet in Geneva at CERN) and they have written, or drawn, a critical comment in order to entrench the text in today’s context. In this sense, it is attempted the development of a critical thought in opposition and dialogue with the new ways of producing and sharing theory by the juxtaposition of theory and poetics.
"One of the advantages of editing a webzine is the possibility to enter in contact with (and give... more "One of the advantages of editing a webzine is the possibility to enter in contact with (and give space to) discourses that move far away from one’s own imaginary, and therefore, to be enriched by that famous “other” that is progressively being suppressed by the algorithmic formulas of the so-called “filter bubble”. Not that Giacomo Pala and I don’t share a similar critical way of looking at contemporary architecture, but his approach to the discipline – filled up as it is of history, philosophy and a taste for postmodernist formalism - is that of an atypical Italian researcher: one that is capable of diving deep into architectural culture without running the risk of becoming dogmatic. The present text, which I am very happy to publish, sums up some of the research lines that Giacomo is currently working on, and particularly, the possibility to define theoretically a more open and inclusive ontological status for architecture, in response to the “normative” effect that accepted discourses, even in a period of disciplinary fragmentation as the one we live in, have on it."_ Davide Tommaso Ferrando
Architecture has always had a close relationship with other disciplines, contributing in forming ... more Architecture has always had a close relationship with other disciplines, contributing in forming the “cultural world”. For Instance, Theo Van Doesburg worked with artists such as Mondrian and Peter Eisenman has famously stolen concepts from other disciplines such as philosophy and art in order to invent metaphors and contents for the definition of his projects. These architects benefit from external disciplinary contents that enable them to generate narratives and new architectural ideas. But to talk about interdisciplinary, it is necessary to talk about a specific theoretical dimension in which the proper discipline’s boundaries are permeable and in which it is impossible to firmly affirm “what architecture is” and “what art is” because in this theoretical domain there is not any single base for architecture or art. As noticed by Anthony Vidler, this world is comparable to Rosalind Krauss’ idea of a disciplinary “expanded field” in which multiplicity and plurality are privileged over autonomy.1 In the expanded field disciplines’ boundaries blur into each other and there is not any theoretical center. What is something (architecture, sculpture, painting) and “what is not” are posed at the same level, enabling new meanings for the artistic (in our case, architectural) object. As Michael Heizer’s art projects are neither just architecture nor sculpture, FOA’s Fukuyama port terminal is neither just architecture nor landscape.
Any building can be studied from different point of views: from an " autonomous " point of view i... more Any building can be studied from different point of views: from an " autonomous " point of view it could be described through the analysis of its formal qualities, from a heteronomous one, it could be described through the analysis of the political and social processes that allowed the construction of such a building. Yet, these two dimensions of critical interpretation are not mutually exclusive. Heteronomy and autonomy can coexist because they ultimately are different interpretations of a building, not design techniques. Yet, the word " autonomy " is historically linked to an ideological conceptions of the discipline for which a building is (and must) be defined by a specific set of rules derived from language and/or history. Such an ideological ideal of architecture is the core theoretical assumptions in the work of many theorists and historians and finds its roots the Kantian philosophy: Consequently, any judgment related to aesthetic and formal qualities of anything derives from a cognitive process by which the subject can abstract more specific phenomenological qualities by the knowledge of categories. From this point of view, language is by itself a form of knowledge that gives architecture its right of existence. Nonetheless, even in the most autonomous expressions of architecture can always be found some heteronomous. For instance, despite the autonomous nature of Aldo Rossi's and Peter Eisenman's cultural projects, that rooted either in history (Rossi) or in language (Eisenman), their work shows an astonishingly long list of trans-disciplinary references: the philosophies of Chomsky, Derrida and Deleuze (Eisemnam). Rossi: the metaphysical poetics, or Federico Fellini's and Italo Calvino's " magical " realism. As proven by these examples, the existence of heteronomous referents is inevitable. Then, in order to deeply understand " autonomy " , it is necessary to deal with the " problem of embodiment " , derived from the theory of translation: an interpretative and hermeneutical problem; a translation. Still, this problem poses a key theoretical issue: since operating a translation means to operate a transaction of cultural values from a context to another, it is necessary to deal with a displacement of terms, concept and values that produces an offset of truth. First of all, we know that the work of the architect has always profited from external disciplinary contents enabling the generation of content. Furthermore, it also exists a specific theoretical dimension of art in which the proper discipline's boundaries are permeable. As noticed by Anthony Vidler, this idea of (not) architecture is analogous to Rosalind Krauss' idea of a disciplinary " expanded field " : a " field " in which disciplines' boundaries blur into each other and there is not any theoretical center. 1 Yet, what are the modes of such a translation? Literalism One of the most important theorists of architecture who has stolen ideas from art theory is Colin Rowe. Certainly Rowe believed the autonomous nature of the discipline and he theorized modernism as a sophisticated research on architectural formalism, a kind of language that was interpreted at its best by Le Corbusier. However, even though he isolated buildings like Palladio's Villa Malcontenta and Le Corbusier 's Ville Stein from their context by operating a close reading of their compositions, Rowe's formalist theories show more unusual and inter-disciplinary connections than is usually supposed. A famous example of Rowe's unconventional formalist reading of a building is the appropriation of concepts such as " pictorialism " and " Collage ". Indeed, the particular compositional idea related to the concept of " collage " is used by Rowe as an interpretative model for architecture through which he tries to link the tridimensional nature of space the phenomenological experience of architecture. Still, as noticed by Marc Linder, the idea of collage in Rowe's theories – as well as others such as pictorialism – draws a similarity to Clement Greenberg's theories. 2 The existence of such a similarity is certainly not a new discovery: they both share an interest in modernism as a formal discipline, they both have a narrative that assumes the existence of a positive history of this language's evolution and, last but not least, they both would have become " Oedipical " figures for the American theorists who followed them in their respective disciplines. Rowe's definition of " pictorialism " as a category through which it is possible to understand the purist buildings of Le Corbusier shows a connection with Greenberg's ideas (even though none of them ever cited the other) and, as well as Le Corbusier's white buildings are to Rowe's eyes defined by a succession of surfaces, so great modernist painting is, according to Greenberg, a pure surface.
Infrante le promesse dei Lumi, l’Utopia crolla: Gli albori del prefisso post- e del suffisso meta... more Infrante le promesse dei Lumi, l’Utopia crolla: Gli albori del prefisso post- e del suffisso meta-. La società: comunità liquida e frammentata. La città: topos senza tempo né spazio. L’architettura: labirinto di cui si è perso l’ingresso e da cui non si riesce a uscire; pratica edilizia: solo architetti, non più Architettura.
Nonostante la loro natura ridondante e pessimista, questo tipo di affermazioni (ormai classici della teoria e della sua “arte retorica”) illustrano molto chiaramente un innegabile cambiamento culturale avvenuto negli ultimi decenni, che può essere sintetizzato come lo spostamento di interesse dalla nozione di “Utopia” a quella di “sviluppo”. Se è vero, infatti, che l’Utopia è legata alla necessità del progresso al fine di immaginare una meta storica verso cui “marciare”, nel momento in cui il progresso perde il progetto Utopistico (l’orizzonte ideale), questo diventa nient’altro che pratico sviluppo. In altri termini, richiamando le parole Pier Paolo Pasolini, Il «progresso» che caratterizzava la cultura novecentesca “è una nozione ideale (sociale e politica): là dove lo «sviluppo» è un fatto pragmatico ed economico[1]”. Oggi basta sfogliare un qualsiasi quotidiano o accedere a qualsiasi info-news per comprendere come la cultura contemporanea ci metta di fronte a un mondo molto più interessato a fatti pragmatici ed economici che a nozioni ideali e politiche.
Questo cambiamento sociale può essere descritto usando l’architettura (in quanto disciplina culturale) come esempio. Ciò diventa particolarmente evidente affiancando all’immagine dell’Utopia quella del “nonluogo”. Il nonluogo, definito per la prima volta da Marc Augé nel 1992 è, come l’utopia (u-topos), un opposto dello spazio: un termine che porta al suo interno la sua stessa negazione[2]. A differenza dell’utopia, il nonluogo è però uno spazio di passaggio che esiste “qui ed ora”: i centri commerciali e gli aeroporti dove tutti noi viviamo una parte delle nostre esperienze. L’utopia, invece, pur essendo un luogo inesistente, è un orizzonte verso cui tendere: un luogo che se non c’è adesso, potrebbe esserci un domani. Parafrasando Pasolini, si può quindi dire che l’utopia è uno spazio ideale (sociale e politico): là dove il nonluogo è uno spazio pragmatico ed economico.
1745. Giovanni Battista Piranesi dà alle stampe “le Carceri d’invenzione”: un’opera caratterizzat... more 1745. Giovanni Battista Piranesi dà alle stampe “le Carceri d’invenzione”: un’opera caratterizzata da uno status mitico talmente pervasivo da ispirare ancora oggi sia avanguardisti che artisti popolari. Opera di un visionario, “le Carceri” è un insieme di capricci: gioco d’invenzione virtuosistica; sfera e labirinto, certo, ma anche vortice e infinito. 1934. Konstantin Melnikov progetta il Narkomtiazhprom: disegno fanatico per la “piazza rossa” di Mosca. Il progetto è presentato con una grande prospettiva che rappresenta in primo piano un enorme portale circolare ispirato alla nona tavola delle “Carceri”. Non più soltanto gioco e capriccio, ma anche utopia. Questo progetto è una figurazione della complessità del secolo scorso, un’Architettura che mostra il desiderio di governare la politica, la tecnica e la cultura del ventesimo secolo e di farne prassi e teoria. 1988: Philip Johnson e Mark Wigley inaugurano a New York la mostra “Deconstructivist architecture”. Qui sono presentati i lavori dei giovani architetti della generazione formatasi alla scuola dei radicali, a loro volta alternativi e autonomisti. Questi progetti, ispirati a Melnikov e al costruttivismo russo, non sono più utopia, ma “sublime inutilità”: gioco formale. Tramite le forme del costruttivismo private dell’idealismo rivoluzionario, l’architettura torna al capriccio piranesiano. Oggi: l’utopia è diventata ou-topia. “L’utopia è finita”, così si dice. L’utopia non è più prefigurazione, né progetto tecnico-scientifico. Perdendo il suo carattere messianico, il progetto è solo forma: citazione in stile radicale e disegno di buon gusto. “L’utopia è ormai regressiva”? Forse. Se è vero però che l’utopista deve distruggere i vecchi idola tribus prima di costruire “la Nuova Atlantide”, allora l’Utopia potrebbe (forse) sviluppare nuovi capricci, a patto e a rischio, però, di fare tabula rasa.
"A large number of architects, among the ones who proclaim technology to be the driving force of ... more "A large number of architects, among the ones who proclaim technology to be the driving force of architecture, have always claimed the superiority of their work because of its technological “qualities”. It actually is the logic of determinism: technology determines the future. Notwithstanding such a view on architecture, history and culture, one wonders if there is any chance to engage technology differently. Indeed, the architect uses technology, yet, the problem is how to use it. In fact, and unlike the optimizing “thinker” and the engineering tub-thumper, the architect is interested in technology, not because its products are novel for the simple fact of being “technological”, but rather because technology is one of the many media we have at our disposal and through which we can produce estrangements, new contents; new desires. For instance, the maison dom-ino wasn’t the simple application of new technologies, it was the expression of a creative and cultural desire mediated through technology."
We were hoping for it to happen in the early 2000s. We saw it coming with the opening of the exhi... more We were hoping for it to happen in the early 2000s. We saw it coming with the opening of the exhibition “Postmodernism: Style and Subversion, 1970 – 1990” at the V&A in London in 2011. But now, after recent discussions on the umpteenth supposed “postmodern revival,” it is finally sure: the word “postmodernism” is back and it’s here to stay. But as clear as it is that the word “postmodernism” is once again fashionable, it is not really clear what we mean when using it. Indeed, this word has been used to imply every possible meaning: architects have used it to describe fashionable and “cute” designs, some critics have used it to categorize everything that is colorful, while some theorists have been using it to affirm that, because of this concept, architecture has surrendered to technology or form, becoming nothing more than a caricature of its own presupposed moral values.
The thesis of this text is that colour cannot be interpreted as a merely superfluous and potentia... more The thesis of this text is that colour cannot be interpreted as a merely superfluous and potentially unnecessary aspect of a space/building, but rather that it has to be considered as a true property of the object and, in turn, is mandatory in the consideration of “perception," of the way in which appearances imbue reality with meaning, in this case, the reality of architecture. In other words, as Robin Evans once wrote: “appearance must be the measure of truth, at least temporarily. […] Appearance is never the whole truth, but it is true to itself ”. To do so, the work of three Austrian masters of architecture will be analysed — Adolf Loos, Josef Frank and Hans Hollein — as examples of three different paradigmatic ways of thinking about the question of colour, appearance and, ultimately, forms of producing knowledge through architecture.
Associating architecture, reality and fiction presents more than one snag. Neither reality can be... more Associating architecture, reality and fiction presents more than one snag. Neither reality can be reduced to fiction (and vice versa); nor architecture can be described as either “real” or “fictional”. On the one hand, it might appear that architecture is always “real” in the sense that anything that is material is real. On the other, architecture can be understood as rarely real and more obviously fictional. In this case, architecture is defined as a discipline narrowly confined to the metaphorical embodiment of cultural values. Notwithstanding this dualistic separation of fiction from reality in architecture, the thesis of this short essay will concern the possibility of finding some connections between these two definitions. In order to deepen this complex relation, then, this text will consider two artworks that are–apparently – characterized by two very different levels of fiction and realism. The first one is Victorien Sardou’s/Giacomo Puccini’s “Tosca”, a play in which fantasy takes place in the real world. While the second one is Giovanni Battista Piranesi’s “Campo Marzio dell’Antica Roma” where the real and fictional inventions are mutually entangled.
In this paper an attempt is made to discuss how the computer has imposed new conventions to archi... more In this paper an attempt is made to discuss how the computer has imposed new conventions to architecture over the last thirty years. The paper’s aim, is to discuss how the introduction of digital media has forced architecture to find ways to deal with new technologies and to develop new disciplinary meanings. First, the paper addresses the question of complexity and chaos in the postmodern discussion by the reading of Lyotard’s theories. Therefore, the essay pinpoints attempts of developing new conceptions of “complexity” in architecture derived from the post-modern sciences of indetermination. Interengsly enough, this was doable because both these kind of sciences and the architecture using these concepts were/are based on the adoption of digital technologies. Consequently, a number of scientific and architectural projects are discussed. Then, complexity is discussed as a design method allowing the embodiment of scientific concepts in architecture. Still, it is noted that these architectures are not scientific objects, but are more poetic reflections based on scientific concepts. This leads the paper to investigate the possibility of Architecture to use science as a narrative. Such a possibility is spotted in the texts of the same architects discussed before showing how a project can embody cultural values. A number of specific studies (such as James Gleick, Lyotard, Charles Jencks, Gilles Deleuze and Sanford Kwinter as well as others) are then introduced in order to verify these connections. Finally, a number of questions are introduced in relation to the present condition of architecture in order to verify if and how these kinds of experimentations are still actual.
What is architecture's ontological status?
A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream... more What is architecture's ontological status? A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream and practice in the search for a definition of architecture: architecture as architectureness
Seconda parte
Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura ... more Seconda parte Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura di Gabriela Galati
Fare il postumano: Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica è la raccolta di una serie di articoli dedicati al tema dell’arte e del postu- mano. Originalmente l’idea era di realizzare un unico numero dedicato al tema, ma la quantità di lavori di rilievo ci ha convinto a dedicarvi due numeri, dei quali si presenta il primo. Questi lavori hanno reso evidente quanto si dimostri pressante in questo momento ri ettere e declinare gli sviluppi teorici e critici del postumano alle diverse aree della pratica artistica. L’accelerazione espo- nenziale nello sviluppo tecnologico durante l’ultimo secolo ha portato a porsi delle domande sui cambiamenti nei rapporti tra uomo e tecnologia, e, quasi allo stesso tempo, sul vivente nel suo complesso. Da una parte queste domande sono state motivate dalla comprensione che l’intreccio costante con le nuove tecnologie stava generando nuovi e più complessi tipi identitari; dall’altro, che la teoretica predominanza umana su altre forme di vita non era più né sostenibile né tanto meno accettabile. Molte delle ricerche al riguardo venivano proposte sotto il nome di postuma- no: una “condizione” che implica un avanzamento dell’interesse verso una visione della contemporaneità più complessa, che mette sullo stesso piano tutte le forme di vita prendendo in considerazione anche i rapporti con l’inorganico.
This paper is divided in three main parts – a-human future; a-human
present and a-human- past. Th... more This paper is divided in three main parts – a-human future; a-human present and a-human- past. These sections – with a fourth (Imagining a[-] Human Time) – are meant as thoughts on our relationship with technology. The paper starts with the anthropocentric definition of modernity, in architecture, developing the following hypothesis: technology might become an ahuman affair, independent from us. Consequently, architecture may become a self-regulated object while we will be extinct. The second section – a[-]human present – develops further the investigation by showing that we have always been in a recursive evolutionary process in which technologies and languages influence each-other, to the point that the human may be defined as the outcome of the ahuman. The third part – a[-] human past – investigates how technology redefines our past by means of post-production and remixing of information. Finally, it is discussed how one of the few practices we can focus on in order to maintain a certain cultural relevance – as architects, at least – is to focus on aesthetics in order to re-present viable alternatives to the present-state of things.
A short introduction to an issue of a magazine I edited. It is a short paper about architecture t... more A short introduction to an issue of a magazine I edited. It is a short paper about architecture theory, its production and its legitimization
In this paper it is analysed the way our knowledge and architecture it legitimized with the excus... more In this paper it is analysed the way our knowledge and architecture it legitimized with the excuse of presenting “Theorem”, an anthology I have been working on for Viceversa Magazine. First, are introduced three case studies: 1) K. Micheal Hays’ anthology, 2) Harry Francis Mallgrave’s and Christina Contandriopoulos’ anthology and 3) Charles Jencks’ and Karl Kropf’s one. This operation is done in order to address a meta-theoretical question: how is theory theorized? what are its ways legitimation? In the first one, it is spotted the idea of a “discourse” (referring to Jürgen Habermas); In the second one, the presence of different discourses. In the third one once can easily see the critique of the idea of discourse. More specifically, through the last one, it is discussed the status of architectural knowledge today in relation to social media, new ways of producing and sharing knowledge, by referring to the theory of “media ecology” and authors such as Manuel Castells or Douglas Rushkoff. As sort of way of dealing with such a reality, it is presented a work I have been developing in the last months for Viceversa magazine: an anthology of contemporary theoretical texts entitled “Theorem”. The idea of the “theorem” is presented as a way of imagining a sort of legitimization of theory that is produced by inquiring and a by constant dialogue. Such an objective is attempted by the development of a “critical anthology”. The contributors have in fact at first selected a recent text (published since 1989, as the date of the invention of the Internet in Geneva at CERN) and they have written, or drawn, a critical comment in order to entrench the text in today’s context. In this sense, it is attempted the development of a critical thought in opposition and dialogue with the new ways of producing and sharing theory by the juxtaposition of theory and poetics.
"One of the advantages of editing a webzine is the possibility to enter in contact with (and give... more "One of the advantages of editing a webzine is the possibility to enter in contact with (and give space to) discourses that move far away from one’s own imaginary, and therefore, to be enriched by that famous “other” that is progressively being suppressed by the algorithmic formulas of the so-called “filter bubble”. Not that Giacomo Pala and I don’t share a similar critical way of looking at contemporary architecture, but his approach to the discipline – filled up as it is of history, philosophy and a taste for postmodernist formalism - is that of an atypical Italian researcher: one that is capable of diving deep into architectural culture without running the risk of becoming dogmatic. The present text, which I am very happy to publish, sums up some of the research lines that Giacomo is currently working on, and particularly, the possibility to define theoretically a more open and inclusive ontological status for architecture, in response to the “normative” effect that accepted discourses, even in a period of disciplinary fragmentation as the one we live in, have on it."_ Davide Tommaso Ferrando
Architecture has always had a close relationship with other disciplines, contributing in forming ... more Architecture has always had a close relationship with other disciplines, contributing in forming the “cultural world”. For Instance, Theo Van Doesburg worked with artists such as Mondrian and Peter Eisenman has famously stolen concepts from other disciplines such as philosophy and art in order to invent metaphors and contents for the definition of his projects. These architects benefit from external disciplinary contents that enable them to generate narratives and new architectural ideas. But to talk about interdisciplinary, it is necessary to talk about a specific theoretical dimension in which the proper discipline’s boundaries are permeable and in which it is impossible to firmly affirm “what architecture is” and “what art is” because in this theoretical domain there is not any single base for architecture or art. As noticed by Anthony Vidler, this world is comparable to Rosalind Krauss’ idea of a disciplinary “expanded field” in which multiplicity and plurality are privileged over autonomy.1 In the expanded field disciplines’ boundaries blur into each other and there is not any theoretical center. What is something (architecture, sculpture, painting) and “what is not” are posed at the same level, enabling new meanings for the artistic (in our case, architectural) object. As Michael Heizer’s art projects are neither just architecture nor sculpture, FOA’s Fukuyama port terminal is neither just architecture nor landscape.
Any building can be studied from different point of views: from an " autonomous " point of view i... more Any building can be studied from different point of views: from an " autonomous " point of view it could be described through the analysis of its formal qualities, from a heteronomous one, it could be described through the analysis of the political and social processes that allowed the construction of such a building. Yet, these two dimensions of critical interpretation are not mutually exclusive. Heteronomy and autonomy can coexist because they ultimately are different interpretations of a building, not design techniques. Yet, the word " autonomy " is historically linked to an ideological conceptions of the discipline for which a building is (and must) be defined by a specific set of rules derived from language and/or history. Such an ideological ideal of architecture is the core theoretical assumptions in the work of many theorists and historians and finds its roots the Kantian philosophy: Consequently, any judgment related to aesthetic and formal qualities of anything derives from a cognitive process by which the subject can abstract more specific phenomenological qualities by the knowledge of categories. From this point of view, language is by itself a form of knowledge that gives architecture its right of existence. Nonetheless, even in the most autonomous expressions of architecture can always be found some heteronomous. For instance, despite the autonomous nature of Aldo Rossi's and Peter Eisenman's cultural projects, that rooted either in history (Rossi) or in language (Eisenman), their work shows an astonishingly long list of trans-disciplinary references: the philosophies of Chomsky, Derrida and Deleuze (Eisemnam). Rossi: the metaphysical poetics, or Federico Fellini's and Italo Calvino's " magical " realism. As proven by these examples, the existence of heteronomous referents is inevitable. Then, in order to deeply understand " autonomy " , it is necessary to deal with the " problem of embodiment " , derived from the theory of translation: an interpretative and hermeneutical problem; a translation. Still, this problem poses a key theoretical issue: since operating a translation means to operate a transaction of cultural values from a context to another, it is necessary to deal with a displacement of terms, concept and values that produces an offset of truth. First of all, we know that the work of the architect has always profited from external disciplinary contents enabling the generation of content. Furthermore, it also exists a specific theoretical dimension of art in which the proper discipline's boundaries are permeable. As noticed by Anthony Vidler, this idea of (not) architecture is analogous to Rosalind Krauss' idea of a disciplinary " expanded field " : a " field " in which disciplines' boundaries blur into each other and there is not any theoretical center. 1 Yet, what are the modes of such a translation? Literalism One of the most important theorists of architecture who has stolen ideas from art theory is Colin Rowe. Certainly Rowe believed the autonomous nature of the discipline and he theorized modernism as a sophisticated research on architectural formalism, a kind of language that was interpreted at its best by Le Corbusier. However, even though he isolated buildings like Palladio's Villa Malcontenta and Le Corbusier 's Ville Stein from their context by operating a close reading of their compositions, Rowe's formalist theories show more unusual and inter-disciplinary connections than is usually supposed. A famous example of Rowe's unconventional formalist reading of a building is the appropriation of concepts such as " pictorialism " and " Collage ". Indeed, the particular compositional idea related to the concept of " collage " is used by Rowe as an interpretative model for architecture through which he tries to link the tridimensional nature of space the phenomenological experience of architecture. Still, as noticed by Marc Linder, the idea of collage in Rowe's theories – as well as others such as pictorialism – draws a similarity to Clement Greenberg's theories. 2 The existence of such a similarity is certainly not a new discovery: they both share an interest in modernism as a formal discipline, they both have a narrative that assumes the existence of a positive history of this language's evolution and, last but not least, they both would have become " Oedipical " figures for the American theorists who followed them in their respective disciplines. Rowe's definition of " pictorialism " as a category through which it is possible to understand the purist buildings of Le Corbusier shows a connection with Greenberg's ideas (even though none of them ever cited the other) and, as well as Le Corbusier's white buildings are to Rowe's eyes defined by a succession of surfaces, so great modernist painting is, according to Greenberg, a pure surface.
Infrante le promesse dei Lumi, l’Utopia crolla: Gli albori del prefisso post- e del suffisso meta... more Infrante le promesse dei Lumi, l’Utopia crolla: Gli albori del prefisso post- e del suffisso meta-. La società: comunità liquida e frammentata. La città: topos senza tempo né spazio. L’architettura: labirinto di cui si è perso l’ingresso e da cui non si riesce a uscire; pratica edilizia: solo architetti, non più Architettura.
Nonostante la loro natura ridondante e pessimista, questo tipo di affermazioni (ormai classici della teoria e della sua “arte retorica”) illustrano molto chiaramente un innegabile cambiamento culturale avvenuto negli ultimi decenni, che può essere sintetizzato come lo spostamento di interesse dalla nozione di “Utopia” a quella di “sviluppo”. Se è vero, infatti, che l’Utopia è legata alla necessità del progresso al fine di immaginare una meta storica verso cui “marciare”, nel momento in cui il progresso perde il progetto Utopistico (l’orizzonte ideale), questo diventa nient’altro che pratico sviluppo. In altri termini, richiamando le parole Pier Paolo Pasolini, Il «progresso» che caratterizzava la cultura novecentesca “è una nozione ideale (sociale e politica): là dove lo «sviluppo» è un fatto pragmatico ed economico[1]”. Oggi basta sfogliare un qualsiasi quotidiano o accedere a qualsiasi info-news per comprendere come la cultura contemporanea ci metta di fronte a un mondo molto più interessato a fatti pragmatici ed economici che a nozioni ideali e politiche.
Questo cambiamento sociale può essere descritto usando l’architettura (in quanto disciplina culturale) come esempio. Ciò diventa particolarmente evidente affiancando all’immagine dell’Utopia quella del “nonluogo”. Il nonluogo, definito per la prima volta da Marc Augé nel 1992 è, come l’utopia (u-topos), un opposto dello spazio: un termine che porta al suo interno la sua stessa negazione[2]. A differenza dell’utopia, il nonluogo è però uno spazio di passaggio che esiste “qui ed ora”: i centri commerciali e gli aeroporti dove tutti noi viviamo una parte delle nostre esperienze. L’utopia, invece, pur essendo un luogo inesistente, è un orizzonte verso cui tendere: un luogo che se non c’è adesso, potrebbe esserci un domani. Parafrasando Pasolini, si può quindi dire che l’utopia è uno spazio ideale (sociale e politico): là dove il nonluogo è uno spazio pragmatico ed economico.
1745. Giovanni Battista Piranesi dà alle stampe “le Carceri d’invenzione”: un’opera caratterizzat... more 1745. Giovanni Battista Piranesi dà alle stampe “le Carceri d’invenzione”: un’opera caratterizzata da uno status mitico talmente pervasivo da ispirare ancora oggi sia avanguardisti che artisti popolari. Opera di un visionario, “le Carceri” è un insieme di capricci: gioco d’invenzione virtuosistica; sfera e labirinto, certo, ma anche vortice e infinito. 1934. Konstantin Melnikov progetta il Narkomtiazhprom: disegno fanatico per la “piazza rossa” di Mosca. Il progetto è presentato con una grande prospettiva che rappresenta in primo piano un enorme portale circolare ispirato alla nona tavola delle “Carceri”. Non più soltanto gioco e capriccio, ma anche utopia. Questo progetto è una figurazione della complessità del secolo scorso, un’Architettura che mostra il desiderio di governare la politica, la tecnica e la cultura del ventesimo secolo e di farne prassi e teoria. 1988: Philip Johnson e Mark Wigley inaugurano a New York la mostra “Deconstructivist architecture”. Qui sono presentati i lavori dei giovani architetti della generazione formatasi alla scuola dei radicali, a loro volta alternativi e autonomisti. Questi progetti, ispirati a Melnikov e al costruttivismo russo, non sono più utopia, ma “sublime inutilità”: gioco formale. Tramite le forme del costruttivismo private dell’idealismo rivoluzionario, l’architettura torna al capriccio piranesiano. Oggi: l’utopia è diventata ou-topia. “L’utopia è finita”, così si dice. L’utopia non è più prefigurazione, né progetto tecnico-scientifico. Perdendo il suo carattere messianico, il progetto è solo forma: citazione in stile radicale e disegno di buon gusto. “L’utopia è ormai regressiva”? Forse. Se è vero però che l’utopista deve distruggere i vecchi idola tribus prima di costruire “la Nuova Atlantide”, allora l’Utopia potrebbe (forse) sviluppare nuovi capricci, a patto e a rischio, però, di fare tabula rasa.
"A large number of architects, among the ones who proclaim technology to be the driving force of ... more "A large number of architects, among the ones who proclaim technology to be the driving force of architecture, have always claimed the superiority of their work because of its technological “qualities”. It actually is the logic of determinism: technology determines the future. Notwithstanding such a view on architecture, history and culture, one wonders if there is any chance to engage technology differently. Indeed, the architect uses technology, yet, the problem is how to use it. In fact, and unlike the optimizing “thinker” and the engineering tub-thumper, the architect is interested in technology, not because its products are novel for the simple fact of being “technological”, but rather because technology is one of the many media we have at our disposal and through which we can produce estrangements, new contents; new desires. For instance, the maison dom-ino wasn’t the simple application of new technologies, it was the expression of a creative and cultural desire mediated through technology."
We were hoping for it to happen in the early 2000s. We saw it coming with the opening of the exhi... more We were hoping for it to happen in the early 2000s. We saw it coming with the opening of the exhibition “Postmodernism: Style and Subversion, 1970 – 1990” at the V&A in London in 2011. But now, after recent discussions on the umpteenth supposed “postmodern revival,” it is finally sure: the word “postmodernism” is back and it’s here to stay. But as clear as it is that the word “postmodernism” is once again fashionable, it is not really clear what we mean when using it. Indeed, this word has been used to imply every possible meaning: architects have used it to describe fashionable and “cute” designs, some critics have used it to categorize everything that is colorful, while some theorists have been using it to affirm that, because of this concept, architecture has surrendered to technology or form, becoming nothing more than a caricature of its own presupposed moral values.
The thesis of this text is that colour cannot be interpreted as a merely superfluous and potentia... more The thesis of this text is that colour cannot be interpreted as a merely superfluous and potentially unnecessary aspect of a space/building, but rather that it has to be considered as a true property of the object and, in turn, is mandatory in the consideration of “perception," of the way in which appearances imbue reality with meaning, in this case, the reality of architecture. In other words, as Robin Evans once wrote: “appearance must be the measure of truth, at least temporarily. […] Appearance is never the whole truth, but it is true to itself ”. To do so, the work of three Austrian masters of architecture will be analysed — Adolf Loos, Josef Frank and Hans Hollein — as examples of three different paradigmatic ways of thinking about the question of colour, appearance and, ultimately, forms of producing knowledge through architecture.
Associating architecture, reality and fiction presents more than one snag. Neither reality can be... more Associating architecture, reality and fiction presents more than one snag. Neither reality can be reduced to fiction (and vice versa); nor architecture can be described as either “real” or “fictional”. On the one hand, it might appear that architecture is always “real” in the sense that anything that is material is real. On the other, architecture can be understood as rarely real and more obviously fictional. In this case, architecture is defined as a discipline narrowly confined to the metaphorical embodiment of cultural values. Notwithstanding this dualistic separation of fiction from reality in architecture, the thesis of this short essay will concern the possibility of finding some connections between these two definitions. In order to deepen this complex relation, then, this text will consider two artworks that are–apparently – characterized by two very different levels of fiction and realism. The first one is Victorien Sardou’s/Giacomo Puccini’s “Tosca”, a play in which fantasy takes place in the real world. While the second one is Giovanni Battista Piranesi’s “Campo Marzio dell’Antica Roma” where the real and fictional inventions are mutually entangled.
In this paper an attempt is made to discuss how the computer has imposed new conventions to archi... more In this paper an attempt is made to discuss how the computer has imposed new conventions to architecture over the last thirty years. The paper’s aim, is to discuss how the introduction of digital media has forced architecture to find ways to deal with new technologies and to develop new disciplinary meanings. First, the paper addresses the question of complexity and chaos in the postmodern discussion by the reading of Lyotard’s theories. Therefore, the essay pinpoints attempts of developing new conceptions of “complexity” in architecture derived from the post-modern sciences of indetermination. Interengsly enough, this was doable because both these kind of sciences and the architecture using these concepts were/are based on the adoption of digital technologies. Consequently, a number of scientific and architectural projects are discussed. Then, complexity is discussed as a design method allowing the embodiment of scientific concepts in architecture. Still, it is noted that these architectures are not scientific objects, but are more poetic reflections based on scientific concepts. This leads the paper to investigate the possibility of Architecture to use science as a narrative. Such a possibility is spotted in the texts of the same architects discussed before showing how a project can embody cultural values. A number of specific studies (such as James Gleick, Lyotard, Charles Jencks, Gilles Deleuze and Sanford Kwinter as well as others) are then introduced in order to verify these connections. Finally, a number of questions are introduced in relation to the present condition of architecture in order to verify if and how these kinds of experimentations are still actual.
What is architecture's ontological status?
A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream... more What is architecture's ontological status? A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream and practice in the search for a definition of architecture: architecture as architectureness
Seconda parte
Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura ... more Seconda parte Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura di Gabriela Galati
Fare il postumano: Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica è la raccolta di una serie di articoli dedicati al tema dell’arte e del postu- mano. Originalmente l’idea era di realizzare un unico numero dedicato al tema, ma la quantità di lavori di rilievo ci ha convinto a dedicarvi due numeri, dei quali si presenta il primo. Questi lavori hanno reso evidente quanto si dimostri pressante in questo momento ri ettere e declinare gli sviluppi teorici e critici del postumano alle diverse aree della pratica artistica. L’accelerazione espo- nenziale nello sviluppo tecnologico durante l’ultimo secolo ha portato a porsi delle domande sui cambiamenti nei rapporti tra uomo e tecnologia, e, quasi allo stesso tempo, sul vivente nel suo complesso. Da una parte queste domande sono state motivate dalla comprensione che l’intreccio costante con le nuove tecnologie stava generando nuovi e più complessi tipi identitari; dall’altro, che la teoretica predominanza umana su altre forme di vita non era più né sostenibile né tanto meno accettabile. Molte delle ricerche al riguardo venivano proposte sotto il nome di postuma- no: una “condizione” che implica un avanzamento dell’interesse verso una visione della contemporaneità più complessa, che mette sullo stesso piano tutte le forme di vita prendendo in considerazione anche i rapporti con l’inorganico.
Uploads
Papers by Giacomo Pala
present and a-human- past. These sections – with a fourth (Imagining a[-]
Human Time) – are meant as thoughts on our relationship with technology. The paper starts with the anthropocentric definition of modernity, in
architecture, developing the following hypothesis: technology might become an ahuman affair, independent from us. Consequently, architecture
may become a self-regulated object while we will be extinct. The second
section – a[-]human present – develops further the investigation by showing that we have always been in a recursive evolutionary process in which
technologies and languages influence each-other, to the point that the human may be defined as the outcome of the ahuman. The third part – a[-]
human past – investigates how technology redefines our past by means of
post-production and remixing of information. Finally, it is discussed how
one of the few practices we can focus on in order to maintain a certain cultural relevance – as architects, at least – is to focus on aesthetics in order to re-present viable alternatives to the present-state of things.
world”. For Instance, Theo Van Doesburg worked with artists such as Mondrian and Peter Eisenman has
famously stolen concepts from other disciplines such as philosophy and art in order to invent metaphors
and contents for the definition of his projects. These architects benefit from external disciplinary contents
that enable them to generate narratives and new architectural ideas. But to talk about interdisciplinary, it
is necessary to talk about a specific theoretical dimension in which the proper discipline’s boundaries are
permeable and in which it is impossible to firmly affirm “what architecture is” and “what art is” because in
this theoretical domain there is not any single base for architecture or art. As noticed by Anthony Vidler,
this world is comparable to Rosalind Krauss’ idea of a disciplinary “expanded field” in which multiplicity
and plurality are privileged over autonomy.1 In the expanded field disciplines’ boundaries blur into each
other and there is not any theoretical center. What is something (architecture, sculpture, painting) and
“what is not” are posed at the same level, enabling new meanings for the artistic (in our case,
architectural) object. As Michael Heizer’s art projects are neither just architecture nor sculpture, FOA’s
Fukuyama port terminal is neither just architecture nor landscape.
La società: comunità liquida e frammentata.
La città: topos senza tempo né spazio.
L’architettura: labirinto di cui si è perso l’ingresso e da cui non si riesce a uscire; pratica edilizia: solo architetti, non più Architettura.
Nonostante la loro natura ridondante e pessimista, questo tipo di affermazioni (ormai classici della teoria e della sua “arte retorica”) illustrano molto chiaramente un innegabile cambiamento culturale avvenuto negli ultimi decenni, che può essere sintetizzato come lo spostamento di interesse dalla nozione di “Utopia” a quella di “sviluppo”. Se è vero, infatti, che l’Utopia è legata alla necessità del progresso al fine di immaginare una meta storica verso cui “marciare”, nel momento in cui il progresso perde il progetto Utopistico (l’orizzonte ideale), questo diventa nient’altro che pratico sviluppo. In altri termini, richiamando le parole Pier Paolo Pasolini, Il «progresso» che caratterizzava la cultura novecentesca “è una nozione ideale (sociale e politica): là dove lo «sviluppo» è un fatto pragmatico ed economico[1]”. Oggi basta sfogliare un qualsiasi quotidiano o accedere a qualsiasi info-news per comprendere come la cultura contemporanea ci metta di fronte a un mondo molto più interessato a fatti pragmatici ed economici che a nozioni ideali e politiche.
Questo cambiamento sociale può essere descritto usando l’architettura (in quanto disciplina culturale) come esempio. Ciò diventa particolarmente evidente affiancando all’immagine dell’Utopia quella del “nonluogo”. Il nonluogo, definito per la prima volta da Marc Augé nel 1992 è, come l’utopia (u-topos), un opposto dello spazio: un termine che porta al suo interno la sua stessa negazione[2]. A differenza dell’utopia, il nonluogo è però uno spazio di passaggio che esiste “qui ed ora”: i centri commerciali e gli aeroporti dove tutti noi viviamo una parte delle nostre esperienze. L’utopia, invece, pur essendo un luogo inesistente, è un orizzonte verso cui tendere: un luogo che se non c’è adesso, potrebbe esserci un domani. Parafrasando Pasolini, si può quindi dire che l’utopia è uno spazio ideale (sociale e politico): là dove il nonluogo è uno spazio pragmatico ed economico.
A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream and practice in the search for a definition of architecture: architecture as architectureness
Editor by Giacomo Pala
Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura di Gabriela Galati
Fare il postumano: Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica
è la raccolta di una serie di articoli dedicati al tema dell’arte e del postu- mano. Originalmente l’idea era di realizzare un unico numero dedicato al tema, ma la quantità di lavori di rilievo ci ha convinto a dedicarvi due numeri, dei quali si presenta il primo.
Questi lavori hanno reso evidente quanto si dimostri pressante in questo momento ri ettere e declinare gli sviluppi teorici e critici del postumano alle diverse aree della pratica artistica. L’accelerazione espo- nenziale nello sviluppo tecnologico durante l’ultimo secolo ha portato a porsi delle domande sui cambiamenti nei rapporti tra uomo e tecnologia, e, quasi allo stesso tempo, sul vivente nel suo complesso. Da una parte queste domande sono state motivate dalla comprensione che l’intreccio costante con le nuove tecnologie stava generando nuovi e più complessi tipi identitari; dall’altro, che la teoretica predominanza umana su altre forme di vita non era più né sostenibile né tanto meno accettabile. Molte delle ricerche al riguardo venivano proposte sotto il nome di postuma- no: una “condizione” che implica un avanzamento dell’interesse verso una visione della contemporaneità più complessa, che mette sullo stesso piano tutte le forme di vita prendendo in considerazione anche i rapporti con l’inorganico.
present and a-human- past. These sections – with a fourth (Imagining a[-]
Human Time) – are meant as thoughts on our relationship with technology. The paper starts with the anthropocentric definition of modernity, in
architecture, developing the following hypothesis: technology might become an ahuman affair, independent from us. Consequently, architecture
may become a self-regulated object while we will be extinct. The second
section – a[-]human present – develops further the investigation by showing that we have always been in a recursive evolutionary process in which
technologies and languages influence each-other, to the point that the human may be defined as the outcome of the ahuman. The third part – a[-]
human past – investigates how technology redefines our past by means of
post-production and remixing of information. Finally, it is discussed how
one of the few practices we can focus on in order to maintain a certain cultural relevance – as architects, at least – is to focus on aesthetics in order to re-present viable alternatives to the present-state of things.
world”. For Instance, Theo Van Doesburg worked with artists such as Mondrian and Peter Eisenman has
famously stolen concepts from other disciplines such as philosophy and art in order to invent metaphors
and contents for the definition of his projects. These architects benefit from external disciplinary contents
that enable them to generate narratives and new architectural ideas. But to talk about interdisciplinary, it
is necessary to talk about a specific theoretical dimension in which the proper discipline’s boundaries are
permeable and in which it is impossible to firmly affirm “what architecture is” and “what art is” because in
this theoretical domain there is not any single base for architecture or art. As noticed by Anthony Vidler,
this world is comparable to Rosalind Krauss’ idea of a disciplinary “expanded field” in which multiplicity
and plurality are privileged over autonomy.1 In the expanded field disciplines’ boundaries blur into each
other and there is not any theoretical center. What is something (architecture, sculpture, painting) and
“what is not” are posed at the same level, enabling new meanings for the artistic (in our case,
architectural) object. As Michael Heizer’s art projects are neither just architecture nor sculpture, FOA’s
Fukuyama port terminal is neither just architecture nor landscape.
La società: comunità liquida e frammentata.
La città: topos senza tempo né spazio.
L’architettura: labirinto di cui si è perso l’ingresso e da cui non si riesce a uscire; pratica edilizia: solo architetti, non più Architettura.
Nonostante la loro natura ridondante e pessimista, questo tipo di affermazioni (ormai classici della teoria e della sua “arte retorica”) illustrano molto chiaramente un innegabile cambiamento culturale avvenuto negli ultimi decenni, che può essere sintetizzato come lo spostamento di interesse dalla nozione di “Utopia” a quella di “sviluppo”. Se è vero, infatti, che l’Utopia è legata alla necessità del progresso al fine di immaginare una meta storica verso cui “marciare”, nel momento in cui il progresso perde il progetto Utopistico (l’orizzonte ideale), questo diventa nient’altro che pratico sviluppo. In altri termini, richiamando le parole Pier Paolo Pasolini, Il «progresso» che caratterizzava la cultura novecentesca “è una nozione ideale (sociale e politica): là dove lo «sviluppo» è un fatto pragmatico ed economico[1]”. Oggi basta sfogliare un qualsiasi quotidiano o accedere a qualsiasi info-news per comprendere come la cultura contemporanea ci metta di fronte a un mondo molto più interessato a fatti pragmatici ed economici che a nozioni ideali e politiche.
Questo cambiamento sociale può essere descritto usando l’architettura (in quanto disciplina culturale) come esempio. Ciò diventa particolarmente evidente affiancando all’immagine dell’Utopia quella del “nonluogo”. Il nonluogo, definito per la prima volta da Marc Augé nel 1992 è, come l’utopia (u-topos), un opposto dello spazio: un termine che porta al suo interno la sua stessa negazione[2]. A differenza dell’utopia, il nonluogo è però uno spazio di passaggio che esiste “qui ed ora”: i centri commerciali e gli aeroporti dove tutti noi viviamo una parte delle nostre esperienze. L’utopia, invece, pur essendo un luogo inesistente, è un orizzonte verso cui tendere: un luogo che se non c’è adesso, potrebbe esserci un domani. Parafrasando Pasolini, si può quindi dire che l’utopia è uno spazio ideale (sociale e politico): là dove il nonluogo è uno spazio pragmatico ed economico.
A paper about the notions of utopia, radical, daydream and practice in the search for a definition of architecture: architecture as architectureness
Fare il postumano. Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica a cura di Gabriela Galati
Fare il postumano: Un nuovo scenario della teoria e della pratica artistica
è la raccolta di una serie di articoli dedicati al tema dell’arte e del postu- mano. Originalmente l’idea era di realizzare un unico numero dedicato al tema, ma la quantità di lavori di rilievo ci ha convinto a dedicarvi due numeri, dei quali si presenta il primo.
Questi lavori hanno reso evidente quanto si dimostri pressante in questo momento ri ettere e declinare gli sviluppi teorici e critici del postumano alle diverse aree della pratica artistica. L’accelerazione espo- nenziale nello sviluppo tecnologico durante l’ultimo secolo ha portato a porsi delle domande sui cambiamenti nei rapporti tra uomo e tecnologia, e, quasi allo stesso tempo, sul vivente nel suo complesso. Da una parte queste domande sono state motivate dalla comprensione che l’intreccio costante con le nuove tecnologie stava generando nuovi e più complessi tipi identitari; dall’altro, che la teoretica predominanza umana su altre forme di vita non era più né sostenibile né tanto meno accettabile. Molte delle ricerche al riguardo venivano proposte sotto il nome di postuma- no: una “condizione” che implica un avanzamento dell’interesse verso una visione della contemporaneità più complessa, che mette sullo stesso piano tutte le forme di vita prendendo in considerazione anche i rapporti con l’inorganico.