FOR A NEW ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECTS
Something happens. And it’s very different from what happened in previous decades. Is placed in question the dominant archetype, usually called “modern movement architecture” so much broader … The products show, it is not only an apparent formal evolution, but above all change in the formulation of concepts basic.
Many of these concepts, consciously or unconsciously bind to the failures of a technological society, which has failed to define its purpose, and has desembocado in a huge range of problems – among them, the mass production of housing.
Result of this fact, questions that open a range that ranges from the technology used, to the lack of social adequacy of housing developments.
The psychosocial impact disastrous results, not to mention the ever wider consequences of the depletion of the natural environment which causes all sorts of seizures.
Emerging reflection of that is not accurate awareness of the vaunted identity technological development = social progress (identity increasingly remote and unattainable for a large portion of the poor), and the modern architecture reacts, reflecting the concern at all ideas too well grounded by their first postulators, and questions their principles and foundations.
The awareness for increasingly broad sections of society, the growing phenomenon of not defining purposes of technological society, with alarming signs of obvious environmental erosion worldwide, lead to a rethink of the model as a whole. The architecture has not relieved exception.
Not ready with answers to the broader problem but as reformist rigor parade works, breaking and establissment of more than half a century of principles that seemed immutable architecture.
An apparent great freedom takes care of projects where RESTATE the passion for drawing and shape.
Subtle combinations of hues and shades of unexpected color are present.
Often playful game hatch, making believe a big joke of overdeveloped country, connecting all at a reckless waste, where the emphasis is much more than questioning the principles of the modern movement in architecture than in postulating ways to go.
Transition, fashion, or whatever it is to label the new positions delineate clearly much deeper changes clearly delineate much deeper changes, without, however, approach results in the solution of the great dichotomies that have generated.
Its processes deny principles, since it did not meet its fundamental goals, and denying them take them universality.
So fit regional way of facing problems with their constructive and formal peculiarities, who walk not required to meet the major international interests involved in consecrated materials and systems.
These, attached to the establishment, try, along with the official criticism, return to the system where so well operate to avoid recycling and heavy investment for new adaptations.
However, again the walk stop something new in architecture, is self-evident and that its manifestation is very broad and definitive.
There are no established models, despite the already intense labeling from the non-formal formalism of the post-modern to futuristic high-tec views.
In all appears a reformist force.
Are passages for a way issuing into architecture of the century, which we do not have foresight, but recognition that will differ in their principles and foundations, those parameters that appeared to us as definitive, and that forged the artistic manifestations – and the architecture itself the twentieth century.