[automatically translated] What injury today accompanies the city and modern architecture? What judgment will give its main users - that is, the majority of citizens of our time - that inhabit it, consume it, through it and often, perhaps without knowing why, they speak evil? What is the critical acclaim that accompanies an experience that is going to make a century, tugged between nostalgia historicist (yet?) And ideological caricatures of the future? Yet modern architecture shows an aptitude for change and a transformability that never breaks its own assumptions, shared perhaps a few constructive experiences of architectural history. And the ability to regenerate without losing its identity, the fluidity of its constitutive structure ( "... the modernity c'est transitional" Baudelaire used to say), and the ability to accommodate changes without losing the core of its original contents, seem to be the indispensable conditions to live our time. So to inhabit. A modernity - understood as a condition of the soul in which time (nean), and the transition take the place of the term - seems to constitute the ontology dell'architet-modern and contemporary ture.
|Publication status||Published - 2007|