Then we argue that the way people experience, discuss and think architecture can't be understood apart from the frenetic rhythm that characterizes contemporary society. Even if we manage to forget all other instruments and techniques of control – social class, race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth –, acceleration creates obvious limits to perception, freedom and creativity. This acceleration compresses and reduces the time devoted to knowledge and learning. It excludes spaces that can’t match the demand for fast production and consumption. Communication prevails upon thinking. This frenetic rhythm has been installed in all mass media, public presentations, political debates and social networks. Everything must be compressed within prearranged speeds and formats of expression. People can’t wait. They don’t even have time to feel bored or have room for introspection. All aspects of life are fully booked and the small breathing spaces in between will have an app to be fulfilled. People are forced to think and act according to deadlines within a rhythm that, by itself, excludes possibilities and only leads to the reproduction of what already exists. This rhythm thus gradually extends through all human activities, that are shaped, cut and assimilated into its dynamics. Acceleration gives rise to its own patterns of massive impact communication - as Pecha Kucha Nights or Ted Talks - with explosive sequences of vibrant images and dazzling statements. What people tend to ignore is that these patterns already carry, on their DNA, a restrictive orientation of thought. A determination of what is and what is not admissible to address. The frameworks in which the discussion may or not be situated, and the clear recognition of good and bad, successful or unsuccessful, according to its specific standards. It’s becoming increasingly clear how this way of thinking, which often presents itself as “out of the box”, actually ends up “leaving the box” only to proceed by a single and extremely confining path, which apparently has little to do with the deepest and most vicious problems of our society. That may also be the reason why it always sounds so convinced about the effectiveness of its miraculous solutions, rarely presenting doubts about their actual
effects in the real world, as if to say, beyond the market value. Uncertainty is also inadmissible when the main purpose is to sell a product. There’s no space for doubts or errors. Presentations and debates seem more and more reduced to unconnected sequences of slogans, worn out ideas disguised as new ones and catchy quotes. These sentences, when not limited to what is already expected, are more apt to overshadow our attention and trigger a momentary sense of novelty, than to build consistent lines of thought, to outline strategies, or to present new dimensions that could illuminate the dense complexity of the problems we face. Architecture and the design thinking process are always under this massive system of pressures and depressions. Timings and rhythms of production and expectation decisively influence its results. In most cases, it is unsuitable, unaffordable and unsustainable to step over boundaries, even when it’s crucial to achieve what is seen as appropriate or, even, radically appropriated. From the multinational architecture firm to the liberal professional office, production is controlled by squeezed timings and the daily drift of giving more answers than asking questions. As people get access to endless examples of architectural projects developed worldwide, it seems increasingly demanding to have a deeper understanding of a project’s contexts, backgrounds or guiding principles. Libraries become obsolete for students, universities put theory aside, History of Architecture is forgotten, leading architects to forget that History is still, anywhere and at anytime, being written. Practice steps away from theory when thoughts can only be expressed in Twitter's 280 characters and when Architecture is supposed to be restrained to Instagram images. This may be why we tend to feel that a radical transformation cannot take place without a culture of deceleration. A slowdown that may lead to the awareness of how much our gestures and language have been conforming to the image of the market - to the extent of appearing to us as a natural fact. A deceleration that may give us a glimpse of how much our practices and thinking have been decoupled from our real needs. A deceleration
that may detach subjects from the hegemonic rhythms of irrational growth and the vicious cycle of production and consumption. A deceleration that may create space for listeners and observers. The means by which architecture is discussed and disseminated today are not indifferent to this domain. On the contrary, they tend to be a symptom and a disguise for its deepening emptiness, its political impotence or depoliticization, its growing distance (and consequently irrelevance) in relation to the real problems. When facing the void, architects believe to be preserving their creative freedom when they turn to archaic and immutable forms, to pursue the foundations of what they still think as their autonomy. But the real problems, in all their complexity and multiplicity, are precisely what powers the emergence of truly different forms, singular spaces and times, ways of being and sharing the living space. When critically taken into account, in its multiple dimensions, reality is what can unleash architecture from its own disciplinary constraints, its assumptions and automatisms. And it’s also this complexity and multiplicity that we lose when we restrict ourselves to the dominant matrix of discussion. Reinventing architecture, bringing it closer to real problems and needs, therefore also entails reinventing the terms of its discussion, opening up other spaces and, above all, other times for its experience, exhibition and problem sharing. An architecture emancipated from the industry of projects and financial plus-value production, radically free to approach each reality, cannot presuppose the conception of an identifiable object or image. Its manifestations may be discrete or even undetectable by the dominant means used to represent and disseminate architecture. Dear reader, if you managed to have the time and interest to read this text so far, you may think that we should provide you with a solution or conclusion. We are sorry, but we can’t. Maybe we don’t have the time. We are always in the middle of this discussion and only occasionally manage to stretch the limits of practice. Slowing down, or stepping over boundaries, seems forbidden. What we can write with a certain level of confidence is that this discussion is not over. This is not the end.