Roberto Podda - About Architecture

Roberto Podda

About Architecture Conceptual Tools for the Practice of Design

Index

6

Introduction

Conceptual Tools for Architectural Practice

1/ The Foundations of Architecture 11

1.1/ Architecture The Distinction Between Building and Architecture

27

1.2/ Acquiring Equipment The Tools for Deciphering Architectural Form

39

1.3/ The Small, the Medium, the Large, and the Multi-Scale The Relational Nature of Scale

2/ Perception, Memory, and Meaning 51

2.1/ Eye, Foot, Hand Embodied Perception and Architectural Experience

63

2.2/ Notes on Urban Biography The City as a Living, Historical Entity

79

2.3/ The Semanticization of Use Meaning, Function, and Signification in Architecture

3/ Type, Form, and Composition 89

3.1/ A (Nice) Type is Not a Model The Generative Principle of Type

100

3.2/ The Beautiful, the Right, and the True The Triadic Unity of Architecture

112

3.3/ About Reality and Representation Drawing as a Mode of Thought

4/ Instruments of Design 125

4.1/ Anatomies The Section as a Generative Instrument

136

4.2/ Composition and Montage The Art of Assembling Fragments

149

4.3/ The Shape of the Site Architecture as a Modification of the Land

5/ Ethics, Landscape, and Synthesis 161

5.1/ Landscape Ethics and Aesthetics The Ethical-Aesthetic Field of Architecture

172

5.2/ Synthesis and Syntax The Grammar and Poetics of Architecture

182

Architecture in the Age of Prosthetic Intelligence A Conclusive Reflection

Introduction Conceptual Tools for Architectural Practice

This book was born for architecture students, though, when you think about it, it was written by an architecture student for himself. I began collecting these pages when I was still a doctoral student, trying to bring order to the questions that beset me, the uncertainties that accompanied me, and the tools I felt I needed to construct in order to face the profession. It was not an editorial project then, but a notebook of notes—an attempt to give names to the things I did not understand, to fix on paper concepts that eluded me, to make operational what in theoretical books remained abstract. The ideas gathered in this small book still represent an attempt to collect some of the main “conceptual tools” that I consider indispensable for anyone practicing architecture.

These short texts are intended to systematise and recompose, within the modest scope of a small booklet and without claiming to be exhaustive, some of the elementary concepts on which our discipline is founded. My aim has been to distill notions that, once acquired, can be immediately applied in practice—operational concepts that serve as a bridge between theory and the reality of the architectural project.

The book is organised into five parts, each corresponding to a fundamental dimension of architectural thought. Part One lays the foundations, exploring the very nature of architecture and the tools required to engage with it. Part Two delves into perception, memory, and meaning—the ways in which we experience and interpret the built environment. Part Three examines the generative principles of type, form, Introduction

7

and composition, together with the ethical and aesthetic dimensions that guide architectural judgment. Part Four turns to the instruments of design—the section, montage, and the shaping of the site—while Part Five culminates in the ethical-aesthetic field of landscape and the synthesis of architecture as a poetics. This structure is not a rigid hierarchy but a constellation of themes that illuminate one another, each chapter offering a different lens through which to view the architectural phenomenon. The images are very few and appear only where strictly necessary: everything else is entrusted to words. This choice is not accidental. If for the writer words are stones, for the architect stones are words. This is the reason why, under the heading “occupation” on his identity card, Le Corbusier wrote: “man of letters.” Architecture is constructed also—and perhaps above all—through language: the language of forms, of relationships, of proportions, but also the language of words that are needed to think them, to describe them, and to share them. This book is, in this sense, an attempt to speak of architecture with the words that architecture itself suggests to us. Despite its structure, the tone of these pages remains that of a conversation between university colleagues. I address the reader not as a passive learner but as someone who is travelling a path similar to my own, someone who confronts the same doubts and the same questions. This is why I am not afraid to ask very simple questions, sometimes even naïve: they are the questions I asked myself when I was a student and which, deep down, I still ask myself today. My hope is that these tools may prove especially useful to today’s young architects, who approach the discipline at a time when computational tools often give the impression that it is possible to delegate to a more or less complex algorithm the task of proposing solutions to architectural problems. In making this premise, I do not in any way wish to legitimise or propose a retrograde and hostile attitude to technological advancement. On the contrary, I believe that, since architecture is an exquisitely human and humanistic discipline, it is the duty—and the privilege—of every architect to avail themselves, in the pursuit of their full expression, of any technique or technology that may help to broaden and fully develop their abilities. It remains implicit that, whenever a problem arises, the issue always lies upstream of the tool used—that is, in the natural capacities and sensitivity of the 8

person. To close this introduction, you should know that what you now have in your hands is not so much a book as a series of notes in the margins of my personal experience: first as a student, then as an architect, and now as a teacher. They are fragments of possible solutions, feeble and unstable certainties with which I try to shore up my path every day. I do not expect you to share them, but I hope that at least some of the positions proposed here may offer—even if only in part—a starting point for your own personal reflection on the facts of architecture.

Because it is in this reflection, in this constant questioning of our convictions and our methods, that the discipline remains alive. The tools we use change, but the task remains—the task of giving form to the human habitat, of mediating between the ideal and the real, and of participating in the ongoing harmonisation of the world.

Introduction

9

1/ The Foundations of Architecture

1.1/ Architecture The Distinction Between Building and Architecture

I have long pondered the distinction between a mere building and a true work of architecture. At what point does a construction become architecture? As a young student, I often asked myself this question—perhaps searching for a presumed “superiority” of architecture that would justify the path I was about to undertake. I will not deny that I sometimes felt I was sinning in pride.

I grew discouraged when I could not recognize, with the same unquestionable certainty that others seemed to possess (or believed they possessed), the undeniable and specific attributes in many so-called “Works of Architecture.”

At the time, I was reading Gio Ponti’s book L’architettura è un cristallo (Architecture is a Crystal), and I found solace in the fact that Ponti, too, had not only emphasised this same distinction (building versus architecture) in a dedicated chapter but had made it the conceptual foundation of his entire book—starting with the title itself. By defining architecture as a simple crystal rather than a diamond—precious in itself—Ponti exalted its value as a unique and unrepeatable form, notable not for its material worth but for its “well-architected” quality.

My question was simple: what are the unmistakable qualities that determine architecture? And conversely, what must the architect do to create a work of architecture? If posed to an architect, such a question might seem elementary—like asking a doctor what medicine is—and would therefore receive a sure, unequivocal, ontologically specific answer.

Architecture

11

2/ Perception, Memory, and Meaning

2.1/ Eye, Foot, Hand Embodied Perception and Architectural Experience

I remember this sequence, presented in order by my professor of architectural composition during one of his lectures at the Politecnico di Milano.1 I was deeply impressed—almost fascinated. I found it, and to this day I still find it, a lucid and instrumental synthesis of the human being in his perceptive code.

Every space is, first of all, unknown; it is not given to us to know it a priori.

Just as an infant in swaddling clothes does not yet possess the means to probe the world and stretches out his arm to measure its depth, so a man placed in a new environment, before venturing into it, casts his gaze (Eye) forward, pushes it as far as possible, tries to caress every detail, and investigates it. When he feels he has understood the primary structuring elements, he cautiously ventures out, finding the courage to move inside (Foot). And so, step by step, one arrives where the eye had previously rested: now it is possible to verify, to touch (Hand) concretely what previously could only be reconstructed mentally, in a complex and natural interweaving of perception and experience developed against every possible trompe-l’œil.

All this happens every day, to each of us, with extreme naturalness; it is part of our way of “inhabiting” the environment; therefore, nothing specialised, elitist, or difficult to understand. In Eye/Foot/Hand, there was only the will to give a simple synthetic translation of an anthropic fact.

Eye, Foot, Hand

51

3/ Type, Form, and Composition

3.1/ A (Nice) Type is Not a Model The Generative Principle of Type

Despite its title, this chapter is not about fashion. The adjective “nice”— placed not by chance in an equivocal position—allows us to underline the current crisis in which one of the disciplinary concepts, that of building Type, finds itself. The concept of Type is too often perceived today as excessively abstract, complex, obsolete, and unsuited to progress and the incessant rhythms of the contemporary world. In other cases, it is trivialised, simplified, and distorted, so that it is misunderstood and transformed into a Model.

So, what conceptual tool do we use when we speak of Type?

Antoine-Chrysostôme Quatremère de Quincy (1832) wrote on this subject: “The term type derives from the Greek word tùttos which expresses, in a general sense and therefore applicable to many gradations or varieties of the same idea, model, matrix, imprint, form, figure, in relief or bas-relief. [...] In its compounds, the voice tùttos expresses certain varieties of works of sculpture.”1 He investigates the origins of the term, specifying that: “The use of the word typos (Type) is often less technical in our language, and more often metaphorical. [...] Although there is an easy-to-understand difference between them, it is used as a synonym for the model.

The word ‘type’ does not so much present the image of something to be copied or perfectly imitated as the idea of an element that must itself serve as a rule for the model. Thus it will not be said (or at least it should not be said) that a statue, a composition of a finished painting, A (Nice) Type is Not a Model

89

3.2/ The Beautiful, the Right, and the True The Triadic Unity of Architecture

Kenneth Frampton, in his Modern Architecture: A Critical History, discussing Adolf Loos and the “crisis of culture” in the early 1900s, republished a cartoon that appeared in Viennese newspapers in those same years, criticising the façade of the Goldman and Salatsch house (1910–1911).

The caption read: “Meditating on art, the truly modern man strolls through the streets. Suddenly he stops, petrified: he has found what he had been searching for for so long.” The sarcastic and harsh tone with which this work was received helps us, here today, to pose the question more clearly.

During a lecture in my student years, my dear professor Ernesto d’Alfonso, in concluding his lecture, told us: “Remember... after all, architecture is the right balance of Beautiful + Right.” This sort of simple equation—a skilful mixture of two elements—in its extreme clarity and simplicity, seemed to me, as a young student, to finally answer many of my doubts. I was later able to delve deeper and learn that my professor, like me as a young student, had also learnt it from his professor, the great Milanese master Ernesto Nathan Rogers, who had in fact been its originator. Since then, I still use it, as I do now, in a didactic key, with the aim of summarising the essence of our work as architects as “wise dosers” of these two elements.

But what did my professor and, before him, E. N. Rogers mean by that pair of adjectives? I often still wonder about it, and each time I find different interpretations. Well, I will now try to argue my interpretation—or at least the one that has convinced me the most over the years. I will 100

Type, Form, and Composition

start by reiterating that architecture is a “finished artefact” that, for this reason, cannot be given a priori, as it is realised through a specific sequence of ideas, actions, facts, interactions, and phenomena that determine it as such—the “formed form.”

In accordance with these assumptions, I will set up my analysis starting from the artefact, and I will begin by observing it from two precise points of view: the How and the What. Now, returning to the initial Beautiful + Right formula, following an initial, superficial intuitive approach, we could perhaps say that through the How, it may be possible to define the Right, and consequently, through the What, it will be possible to delimit the value of the Beautiful.

Although still excessively hermetic, this dichotomy helps us to establish an initial relationship between the finite Form and its constitutive Process. However, a first lability emerges, from which another immediately unravels. It has been said: “Beautiful/What” - “Right/How.” Now, to stress the formula, we will put it in crisis by inverting the pairings, so that we will have: “Beautiful/How” - “Right/What.” In this case, one must recognise Beauty in the How the thing was made (the Process) and, consequently, seek the Right in the Thing itself (the Form and its reasons).

It is useful to this reasoning to argue that Beauty, as understood here, can be expressed both through the Thing in itself and through the How. If seen in these terms, we could say that there is “Beauty” not only in the Form but also in the Process. An example: we have probably all heard of the golden section or the Fibonacci sequence. Well, I think I can say that for the estimators of harmonic ratios, both—whether in the form of a mathematical formula or geometric representation—can be understood as “beautiful objects in themselves.” When viewed from the perspective of a mathematician, it is probably the mathematical expressions themselves that will be attractive as a manifestation in numerical form of the very concept of perfection. Similarly, as architects, we may claim, as has often been argued, that architectures conformed by following their dictates are endowed with harmonious and beautiful forms. When this happens, in the case of both the mathematician and the architect, things become unhinged, and it becomes difficult to isolate the principle (the rule) from the application of it (the Form).

The Beautiful, the Right, and the True

101

4.2/ Composition and Montage The Art of Assembling Fragments

I will attempt here, through an operation that could be defined as “literary recomposition,” to reconstruct a transversal line of metahistorical coherence between different disciplines—painting, cinema, literature, and architecture—to trace in them the common denominator of the various creative processes, between abstraction and imagination, representation and reality, arguing that there is a single, analogous creative process, transversal to all the creative expressions of the human race. In doing so, we will keep architecture clearly in the background, always being convinced that all the arts coincide in it. The product is a narrative in which the sum of different contributions from texts that can be traced back to the various artistic disciplines aims to reconstruct, despite the differences, a line of mutual congruence.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing writes on this subject: “Painting has for its object to imitate the external forms of bodies; poetry represents not all at once but one after the other the parts of an action or any other thing; painting uses figures and colours in space, poetry articulated sounds in time. Thus, unlike poetry, which is temporal and dynamic and can narrate actions in succession through time, painting, which is spatial and static, in its coexistent representations can only make use of a single moment of action; therefore it must capture the supreme moment, from which the preceding and the following can be better understood.”1 Paul Valéry, in his reflections on architecture, offers a complementary perspective: 134

Instruments of Design

“For a building, however, immobility is an exception: our pleasure comes from walking around it so that the building moves in turn, enjoying every combination of its parts as they change, the column turns, the depths recede, the tunnels flow: the flight of a thousand visions.”2 The body’s movement is, therefore, the connecting element between time and space, capable of generating perceptive sequences and overlapping perspectives capable of stretching figures, colours, sensations, and experiences over time.

An analogy with the procedures of cinema, with its structures and methods, is in order: “The experience of architecture possesses qualities of absolute involvement from the optical realm to the tactile world, manifesting itself in every perceptive aspect; the synthesis of foreground, middle ground, background, and all the subjective qualities of the materials form the basis of a complete perception. The expression of an original idea of the fusion of the subjective and objective, a complex connection between time, light, material and detail creates a cinematic whole.”3 Architecture imposes itself as a synthetic art, capable of integrating the force of perception and the novel’s plot: “The analogy points to a logic of cross-references: cinema has taken from architecture, from the city, from the images of the avant-garde the typical places of its events, its scenes, its acts; architecture takes from film editing the idea of a freedom of sequences of places-images with a polyvalent value and meaning.”4 From this point of view, architectural devices can be read as a “simultaneity of sequences that can be unfolded according to sequences” arranged in such a way as to “orient the visitor’s gaze. So positions or situations are joined to simultaneous and selective images of the different architectural parts and landscapes of nature and art, exchanging them, inverting them, grafting them.”5 Montage is combined “as a compositional technique that sees its theoretical formulation in cinema” in noting “the impossibility of bringing back to unity the figure dissolved in the landscape.” It shifts the barycentre with a view to interdisciplinary contamination and overlapping.

With this view, architecture can take full advantage of the greater experimental agility offered by cinema, containing within its logic the Composition and Montage

135

idea of a path that can be synthesised through “montage sheets.” The association between the two disciplines was born and became apparent in parallel with the avant-garde movement, “fixing the relationship between vision and movement in a space-time.”6 The concept of montage as a compositional principle has deep roots in the history of modern art. The Cubists, particularly Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso, were among the first to systematically employ collage—the assembly of heterogeneous fragments—as a compositional technique. In their work, the unity of the picture plane was broken, and fragments of newspaper, wallpaper, and other materials were introduced, challenging the traditional notion of the artwork as a harmonious, unified whole. This was, in essence, a montage of reality into art, a way of bringing the external world into the picture.

The Cubist breakthrough was not merely formal but philosophical. By introducing fragments of the “real world” into the space of the painting, Braque and Picasso challenged the distinction between representation and reality, between art and life. This is the origin of the montage principle: the work of art is not a seamless whole but an assemblage of fragments, each of which brings its own meaning and history. The philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, in his essay “Cézanne’s Doubt” (1945),7 argued that the painter’s task is not to reproduce the world but to constitute it—a perspective that resonates with the Cubist approach to fragmentation and reassembly.

The Dadaists radicalised this approach. Their “ready-mades”—ordinary objects elevated to the status of art by the simple act of selection and presentation—were a form of montage that challenged the very definition of art. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917) is perhaps the most famous example: a urinal, selected, signed, and placed in a gallery, became a work of art by the simple act of assembly—the assembly of the object with the context, the act of selection with the gesture of presentation. This is the logic of montage extended to its most radical conclusion: the work of art is not made by the hand but by the mind, by the act of selection, combination, and contextualisation. The philosopher Arthur Danto, in his The Transfiguration of the Commonplace(1981),8 argued that the ready-made transforms the ontology of art by making the interpretationof the object constitutive of its status as art.

136

Instruments of Design

Given these premises, Futurism and its offshoots seem to be considered the proto-history of modern editing, first by intuitively establishing the expressive canons of the art of dynamism, and then with numerous experiments introducing “the aesthetics of movement, as pure abstract kinematic of forms and colours.”9 At the same time, and in continuous exchange with official Futurism, another group—the Cerebristi—was formed in Florence in November 1909: they theorised an art based on the investigation of the values of cerebral energy outside rationality, taking an interest in the mechanisms of psychic connections. Settimelli, activist and founder of the group, “celebrated intuitive thinking by elaborating a structural conception of the work, considering it as an assemblage of heterogeneous elements, a combination of different materials, which, put together arbitrarily, was removed from any representative task.”10 These were the years of manifestos such as the Manifesto for Futurist Cinematography(September 1916)11 and the Manifesto for a Cinematic Revolution (October 1916). In them, “cinema is extolled as an instrument of a real revolution in the visual arts as an art of speed, analogical synthesis, triumphant unreality,” but above all “of the compenetration of time and space.”12 Experiments such as Perché Cecco Beppe non muore (Why Cecco Beppe Doesn’t Die), shot having as a basis the synthesis by Marinetti and Settimelli published in August 1916 in L’Italia Futurista, La danza dello splendore geometrico (The Dance of Geometric Splendour), dressed by Balla and anticipated by Drammi d’oggetto (Object Dramas), and the feature film Vita Futurista (Futurist Life), which gave its first public screening in December 1917.

In particular, Vita Futurista “took up the serial formalisation implemented by synthetic theatre: rapid and intensive successions of narrative and illustrative fragments without any apparent connection between them, denying the total unity of Aristotelian drama,”13 defining these formal choices in terms of Polyexpressive Symphonies and validating the cerebrist theories. The Futurists were profoundly Italian, nourished by a culture in which art, as Bernini put it, is still well-composed. They carefully avoided using terms such as assemblage, collage, and montage, which implicitly gave a materialistic reading of the work of art as a process of making and thus placed emphasis on the finished work rather than the Composition and Montage

137

Notes 1/Joachim Ritter, Paesaggio: Uomo e natura in età moderna (Landscape: Man and Nature in the Modern Age), Guerini e Associati, Milano, 1994, p. 47. Ritter’s essay is a foundational text on the philosophical conception of landscape, tracing its origins to the modern period.

2/ Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation), 1818; English translation: The World as Will and Representation, translated by E.F.J. Payne, Dover Publications, New York, 1969. Schopenhauer’s philosophy of aesthetic contemplation influenced the Romantic conception of landscape.

3/ Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), Metamorphoses, Book I, lines 87-88; cited in Massimo Venturi Ferriolo, Paesaggi: Progetto di un Mondo Umano. Ovid’s epic poem explores the theme of transformation, both physical and metaphysical.

4/ Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero), De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), Book II, section 60; cited in Massimo Venturi Ferriolo, Paesaggi: Progetto di un Mondo Umano. Cicero’s phrase captures the idea of human art as a “second nature.”

5/ Giambattista Vico, Principi di scienza nuova d’intorno alla comune natura delle nazioni (Principles of a New Science concerning the Common Nature of Nations), 1725. Vico’s concept of verum-factum—the idea that we can only truly know what we have made—is a foundational principle of the philosophy of history.

6/ Georg Simmel, “Philosophie der Landschaft” (The Philosophy of Landscape), first published in Logos, vol. IV (1912-1913), pp. 36-48.

Simmel’s essay argues that the landscape is not a natural given but a cultural construction, a synthesis of perception and meaning.

7/ Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard, Paris, 1945; English translation: Phenomenology of Perception, translated by Colin Smith, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodied perception is foundational for understanding the landscape as a lived experience.

168

8/ Bernard Lassus, in Massimo Venturi Ferriolo, Paesaggi rivelati: Passeggiare con Bernard Lassus (Landscapes Revealed: Walking with Bernard Lassus), Guerini e Associati, Milano, 2006, pp. 14-16. Lassus was a French landscape architect whose work explored the relationship between perception, design, and landscape.

9/ Massimo Venturi Ferriolo, Paesaggi: Sguardo dal theatron (Landscapes: Gaze from the Theatre), edited by Daniela Pernotti, Edizioni l’Orbicolare, Milano, 2007.

10/ Ibid.

11/ Michel Foucault, “Des espaces autres” (Of Other Spaces), 1967; English translation: “Of Other Spaces,” in Diacritics, vol. 16, no. 1 (Spring 1986), pp. 22-27. Foucault’s concept of heterotopia explores spaces that hold multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings.

12/ Massimo Venturi Ferriolo, Paesaggi: Progetto di un Mondo Umano (Landscapes: Project of a Human World). Venturi Ferriolo is a contemporary Italian philosopher who has written extensively on landscape ethics and aesthetics.

13/ Ian L. McHarg, Design with Nature, Natural History Press, Garden City (NY), 1969.

McHarg’s work is a foundational text of ecological landscape design, arguing for the integration of natural and cultural processes in planning and design.

14/ Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, Oxford University Press, New York, 1949. Leopold’s concept of “land ethics” extends ethical responsibility to the natural world.

15/ Arne Næss, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,” Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 1 (1973), pp. 95-100. Næss’s concept of “deep ecology” argues for the recognition of the intrinsic value of all beings and the need for a radical transformation of our relationship with the natural world.

Ethics, Landscape, and Synthesis

5.2/ Synthesis and Syntax The Grammar and Poetics of Architecture

Over time, the architecture and urban design disciplines have perfected their instrumental and conceptual endowments for analysing, understanding, and describing phenomena, thus determining an ever greater capacity for acquiring reality through the use of specific and increasingly refined syntheses and modelling.

Today, the urban system can be described with the instruments of the classical disciplinary tradition and with the aid of new and multiple technological applications that often supplant practices and methodologies used for years in some cases and specific contexts. These are algorithmic syntheses and analytical/generative principles through which large quantities of data can be stored and then interrogated with simple extractions that can be carried out in real-time from databases. One has the sensation of dominating complexity, of being able to manage it with ease and simplicity; everything appears to be at hand, in co-presence, so that territories, cities, and architectures are broken down and catalogued in a—however large—collection of ‘families of intelligent objects’ technically independent of each other, juxtaposed at will, according to sequences, as the sum of singular events held together by their respective processes of optimisation, as individual autonomous components of a more extensive system.

This is the promise of the digital age: the ability to master complexity through data, to render the world manageable through information. The French philosopher and urbanist Paul Virilio, in his writings on speed and Synthesis and Syntax

169

Roberto Podda, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture at Xi’an JiaotongLiverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China.

His research focuses on architectural composition, theory, and history. A PhD graduate from Politecnico di Milano, he founded and currently directs the Sino-Italian Urban Regeneration Hub (SIURH) at the XJTLU School of Design. This research centre is dedicated to fostering international dialogue on architecture and urban design culture, bridging Chinese and Italian approaches to contemporary city transformation. He has published numerous essays and monographs, including Vittorio Gregotti: Urban Design Between China and Italy (Letteraventidue, 2025), Luigi Moretti: Lessons of SPAZIO (Routledge, 2024), and Rido perché ho Paura: Architettura Sarda tra ruralità e Modernità (Ilisso, 2019). His work explores the relationship among history, form, and site, engaging with both established disciplinary traditions and emerging conditions.

In an era dominated by algorithms that promise to solve every design problem with a simple click, About Architecture offers a necessary counterpoint: the practice of architecture is irreducibly human. This volume is neither a manual nor a dry thesis, but a notebook of notes, questions, and tentative insights. What does it mean today to create and shape human spaces? How do tools influence our thinking, and how do they reshape our perspective? How are our sense of what is right and our sense of what is beautiful interconnected— and what of the many other questions that follow?

While generative software produces countless variations, the author locates the true creative act elsewhere—in the slow, exacting labour of perception, ethical discernment, and reflective judgment. In the words of Le Corbusier: Observation, Discovery, Invention, Creation.

The book explores examples drawn from architectural traditions and their masters, while also engaging with contemporary cases and emerging technologies.

Rather than offering comforting certainties, it presents fragments to be reassembled and open paths to be traveled—and retraveled—through our own creative capacities. It does not merely invite us to read; it challenges us to participate actively. The author insists that architecture remains vital only as long as we refuse to stop questioning it.

It is this restless inquiry, not any fixed formula, that keeps the discipline alive, urgent, and deeply our own—even when rapidly advancing technologies seem poised to distance us from it.

ISBN 979-12-5644-257-7

www.letteraventidue.com

€ 18