The history of the contemporary architecture, that is to say, from “the death” of the modern movement, it is the history of the search of the approximation to the company.
First with the review that the young members of the CIAM propose in the TEAM 10, looking for an urbanism more human and nearer to what today we name fenomenología. This stayed in a series of shy intentions, isolated and slightly effective. Much more well-known and influential, specially in the mass media, it was the postmodern way, which, though it was too a certain superficialness, was putting on the table the one that might be the principal problem of the architect at the moment of reporting: the omnipotence. Venturi, on having raised to the city of Las Vegas at the level of architectonically valuably [let’s leave the like that thing] was, in certain way, anticipating one of the contemporary recoveries that might summarize this way: ” So importantly it can be the Vitrubio as the Hola magazine, it depends … “. The theory of the relativity started serving to relativize everything.
The search connection with the company [there be understood the company most removed from the architectural concepts] is ruined in the moment in which the architects begin to articulate his complex speeches and to transform into practice Venturi’s “well-meaning” ideas. There there will be born the “architectural styles” more complexes and difficult to understand for the “masses” of the contemporaneousness: the hight tech, the deconstrucción or the own postmodern architecture, which not for using frontons and other classic elements turned out to be more understandable for the great public that the best buildings of Le Corbusier, Mies and other members of the criticized modern movement.
In short, I dress from the 21st century this idea of ” contacting the public ” that had the first postmodern ones it turned out to be simply an excuse in order that the practitioners were doing it of always: what gave to them the desire.
Nowadays, for different motives, the architects we are seeking to contact desperate again a public who, sincerely, does not feel attracted by we, it does not know why and does not need us. It is a question of survival and, as such, we have decided to stuff to us themselves, beginning for the weakest of the herd.
Because if it is a question of demonstrating our social labor, our civil transcendency, WE MUST [yes, with capital letters] kill “others “, to the not social ones, to the architects who agree Star System and who have devoted themselves to sow our planet of harmful buildings icónicos that have ruined cities and devastated peoples. It is clear that this one is the trend because the king of the trends has said it already clearly with the title proposed for the Biennale 2014: let’s return to our essence … and his is that of the nice Dutch who prefers the bicycle to the mercedes, without importing how many jet deprived has taken in the past, it remains forgotten. Holland is a social country and Koolhaas takes an old vest in the photo, it is what counts.
Nevertheless it would be necessary to ask him what we do with the fact that the architecture icónica has been, without comparison [probably with the only possible comparison of these distant cathedrals] the movement architectural that major social attention has obtained.
Probably the architects we have to of resting in some to deny to others to continue growing and would have to start accepting and assuming our history, not only to obtain the social recognition that so much we long, also to recover the lost credibility, even strictly between ourselves.
Text by bRijUNi arquitectos: Beatriz Villanueva Cajide -Architect and Master in Architectural Advanced Projects (ETSA Madrid)- and Francisco Javier Casas Cobo -Architect and Master theoretically, Analysis and History of the Architecture (ETSA Madrid).
Beatriz Villanueva es Arquitecta, Master en Gestión de Espacios Virtuales, Master en Proyectos Arquitectónicos Avanzados y PhD (ABD) con su tesis “Arquitectura y Compromiso. Actualización y revisión crítica de los manifiestos de arquitectura”, dentro del grupo ARKRIT de teoría y crítica (ETSAM).
Francisco J. Casas es Arquitecto, Master en Análisis, Teoría e Historia de la Arquitectura y PhD (ABD) con su tesis “Fundamentos Historiográficos, Teóricos y Críticos de los años 50” dentro del Departamento de Composición Arquitectónica (ETSAM).