Automatic speech: theoretical justification (Madness and combinatorial analysis) | José Ramón Hernández Correa

I you put here the development of the icosaedro, in order that you construct it and have it with the table.

Thanks to the comment of a nice reader I add to this development an eyelash that he was lacking, to the left of the number 3

Already I know that you are shy and do not leave comments publicly, but privately I have received hundreds of calls celebrating the usefulness of the tablita, but protesting for his theoretical – logical flimsiness.

This is the limit. Them there is that they do not conform to anything. One gives them the definitive trick to work out airy of any architectural – critical commitment, and above they assault scruples of conscience and exquisitenesses of tiquismiquis. Since they do not worry, that for limit of generosity I am going to facilitate to them the discharge of his consciences in order that they could use the table with the very high head.

To explain philosophically the deconstruction of the architecture it has been said to us of everything, principally using linguistic arguments. The rereading of the texts, descontextualizando and recontextualizando the signs, leads to the combinatorial analysis. I do not want to spread on this, but there is numerous (excessive) bibliography that sings to us the excellences of the palimpsests, of the crossings and semantic interferences and of the emptyings of the meaning, which allow to re-use the forms and to play with them madly. This combinatorial analysis of forms adjusts perfectly to a combinatorial analysis of words, in which everything has lost the meaning, and in that the new one is obtained by chance finding, in the chaos palimpséstico of the variants.

One of the postmodern architects the most eminent desconstructivistas, Bernard Tschumi, it was making clear his park of the Villette, in Paris, as fruit of the mad combinatorial analysis of senseless forms. (Tschumi, Bernard, “Madness and Combinatorial analysis”, Architecture, n º 270, Madrid, January – February, 1988, pp. 24-51). Once read this text, if the own Tschumi was asking us what looks like to us his park, we would extract the icosaedro in his noses and would throw it: 3, 7, 17, 2, 20, 11 and 6. Then we would say to him, very serious, that: “The structural materiality of the gathering expresses a specifically macrocospic impulse”, which, undoubtedly, is true to any more not being able, and so valid critically as it it is his work architectonically.

We can, for limit, analyze and explain our phrase, which, with a bit of verboseness and of custom, is not not difficult at all, and enclosedly to write a lucid article about so brilliant phrase. Any voucher.

In order to give an indispensable cultural, even moral cane, to the utilizador of our table, I facilitate to him, besides the Tschumi’s mentioned one, the following fundamental writings (certainly, it is not necessary that he reads them; up to there we could come. But it is convenient if it has the references to hand if it meets on the ready one of involved fang):

DERRIDA, Jacques, L’écriture et la diference, Seuil, París, 1967. (Trad. cast. de Patricio Peñalver, La escritura y la diferencia, Anthropos, Barcelona, 1989, pp. 413).

DERRIDA, Jacques, De la Grammatologie, Minuit, París, 1967. (Trad. cast. De la gramatología, Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, 1971).

ECO, Umberto, La struttura assente, Bompiani, Milán, 1968. (Trad. cast. de Francisco Serra Cantarell, La estructura ausente, Lumen, Barcelona, 1975, 4ª ed. 1989, pp. 446).

Do not be if it has been obvious, but all that I say it completely seriously, and rest on the basic bibliography that I have just mentioned.

As he says Echo in his mentioned book, the meaning of the architecture (analyzed semióticamente) is the function. I agree with him, but it is necessary to admit that increasingly it is the form the one that is occupying the position. When, slimming the functionality, it is the form for the form the one that aspires to the meaning, at the time the phrases of our table also are loaded with meaning, and acquire a surprising brilliancy.

I want to say, as conclusion, that to analyze the work of Jose Antonio Corrales, of Alejandro de la Sota, of Molezún, of Oíza … I cannot use the table, but I do not need it either. (The table there yes that stays as a nonsense of idiocies). The meaning of his work is analyzable. We do not need the aid of the table to speak about his buildings, since they have meaning (and from there, supported on the meaning, they can do poetry and surrealism).

For what yes we need (and urgently) the automatic speech is to speak about the automatic architecture. Audiences that seem gorritos, museums that look like the squeezed sheet of paper that I have thrown at the wastebasket, and that are projected to pure egg have, if perhaps, an alone clear idea, and it is that: “The modal imagination of the material specifies an intimately oblique vibration”.

José Ramón Hernández Correa · Doctor Architect

Toledo · september 2010

José Ramón Hernández Correa

Nací en 1960. Arquitecto por la ETSAM, 1985. Doctor Arquitecto por la Universidad Politécnica, 1992. Soy, en el buen sentido de la palabra, bueno. Ahora estoy algo cansado, pero sigo atento y curioso.

follow me

Filed under: lighthouse, José Ramón Hernández Correa

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,