On Saturday, the 23rd of February the magnificent program Documents, of RNE, was dedicated to Miguel Fisac: “Miguel Fisac’s architecture: Concrete of meat and bone”. The good architecture ends up by triumphing, and Fisac, which was in the comb of the wave from the beginning of his professional career until the sixties, and that in the seventies suffered an unjust and shameful oblivion, returns to be estimated, and finds again site in the history of the Spanish architecture. I celebrate it, because we all have great that to learn of him. Every day.
Fisac, beside having a few enormous endowments as architect, was an honest thinker on the architecture. It wanted to understand the contemporary architecture to understand itself to yes same, and wanted to know how it had to be a building and a city, and, especially, how he had to be an architect to do well his work.
It was transmitting his thoughts of a simple and direct way. Him everything was understood, and it I like much. (It is what I would like to obtain). But, often, this zeal of simplicity was leading him to simplifying in excess the exhibition of his ideas. (Eye: I do not say that his ideas were simple. I say that his exhibition is simple). It was very didactic. I had once the occasion to listen to him in class and he filled with enthusiasm me what counted and how it counted it.
The case – and to what I go – it is that he was saying that his architecture was founded on four props or four premises. (In RNE’s program it explains it from the minute 34:45 up to 36:00):
1º.- What. – That solves the motives by which it has been done. (Program of needs, determining of item …).
2º.- Where. – That answers to the place in which it is, and to his climatic, landscape, historical, cultural conditions …
3º.- How. – That has been done by the most suitable technical means, more reduction sales… That works well … etc.
4º.- Do not be what . – “Later it comes … the nó be what. And it is when the part of art comes”.
The explanation remains very clear, and anyone that is not an architect will understand with her not only the importance of the architecture, but the importance of doing it well and of being honored and coherent with her. But to my judgment it exceeds the fourth prop. Or, rather, it is included in other three. It has to work with them, in them (it is they), and is not nice that it appears then, as a capricious guest and to put table.
I am thinking about perceiving a certain modesty in Fisac when it enunciates this point. Not only it cannot explain it (of there that should call it “do not be what”), but it seems as if it was giving him a bit of shame that “later” has to come “the part of art”.
(And the truth is that yes that gives a bit of shame, and up to a bit of nuisance, which has to come this part. “It is when the part of art comes”. As when a visit comes, or a heavy relative, or as when, after a delicious food, the account comes).
It is unjust that why, do not be what, to throwing the legs for the high thing. Not. It is a trap.
How, according to Fisac, it includes the technical way, the economic one, the functional one… ETC. Since in this etc it fits everything, even any do not be what and any yes be what.
Fisac must have remained very satisfied with the discursive finding of these four props, because he itself, when it comments on his works in articles or books, separates four chapters: why, and it explains what it was necessary construct, his clients for what asked him, which were the requirements that the building had to solve… Where, and it comments how it was the lot, if it was very cold in winter, if the sights were good or if to the side it was a building of such characteristics, with which it was necessary to report or to be necessary to give him the back. How, and he says to us if there were used girders of great light, if they became such encofrados or it was decided to do two plants for this and for different this.
But then it comes do not be what and everything becomes mellifluous, evanescent and indescribable. And it is that, naturally, to try to isolate the molecule noséqué is impossible when it is a coherent molecule with the rest. It is very easy to explain it when it is a false, false molecule, an adornment kitsch and unsincerely that comes to fight to the building as a tick and to the medals be hanging. But when the architecture is sincere, coherent, powerful and good, since it it is that of Fisac, this “do not be what” be from the beginning, solving the program, choosing the orientation in the lot, deciding materials, looking for the disposition of the girders, the lights, the height of the building. Everything is noséqué.
(It is the same thing that was counting in my previous entry against the art. It is necessary to be against the art when this one understands himself as added value, as adornment or as ennoblement a posteriori of the work. Because the art indeed is the own work, the own work. So, equally, the noséqué is not “and then it comes”, but it is working with the concrete and with the brick, and with the lot and with the client).
An architectural good work is slightly organically and coherent. And or everything she is noséqué or there is no noséqué that costs.
In the church of this photo of above there is celebrated the entry of light in the altar, for the sides and overhead, separating the testero (apse?) and giving a sensation of unmateriality, very spiritual. Do not be what? It would be a noséqué if it had gone out for Fisac of fluke, but one sees that it had a clear intention and an exact conscience, since in the calculation of the armors of concrete.
Others all the examples of noséqués fisaquianos:
I yes that I sit a noséqué in these buildings, naturally. Things that I do not know to explain well. Emotions, surprises, spatial pleasures… But all this it is perfectly designed and foreseen. Don Michael, does not bother me: You yes knew what.
José Ramón Hernández Correa
Doctor Architect and author of Arquitectamos locos?
Toledo · february 2013
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.