(Curiosamente, para las j\u00f3venes ciudadanas no se preve\u00eda nada similar. Supongo que el joven aprender\u00eda en estos establecimientos y ya se lo ense\u00f1ar\u00eda despu\u00e9s a su novia como pudiera, cuando fuera su esposa. Digo yo). A este edificio le dio forma de… s\u00ed. Es cierto. Pod\u00e9is creerlo.<\/p>\n
A este edificio le dio forma de… s\u00ed. Es cierto. Pod\u00e9is creerlo.<\/p>\n Sus ideas sociales podr\u00edan ser revolucionarias. Su arquitectura nada de nada. Pasillo, habitaci\u00f3n, habitaci\u00f3n, habitaci\u00f3n… Vamos, lo de siempre. Con una sala el\u00edptica innecesaria para hacer de glande y dos galer\u00edas semicirculares, tambi\u00e9n completamente gratuitas, para los test\u00edculos.<\/p>\n Se me cae el alma a los pies. Qu\u00e9 cosa tan chabacana, pero, sobre todo, tan est\u00fapida.<\/p>\n Pero esta otra planta ya es porno:<\/p>\n Y me hace dudar de la formaci\u00f3n sexual del propio Ledoux. Hijo: \u00bfd\u00f3nde te has metido? (O, mejor preguntado: \u00bfHasta d\u00f3nde?).<\/p>\n No sigo por ah\u00ed. Es que hay que ser bruto.<\/p>\n Solo a\u00f1ado que el torpe de Ledoux ni siquiera supo resolver arquitect\u00f3nicamente su edificio. Porque lo que plantea en planta no sabe resolverlo en alzado.<\/p>\n Las plantas no se ven. Nadie puede apreciar la planta de un edificio. Un edificio solo se ve como una sucesi\u00f3n de perspectivas. La planta es una abstracci\u00f3n que una mente bien entrenada puede reconstruir a posteriori (sobre todo si le facilitan los planos).<\/p>\n \u00bfPara qu\u00e9 propone Ledoux semejante chorrada, si luego no la lleva hasta el final, si luego s\u00f3lo son columnatas y frontones que nadie puede entender?<\/p>\n Curiosamente, esa arquitectura \u00abut\u00f3pica\u00bb e \u00abideal\u00bb se dio en pleno \u00absiglo de las luces\u00bb, en pleno racionalismo.<\/p>\n Hoy hemos prosperado. Hoy nos hemos liberado del clasicismo y podr\u00edamos hacer un pene 3D hasta con la venilla esa tan graciosa. Hoy estamos much\u00edsimo mejor.<\/p>\n Creo firmemente en la arquitectura. Creo que la arquitectura tiene su propio lenguaje, sus propias herramientas, sus propias estrategias, y que no est\u00e1 bien darle a un edificio la forma de un ojo solo porque tenga una funci\u00f3n visual (un cine, por ejemplo).<\/p>\n Queda muy simp\u00e1tico, s\u00ed, con su p\u00e1rpado abierto<\/p>\n y con su p\u00e1rpado cerrado.<\/p>\n Pero aparte del gasto tremendo que supone hacer esos p\u00e1rpados que se abren y se cierran, \u00bfpara qu\u00e9 sirve todo eso? \u00bfPara qu\u00e9 sirven esos enormes espacios residuales que quedan entre los p\u00e1rpados y la bola central en la que se encuentra el cine propiamente dicho?<\/p>\n \u00a1Qu\u00e9 despilfarro! \u00a1Qu\u00e9 inutilidad! Tant\u00edsimos metros cuadrados para nada.<\/p>\n Pero, eso s\u00ed, el edificio es altamente simb\u00f3lico.<\/p>\n -Mar\u00eda Soledad, \u00bfcu\u00e1l de todos estos ser\u00e1 el cine?<\/em><\/p>\n -Pues ese, el que tiene forma de ojo.<\/em><\/p>\n -Anda, es verdad. Pero espera, que me estoy meando. Voy primero al de Ledoux.<\/em><\/p>\n -\u00a1Que no, Jes\u00fas Manuel, que no es para eso! <\/em><\/p>\n -\u00bfY d\u00f3nde estar\u00e1n los aseos de se\u00f1oras?<\/em><\/p>\n La arquitectura no tiene ninguna necesidad de simbolizar nada. No deber\u00eda ser un metalenguaje de s\u00ed misma. Eso no funciona, no sirve para nada y sale car\u00edsimo.<\/p>\n Adem\u00e1s, impelido por la propia simbolog\u00eda, el arquitecto se ve obligado a disponer espacios in\u00fatiles, o a darles una forma que no es la que m\u00e1s les conviene. \u00bfUn conservatorio con forma de piano? \u00bfUn hospital con forma de enfermo? \u00bfUn parlamento con forma de pesebre?<\/p>\n No, radicalmente no.<\/p>\n Quiero escuchar un concierto en un auditorio con buena ac\u00fastica y con butacas c\u00f3modas, no en uno que parezca un saxof\u00f3n y que sacrifique todo lo dem\u00e1s (ac\u00fastica, comodidad, recorridos, presupuesto) a la forma del saxof\u00f3n (que, por cierto, es id\u00f3nea para que un tubo de metal suene a saxof\u00f3n).<\/p>\n Aprend\u00e1moslo de una vez: Los edificios no significan nada. No tienen significado. O, en todo caso, haciendo una lectura semi\u00f3tica de la arquitectura, diremos con Umberto Eco<\/b><\/a> que el significado de un edificio es su funci\u00f3n. Solo su funci\u00f3n. No busquemos met\u00e1foras ni flores de colores. Es solo arquitectura. Nada menos.<\/p>\n Jos\u00e9 Ram\u00f3n Hern\u00e1ndez Correa \u00b7 Doctor Arquitecto \n <\/p>\n In the S. The XVIIIth the neoclassic architect utopista Ledoux<\/strong> designed an ideal city for a new ideal company. One of the buildings of this wonderful city was the Oikema: a \u00abhouse of the pleasure\u00bb. It is not exactly what you are thinking; it is worse. To the citizen (male) of the new company it was necessary to give sexual education, and not only theoretical, but, especially, practice. Therefore, there were necessary a few \u00abscientific\u00bb establishments that were showing all the perversions to the civil young person, and later they were indicating the straight way to him and were giving to him the suitable and ideal service.<\/p>\n (Curiously, for the civil young women it was not foreseen not similar at all. I suppose that the young person would learn in these establishments and already it would be taught later to his girlfriend since it could, when she was his wife. I say). To this building it gave to him form of … yes. It is true. You can believe it.<\/p>\n To this building it gave to him form of … yes. It is true. You can believe it.<\/p>\n His social ideas might be revolutionary. His architecture nothing at all. Corridor, room, room, room… We go, it of always. With an elliptical unnecessary room to do of glans penis and two semicircular galleries, also completely free, for the testicles.<\/p>\n The soul falls to the feet. What so awkward thing, but, especially, so stupid.<\/p>\n But this another plant already is a porn:<\/p>\n And it makes me doubt the sexual formation of the own Ledoux. Son: where have you got? (Or, better asked: up to where?).<\/p>\n I do not continue thereabouts. It is that it is necessary to be a brute.<\/p>\n Only I add that the Ledoux’s awkward one at least could solve architectonically his building. Because what it raises in plant cannot solve it in gathering.<\/p>\n The plants are not seen. Nobody can estimate the plant of a building. An alone building is seen as a succession of perspectives. The plant is an abstraction that a trained well mind can reconstruct a posteriori (especially if they facilitate the planes to him).<\/p>\n Why does similar Ledoux propose foolishness, if then the ride until the end, if then only they are colonnades and frontons that nobody can understand?<\/p>\n Curiously, this \u00abUtopian\u00bb and \u00abideal\u00bb architecture was given in fullly \u00abcentury of the lights\u00bb, in full rationalism.<\/p>\n Today we have prospered. Today we have liberated ourselves of the classicism and we might do a penis 3D up to with this so graceful venilla. Today we are much better.<\/p>\n I believe firmly in the architecture. I think that the architecture has his own language, his own tools, his own strategies, and that it is not nice to give him to a building the form of an alone eye because it has a visual function (a cinema, for example).<\/p>\n It remains very nice, yes, with his opened eyelid<\/p>\n and with his closed eyelid.<\/p>\n But apart from the tremendous expense that supposes doing these eyelids that are opened and are closed, why does it serve all that? Why do they serve these enormous residual spaces that stay between the eyelids and the central ball in the one that is the cinema in strict sense?<\/p>\n What a squandering! What a uselessness! Tant\u00edsimos square meters for nothing.<\/p>\n But, it yes, the building is highly symbolic.<\/p>\n – Maria Soledad, which of all the will these ones be the cinema?<\/p>\n – So this, which has form of eye.<\/p>\n – It walks, is true. But it hopes, that I am wetting myself. I go first to that of Ledoux.<\/p>\n – That not, Jesus Manuel, who is not for it!<\/p>\n – And where will the ladies’ bathroom be?<\/p>\n The architecture does not have any need to symbolize anything. It should not be a metalanguage of yes same. It does not work, does not serve for anything and works out the most expensive.<\/p>\n In addition, driven by the own simbolog\u00eda, the architect meets obliged to arrange useless spaces, or to giving them a form that is not the one that more is convenient for them. A conservatoire with form of piano? A hospital with patient’s form? A parliament with form of manger?<\/p>\n Not, radically not.<\/p>\n I want to listen to a concert in an audience with good acoustic and with comfortable armchairs, not in one that looks like a saxophone and that sacrifices everything else (acoustics, comfort, tours, budget) to the form of the saxophone (that, certainly, is suitable in order that a metal pipe sounds to saxophone).<\/p>\n Aprend\u00e1moslo of once: The buildings do not mean anything. They do not have meaning. Or, in any case, doing a reading semi\u00f3tica of the architecture, we will say with Umberto Eco<\/b><\/a> that the meaning of a building is his function. Only his function. Let’s look neither for metaphors nor flowers of colors. It is alone an architecture. Nothing less.<\/p>\n Jos\u00e9 Ram\u00f3n Hern\u00e1ndez Correa \u00b7 PhD Architect \n <\/p>\n No S. XVIII o arquitecto neocl\u00e1sico utopista Ledoux<\/strong> dese\u00f1ou unha cidade ideal para unha nova sociedade ideal. Un dos edificios desa cidade marabillosa era o Oikema: unha casa do pracer. Non \u00e9 exactamente o que estades pensando; \u00e9 peor. Ao cidad\u00e1n (var\u00f3n) da nova sociedade hab\u00eda que darlle educaci\u00f3n sexual, e non s\u00f3 te\u00f3rica, sen\u00f3n, sobre todo, pr\u00e1ctica. Polo tanto, eran necesarios uns establecementos cient\u00edficos que lle mostrasen ao mozo cidad\u00e1n todas as perversiones, e despois sinal\u00e1senlle o recto cami\u00f1o e d\u00e9senlle o servizo adecuado e \u00f3ptimo.<\/p>\n (Curiosamente, para as novas cidad\u00e1s non se prev\u00eda nada similar. Supo\u00f1o que o mozo aprender\u00eda nestes establecementos e xa llo ensinar\u00eda despois \u00e1 s\u00faa noiva como puidese, cando fose a s\u00faa esposa. Digo eu). A este edificio deulle forma de… si. \u00c9 certo. Podedes crelo.<\/p>\n A este edificio deulle forma de… si. \u00c9 certo. Podedes crelo.<\/p>\n As s\u00faas ideas sociais poder\u00edan ser revolucionarias. A s\u00faa arquitectura nada de nada. Corredor, habitaci\u00f3n, habitaci\u00f3n, habitaci\u00f3n… Imos, o de sempre. Cunha sala el\u00edptica innecesaria para facer de glande e d\u00faas galer\u00edas semicirculares, tam\u00e9n completamente gratu\u00edtas, para os test\u00edculos.<\/p>\n C\u00e1eseme a alma aos p\u00e9s. Que cousa tan chabacana, pero, sobre todo, tan est\u00fapida.<\/p>\n Pero estoutra planta xa \u00e9 porno:<\/p>\n E faime dubidar da formaci\u00f3n sexual do propio Ledoux. Fillo: onde che metiches? (Ou, mellor preguntado: Ata onde?).<\/p>\n Non sigo por a\u00ed. \u00c9 que hai que ser bruto.<\/p>\n S\u00f3 engado que o torpe de Ledoux nin sequera soubo resolver arquitect\u00f3nicamente o seu edificio. Porque o que exp\u00f3n en planta non sabe resolvelo en alzado.<\/p>\n As plantas non ven. Ningu\u00e9n pode apreciar a planta dun edificio. Un edificio s\u00f3 vese como unha sucesi\u00f3n de perspectivas. A planta \u00e9 unha abstracci\u00f3n que unha mente ben adestrada pode reconstru\u00edr a posteriori (sobre todo se lle facilitan os planos).<\/p>\n Para que prop\u00f3n Ledoux semellante parvada, se logo non a leva ata o final, se logo s\u00f3 son columnatas e front\u00f3ns que ningu\u00e9n pode entender?<\/p>\n Curiosamente, esa arquitectura \u00abut\u00f3pica\u00bb e \u00abideal\u00bb deuse en pleno \u00abs\u00e9culo das luces\u00bb, en pleno racionalismo.<\/p>\n Hoxe prosperamos. Hoxe liber\u00e1monos do clasicismo e poderiamos facer un pene 3D ata coa venilla esa tan graciosa. Hoxe estamos moit\u00edsimo mellor.<\/p>\n Creo firmemente na arquitectura. Creo que a arquitectura ten a s\u00faa propia linguaxe, as s\u00faas propias ferramentas, as s\u00faas propias estratexias, e que non est\u00e1 ben darlle a un edificio a forma dun ollo s\u00f3 porque te\u00f1a unha funci\u00f3n visual (un cinema, por exemplo).<\/p>\n Queda moi simp\u00e1tico, si, coa s\u00faa p\u00e1lpebra aberta<\/p>\n e coa s\u00faa p\u00e1lpebra pechada.<\/p>\n Pero \u00e1 parte do gasto tremendo que sup\u00f3n facer esas p\u00e1lpebras que se abren e p\u00e9chanse, para que serve todo iso? Para que serven eses enormes espazos residuais que quedan entre as p\u00e1lpebras e a b\u00f3la central na que se atopa o cinema propiamente devandito?<\/p>\n Que malgasto! Que inutilidade! Tant\u00edsimos metros cadrados para nada.<\/p>\n Pero, iso si, o edificio \u00e9 altamente simb\u00f3lico.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/veredes.es\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/11\/ledoux.jpg\" "\\"ledoux\\"")
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>
\nToledo \u00b7 noviembre 2011
\nAutor del blog arquitectamoslocos?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>
\nToledo \u00b7 november 2011
\nAuthor of the blog arquitectamoslocos?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>