Campo obligatorio; no debe dejarse en blanco.

On architecture...

I have a dilemma.

Some artists advocate the elimination of the subject and the individual in their art, claiming to be completely objective. Asking for a more anthropocentric art. (The elimination of the author, the inclusion of the user)

In the realm of architecture this translates to the detachment of the authors from their work, creating impersonal, non-experiential, non-sensual pieces of work, that somehow neglect the senses and the creation of and atmosphere when using culturally charged strategies (such as pink for feminine, or concrete for masculinity).

We can argue that this treatment of architecture, at first, as an object, and secondly as a piece to be experienced, stands on the side of materialism. On the other hand, simplification and clarity produce a generic architecture, as any universally-intended discourse, all-applicable discourse, regardless of the context and the specific situation does. Still, it seems to be valid to say that denies materiality, shifting the attention from the architectural object, to the capability of the users to interact.

In this case, if the focus is on human interaction, collaboration and the sharing of information, we only need an architecture of conditions and triggers, that allow all this social relationships to be staged, forgetting about the material qualities of the surroundings and focusing on the structure of the enabling platforms.

In an architecture of activities and programmatic anarchy, building flexible systems that accommodate all this activities, if there are any, seems problematic. The more the architect defines the space, the more it limits it multiplicity. If the architects role is to put order, how can we create a flexible architecture that can accommodate human imagination, within this established(designed) structures?

Energy and the supply of the basic commodities also becomes a problem, as everything needs to become available but non obtrusive.

Its sounds very much like functional-slum like-organically generated-amateurish-like-architecture. Its sounds like anarchy, with a changing aesthetic. Something uncontrollable. And probably the aesthetic experience its not a concern , but a mere consequence of the process of creation.

It also sounds incredibly public, undermining privacy and intimacy, highlighting theatricality and the supremacy of the public being(the one different from the private one, if there is something as such).

So if the shift is from the specific aesthetic experience, to the purely human action, what is the place for contemplation, and the nature of things? Which is the place for intimacy? Could we call this anthropobsessive? The constant prise of individuality?