Best Facial Compilation Ever

pfc: "library on the campus of the University of Alicante"
etsav.proyectos III. Workshop 3 January 2003
valence
rating:
honors prize (Works Generic mode). X Prize on Accessibility PFC the physical environment. Ministry of Welfare (Generalitat Valenciana)

[bits of memory]


science and thought Heidegger, whom Felix de Azua in their classes in Aesthetics School Barcelona is referred to as the thinker of the century, distinguished between the mechanisms of modern science and of thought as two conflicting ways of doing things, as two separate sites for "an abyss over which he can build a bridge." Science tries to show, run by a logical line, which requires all the elements involved actively or passively on the show to have a sense of objective and logically referenced to the same show, any added argument that does not participate or reinforce that line of logic is misplaced. According to Heidegger, science does not think "Do not think because, as the modus operandi and the means by which it can not ever think, think, according to the mode of thinkers. The fact that science can not thinking is not a lack but an advantage. This advantage assures science the opportunity to get into every area of \u200b\u200bobjects according to how research and settle in it. " The other side of the bridge, to the side of thinking, not just the other side, but a region completely different objects which show never left. Before them we have only the act of pointing, and this point, according to Heidegger, is "a fundamental trait of thinking, the way to what has always and forever, man sobering." In this region inhabited by philosophers think all modern writer, and in general, anyone messed with intensity in the process of creating the form.
In a more or less intentional, and in any case is what finally it, like it or not, as a result of the act of pointing, the role of this is the proposition of a speech or thought, from that time is left to their fate. What comes after thinking this is a new thinking, once encryption is to decipher, always and forever.
In my opinion, the thought of architecture is not essentially (primarily) a process of scientific analysis to find a conciliatory solution optimized and all the stress. It is true that for "construction" (even for intellectual construction) must turn to the results of scientific and technical knowledge as it is by building them as the protagonist. But that is only the instrumental aspect. This construction process has to do with the technological aspect, and non-technical subject area. We live in a context increasingly "mediated" whose supplies have reached a level of sophistication, or whatever it is, loss of naturalness (for which I do not think it worthwhile to stress), which sometimes makes it difficult to recognize the natural sense of thought. And this way of thinking, natural and intransitive, is embodied in the act of stating, display. There is nothing beyond that act, which gives birth to what is shown. The way how it has come to this lack of interest. All that matters on this side of the bridge is the life that lies ahead, all questions raised and the roads open as a result of that first and impossible to reason that in any case, just saying, sterile. The specificity of thought
architecture is elsewhere, on the other side. Scientific analysis is reserved for modern science. From a scientific attitude in relation to architecture as that of G. Grassi, and a Jujol Miralles or take two outstanding end of the joy of building, committed to state, leaving their fate results with the confidence that their presence is valid, an abyss, the gap, writes Heidegger, between science and thinking.
The context in which they operate these reflections is the thought of architecture.

site

I have a tendency to think that all human takes an organic relationship with their location and part of the success or failure of an architectural intervention has to do with the nature of this relationship. Sometimes a nondescript building and even vulgar, like much of which overlook or settle in the sand of any coastline, makes us experiencing the site with an intensity (the example taken for this subject is almost demagogic because the coast the boundary between land and sea, does not require the hand to become rather, as in all parts of geography that were or are the beginning of an enclave and that the same geographical science always has a name, like the first sign that appropriates, intellectual and human, prior to the physical appropriation whose intention also intellectual, is to affirm the quality of that site as the most appropriate to at least make a stop on the way) that has less to do with the physical qualities of this construction but in the first instance, with itself site. And yet, despite the banality of construction, we come to it because there is always something of the site that has permeated, or so we think. Sometimes construction itself becomes something to the extent that distance initially inhospitable environment, by collecting into the full capacity to build world, unable to compete with a really hostile and indifferent to any attempt of civilization, extending well , creating around something like a force field, a covered porch where be (sorry can not explain it otherwise) and as a result of the civilizing capacity, characteristic of any appliance, have humanized what until then was only a desert floodplain.
say that the problem I have encountered fall into this second class.