There are professors who say that the function of architecture is to solve a building well. We think that this would be the art of construction, but not architecture.
In previous articles we have already called humanism as the pillar that motivates architecture and the architect as the one who must be able to read society and convert social needs into space. On the other hand we have the materials and construction systems that form the pillar of technique. The fundamental point is where the two pillars meet: art, that which is capable of moving us.
From the humanism pillar, we must ask ourselves where society is evolving towards, what are the current and emerging models of life. From the technical pillar, we must know which materials are the most efficient, the most biocompatible, the systems that are applicable to the site and which technology is the most ap
Finally, I would like to point out that the fuel of the art of architecture is the ability to relate man to technology. Without art there is no architecture, there is only construction.
Art allows us to re-localise universal ideas, successfully implanting them in spaces. A negative example of what we are talking about are today’s wind generators, which are nothing more than pure technology. We do not recognise them as our own. The art is missing, which will add value to everything we do. The positive example would be the i-phone, pure image of efficiency in communication, capable of revolutionising our habits and becoming an object to be imitated.
The architect’s job is to find the image of efficiency, identify it and turn it into space. The buyer or developer of buildings must learn to recognise and demand architecture, and not be satisfied with just buying or promoting construction.
