Architecture of commitment

The commitment of making architecture is with society as a whole. With that culture that has seen us be born and grow, and now furthermore, with the stirring globalization and within the intercultural and multi-ethnic environment of world’s 21st century in a geographical whole. This is a world without barriers and capable of instantaneous contacts where history which, until very recently was understood as a narrow and deep flow, is now represented within a very wide horizon across the width of geography that almost seems to be infinite.

Population in the middle ages and during the Renaissance was surely not aware of the specificity that they were shaping with their architecture, both monumental as domestic. It is up to after a few decades, sometimes centuries, when sediments were already letting see more diaphanous traits not of forms and styles, but of societies, their interactions and customs, their visions and longings.

The movement known as Modern Architecture, which started in Europe at the end of the 19th century and with important likeness on the United States from the beginning of the 20th, has not stopped shaping architectural production in many parts of the world’s past century and still today. Despite the far-reaching technological advances and the emergence of new materials and construction procedures; the minimalist principles, spatial neatness, Neoplasticism composition, honesty in materials, some hint of Brutalism and Cubism, and even the use of bio-structural elements as those who already used Antoni Gaudí, make this movement hold its course still with robustness and our vision of it don't be more than partial, waiting for the corresponding sediments that will bring still much fabric where to cut to generations to come within fifty or one hundred years.

Something that indeed is given to us is to verify the shallowness of form interpretations derived from Modern Architecture. Shallowness when compared to their relationship with the lifestyles and social interactions that saw them born, that have been in many cases revolutionary, and come largely from the technological evolution of information and communication that we have experienced since the mid-20th century. Archaeologists and anthropologists of the 25th Century will see in our Modern Architecture such attributes that we don’t see by now and that have a significant socio-cultural burden. Something similar to what happened to the contemporaries of the Romanesque and Gothic.

That is why I started declaring the commitment of making architecture. And now I would add that it is not only with current society but with future societies. If today we feel that buildings like the Palazzo Vecchio of Florence, the Taj Mahal in Agra, the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, the village of Machu Picchu in Cusco, the Stockholm public library, the East Wing National Gallery in Washington, the temples of Abu Simbel in Nubia, the Golden Pavilion in Kyoto, the Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Chartres, the Kaufmann House of Bear Run Pennsylvania, the Hagia Sophia Mosque in Istanbul, they are our heritage as humanity and this causes us great pride, it is because in their time there were architects and entire societies tending to do very well their job as collectivities and cultures committed with themselves and their historical moment.