area 104 | introverted architecture

Invisible architecture

The aim of architecture is to construct spaces that are suitable for people to go about their lives. Through the physical consistency of structures, the architect, in actual fact, designs and creates the internal space. Architecture, from a strictly theoretical point of view, is an indissoluble unity of skin and void, in which there is generally no space without the container delimiting it; and a structural system without the enclosed part for human activity would be inconceivable. According to the semiologic theory applied to architecture1, the architectural sign, capable of concisely expressing and communicating its very own content, is determined by a meaning – its internal space – and by a signifier – the shell which physically determines it – inter-dependent with each other. The usable interior is therefore the architecture’s raison d’être and the structure which identifies it becomes the constructed form, 3-dimensional essence which encloses and makes physically perceptible the sense of the space’s construction. Space to which people attribute values, content, recognizing in it distinctive, characteristic elements in which they identify possibilities of life: space to which we give meaning and through which we can tell others what “we are” and in what we believe. The architectural space, defined by the shell which gives it form and dimension, is also characterized and determined by this in its expressive nature. In fact, the perimeter margins, the figures which characterize such margins, the treatment of materials and surfaces, and the decorative elements of surfaces all contribute to defining the semantic content of the space, the nature of the interior. The very sense of the space materializes through the dense dialogue that the interior establishes with its own physical limits. In reality, experimental praxis demonstrates that design experiences also exist where the architectural sign’s uniqueness, made up of its defining material part and of the usable immaterial part, is often questioned in an endeavour to highlight the specific character of the structure, as well as that of the space. With regard to the meaning of architecture, indisputably coinciding with the spatial values put into being, there is no doubt that a construction without an inside space cannot be defined as “architecture”: its form, its presence, inasmuch as it can dialogue and enrich the space of nature or urban places, relates purely through its external form, becoming an artistic expression, a monument. These are cases which are difficult to theoretically classify, such as commemorative or celebrative structures, funereal monuments and mausoleums, with an inaccessible internal space and which, therefore, come into contact with people exclusively for their external symbolic weight. At the other extreme, there are cases where space, though always defined and identified, exists without its corresponding visible representation, without the outer shell, and therefore without its exterior representation of surface. They are spaces completely absent of a perceptible image on the exterior, capable nonetheless of creating and defining significant usable places, spaces capable of relating their very content, and therefore to be considered, without doubt, “architecture”. This is the case of underground architecture or also totally introverted architecture, whose exterior makes no attempt whatsoever to represent the sense of the interior and appears merely as an undifferentiated element, at times, deliberately unexpressive. This architecture, in actual fact, tends to highlight the values of interiority, of function, becoming expression and direct image of meaning and, without medium, primary and essential form of the principles of settling and values of inhabiting. In fact, the interior in architecture is not merely a “place”, it is not a geographically positioned closed, limited space, but rather an extension of being, the materialization of the principles of defense and intimacy, the affirmation of the primary instinct of conservation and protection of Man. The interior, in addition to being perceptible from a sensorial point of view, is a culturally recognizable and identifiable place, a result of the human being’s ability to abstract and transform, re-propose what he or she knows about external “nature”. It is, in a certain sense, the sublimation of his conscience, told and revealed to others. A constructed space can therefore be defined as an “architectural interior”, not just because it is closed, guarded or secluded, but inasmuch as it carries meanings that are able to inspire in those inhabiting it a sense of refuge, privacy and protection. In addition to the concept of “internalness”, a term which simply defines the materiality of a place, we can introduce the principle of “interiority” which is pertinent to the interior of a spatially circumscribed area. It refers above all to what ideally identifies it, with direct reference to the spirit and knowledge of the individual, to his or her memory and culture. With regard to this extension, from the principle of “internal” to that of “interior”, emblematic examples of interiority absent of a direct visible external image, and hence, in a certain sense, invisible yet perfectly usable architecture, are those commonly defined as “architecture inside architecture”, “interior inside an interior”. To work solely on the interior, or predominantly on this, actually means to divide the space from the physical reality of the wall structure and definitively assume it as a void, no longer a “space” with a meaning in addition to a morphology, but as a shapeless material to mould and characterize. The void, in this case, “incidentally” enclosed within a container once belonging to it, accepts the new functional data, the new norms and lifestyles. It slowly embraces the requests imposed by the rhythm of modern-day living and assumes values capable of dialoguing with the present. Thanks to processes of recovery and re-use, it becomes once again “space”, a place with form, measure and meaning, characterized in its aesthetic and communicative aspects. It evolves into an “absolute space”, a direct form of interiority rather than internalness, insofar as presence and essence conceptually absent of a shell, or which, more precisely, has assumed pre-existence exclusively as a restraint, a limit. So certain contemporary architecture disregards the organic, uniform construction between interior and exterior, and reveals itself to be totally self-referential, a sculptural form, an exclusive image of its own exteriority without any reference to its own content, representation of a message split by interior principles. In relation to this, we can observe with respect and attention architecture without an exterior, introverted architecture, inasmuch as a moment of radicalization and of glorification of the very principles of inhabiting, of the reasons why Man “makes architecture”. Such “invisible” architecture highlights people’s reasons for living and their expectations. It consolidates the methods of the direct, active participation of the user, canceling the aspects of mere representation and hence the aesthetic contemplation of sculptural and formal aspects. In comparison with the excessiveness of the public mise-en-scène, introverted architecture tends to communicate directly and without medium the essence of spaces and the reasons why Man continues to imprint into the material the shape of his own body, his own sense of measure, his ability to move around in his own environment; in conclusion, his ability to transmit the expressive story of his very “being in the world”.

Paolo Giardiello, architect, is associate professor  in Interior architecture & museography (SSD  ICAR16) from 2001. In 1996 obtained PHD in Interior architecture & museography in the Politecnico di Milano and received grant for a research post PHD in Interior architecture & museography at the Dipartimento di Progettazione Urbana in the Facoltà di Architettura, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”. In 2002 become member of scientific commission of Master in Interior architecture & museography - Facoltà di Architettura, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” and in 2003 member of didactic commission of PHD in Interior architecture & museography in the Facoltà di Architettura, Politecnico di Milano. From 1995 to 2006 was visiting professor at International Seminars in Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico and Italy. From 2001 is professor in interior architecture and professor in museography at the Master in Interior architecture & museography in the Facoltà di Architettura, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”. During these years different period were spent for investigation on Norwegian architecture, home design, modern tradition, museums, architects (S.Lewerentz, S.Fehn, A.Korsmo, K.Knutsen) and latin american architecture and architects (J.Vilamajò).