{"id":32470,"date":"2014-07-07T22:31:50","date_gmt":"2014-07-07T20:31:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.area-arch.it\/en\/larchitettura-invisibile\/"},"modified":"2016-09-26T17:35:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T15:35:07","slug":"larchitettura-invisibile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.area-arch.it\/en\/larchitettura-invisibile\/","title":{"rendered":"l\u2018architettura invisibile"},"content":{"rendered":"

Invisible architecture<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0Architecture, 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.\u00a0According to the semiologic theory applied to architecture1<\/sup>, the architectural sign, capable of concisely expressing and communicating its very own content, is determined by a meaning \u2013 its internal space \u2013 and by a signifier \u2013 the shell which physically determines it \u2013 inter-dependent with each other.\u00a0The usable interior is therefore the architecture\u2019s raison d\u2019\u00eatre and the structure which identifies it becomes the constructed form, 3-dimensional essence which encloses and makes physically perceptible the sense of the space\u2019s 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 \u201cwe are\u201d and\u00a0in what we believe.\u00a0The 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.\u00a0In reality, experimental praxis demonstrates that design experiences also exist where the architectural sign\u2019s 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\u00a0of the space.\u00a0With 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 \u201carchitecture\u201d: 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.\u00a0At 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, \u201carchitecture\u201d.\u00a0This 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.\u00a0This 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.\u00a0In fact, the interior in architecture is not merely\u00a0a \u201cplace\u201d, it is not\u00a0a 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\u2019s ability to abstract and transform, re-propose what he or she knows about external \u201cnature\u201d. It is, in a certain sense, the sublimation of his conscience, told and revealed to others.\u00a0A constructed space can therefore be defined as an \u201carchitectural interior\u201d, not just because it is closed, guarded or secluded, but inasmuch as it carries meanings that are able to inspire in those inhabiting\u00a0it a sense of refuge, privacy and protection. In addition\u00a0to the concept of \u201cinternalness\u201d, a term which simply defines the materiality of a place, we can introduce the principle of \u201cinteriority\u201d 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.\u00a0With regard to this extension, from the principle of \u201cinternal\u201d to that of \u201cinterior\u201d, 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 \u201carchitecture inside architecture\u201d, \u201cinterior inside an interior\u201d.\u00a0To 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 \u201cspace\u201d with a meaning in addition to a morphology, but as a shapeless material to mould and characterize. The void, in this case, \u201cincidentally\u201d 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 \u201cspace\u201d, a place with form, measure and meaning, characterized in its aesthetic and communicative aspects. It evolves into an \u201cabsolute space\u201d, 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,\u00a0a limit.\u00a0So 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 \u201cmakes architecture\u201d.\u00a0Such \u201cinvisible\u201d architecture highlights people\u2019s 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-sc\u00e8ne, 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 \u201cbeing in the world\u201d.<\/p>\n