La Casa Domínguez. Alejandro de la Sota: Construir - Habitar

La Tesis Doctoral nace con una intensa vocación pedagógica. La hipótesis de trabajo se establece en torno a una cuestión de interés personal, un tema sobre el que se vertebran, desde el comienzo del doctorado, los diferentes cursos y trabajos de investigación: LA CASA DOMÍNGUEZ como paradigma de la dialéctica en la obra de Alejandro de la Sota. La clasificación de la realidad en categorías antagónicas determina un orden conceptual polarizado, una red de filiaciones excluyentes sobre las que Sota construye su personal protocolo operativo: la arquitectura intelectual o popular, experimental o tradicional, universal o local, ligera o pesada, elevada o enterrada, etc. Se propone el abordaje de una cuestión latente en el conjunto de la obra ‘sotiana’, desde la disección y el análisis de una de sus obras más pequeñas: la casa Domínguez. Se trata de una organización sin precedentes, que eleva la estrategia dialéctica al paroxismo: la vivienda se separa en dos estratos independientes, la zona de día, elevada, y la zona de noche, enterrada; cada uno de los estratos establece su propio orden geométrico y constructivo, su propio lenguaje y carácter, su propia identidad e incluso su propio presupuesto. Las relaciones entre interior y exterior se especializan en función de la actividad o el reposo, estableciéndose una compleja red de relaciones, algunas evidentes y otras celosamente veladas, entre los diferentes niveles. La estancia destinada a las tareas activas se proyecta como un objeto de armazón ligero y piel fría; la precisa geometría del cubo delimita la estancia vigilante sobre el paisaje conquistado. La ladera habitada se destina al reposo y se configura como una topografía verde bajo la que se desarrollan los dormitorios en torno a patios, grietas y lucernarios, generando un paisaje propio: la construcción del objeto frente a la construcción del lugar La casa Domínguez constituye uno de los proyectos menos estudiados, y por lo tanto menos celebrados, de la obra de Don Alejandro. Las publicaciones sucesivas reproducen la documentación gráfica junto a la memoria (epopeya) que el propio Sota compone para la publicación del proyecto. Apenas un par de breves textos críticos de Miguel Ángel Baldellou y, recientemente de Moisés Puente, abordan la vivienda como tema monográfico. Sin embargo, la producción de proyecto y obra ocupó a De la Sota un periodo no inferior a diez años, con casi cien planos dibujados para dos versiones de proyecto, la primera de ellas, inédita. El empeño por determinar hasta el último detalle de la ‘pequeña’ obra, conduce a Sota a controlar incluso el mobiliario interior, como hiciera en otras obras ‘importantes’ como el Gobierno Civil de Tarragona, el colegio mayor César Carlos o el edificio de Correos y Telecomunicaciones de León. La complicidad del cliente, mantenida durante casi cuarenta años, habilita el despliegue de una importante colección de recursos y herramientas de proyecto. La elección de la casa Domínguez como tema central de la tesis persigue por lo tanto un triple objetivo: en primer lugar, el abordaje del proyecto como paradigma de la dialéctica ‘sotiana’, analizando la coherencia entre el discurso de carácter heroico y la obra finalmente construida; en segundo lugar, la investigación rigurosa, de corte científico, desde la disección y progresivo desmontaje del objeto arquitectónico; y por último, la reflexión sobre los temas y dispositivos de proyecto que codifican la identificación entre la acción de construir y el hecho de habitar, registrando los aciertos y valorando con actitud crítica aquellos elementos poco coherentes con el orden interno de la propuesta. This doctoral thesis is the fruit of a profound pedagogical vocation. The central hypothesis was inspired by a question of great personal interest, and this interest has, since the very beginning of the doctorate, been the driving force behind all subsequent lines of research and investigation. The “Casa Domínguez” represents a paradigm of the dialectics found in the work of Alejandro de la Sota. The perception of reality as antagonistic categories determines a polarized conceptual order, a network of mutually excluding associations upon which Sota builds his own personal operative protocol: intellectual or popular architecture, experimental or traditional, universal or local, heavy or light, above or below ground, etc. Through the analysis and dissection of the “Casa Domínguez”, one of Sota’s smallest projects, an attempt is made to approach the underlying question posed in “Sotian” work as a whole. This is about organization without precedent, raising the strategic dialectics to levels of paroxysm. The house is divided into two separate levels, the day-time level above ground, and the lower night-time level beneath the surface of the ground. Each level has its own geometrical and stuctural order, its own language and character, its own identity and even has its own construction budget. The interaction between the two areas is centered on the two functions of rest and activity, and this in turn establishes a complex relationship network between both, which is sometimes self-evident, but at other times jealously guarded. The living area designed for daily activity is presented as an object of light structure and delicate skin; the precise geometry of the cube delimiting the ever watchful living area’s domain over the land it has conquered. A green topography is created on the slope below which lies an area adapted for rest and relaxation. Two bedrooms, built around patios, skylights and light crevices, generate an entirely independent environment: the construction of an object as opposed to the creation of a landscape. The “Casa Domínguez” project has been subject to much less scrutiny and examination than Don Alejandro’s other works, and is consequently less well-known. A succession of journals have printed the blueprint document together with a poetic description (epopee), composed by Sota himself, to mark the project’s publication. There has, however, scarcely been more than two brief critical appraisals, those by Miguel Ángel Baldellou and more recently by Moisés Puente, that have regarded the project as a monographic work. The project and works nevertheless occupied no less than ten years of De La Sota’s life, with over a hundred draft drawings for two separate versions of the project, the first of which remains unpublished. The sheer determination to design this “small” work in the most meticulous detail, drove Sota to manage and select its interior furniture, as indeed he had previously done with more “important” works like the Tarragona Civil Government, César Carlos College, or the Post Office telecommunications building in León. Client collaboration, maintained over a period of almost forty years, has facilitated an impressive array of the project’s tools and resources. The choice of “Casa Domínguez” as the central subject matter of this thesis, was made in pursuance of a triple objective: firstly, to approach the project as a paradigm of the “Sotian” dialectic, the analysis of the discourse between the heroic character and the finished building; secondly, a rigorous scientific investigation, and progressive disassembling and dissecting of the architectonic object; and finally, a reflection on aspects of the project and its technology which codify the identification between the action of construction and the reality of living, thus marking its achievements, whilst at the same time subjecting incoherent elements of the proposal’s established order to a critical evaluation.

Contradictio in terminis: dialéctica de la ambigüedad en la arquitectura contemporánea

The twentieth century brought a new sensibility characterized by the discredit of cartesian rationality and the weakening of universal truths, related with aesthetic values as order, proportion and harmony. In the middle of the century, theorists such as Theodor Adorno, Rudolf Arnheim and Anton Ehrenzweig warned about the transformation developed by the artistic field. Contemporary aesthetics seemed to have a new goal: to deny the idea of art as an organized, finished and coherent structure. The order had lost its privileged position. Disorder, probability, arbitrariness, accidentality, randomness, chaos, fragmentation, indeterminacy... Gradually new terms were coined by aesthetic criticism to explain what had been happening since the beginning of the century. The first essays on the matter sought to provide new interpretative models based on, among other arguments, the phenomenology of perception, the recent discoveries of quantum mechanics, the deeper layers of the psyche or the information theories. Overall, were worthy attempts to give theoretical content to a situation as obvious as devoid of founding charter. Finally, in 1962, Umberto Eco brought together all this efforts by proposing a single theoretical frame in his book Opera Aperta. According to his point of view, all of the aesthetic production of twentieth century had a characteristic in common: its capacity to express multiplicity. For this reason, he considered that the nature of contemporary art was, above all, ambiguous. The aim of this research is to clarify the consequences of the incorporation of ambiguity in architectural theoretical discourse. We should start making an accurate analysis of this concept. However, this task is quite difficult because ambiguity does not allow itself to be clearly defined. This concept has the disadvantage that its signifier is as imprecise as its signified. In addition, the negative connotations that ambiguity still has outside the aesthetic field, stigmatizes this term and makes its use problematic. Another problem of ambiguity is that the contemporary subject is able to locate it in all situations. This means that in addition to distinguish ambiguity in contemporary productions, so does in works belonging to remote ages and styles. For that reason, it could be said that everything is ambiguous. And that’s correct, because somehow ambiguity is present in any creation of the imperfect human being. However, as Eco, Arnheim and Ehrenzweig pointed out, there are two major differences between current and past contexts. One affects the subject and the other the object. First, it’s the contemporary subject, and no other, who has acquired the ability to value and assimilate ambiguity. Secondly, ambiguity was an unexpected aesthetic result in former periods, while in contemporary object it has been codified and is deliberately present. In any case, as Eco did, we consider appropriate the use of the term ambiguity to refer to the contemporary aesthetic field. Any other term with more specific meaning would only show partial and limited aspects of a situation quite complex and difficult to diagnose. Opposed to what normally might be expected, in this case ambiguity is the term that fits better due to its particular lack of specificity. In fact, this lack of specificity is what allows to assign a dynamic condition to the idea of ambiguity that in other terms would hardly be operative. Thus, instead of trying to define the idea of ambiguity, we will analyze how it has evolved and its consequences in architectural discipline. Instead of trying to define what it is, we will examine what its presence has supposed in each moment. We will deal with ambiguity as a constant presence that has always been latent in architectural production but whose nature has been modified over time. Eco, in the mid-twentieth century, discerned between classical ambiguity and contemporary ambiguity. Currently, half a century later, the challenge is to discern whether the idea of ambiguity has remained unchanged or have suffered a new transformation. What this research will demonstrate is that it’s possible to detect a new transformation that has much to do with the cultural and aesthetic context of last decades: the transition from modernism to postmodernism. This assumption leads us to establish two different levels of contemporary ambiguity: each one related to one these periods. The first level of ambiguity is widely well-known since many years. Its main characteristics are a codified multiplicity, an interpretative freedom and an active subject who gives conclusion to an object that is incomplete or indefinite. This level of ambiguity is related to the idea of indeterminacy, concept successfully introduced into contemporary aesthetic language. The second level of ambiguity has been almost unnoticed for architectural criticism, although it has been identified and studied in other theoretical disciplines. Much of the work of Fredric Jameson and François Lyotard shows reasonable evidences that the aesthetic production of postmodernism has transcended modern ambiguity to reach a new level in which, despite of the existence of multiplicity, the interpretative freedom and the active subject have been questioned, and at last denied. In this period ambiguity seems to have reached a new level in which it’s no longer possible to obtain a conclusive and complete interpretation of the object because it has became an unreadable device. The postmodern production offers a kind of inaccessible multiplicity and its nature is deeply contradictory. This hypothetical transformation of the idea of ambiguity has an outstanding analogy with that shown in the poetic analysis made by William Empson, published in 1936 in his Seven Types of Ambiguity. Empson established different levels of ambiguity and classified them according to their poetic effect. This layout had an ascendant logic towards incoherence. In seventh level, where ambiguity is higher, he located the contradiction between irreconcilable opposites. It could be said that contradiction, once it undermines the coherence of the object, was the better way that contemporary aesthetics found to confirm the Hegelian judgment, according to which art would ultimately reject its capacity to express truth. Much of the transformation of architecture throughout last century is related to the active involvement of ambiguity in its theoretical discourse. In modern architecture ambiguity is present afterwards, in its critical review made by theoreticians like Colin Rowe, Manfredo Tafuri and Bruno Zevi. The publication of several studies about Mannerism in the forties and fifties rescued certain virtues of an historical style that had been undervalued due to its deviation from Renacentist canon. Rowe, Tafuri and Zevi, among others, pointed out the similarities between Mannerism and certain qualities of modern architecture, both devoted to break previous dogmas. The recovery of Mannerism allowed joining ambiguity and modernity for first time in the same sentence. In postmodernism, on the other hand, ambiguity is present ex-professo, developing a prominent role in the theoretical discourse of this period. The distance between its analytical identification and its operational use quickly disappeared because of structuralism, an analytical methodology with the aspiration of becoming a modus operandi. Under its influence, architecture began to be identified and studied as a language. Thus, postmodern theoretical project discerned between the components of architectural language and developed them separately. Consequently, there is not only one, but three projects related to postmodern contradiction: semantic project, syntactic project and pragmatic project. Leading these projects are those prominent architects whose work manifested an especial interest in exploring and developing the potential of the use of contradiction in architecture. Thus, Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas were who established the main features through which architecture developed the dialectics of ambiguity, in its last and extreme level, as a theoretical project in each component of architectural language. Robert Venturi developed a new interpretation of architecture based on its semantic component, Peter Eisenman did the same with its syntactic component, and also did Rem Koolhaas with its pragmatic component. With this approach this research aims to establish a new reflection on the architectural transformation from modernity to postmodernity. Also, it can serve to light certain aspects still unaware that have shaped the architectural heritage of past decades, consequence of a fruitful relationship between architecture and ambiguity and its provocative consummation in a contradictio in terminis. Esta investigación centra su atención fundamentalmente sobre las repercusiones de la incorporación de la ambigüedad en forma de contradicción en el discurso arquitectónico postmoderno, a través de cada uno de sus tres proyectos teóricos. Está estructurada, por tanto, en torno a un capítulo principal titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como proyecto teórico postmoderno, que se desglosa en tres, de títulos: Proyecto semántico. Robert Venturi; Proyecto sintáctico. Peter Eisenman; y Proyecto pragmático. Rem Koolhaas. El capítulo central se complementa con otros dos situados al inicio. El primero, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad contemporánea. Una aproximación realiza un análisis cronológico de la evolución que ha experimentado la idea de la ambigüedad en la teoría estética del siglo XX, sin entrar aún en cuestiones arquitectónicas. El segundo, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como crítica del proyecto moderno se ocupa de examinar la paulatina incorporación de la ambigüedad en la revisión crítica de la modernidad, que sería de vital importancia para posibilitar su posterior introducción operativa en la postmodernidad. Un último capítulo, situado al final del texto, propone una serie de Proyecciones que, a tenor de lo analizado en los capítulos anteriores, tratan de establecer una relectura del contexto arquitectónico actual y su evolución posible, considerando, en todo momento, que la reflexión en torno a la ambigüedad todavía hoy permite vislumbrar nuevos horizontes discursivos. Cada doble página de la Tesis sintetiza la estructura tripartita del capítulo central y, a grandes rasgos, la principal herramienta metodológica utilizada en la investigación. De este modo, la triple vertiente semántica, sintáctica y pragmática con que se ha identificado al proyecto teórico postmoderno se reproduce aquí en una distribución específica de imágenes, notas a pie de página y cuerpo principal del texto. En la columna de la izquierda están colocadas las imágenes que acompañan al texto principal. Su distribución atiende a criterios estéticos y compositivos, cualificando, en la medida de lo posible, su condición semántica. A continuación, a su derecha, están colocadas las notas a pie de página. Su disposición es en columna y cada nota está colocada a la misma altura que su correspondiente llamada en el texto principal. Su distribución reglada, su valor como notación y su posible equiparación con una estructura profunda aluden a su condición sintáctica. Finalmente, el cuerpo principal del texto ocupa por completo la mitad derecha de cada doble página. Concebido como un relato continuo, sin apenas interrupciones, su papel como responsable de satisfacer las demandas discursivas que plantea una investigación doctoral está en correspondencia con su condición pragmática.

Habitar lo irreal. aproximaciones a una arquitectónica de los mundos virtuales

Lo virtual es el lugar donde todo empieza, el germen de la imaginación productiva, un ámbito de pulsiones inaugurales y preexistencias sin forma donde todo convive, a la espera de ser diferenciado. Lo virtual es el sitio donde nacen las primeras exploraciones de cualquier acto de concepción, incluida la creación artística o el proyectar arquitectónico. Sin embargo, en las últimas tres décadas de revolución digital, el término ha sido utilizado de forma abusiva para referirse a todo tipo de entornos simulados informáticamente, es decir, a ficciones cerradas, programadas, controladas por el software y sus rutinas, radicalmente actualizadas, acabadas, completas, formalizadas. Paradójicamente, lo virtual ha servido para nombrar construcciones profundamente anti-virtuales. La telemática está propiciando el acceso del ser humano a un nuevo tipo de irrealidad cotidiana sustentada en prácticas espaciales cada vez menos vinculadas con la física y la biología. Esta condición fantasmagórica del habitar digital exige nuevos espacios de diálogo entre arquitectura y tecnología que se centren en el hecho imaginario. Para ello esta tesis propone —a partir de la recuperación del término griego arquitectónica— llevar el alcance de la disciplina hasta el hecho global del habitar. Y, al mismo tiempo, devolver al adjetivo virtual su auténtico significado preliminar, entendiendo que los verdaderos mundos virtuales no pueden simular nada, representar nada, formalizar nada, porque ellos son el origen infinito y amorfo de todo mundo. ABSTRACT The virtual is where it all starts, the seed of productive imagination, an area of inaugural impulses and formless preexistences that beat together, waiting to be differentiated. The virtual is the birthplace of any creative exploration, including those of the architectural project. However, in the last three decades of digital revolution, the term has been mostly misused to refer to all types of computer simulated environments; shut, finished, complete, formalized, radically actualized fictions controlled by software routines. Paradoxically, the virtual has been giving name to profoundly anti-virtual constructions. Telematics is allowing humans to access to a new kind of unreality, based on everyday spatial practices that are increasingly detached from physics and biology. This spectral condition of the digital living demands new dialectics between architecture and technology, focused on the imaginary. This thesis proposes — beginning by recovering the Greek word architectonics— to extend the scope of the discipline beyond edification to the overall fact of inhabiting. And, at the same time, to return to the adjective virtual its authentic preliminary meaning, realizing that the true virtual worlds cannot simulate, represent or formalize anything because they are the amorphous and endless source of every world.

Arquitecto, obra y método. Análisis comparado de diferentes estrategias metodológicas singulares de la creación arquitectónica contemporánea

La tesis se acerca a la cuestión del método en arquitectura focalizando su análisis principalmente en 5 obras concretas del panorama contemporáneo, tratando de desvelar las motivaciones últimas que las constituyen. El objeto y la obra arquitectónica se consideran así los elementos susceptibles de ofrecer el conocimiento material que permite desentrañar el modo y la metodología por el que éstos han sido concebidos. Con esta particular aproximación se desafían los tradicionales estudios que han comprendido al método como una sistemática universal o reglada, ya que en este caso el propósito consiste más bien en esclarecer los fundamentos y principios que subyacen a cada objeto arquitectónico más específico. Este hecho ha llevado al índice de la tesis a ordenarse según una lista de arquitectos y obras que no presentan otra particularidad que la de ser recientes y muy diferentes entre sí. Esta aparente arbitrariedad con la que las obras se eligen cobra sentido a lo largo del propio análisis y recorrido, ya que éste apuesta por recabar el suficiente contenido que diversifique y singularice cada elección, de tal modo que ya en sí, ésta obtenga rango paradigmático. El hecho de que la tesis evite los planteamientos totalitarios no quiere decir que trate de promover el relativismo de las diferentes opciones, dado que más bien pretende analizar hasta el fondo las cuestiones últimas y lo más valioso que cada opción representa. Por su parte, la conclusión de la tesis muestra una complementariedad al carácter específico de los capítulos previos, ya que ésta se atreve a avanzar con cierta voluntad conclusiva hacia la definición de los principios más sustanciales del método en arquitectura hoy. Y precisamente, una de las claves esenciales que ha mostrado la arquitectura del hoy que nos toca vivir consiste en la condición más específica de la obra arquitectónica misma por encima de cualquier connotación genérica o transcendente que ésta pueda sugerir. De tal modo que los arquitectos elegidos, por muy diferentes que aparentan ser, han tomado como punto de partida la condición objetual de la obra más allá de cualquier contenido ideal que a ésta pueda adscribírsele. En todos los casos, si bien de diferente manera, la obra arquitectónica en sí misma se ha constituido en una nueva clave en la que tratan de dirimirse las eternas dialécticas entre el objeto y su significado, entre la estructura conceptual y su connotación simbólica. De este modo, las dialécticas relativas a la unidad de la diversidad, la identidad de la multiplicidad, la síntesis que pretende la integración de lo complejo, o en su caso, la indispensable sostenibilidad de lo inconsistente, se han convertido en la temática principal de este análisis que ha comprendido al método a partir la misma paradoja por la que la arquitectura actual se ve afectada. La misma dialéctica imposible de resolver que ha conducido a la arquitectura más reciente a decantarse a favor de la consustancialidad intrínseca a la misma obra. La tesis por su parte también se ha focalizado en la obra y en el hecho arquitectónico puntual, siguiendo la tendencia de la misma arquitectura que se analizaba. Sin embargo, sus extensos análisis nos han llevado a desentrañar el sentido y la posición estratégica personal que se encuentra más allá de la exacerbación inmanente de la arquitectura de estos últimos años. Es decir, tal y como se ha insistido, el análisis de la obra nos ha llevado, a través de la pregunta por su método, al arquitecto que la ha proyectado. Y así se ha creado este triángulo trinitario, ‘Arquitecto, obra y método’, tratando de preguntarse hasta el final por la singularidad más específica del método de cada arquitecto, en el convencimiento de que método y obra se vinculan precisamente ahí, en las experiencias personales singulares que han posibilitado las mayores creaciones y más sustantivas novedades. ABSTRACT This thesis approaches the question of Method in architecture by focusing its analysis on 5 specific contemporary projects, trying to unveil their underlying constitutive motivations. Thus, architectonical object and work are considered the susceptible elements that provide the material knowledge that unravels the manner and the methodology by which they were conceived. With this particular approach, this thesis challenges other traditional studies, those that regard the Method in architecture as a regulated or universal systematic procedure. On the contrary, the purpose of this thesis is to clarify the foundations and principles that underlie each specific architectonical object. This has led to the ordering of the thesis index according to a list of architects and projects that do not present any other distinctiveness except that they are recent and very different to each other. However, this apparent arbitrariness of the choice of each architect becomes meaningful during its analytical development. This analysis attempts to seek out the content which diversifies each choice enough, and makes it singular enough, so that each selected candidate acquires paradigmatic range by itself. Therefore, the fact that the thesis avoids totalitarian approaches does not lead it to promote the relativism of different choices, but rather the thesis tries to thoroughly analyze the most valuable achievements of each option. Nonetheless, the conclusion of the thesis shows a position that complements the specific character of the previous chapters, since it dares to move forward conclusively towards the definition of the essential principles of the Method in architecture today. Indeed, the thesis shows one of the basic keys of today’s architecture, which is the specific condition of the architectural work itself above any generic or transcendental connotation. Thus, the selected architects, however different they appear to be, take the objectual condition of the work (thingness) as their starting point beyond any ideal content that might be ascribed to their architecture. Although differently, in each case the architectonical work itself has become the new indispensable key to deal with the eternal dialectics between the object and its meaning, between conceptual structure and its symbolic connotation. Thus, the dialectics between unity and diversity, the identity of multiplicity, the synthesis that aims at the integration of complexity, or even, the indispensable consistency of the unavoidable inconsistency, have all become the main themes of this analysis, an analysis that understands the issue of Method from the same paradoxical situation of today’s architecture. This is the same paradox which has led the latest architecture to align itself with the intrinsic consubstantiality of the architectonical work itself. Therefore, the thesis is also focused on the Work, on the specific architectonical fact, following the course of the same architecture that it analyses. However, extensive analyses of the thesis have led us to clarify the sense and personal strategic position that is beyond the immanent exacerbation of architecture in recent years. Therefore, as stressed throughout the text, the analysis, that has explored the Method of architectonical Work, has led us to the architect who conceived it. Thus, this trinitarian triangle, ‘Architect, Work and Method’, has been created, attempting to explore in depth the specific uniqueness of each architect’s method, convinced that Method and Work do actually connect in the singular experiences that have achieved the greatest and most substantial creations.

Arquitecto, obra y método. Análisis comparado de diferentes estrategias metodológicas singulares de la creación arquitectónica contemporánea

La tesis se acerca a la cuestión del método en arquitectura focalizando su análisis principalmente en 5 obras concretas del panorama contemporáneo, tratando de desvelar las motivaciones últimas que las constituyen. El objeto y la obra arquitectónica se consideran así los elementos susceptibles de ofrecer el conocimiento material que permite desentrañar el modo y la metodología por el que éstos han sido concebidos. Con esta particular aproximación se desafían los tradicionales estudios que han comprendido al método como una sistemática universal o reglada, ya que en este caso el propósito consiste más bien en esclarecer los fundamentos y principios que subyacen a cada objeto arquitectónico más específico. Este hecho ha llevado al índice de la tesis a ordenarse según una lista de arquitectos y obras que no presentan otra particularidad que la de ser recientes y muy diferentes entre sí. Esta aparente arbitrariedad con la que las obras se eligen cobra sentido a lo largo del propio análisis y recorrido, ya que éste apuesta por recabar el suficiente contenido que diversifique y singularice cada elección, de tal modo que ya en sí, ésta obtenga rango paradigmático. El hecho de que la tesis evite los planteamientos totalitarios no quiere decir que trate de promover el relativismo de las diferentes opciones, dado que más bien pretende analizar hasta el fondo las cuestiones últimas y lo más valioso que cada opción representa. Por su parte, la conclusión de la tesis muestra una complementariedad al carácter específico de los capítulos previos, ya que ésta se atreve a avanzar con cierta voluntad conclusiva hacia la definición de los principios más sustanciales del método en arquitectura hoy. Y precisamente, una de las claves esenciales que ha mostrado la arquitectura del hoy que nos toca vivir consiste en la condición más específica de la obra arquitectónica misma por encima de cualquier connotación genérica o transcendente que ésta pueda sugerir. De tal modo que los arquitectos elegidos, por muy diferentes que aparentan ser, han tomado como punto de partida la condición objetual de la obra más allá de cualquier contenido ideal que a ésta pueda adscribírsele. En todos los casos, si bien de diferente manera, la obra arquitectónica en sí misma se ha constituido en una nueva clave en la que tratan de dirimirse las eternas dialécticas entre el objeto y su significado, entre la estructura conceptual y su connotación simbólica. De este modo, las dialécticas relativas a la unidad de la diversidad, la identidad de la multiplicidad, la síntesis que pretende la integración de lo complejo, o en su caso, la indispensable sostenibilidad de lo inconsistente, se han convertido en la temática principal de este análisis que ha comprendido al método a partir la misma paradoja por la que la arquitectura actual se ve afectada. La misma dialéctica imposible de resolver que ha conducido a la arquitectura más reciente a decantarse a favor de la consustancialidad intrínseca a la misma obra. La tesis por su parte también se ha focalizado en la obra y en el hecho arquitectónico puntual, siguiendo la tendencia de la misma arquitectura que se analizaba. Sin embargo, sus extensos análisis nos han llevado a desentrañar el sentido y la posición estratégica personal que se encuentra más allá de la exacerbación inmanente de la arquitectura de estos últimos años. Es decir, tal y como se ha insistido, el análisis de la obra nos ha llevado, a través de la pregunta por su método, al arquitecto que la ha proyectado. Y así se ha creado este triángulo trinitario, ‘Arquitecto, obra y método’, tratando de preguntarse hasta el final por la singularidad más específica del método de cada arquitecto, en el convencimiento de que método y obra se vinculan precisamente ahí, en las experiencias personales singulares que han posibilitado las mayores creaciones y más sustantivas novedades. ABSTRACT This thesis approaches the question of Method in architecture by focusing its analysis on 5 specific contemporary projects, trying to unveil their underlying constitutive motivations. Thus, architectonical object and work are considered the susceptible elements that provide the material knowledge that unravels the manner and the methodology by which they were conceived. With this particular approach, this thesis challenges other traditional studies, those that regard the Method in architecture as a regulated or universal systematic procedure. On the contrary, the purpose of this thesis is to clarify the foundations and principles that underlie each specific architectonical object. This has led to the ordering of the thesis index according to a list of architects and projects that do not present any other distinctiveness except that they are recent and very different to each other. However, this apparent arbitrariness of the choice of each architect becomes meaningful during its analytical development. This analysis attempts to seek out the content which diversifies each choice enough, and makes it singular enough, so that each selected candidate acquires paradigmatic range by itself. Therefore, the fact that the thesis avoids totalitarian approaches does not lead it to promote the relativism of different choices, but rather the thesis tries to thoroughly analyze the most valuable achievements of each option. Nonetheless, the conclusion of the thesis shows a position that complements the specific character of the previous chapters, since it dares to move forward conclusively towards the definition of the essential principles of the Method in architecture today. Indeed, the thesis shows one of the basic keys of today’s architecture, which is the specific condition of the architectural work itself above any generic or transcendental connotation. Thus, the selected architects, however different they appear to be, take the objectual condition of the work (thingness) as their starting point beyond any ideal content that might be ascribed to their architecture. Although differently, in each case the architectonical work itself has become the new indispensable key to deal with the eternal dialectics between the object and its meaning, between conceptual structure and its symbolic connotation. Thus, the dialectics between unity and diversity, the identity of multiplicity, the synthesis that aims at the integration of complexity, or even, the indispensable consistency of the unavoidable inconsistency, have all become the main themes of this analysis, an analysis that understands the issue of Method from the same paradoxical situation of today’s architecture. This is the same paradox which has led the latest architecture to align itself with the intrinsic consubstantiality of the architectonical work itself. Therefore, the thesis is also focused on the Work, on the specific architectonical fact, following the course of the same architecture that it analyses. However, extensive analyses of the thesis have led us to clarify the sense and personal strategic position that is beyond the immanent exacerbation of architecture in recent years. Therefore, as stressed throughout the text, the analysis, that has explored the Method of architectonical Work, has led us to the architect who conceived it. Thus, this trinitarian triangle, ‘Architect, Work and Method’, has been created, attempting to explore in depth the specific uniqueness of each architect’s method, convinced that Method and Work do actually connect in the singular experiences that have achieved the greatest and most substantial creations.

Gordon Matta-Clark a través de Rem Koolhaas : adición a través de eliminación

Gordon Matta-Clark es el origen de la presente investigación. Su obra, de total actualidad, ha ido ganando interés entre la comunidad de arquitectos, si bien su dimensión teórica se ha visto a menudo eclipsada por el poderoso atractivo de sus aberturas, cortes y extracciones. Son muchos los investigadores que detectan una carencia en el estudio de su corpus de pensamiento desde el campo de la crítica arquitectónica a la que está inevitablemente vinculado, a pesar de haber puesto en marcha una potente maquinaria de criticismo. Se constata a su vez la problemática existente al construir dialécticas entre la obra de Gordon Matta-Clark y el ámbito de la práctica arquitectónica. Surgen áreas forzadas de reflexión al elevar ambas esferas al mismo plano, achacado a un desconocimiento de las motivaciones críticas e históricas del proyecto del arquitecto. Aparece de modo recurrente un intento por establecer una dialéctica que, sin embargo, es relegada constantemente a una colección de notas al pie de página: Rem Koolhaas es sesgadamente mencionado por la crítica como el digno continuador accidental de las teorías de Gordon Matta-Clark. Se inicia así la construcción de una dialéctica que permanece aún sin resolver. Rem Koolhaas, en una entrevista en la que vierte su opinión sobre Gordon Matta-Clark, lo considera el precursor accidental de su ‘estrategia de vacío’, reconociendo en su trabajo procesos de adición a través de eliminación como método de creación de espacio arquitectónico. Una visión incisiva que desdeña su faceta de artista destructor destacando su habilidad para inocular el vacío mediante el empleo de herramientas de adición a través de eliminación. Estas premisas dan lugar de forma automática a la hipótesis de partida: la formalización de una investigación que llene ese vacío estableciendo un fuego cruzado entre ambos arquitectos, los cuales comparten de manera fortuita época y escenarios. El discurso de Rem Koolhaas iluminará el pensamiento de Gordon Matta-Clark vinculando sus respectivas plataformas de producción teórica, construyendo un espacio metafórico común en torno a la palabra y la imagen, herramientas que ambos manejan con habilidad y fluidez. Las propuestas del grupo Anarchitecture y las Art Cards o recortes anárquicos de soliloquios mattaclarkianos encuentran su réplica en el diccionario de términos e imágenes “Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large”, descrito por Rem Koolhaas como una acumulación de palabras e imágenes que ilumina la condición de la arquitectura actual. La investigación establece una profusa asociación de ideas, imágenes y parlamentos que navegan en el universo referencial de Rem Koolhaas aportando una nueva visión sobre la dimensión crítica de Gordon Matta-Clark. Una visión poliédrica alrededor de cinco conceptos clave y un glosario de estrategias de proyecto que abren nuevos umbrales en los que la adición a través de la eliminación se repite hasta la saciedad transformado en mantra arquitectónico. ABSTRACT The present research finds its origins in Gordon Matta-Clark. His work, still relevant today, has been gaining interest within the community of architects, although its theoretical dimension has often been overshadowed by the powerful attraction of his openings, cuts and extractions. Many researchers detect a lack in the study of his body of thought from the field of architectural criticism to which he is inevitably associated, despite having launched a powerful machinery of criticism. It is noted at the same time the problem appeared when different dialectics between the work of Gordon Matta-Clark and the field of architectural practice are established. Forced areas of thought emerge when both fields are observed from the same point of view, derived from a lack of knowledge of the critical and historical motivations of the architect project. An attempt to establish a dialectical relationship with another architect appears recurrently in different books and writings. However it is steadily consigned to a collection of insignificant footnotes: the critics mention Rem Koolhaas as the worthy accidental successor of the theories of Gordon Matta-Clark. The construction of a dialectic that remains unresolved begins at this point. Gordon Matta-Clark is considered by Rem Koolhaas the accidental predecessor of his ‘strategy of emptiness’ -in an interview in which he pours his opinion on him- recognizing processes of addition through elimination in the work of Matta-Clark as a method of building architectural space. Rem Koolhaas rejects his role as destructor artist highlighting his ability to inoculate the emptiness by using addition tools through elimination. These premises lead us automatically to the hypothesis of the research: the formalization of research that will fill the emptiness by setting a crossfire between both architects, who share by chance the same scenarios and time. The discourse given by Rem Koolhaas illuminates Gordon Matta-Clark´s thought by linking their respective theoretical work platforms, building a common metaphorical space around word and image as tools managed by both of them with expertise and fluency. The Anarchitecture proposals and the Art Cards -anarchic cuts of Matta-Clark´s thought- find its counterpart in the dictionary of terms and images included in “Small, Medium, Large, Extra- Large”, described by Rem Koolhaas as an accumulation of words and images that illuminates the condition of architecture today. The research provides a wide range of associations of ideas, images and discussions around the universe of references of Rem Koolhaas, offering a new insight into the critical dimension of the work of Gordon Matta-Clark. A multifaceted vision around five key concepts and a glossary of project strategies that opens up new thresholds in which addition through elimination is repeated endlessly becoming an architectural mantra.