Elección del verso sobre la prosa en el De Rerum Natura de Lucrecio : La poesía al servicio de la enseñanza

Una acostumbrada y debatida concepción considera inadecuado expresar temas filosóficos por medio del uso de la poesía, pues en líneas generales la poesía no satisface el rigor y claridad necesarios para desarrollar temas científicos. Este conflicto entre contenido y forma es reconocido como una característica de la poesía didáctica que se manifiesta muy bien en el poema de Lucrecio. Sin embargo, Lucrecio no fue el primero en intentar este acercamiento poético a la filosofía con fines persuasivo-instructivos; esta elección, a pesar de contradecir los preceptos de Epicuro, estaba acorde con el modelo de discurso escrito empleado por algunos pensadores pre-socráticos para transmitir conocimientos sobre fenómenos naturales. El estudio de esta preferencia estilística en la obra de Lucrecio nos ayudará a comprender mejor la intención persuasivo-instructiva a la que apunta este controvertido texto y mostrar, a partir de ahí, nuevas luces que puedan ayudar a alcanzar una mejor interpretación del mismo

Elección del verso sobre la prosa en el De Rerum Natura de Lucrecio : La poesía al servicio de la enseñanza

Una acostumbrada y debatida concepción considera inadecuado expresar temas filosóficos por medio del uso de la poesía, pues en líneas generales la poesía no satisface el rigor y claridad necesarios para desarrollar temas científicos. Este conflicto entre contenido y forma es reconocido como una característica de la poesía didáctica que se manifiesta muy bien en el poema de Lucrecio. Sin embargo, Lucrecio no fue el primero en intentar este acercamiento poético a la filosofía con fines persuasivo-instructivos; esta elección, a pesar de contradecir los preceptos de Epicuro, estaba acorde con el modelo de discurso escrito empleado por algunos pensadores pre-socráticos para transmitir conocimientos sobre fenómenos naturales. El estudio de esta preferencia estilística en la obra de Lucrecio nos ayudará a comprender mejor la intención persuasivo-instructiva a la que apunta este controvertido texto y mostrar, a partir de ahí, nuevas luces que puedan ayudar a alcanzar una mejor interpretación del mismo

Agenda y Cuaderno de Nueva York : La paradoja entre la identidad íntima y la máscara múltiple

José Hierro es recordado en la historia de la literatura española por la poetización en sus obras de posguerra de un claro yo autoral, que cobra sentido casi siempre en cuanto englobado en el nosotros de una generación concreta y real: los textos hierrianos dan la impresión de estar hablando siempre en clave personal, si bien las confesiones se quedan muchas veces en el ámbito de lo público, raras veces sumergiéndose en la introspección de lo íntimo, esfera que, como es sabido, el poeta solía respetar con abundante prudencia en todos los aspectos de su vida. Todo ello se construye con las oportunas marcas de realismo o realemas, que conducen al lector en la pista de una lectura más o menos realista, tendente a eliminar todo efecto de ficción, como era canónico en la época. La evolución de José Hierro le lleva a ir dejando de lado esta poética de razón histórica para adentrarse en otros caminos, que serían tan exitosos y productivos en los años subsiguientes. No es sorprendente, por tanto, que encontremos líneas evolutivas en un autor de cuya obra se extiende en tan largo período de tiempo -pensemos que se trata de más de cincuenta años-. Sin embargo, sí llama la atención que en sus últimos libros de poesía encontremos una peculiar manera de resolver el problema del pudor y de la identidad. Encontramos en ellos la imbricación de una creciente confesión íntima y un decreciente correlato autorial. No somos las primeras en advertir esta aparente paradoja, pero lo que queremos demostrar es que las frecuentes máscaras culturalistas ejercen una función múltiple en la obra hierriana; permitiéndole conectar con las jóvenes poéticas, el autor consigue dar cabida a las inquietudes íntimas sin sentirse violentado

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.

Workflow-centric research objects: First class citizens in scholarly discourse.

A workflow-centric research object bundles a workflow, the provenance of the results obtained by its enactment, other digital objects that are relevant for the experiment (papers, datasets, etc.), and annotations that semantically describe all these objects. In this paper, we propose a model to specify workflow-centric research objects, and show how the model can be grounded using semantic technologies and existing vocabularies, in particular the Object Reuse and Exchange (ORE) model and the Annotation Ontology (AO).We describe the life-cycle of a research object, which resembles the life-cycle of a scienti?c experiment.