Compartir y debatir en arquitectura

Abstract

The journal "proyecto, progreso, arquitectura" is an initiative of the HUM-632 research group at the University of Seville, its objective is to share architectural information and promote debate. Debate is a means to exchange ideas, compare points of view, reach a consensus of opinion, acquire elements of judgement, thereby being able to contribute to resolving any problems of mutual interest. Architecture is a specialization of knowledge, capable of projecting beyond the spheres that mark its speciality, a characteristic that distinguishes it but which also subjects it to continuous and considerable interference: it may only be a question of the "spirit of an age". The diffusion of knowledge is a good antidote against the evils of the time: it is necessary to investigate, build, share, disseminate and then debate. Our advantage is the capacity to carefully observe reality from diverse points of view, without limitation of time and space, fundamental concepts and specific methodology allow the application of any subject we propose, to the present. Within the articles we make no attempt to recognize one sole research procedure. We consider conclusive works to be of as much interest as those based on study and observation, and present them to you with rigour and criterion, a new contribution to the topic. In architecture, knowledge is cumulative and can be attained from numerous, partial contributions, even those which may be biased. It differs from other fields of knowledge, where what was previously assumed without debate, is rendered out of date by continuous discoveries. It is a time of opportunity, and before straining to establish boundaries between teaching, research and practise, it would be more opportune to look for similarities and possible transfers between these three fields whose objectives are well defined. With these ideas in mind we are creating a journal that has a clear, simple and flexible structure. A series of articles united around a current theme is the basis which supports the main argument of each issue. The different "open themes" that compose our editorial line, are the sources for this combination of diverse research. Other articles on the margin of the theme may be added to the debate, but always from the critique exercised in the sphere of architectural projects. New curricula are currently being drafted and implemented to reflect the Bologna criteria. Solutions are sought to an equation, conditioned by the terms "content", " integration", "interest", "growth" and "credits". In our case, the absence of a debate on the containing space is paradoxical, a direct way to give an enduring idea of architecture and the architect who proposes and defends it with such conviction. We propose to review how those great architects of the twentieth century were trained and who later turned to the construction of buildings for the teaching of architecture. Over time, these have become the lasting images of the theories of their originators. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was still possible to recognize the guild component that the profession then had. In those times, drawing was the guarantee of a suitable aptitude and qualification to start an architectural education. The Bauhaus did not abandon the trades as essential and primary parts in the training of the architect. The workshop was a place for work, according to the different trades contained in the educational programme of the school. The transformation of the workshop as the space required for the development of contemporary architectural design is already present in Mies's I.I.T. The Bauhaus and the Crown Hall represent a commitment to the specialization of physical spaces for the teaching of architecture to an outstanding few, with these spaces being seen today as "high performance" schools. The Sixties gave way to the generalization of these experiences. Artigas drew up his educational programme and entrusted architectural design to manage the times and methods of integrating the knowledge required by architects obliged to work in a society heading irreversibly towards mass production. The reflections contributed by lecturers from the schools of Vallés, Seville and Granada show us the reality where the distilled criteria of these investigations can have application. The exercise of criticism from architectural projects is essential to deepen the knowledge and intellectuality of architecture, and in this issue the latest articles complete the main reflections proposed. A critical approach to architecture is the result of the educational process that we strive to deliver.