Monday, October 6, 2008

At Work: Garofalo Miura Architetti



During our visit to GMA, we spoke about the convergence of architectural theory and practice. Francesco explained his desire to “close the gap between statements in the classroom and those in the real world.” He criticized the notion that designers need to slip in their ideas under the nose of strict clients.

Their work seems to communicate on two levels; it responds to the world of academia and the world of reality. Maybe this is a result of their partnership, which combines a theoretical mind with a pragmatic one.

-Tim

One idea I felt was suggested by Francesco's discussion was that, within the world of professional practice, theory could be seen simply as a design tool - one of many at an architect's disposal. It seems that the final product is the primary focus in the majority of real world projects, rather than the specific route the architect took to get there. It isn't important how or why the project looks the way it does, as long as the forms are seductive to a competition jury, and the spaces are enjoyed by its inhabitants. Successful buildings are often (but not necessarily) the result of a solid theoretical development. A well developed conceptual strategy  is most important in that it gives the architect a better chance at producing a desirable final product. Process still maters, however theory is not the only ingredient in the delicious stew that is design. Perhaps our training should include more guidance of aesthetic means of decision making and other generative tools.

-Benn

 

1 comment:

itopia said...

As this was our first visit to an Italian architecture office, I was looking for in particular how the problem of designing for extremely historical typologies was addressed in a contemporary practice. While I was not surprised to discover an aesthetic or language that paralleled that of many other young international firms, upon closer inspection the sensibilities and intuitions that seems to have developed in the projects was what gave the work identity. I am thinking specifically of the first church, and the thin columns of the auditorium space of the kingdergarten(?). I remember that when asked about the role of Rome in his office, with all of its heavy formal, urban, historical and cultural baggage, Francesco had talked about the notion of only being as historicist as you could afford to with a project. There is the idea of a work being suspended in balance within the grey area - I think this may be what he meant when he said that theory was itself not enough. Theory may be able to present a particular argument or a larger framework of ideas, but it cannot pinpoint the greys. I found the level of intuition in the work to be refreshing and inspring.

-Gary