* It is often said that time will sort everything out, and in many cases it goes this way. We do not believe in the existence of a divine being that has the duty of amending the injustices of the development of history.
Just the absence of contemporary references to certain artistic creations are not helping to value as they deserve: Films that did not receive any award or great commercial failures that finnaly end up as a cult pieces thanks to later revisions.
Architecture, except on few occasions, is built. Rare are the cases in which an initial design that has not come to be constructed, comes to be transcendent. Generally, unrealized projects disappear without the option of revision; in the same way that unfilmed scripts die.
How would they really have been like? Which relevance would have they reached?
Can a single work change the trajectory of an entire discipline? In a way, they all do. Any work built will open a way, lift a style or even form part of the culmination of a movement. Everything adds up and everything influences in one direction. We are talking about a living network of styles halfway between cooperation and survival. A multiform mass that normally walks and sometimes jumps.
What would the construction of Fernando Higueras’ Multipurpose Building in the seventies have meant for architecture? How is it possible that today there is still more talk of a drawn floor of an unbuilt building than of the very building which nowadays occupies the place where the first one was suposed to be? It is not a question of justice or anything like that; it is simply curiosity.
What would it have meant for the trajectory of the architecture?
The project we are carrying out is based on this premise: a film can be relocated over time, but can one film that has not even been filmed do so? What’s more, can one of its parts do it? Can a script do it? At the very least, if we simplify its language, we can democratize its consumption. We can offer more possibilities for it to be read.
Architecture is not image. Or at least not only. We have all seen the pyramids, but how many of us have stepped on them? In most cases we live architecture visually. It does not exist, or at least not with total security.
Only the illusion of its existence. It does not replace the experience, but in many cases it is more than a worthy substitute. Hopefully, if it manages to break through the barrier of the image, it can be installed in the collective imaginary as real.
The project we have started deals with the unbuilt work of Fernando Higueras. Not how it would be today but how it would have been at his time.
A small ucronia built with the hope that it manages to reach our days. 20 years of unbuilt work in a journey through the photography of the 70s, 80s and 90s: different cameras, different reels, different prints, different colour processing, etc.
Just the absence of contemporary references to certain artistic creations are not helping to value as they deserve: Films that did not receive any award or great commercial failures that finnaly end up as a cult pieces thanks to later revisions.
Architecture, except on few occasions, is built. Rare are the cases in which an initial design that has not come to be constructed, comes to be transcendent. Generally, unrealized projects disappear without the option of revision; in the same way that unfilmed scripts die.
How would they really have been like? Which relevance would have they reached?
Can a single work change the trajectory of an entire discipline? In a way, they all do. Any work built will open a way, lift a style or even form part of the culmination of a movement. Everything adds up and everything influences in one direction. We are talking about a living network of styles halfway between cooperation and survival. A multiform mass that normally walks and sometimes jumps.
What would the construction of Fernando Higueras’ Multipurpose Building in the seventies have meant for architecture? How is it possible that today there is still more talk of a drawn floor of an unbuilt building than of the very building which nowadays occupies the place where the first one was suposed to be? It is not a question of justice or anything like that; it is simply curiosity.
What would it have meant for the trajectory of the architecture?
The project we are carrying out is based on this premise: a film can be relocated over time, but can one film that has not even been filmed do so? What’s more, can one of its parts do it? Can a script do it? At the very least, if we simplify its language, we can democratize its consumption. We can offer more possibilities for it to be read.
Architecture is not image. Or at least not only. We have all seen the pyramids, but how many of us have stepped on them? In most cases we live architecture visually. It does not exist, or at least not with total security.
Only the illusion of its existence. It does not replace the experience, but in many cases it is more than a worthy substitute. Hopefully, if it manages to break through the barrier of the image, it can be installed in the collective imaginary as real.
The project we have started deals with the unbuilt work of Fernando Higueras. Not how it would be today but how it would have been at his time.
A small ucronia built with the hope that it manages to reach our days. 20 years of unbuilt work in a journey through the photography of the 70s, 80s and 90s: different cameras, different reels, different prints, different colour processing, etc.
*Text by.- Quatre Caps
