1400 words.

Factory Pate’-the machine of authentication

The factory examines architectural production. Architecture as a discipline is strictly dictated by individual authorship. Although, we have always been taught to collaborate and exchange ideas, in the architectural environment there is always been a strong emphasis on what is it that you made. What is yours?
Even though we can most definitely argue that culture within arts and architecture has always been based on the action of copying as a precursory to creation. We are cemented with a primitive idea of what a copy is, misusing the term between forgery/imitation/appropriation. Although the project is not concerning a direct extract of the original translated into a different context. What the factory is searching for is for works in which there is no certainty in what we can call the original, the first. Because, honestly. It does not matter. As in Baudelaire’s fleur du mal, or the codex seraphinianus, which clearly re appropriate Mexican myths. So it is a case, as for the Torso Belvedere, in which it is not just on which copy is, but the inter-relation between branches, with Delacroix. Pollock tracing Picasso crucifixion. Or when groups are formed, and the style becomes one, but the many involved are just forgotten in name of just one member as Sottsass.
Copies and intellectual property is a very current issue today. Every day we are bombarded with messages that try to teach you how to be original. We are guided by copyright that determine percentages of what and how much of it you can use. To what extent we can limit from using the same musical note? To what extent are we constrained from using a single architectural element?
Everyone is looking for the real thing. What is this real thing? How do we create?
Rauschenberg created by erasing. Rauschenberg erasing de kooning is the starting point of this project. This is not just the proof that a copy can become the real thing but as well that the process of appropriating the original can be an authentic action. It is a true moment of originality. So the project shift from a concept of the singular “original” into the moment, the action as a point of departure.
I am interested in this action of appropriation which imply an action of copying and erasure. Authenticity is real. Originality does not exist. Pure creation does not exist.
Authenticity is an action which need to be implemented in the architectural discourse. What we have today is the figure of the architect which do not want to acknowledge the many others involved in the project. My factory lives and dies by its transparency from start to finish. Transparency on who I use, I quote and the methodology on how I assemble the final product. The project is a continuous action of appropriation and I become the aggregator of this.
The architect is the aggregator, a bricoleur, someone who works with its hands. who assembles ideas from found objects from whatever it is at hands. From which the word bricolage comes from. As Colin Rowe describe in his collage city: the bricoleur addresses himself to a collection of oddments left over from human endeavours. In this way the bricoleur assemble a cartography of different fragments, creating the factory which is both the place of production and its outcome.
The factory is made through an assembling line:
What does the architect aggregate then? The excess of architectural production allows us to appropriate almost everything we want. From the google search, to the library, to the AA honours. As for Rauschenberg, the selected fragment is a very careful piece to choose. As it is at the same time what we can call an aggressive homage to the author, taking its drawing and erasing it. It is a careful selection which need to be made by the architect herself.
This project calls for a form of collaboration which make space for exchange fragments. Architecture would benefit from becoming part of a broader shared knowledge and practice. Where projects would be free to be seen and used by anyone. Every time the project evolves, and it is presented, you are not just reconstructing the originals, you are keeping alive their previous life significance and authors. It is a well an action which prevent the work to end up in an archive. You become the ballad singer of architecture.
My architectural language is made through sampling. I advocate for a modus operandi based on sampling as architectural production. Architecture is about “ taking a portion” more specifically a 5% allowance for academic studies. In this way, 5% of fragments can now be yours. The pieces, the patterns are stripped bare from their environment, becoming part of an active action. –VIDEO
In the action of taking and inserting new fragments it is giving shape to the factory which slowly builds itself up. It is a slow process of construction, which increases with more and more people joining. It is not a singular process but a collective assembling line. The factory becomes a didactic instrument. Sampling as a concert of different voices, in which the factory/the city becomes as a benevolent source of random but carefully selected information, supremely conscientious profusion of references.
The figure of the architect today, is in contraposition with this collective way of producing architecture that the project put forward. The architect is usually seen as a single individual working in his studio but authentic projects rely on a debris of collusive fields, it is a coagulation of things, conversations and collaborations. One of the most important moment of exchange, the interviews, where the many are folded into the project. Here participation, voluntary or involuntary becomes a critical interchange moment. It is offering a highly energetic scaffold for debate/discussions.

The interviews are just one moment of authenticity in this factory process. These mirror drawings are re-enacting a remarkable quality which is present in renaissance/baroque paintings and completely absent in modern works. As the appearance of the painter and the artist is shown to us in the work itself. When you look into these drawings, the future unfolds endlessly, showing your own input in the factory and a mix of its unspeakable past. In this way, the many are integrated into the space as viewers and as active participants.
If art is a mirror of life, I am the mirror maker. The factory becomes a self portrait of many. The project is proposing the construction of your own identity through others. The factory here is a machine of authentication, which need to copy and appropriate in order to work. All of us can keep the machine alive.
These drawings depends upon the complexity of its parts, which collectively may not only check each other but protect the individual in this collectivism. The factory becomes a symbol of fraternal order, a grouping of the equal and likeminded, which collectively assumes the power to negotiate its freedoms.

The factory becomes a dialectic between past and future, of an impacting of iconographic content, of a temporal as well as a spatial collision. When looking at the factory you should not ask yourself what is true and what is false? What is antique and what is new? If we stop thinking which is the most real (copy or assemblage) we find ourselves moving from aesthetic to metaphysical contemplation. For what it seems most real is most false and what seems most remote it is perhaps the most real since it is least an imitation.
In this way the project is not showing. It is doing. It execute the truth of architectural production. Design with beauty, build in truth. I do believe in this.
In this architectural approach the project need to be an instrument of liberation from the rules which are set now. The factory is a catalyst for the exploration of originality, authorship, image culture. The factory consuming anything as a loose score to be enacted, with supreme irony as well.
The factory becomes a part of something bigger, where I am establishing the cultural ground for a new way of producing architecture. Having established architecture as a performance proceeding via the ceaseless interaction of affirmation and contradiction and since we are immersed in its action, then the best we can do is to understand it. In fact freedom imposes the enterprise, and if it is only through the activity of the historical consciousness that we as captives of this freedom, can know the substance of things then it must also be in terms of this consciousness that liberty defines itself.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.