Ask the architecture
Which architecture do we investigate? In my continuous work on a few, but profound questions related to the meaning of building, that is always in relationship with places and history, allows to perceive in my projects a clear lack of interest for the creation of a modern style. In my work, the frantic search of the originality is not noticeable at any cost because the language of one's time is not invented, but fulfilled, in fact the project finds a specific completeness in giving concrete answers to the needs inherent in the architectural themes. Those answers need constitute the overall structure of the work, which finds its own formal definition subsequently in the relationship with the place and with the interpretation of those typical forms, of general scope, always able to satisfy and fully represent the collective memory of a community. In this relationship, between the interpretation and the fundamental space it is essential to search the memory of the forms. So each project becomes an opportunity to imagine the new as an integral part of the existing environment, rejecting the architecture of events and buildings isolated from the context, thinking about each new building in dialogue with the surrounding environment, with the characteristics and identity of a place to merge the old with the new in a vital whole. Which architecture do we investigate, settle and talk about? This is the question that I investigate with my work and that it seems to me useful to remind myself when I start a new project, since the easy search for stylistic identity was never pursued by me. My work is a rewriting work that combines an awareness of the most authentic sense of doing architecture in its stratification of technical, anthropological and rational knowledge, with an understanding of the contours of creative experience. I'm not talking about self-referential creativity, but about that slow sedimentation that is formed over time through observation and description.