Search

Resumen “Arquitectura y representación” es un tema plural que abarca tanto la figuración como la manifestación, imagen y escenografía de la arquitectura. Dentro de él, se analiza aquí cómo Le Corbusier plantea una interdependencia entre la arquitectura y su imagen que conlleva no sólo un nuevo sentido del espacio, sino también nuevos medios de representarlo, sirviéndose de los más variados vehículos expresivos: de la acuarela al diorama, del plano a la maqueta, de los croquis a los esquemas científicos y, en general, de todos los medios posibles de expresión y representación para dar a conocer sus inquietudes y sus propuestas en un certamen singular: el Salón de Otoño de París; cuna de las vanguardias. Le Corbusier concurrió al Salón d’ Automne con su arquitectura en múltiples ocasiones. A él llevó sus dibujos de Oriente y a él volvió en los años veinte a exhibir sus obras, recorriendo el camino del arte-paisaje a la arquitectura y, dentro de ella -en un orden inverso, anti-clásico-, de la gran escala o escala urbana a la escala edificatoria y a la pequeña escala de los espacios interiores y el amueblamiento.

Abstract “Architecture and Representation” is a plural theme that includes both figuration as manifestation, image and scenography of architecture. Within it, here it is analyzed how Le Corbusier proposes an interdependence between architecture and image that entails not only a new sense of space, but also new means of representing it, using the most varied expressive vehicles: from watercolor to diorama, from plans to models, from sketches to scientific schemes and, in general, using all possible expression and representation means to make known their concerns and their proposals, all of them within a singular contest: the Paris’s Salon d’ Automne; cradle of art avant-gardes.Le Corbusier attended Le Salon d’ Automne with his architecture on multiple occasions. He brought there his Orient drawings and he returned in the 1920s to exhibit his works, going on from art-landscape to architecture and, within it —in an inverse, anti-classical order— from urban scale to building scale and to small scale of interiorism and furnishing.

ResumenLe Corbusier simboliza el urbanismo moderno racional, cuyo esfuerzo riguroso de planificación exige un esfuerzo paralelo de comprensión. Se opone a ese urbanismo contemporáneo que quiere percibir y disfrutar la ciudad sensiblemente. Sentimiento y razón, sin embargo, no son opuestos y Le Corbusier nos dio en su momento las claves para intentar una síntesis, uniéndolos de modo singular por medio de sus ‘boîte à miracles’ o ‘cajas mágicas’: esos "espectáculos arquitectónicos de síntesis" que definiría en el Ciam de 1951. Pretendemos aproximarnos aquí a la primera de esos ‘espectáculos’: el ‘diorama’, viéndolo como estrategia corbuseriana de mediación entre lo racional y lo sensible en la ciudad moderna y contemporánea.Palabras claveLe Corbusier, diorama, Ville Contemporaine, Plan Voisin, Plan MaciáAbstractLe Corbusier symbolizes the modern rational urbanism, whose rigorous effort of town planning demands a parallel effort of comprehension. It opposes to these contemporary urbanism that wish to perceive and to enjoy cities in a sensible way. Nevertheless, sentiment and reason are not adverses and Le Corbusier gives us at his moment keys to intent a synthesis, joined them in a singular way by means of his ‘boîtes à miracles’ or ‘magic boxes’: those "architectural spectacles of synthesis" that he defined in 1951 Ciam. Here we try to approach to the first of those ‘spectacles’: the ‘diorama’, considering it as a corbusean strategy of mediation between rational and sensible in modern and contemporary city.Key wordsLe Corbusier, diorama, Ville Contemporaine, Plan Voisin, Plan Maciá.

José Ramón Alonso Pereira This study seeks to analyze a key work from the second half of the twentieth century: the Pompidou Center in Paris, read as a piece of city, although logically not in a classical or haussmanian sense, but rather in a corbusierian modern sense. Throughout the 1960's, criticism and rejection of the modern city came to question the discipline of architecture approach. New formulations emerged a debate utopian architectural responses to an undesired reality. The oppositions between the reality of the modern city and the utopian nature of the analogous city was the center of cultural debate. In that debate, some of architectural works emerge as a scientific or technological cottage. One of the emblematic example was the Pompidou Center by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, whose approach is almost a pure constructed diagram. The temporary coincidence in 1923, between the publication of "Vers une Architecture" and the beginning of demolitions at the Ilot Insalubre nº 1, at the Plateau Beaubourg serves as a start for the article and a way of join the two approaches.

AbstractLe Corbusier symbolizes the modern rational urbanism, whose rigorous effort of town planning demands a parallel effort of comprehension. It opposes to these contemporary urbanism that wish to perceive and to enjoy cities in a sensible way. Nevertheless, sentiment and reason are not adverses and Le Corbusier gives us at his moment keys to intent a synthesis, joined them in a singular way by means of his ‘boîtes à miracles’ or ‘magic boxes’: those "architectural spectacles of synthesis" that he defined in 1951 Ciam. Here we try to approach to the first of those ‘spectacles’: the ‘diorama’, considering it as a corbusean strategy of mediation between rational and sensible in modern and contemporary city.Key wordsLe Corbusier, diorama, Ville Contemporaine, Plan Voisin, Plan Maciá