Affiliation:
1. Departamento de Arquitectura, Universidad de las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Puebla 72810, Mexico
2. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (ETSAM), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Abstract
In recent years, architectural interactions have become the center of many important reflections. However, there is little agreement on the subject. Some authors consider architecture to be about its relations with human and nonhuman agents. Others consider that buildings have an autonomous presence, which transcends all their interactions. These approaches are generally seen as incompatible. Although at the heart of the debate is the role of relations in architecture, their nature is not addressed. The discussion could gain clarity by recognizing the differences between them. In this paper, we propose a classification of architectural interactions, which may help to better inform further discussion on the topic. A closer look at architectural relations reveals that autonomy and relationality are not opposing, but complementary, aspects.
Subject
Marketing,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management,Drug Discovery,Pharmaceutical Science,Pharmacology
Reference119 articles.
1. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press.
2. Geiser, R. (2008). Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research, Birkhäuser.
3. Making the social hold: Toward an action-network theory and design;Yaneva;Des. Cult.,2009
4. Gravs-Brown, P., Harrison, R., and Piccini, A. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, Oxford University Press.
5. Pedersen Zari, M., Connolly, P., and Southcombre, M. (2020). Ecologies Design: Transforming Architecture, Landscape, and Urbanism, Routledge.