342 EAAE no 35 Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design: Advances in Technology and Changes in Pedagogy
according to Kuhn; but we are experiencing serious changes, and the changes we
are experiencing are mainly changes in society. Otherwise we would not have the
possibility to experience changes in architecture, because all changes in architec-
ture happen because changes happen in society and in the way that we understand
ourselves in the world. And I think that if we follow these changes in the way that
we understand ourselves as individuals, as human beings, that defines more or less
the way that we understand all these things related to architecture and all the issues
mentioned previously. For example, the discussion that started previously between
Neil Leach and Jorge Sousa Santos is not, I think, a contradiction. I remember that
in the 60s our orientation towards questioning about the world was directed towards
the definition of the common things. In the 70s and 80s, by contrast, we were looking
towards an understanding of the world on the basis of differences. I think that what
has changed now and what updates this debate is that nowadays we are looking for
differences and similarities at the same time; and I think that this is the definition
of the parametric aspect that we are discussing here, because in the notion of the
parametric there is not the different and the similar, but there is something that is
common and something that is at the same time completely different. This is why I
think that in the 60s we were speaking about systems and at the same time about
persons, and in the 70s we were speaking about actors and at the same time about
structures or living structures, and today we are speaking about individuals and
diagrams; and in the notion of the individual, the way that we define this through
the concept of diagram, the similar, the different and the same coexist. So we are
all similar, yet we are all at the same time completely different. And this is why we
are trying to define it as identity or personality, which is precisely our imperative
today: not belonging to big groups or living structures as it was in the 70s and 80s,
nor belonging to the biologically defined persons in our society. So I think that we
are in a different way of understanding the world, and because of this different way
of understanding we are seeking a new aspect of architecture. And I think that all
those things that we have had the possibility to follow are attempts to translate
these new conditions into architectural terms. And for me, the very promising and
optimistic thing that happened this day is that we had three excellent, really excel-
lent, presentations from students, who brought their fresh ideas and told us with a
very strong voice that all those changes are already there and we are just following
what is already in place. So it is not a question of innovation. It is something that
is already there, and we have to open our eyes, our ears and our minds in order to
use it to improve architecture and, of course, teaching.
Dimitris Papalexopoulos, Athens, Greece
That makes a very good ending, I think.
Per Olaf Fjeld, Oslo, Norway
May I make a comment?
Dimitris Papalexopoulos, Athens, Greece
Yes, of course.