Dialectical processes in art composition. Examples from Architecture

The contemporary global conceivement leads “making Architecture” to an artistic work in some way still linked to romantic philosophy. This favors the originality of the creative act, the provocation, implicitly considering innate abilities or previous cultural knowledge essential requisites to a good ability to plan. A new and consequent reserve in the use of the word “BEAUTY” in the technical-architectural area has narrow the judgment on architecture to more strictly quantitative parameters concerning the Energy efficiency, and others performative levels, without considering that, if an object can be judged according to quantitative parameters, viceversa NO quantitative parameter will be ever enough to determinate an object. Reconsidering architecture like a facet of Art does not mean rejecting the contribution of technical and engineering. On the contrary techniques, technologies, and virtual networks are the new plastic material in the availability of the designer, who has to know their laws and potentialities. Entering in the ancient debate whether architecture is or is not part of the good-arts because of its contamination to a specific utility and a proper function, we should underline once more the essentiality of “dwelling” to its definition and to Dwell like the most inner and intrinsic character of Architecture. In this way [cf. S. Bettini, G. Klaus Koenig] we can understand architecture as a "form of being," or "form of living" [cf. M. Heidegger] whise matter is, as sculpture, painting and, especially, music, the human being himself. we can elide now the gap between the ancient architect and the modern building engineer. Both the one who is at the origin of the compositional architectural process, determining its reasons (arché - tek-ton), as the one who embarks on it by reason of its last end (the house, the aedes) do act mixing two worlds: on one hand the one of "ideas" or of their intimate representations of the human being (A), on the other that of matter, techniques and technologies through which they can materialize their final product (B) which will be more successful as much as it will match essentially and existentially to the man for which this process has started for. It is therefore in the relationship between World 1 and World 3 [cf. K. Popper] that intervenes the typical dynamics of the process of architectural composition. If one thinks that the aesthetic judgments intervenes only on the final product of this project, quite apart from the compositional process that intervened in shaping the object, it is inevitable to fall in a substantially romantic conception [cfr.KANT, Critique of Judgement], and educating for an authentic freedom in the act of architectural composition is impossible. The only possible criterion is then to join ideologically a well-established and already accepted rule as valid and "beautiful". If forms of beauty can be many, what through which these forms are determinated by, reveals to be a process characterized by recurrent features that is a consistent processes from the term (A) to the term (B), between World 1 and World 3. Regardless to the architectural “language”or style, the aesthetic evaluation is determined, therefore, already during the process of composition. This idea establishes the necessity of an education to the project, not only in the technical sense, but even in an aesthetic sense, as a way of consistency to the materialization and specification of a concept.