V. Domanda
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Echoes of Tomorrow
A Parliament of Natural Things for Berlin
What if we welcome all things, plants and animals to the Parliament of Berlin? What would the Spree river vote for during the plenary sessions? What would be the reasoning of the brown bear? What claims would the Tiergarten and its trees make, and what future would the red fox see for itself?
The thesis addresses the dichotomy between nature and society in the legislative process through an architectural design project. The ambition of the project is to provide a personal contribution to the evolution of parliamentary buildings and to engage in a critical reflection on the future of this architectural typology. To do so, the main goal is to design a new Parliament for the city-state of Berlin by drawing inspiration from the theory of the Parliament of Things, articulated by Bruno Latour in his book “We Have Never Been Modern”.
This project is distinct in its nature; it ventures into uncharted territory and architectural innovation without a pre-existing reference or established precedent. This design project seeks to redefine the essence of parliamentary spaces by embracing the voices of all entities, both human and non-human, within the legislative process. In exploring this topic, the central research question emerges as follows:
How can a contemporary Parliament be designed to include, besides humans, natural entities in the legislative process? ...
The thesis addresses the dichotomy between nature and society in the legislative process through an architectural design project. The ambition of the project is to provide a personal contribution to the evolution of parliamentary buildings and to engage in a critical reflection on the future of this architectural typology. To do so, the main goal is to design a new Parliament for the city-state of Berlin by drawing inspiration from the theory of the Parliament of Things, articulated by Bruno Latour in his book “We Have Never Been Modern”.
This project is distinct in its nature; it ventures into uncharted territory and architectural innovation without a pre-existing reference or established precedent. This design project seeks to redefine the essence of parliamentary spaces by embracing the voices of all entities, both human and non-human, within the legislative process. In exploring this topic, the central research question emerges as follows:
How can a contemporary Parliament be designed to include, besides humans, natural entities in the legislative process? ...
What if we welcome all things, plants and animals to the Parliament of Berlin? What would the Spree river vote for during the plenary sessions? What would be the reasoning of the brown bear? What claims would the Tiergarten and its trees make, and what future would the red fox see for itself?
The thesis addresses the dichotomy between nature and society in the legislative process through an architectural design project. The ambition of the project is to provide a personal contribution to the evolution of parliamentary buildings and to engage in a critical reflection on the future of this architectural typology. To do so, the main goal is to design a new Parliament for the city-state of Berlin by drawing inspiration from the theory of the Parliament of Things, articulated by Bruno Latour in his book “We Have Never Been Modern”.
This project is distinct in its nature; it ventures into uncharted territory and architectural innovation without a pre-existing reference or established precedent. This design project seeks to redefine the essence of parliamentary spaces by embracing the voices of all entities, both human and non-human, within the legislative process. In exploring this topic, the central research question emerges as follows:
How can a contemporary Parliament be designed to include, besides humans, natural entities in the legislative process?
The thesis addresses the dichotomy between nature and society in the legislative process through an architectural design project. The ambition of the project is to provide a personal contribution to the evolution of parliamentary buildings and to engage in a critical reflection on the future of this architectural typology. To do so, the main goal is to design a new Parliament for the city-state of Berlin by drawing inspiration from the theory of the Parliament of Things, articulated by Bruno Latour in his book “We Have Never Been Modern”.
This project is distinct in its nature; it ventures into uncharted territory and architectural innovation without a pre-existing reference or established precedent. This design project seeks to redefine the essence of parliamentary spaces by embracing the voices of all entities, both human and non-human, within the legislative process. In exploring this topic, the central research question emerges as follows:
How can a contemporary Parliament be designed to include, besides humans, natural entities in the legislative process?
House. School. Temple
A critical research about the ideological meanings and messages conveyed by Giuseppe Terragni and his Casa del Fascio in Como between 1936-1945
In recent years, the rise of right-wing ideologies has been a growing concern for me. Across the world, a worrying and alarming increase in support for far-right political parties and movements is taking place. Several signals of a broader shift towards nationalist and populist politics are currently emerging. The recent national elections held between 2021 and 2022 confirmed the rise of right-wing parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Front (FN) in France, and Brothers of Italy (Fdl). These political changes have been accompanied by an increase in hate crimes, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment1.
In addition to that, the current political developments have been followed by a resurgence of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. These radical and extremist parties, supported by the mainstreaming of far-right politics, usually draw on the symbolism and rhetoric of past totalitarian regimes. Also, they often use architecture and public space as a means of advancing their ideology.
This is the case of CasaPound2, an Italian far-right political movement that takes inspiration from Mussolini’s fascist regime. To create a sense of belonging among its members, this party has established a network of community centres and social housing projects across Italy. Their buildings are often decorated with fascist slogans and illustrations: there, everything is designed to evoke a sense of nationalist pride, in the footsteps of the fascist credo. This is clear in CasaPound’s headquarters in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, which were illegally occupied and whose walls were adorned with images and names belonging to fascist history, as shown in Figure 1.
Why are totalitarian regimes still a reference for a certain portion of the spectrum of political parties? What kind of message, dogma and doctrine did they convey so effectively? And how did these regimes, with their diverse ideologies, demonstrate their power to the public? I believe that to influence the culture and the way of thinking of the population, totalitarian authorities controlled the education, knowledge, and arts of the countries they were governing. These leaders took advantage of architecture as a means of pursuing their goals and demonstrating their control over society. From the Nazis, who presumably3 planned the Reichstag fire in 1933 to incriminate the Communists, to Mussolini, who organised the March on Rome in 1922 to ascend to power. The role of the built environment in political and social events of the first half of the 20th century is clear.
As architects, we must problematise architecture’s potential for political extremists, and we must be careful about the messages our projects convey and promote. The ethical responsibility of this profession is at the heart of the dramatic events that have been happening during the last few years. How do we, as architects, advance political agendas and influence the social developments of our countries through our design choices?
By examining the relationships between artistic manifestations in the first half of the 20th century and the legacy of totalitarian regimes, we can better understand the potential dangers of modern political developments. Were architects and architecture victims of political and social upheavals, or were they actively part of the causes that led to the construction of totalitarian regimes? ...
In addition to that, the current political developments have been followed by a resurgence of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. These radical and extremist parties, supported by the mainstreaming of far-right politics, usually draw on the symbolism and rhetoric of past totalitarian regimes. Also, they often use architecture and public space as a means of advancing their ideology.
This is the case of CasaPound2, an Italian far-right political movement that takes inspiration from Mussolini’s fascist regime. To create a sense of belonging among its members, this party has established a network of community centres and social housing projects across Italy. Their buildings are often decorated with fascist slogans and illustrations: there, everything is designed to evoke a sense of nationalist pride, in the footsteps of the fascist credo. This is clear in CasaPound’s headquarters in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, which were illegally occupied and whose walls were adorned with images and names belonging to fascist history, as shown in Figure 1.
Why are totalitarian regimes still a reference for a certain portion of the spectrum of political parties? What kind of message, dogma and doctrine did they convey so effectively? And how did these regimes, with their diverse ideologies, demonstrate their power to the public? I believe that to influence the culture and the way of thinking of the population, totalitarian authorities controlled the education, knowledge, and arts of the countries they were governing. These leaders took advantage of architecture as a means of pursuing their goals and demonstrating their control over society. From the Nazis, who presumably3 planned the Reichstag fire in 1933 to incriminate the Communists, to Mussolini, who organised the March on Rome in 1922 to ascend to power. The role of the built environment in political and social events of the first half of the 20th century is clear.
As architects, we must problematise architecture’s potential for political extremists, and we must be careful about the messages our projects convey and promote. The ethical responsibility of this profession is at the heart of the dramatic events that have been happening during the last few years. How do we, as architects, advance political agendas and influence the social developments of our countries through our design choices?
By examining the relationships between artistic manifestations in the first half of the 20th century and the legacy of totalitarian regimes, we can better understand the potential dangers of modern political developments. Were architects and architecture victims of political and social upheavals, or were they actively part of the causes that led to the construction of totalitarian regimes? ...
In recent years, the rise of right-wing ideologies has been a growing concern for me. Across the world, a worrying and alarming increase in support for far-right political parties and movements is taking place. Several signals of a broader shift towards nationalist and populist politics are currently emerging. The recent national elections held between 2021 and 2022 confirmed the rise of right-wing parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Front (FN) in France, and Brothers of Italy (Fdl). These political changes have been accompanied by an increase in hate crimes, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment1.
In addition to that, the current political developments have been followed by a resurgence of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. These radical and extremist parties, supported by the mainstreaming of far-right politics, usually draw on the symbolism and rhetoric of past totalitarian regimes. Also, they often use architecture and public space as a means of advancing their ideology.
This is the case of CasaPound2, an Italian far-right political movement that takes inspiration from Mussolini’s fascist regime. To create a sense of belonging among its members, this party has established a network of community centres and social housing projects across Italy. Their buildings are often decorated with fascist slogans and illustrations: there, everything is designed to evoke a sense of nationalist pride, in the footsteps of the fascist credo. This is clear in CasaPound’s headquarters in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, which were illegally occupied and whose walls were adorned with images and names belonging to fascist history, as shown in Figure 1.
Why are totalitarian regimes still a reference for a certain portion of the spectrum of political parties? What kind of message, dogma and doctrine did they convey so effectively? And how did these regimes, with their diverse ideologies, demonstrate their power to the public? I believe that to influence the culture and the way of thinking of the population, totalitarian authorities controlled the education, knowledge, and arts of the countries they were governing. These leaders took advantage of architecture as a means of pursuing their goals and demonstrating their control over society. From the Nazis, who presumably3 planned the Reichstag fire in 1933 to incriminate the Communists, to Mussolini, who organised the March on Rome in 1922 to ascend to power. The role of the built environment in political and social events of the first half of the 20th century is clear.
As architects, we must problematise architecture’s potential for political extremists, and we must be careful about the messages our projects convey and promote. The ethical responsibility of this profession is at the heart of the dramatic events that have been happening during the last few years. How do we, as architects, advance political agendas and influence the social developments of our countries through our design choices?
By examining the relationships between artistic manifestations in the first half of the 20th century and the legacy of totalitarian regimes, we can better understand the potential dangers of modern political developments. Were architects and architecture victims of political and social upheavals, or were they actively part of the causes that led to the construction of totalitarian regimes?
In addition to that, the current political developments have been followed by a resurgence of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. These radical and extremist parties, supported by the mainstreaming of far-right politics, usually draw on the symbolism and rhetoric of past totalitarian regimes. Also, they often use architecture and public space as a means of advancing their ideology.
This is the case of CasaPound2, an Italian far-right political movement that takes inspiration from Mussolini’s fascist regime. To create a sense of belonging among its members, this party has established a network of community centres and social housing projects across Italy. Their buildings are often decorated with fascist slogans and illustrations: there, everything is designed to evoke a sense of nationalist pride, in the footsteps of the fascist credo. This is clear in CasaPound’s headquarters in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, which were illegally occupied and whose walls were adorned with images and names belonging to fascist history, as shown in Figure 1.
Why are totalitarian regimes still a reference for a certain portion of the spectrum of political parties? What kind of message, dogma and doctrine did they convey so effectively? And how did these regimes, with their diverse ideologies, demonstrate their power to the public? I believe that to influence the culture and the way of thinking of the population, totalitarian authorities controlled the education, knowledge, and arts of the countries they were governing. These leaders took advantage of architecture as a means of pursuing their goals and demonstrating their control over society. From the Nazis, who presumably3 planned the Reichstag fire in 1933 to incriminate the Communists, to Mussolini, who organised the March on Rome in 1922 to ascend to power. The role of the built environment in political and social events of the first half of the 20th century is clear.
As architects, we must problematise architecture’s potential for political extremists, and we must be careful about the messages our projects convey and promote. The ethical responsibility of this profession is at the heart of the dramatic events that have been happening during the last few years. How do we, as architects, advance political agendas and influence the social developments of our countries through our design choices?
By examining the relationships between artistic manifestations in the first half of the 20th century and the legacy of totalitarian regimes, we can better understand the potential dangers of modern political developments. Were architects and architecture victims of political and social upheavals, or were they actively part of the causes that led to the construction of totalitarian regimes?