Architecture and archaeology : the common meaning of past and future built forms
Saved in:
| Title: | Architecture and archaeology : the common meaning of past and future built forms |
|---|---|
| Authors: | ALESSANDRO CAMIZ |
| Publisher Information: | 2024. |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| Subject Terms: | architecture, archaeology, architectural design, urban design, building morphology |
| Description: | In the recent debate on the relationship between architecture and archaeology (Capozzi, Fusco, and Visconti 2019) (Mariniello 2016), the prevailing thesis is that contemporary design should take shape within the archaeological site, figuratively affirming its contemporaneity. This assertion characterizes much of recent Italian design experimentation in archaeological contexts (Basso Peressut and Caliari 2014) (Cellini et al. 2009), but above all, it fuels the controversy that often sees architects standing against conservation organizations, making their projects life extremely difficult. This contribution questions the necessity of such a figurative affirmation. |
| Document Type: | Article |
| File Description: | application/pdf |
| Language: | English |
| Access URL: | http://www.formacivitatis.com/index.php/journal/article/view/107 https://hdl.handle.net/11564/863057 |
| Accession Number: | edsair.od.....10367..05c60cf6377a18a688d34e97fedfcfe0 |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | In the recent debate on the relationship between architecture and archaeology (Capozzi, Fusco, and Visconti 2019) (Mariniello 2016), the prevailing thesis is that contemporary design should take shape within the archaeological site, figuratively affirming its contemporaneity. This assertion characterizes much of recent Italian design experimentation in archaeological contexts (Basso Peressut and Caliari 2014) (Cellini et al. 2009), but above all, it fuels the controversy that often sees architects standing against conservation organizations, making their projects life extremely difficult. This contribution questions the necessity of such a figurative affirmation. |
|---|