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.
Architecture and archaeology : the common meaning of past and future built forms
ALESSANDRO CAMIZ
Primo
2024-01-01
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.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2024 camiz architecture and archaeology editorial fc 4 24.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: 2024 camiz architecture and archaeology editorial FC 4 24
Tipologia:
Documento in Post-print
Dimensione
3.89 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.89 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


