Work as an act of interpretation
The potential of the encounter between art and architecture is understood as a means to critically inhabit the present and transform space into a collective experience. An invitation to observe, recognise and protect the precious and often fragile plurality of the present.
Poietike episteme: this is how Aristotle defined a form of knowledge that goes beyond mere reflection and manifests itself through creative action. It is not merely about producing, but about interpreting and transforming reality. In an age marked by cultural and political divisions, where social cohesion seems threatened by a sense of global uncertainty, reflecting on art and architecture becomes even more urgent. In Die Aktualität des Schönen, Hans-Georg Gadamer invites us to consider art not as a mere individual expression, but as a participatory experience, immersed in a continuous collective process of interpretation. From this perspective, art becomes an event of truth, where historical memory is intertwined with present reality, generating a form of shared experience. The same approach can be extended to architecture.
Works such as Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial or the Memorial against Fascism by Esther Shalev-Gerz and Jochen Gerz, mentioned in Philip Ursprung’s essay, are not just commemorative monuments: they represent authentic acts of historical re-elaboration, which respond – surprisingly... – to the doubts and anxieties of the present. They are not solely physical spaces, but places of meditation, capable of renewing and redefining the meaning of collective memory. From this point of view, architecture is not just construction, but a symbolic language that shapes our perception of the world and gives substance to history. It moulds social and cultural perception, becoming an act of interpretation that stimulates new experiences and reflections, even and especially when linked to public art projects. This dialogue between art, architecture, and society finds fertile ground for experimentation in the contemporary city, where architectural design has the potential to become a dynamic place where the traditional boundaries of space and structure are challenged, oscillating between rigidity and changeability, between control and freedom. The city is still – and increasingly so – the catalyst for personal and shared restlessness, responding to the changes and urgencies of society: this idea is reflected in numerous contemporary approaches that encourage interaction and participation. On the other hand, as Umberto Galimberti observes in Psiche e techne, art is also a place in which the community recognises itself and offers each individual the opportunity to find themselves in their own uniqueness: it becomes a vehicle of shared meaning.
In the sometimes blurred and sometimes deliberately crossed boundary between art and architecture lies the possibility of deeper reflection. Francesca Belloni analyzes it in her essay: if Loos excludes architecture from art because of its function, others, such as Vidler, highlight a growing intersection between the two disciplines. The Swiss model Kunst am Bau promoted this integration, although it didn’t always succeed in establishing a parity of meaning between the two, sometimes relegating art to a decorative role. However, it is precisely in the search for an equal relationship between art and architecture that collaborations such as those between Federle-Diener or Fischli-Weiss demonstrate how art can redefine architectural codes. In rejecting a purely artistic identity for architecture, Richard Serra brings out an intermediate zone in which art and architecture contaminate each other, renegotiating the meaning of space and perception.
The projects presented aim to provide a variety of interpretative keys to this duality, like the Katharinen-Turm in Zurich described by Lucia Pennati: a scaffolding structure that evokes the historical memory of the lost tower, redesigning the urban space and creating a new, ephemeral visual symbol. Similarly, in a more anarchic, but equally fertile dimension, are the graffiti of Harald Naegeli, skillfully narrated by Anna-Barbara Neumann: initially dismissed as vandalism but now recognized as artistic heritage, graffiti emerge as acts of resistance that challenge the relationship between the individual, society, and public space, transforming the urban environment into a site of reflection and social critique. And they invite further reflection: we encounter beauty not only in order, but also in chaos and imperfection, and it is precisely in this encounter that we find the certainty that reality is not beyond our reach.
From this perspective, the ability to live with clarity in an in-between position — between memory and expectation — and to reinterpret meanings in a critical and creative way becomes a vital interpretative path to defend the cohesion of our society, which, often weakened, risks losing itself in the chaos of those who, consciously or unconsciously, fail to recognize the richness of the plurality we strive to preserve.
