Translator: Claudia Sander Reviewer: Rebeca Camarotto
Hello.
I came here to talk
about architecture and society.
And for that, I present the Casa da Vila Matilde.
This house, located in a normal neighborhood,
it is not a noble neighborhood, it is a normal neighborhood of the city of São Paulo;
a house of 95 square meters;
a house that has come down to us in a very common way among architects,
by indication of friends and family;
and a house that, when inside the office,
was also treated fairly,
in the same way as any other project,
not more or less.
This house was built,
we seek to promote this house,
and, since the disclosure, there has been an enormous repercussion,
at first in social networks, and then in the broader media.
After this repercussion came several awards,
among them the best house in the world,
according to popular vote of the most accessed site of architecture of the world.
It was part of the Brazilian representation
in the world’s main architecture biennial,
the Venice Biennale.
And the question became inevitable: why?
Why something so simple, so trivial,
was so commented, caught the attention of so many people?
Historically and predominantly,
architecture has always been linked
and performed
through some kind of financial power,
be it church, state or private.
Institutions seek, in architecture,
a way of representing their values,
generally beautiful and grandiose.
And architecture, by its side,
these institutions
a space conducive to self-assertion,
and present them, beautiful and grandiose.
The works of architecture end up being beautiful and grandiose.
In this process, the majority of the population, ordinary people,
they play a central, fundamental role,
the spectator.
It is she who must admire, appreciate,
at most, enjoy some of that architecture.
This, then,
the majority of people in spectators.
And as a spectator he is not an actor,
people are not accustomed
to work, to see and to understand the architecture
as something important in your life, then the architects are inaccessible.
And the architecture also does not worry much,
does not find much in the people, in the majority of society,
an appropriate way of working.
Recently this has been changing,
and we believe that the house helps a little in this discussion,
then let us return to it.
The house came to us,
the family contacted us,
not a wish, a dream of a new house.
She presented us with a problem,
and it was a serious problem.
Windows for hallway,
infiltrations and cracks throughout the house.
In this way,
we professionals needed to act as follows:
we needed to diagnose, evaluate, and point paths.
How to exercise this process
is very close to an act of office, labor.
This legal, labor,
such as a doctor, a dentist,
which usually acts on something
immediate, urgent, individual
and not as a misunderstood artist in search of a masterpiece,
it is she who provides
performances that cater to ordinary people,
the majority of this population.
I would like you to notice, in this image,
the house next door.
The neighboring house, next door,
is a house also blocks,
and that certainly consumed more resources.
The difference is in:
diagnosis, evaluation and design.
In another example, I contrast another project
with houses from the Minha Casa Minha Vida program.
We have serious restrictions regarding the Minha Casa Minha Vida program.
But it is not he who defines what is good or bad architecture.
Much less does it say what architecture is for poor,
who does this is architecture.
But it is also the capacity
to give adequate responses to the various demands.
She has as tool,
instead of scalpels and motorcycles,
she has the drawing.
And the drawing,
not as an end in itself,
much less the purpose of the show.
The spectacle turns the architecture into a protagonist,
while we understand the architecture,
we understand that the specificity of the architecture is to be support.
When we become aware of this,
we open
for a broader and direct action, in front of the demands of society.
It is very common, in many professions,
especially among architects,
we consider ourselves special, very important,
relevant to building a better world.
I think it’s a bit exaggerated.
The intention is commendable, but not with these means,
with the means in which we have acted,
much less that being the goal.
But as a consequence of an official act,
worked everyday.
If we lowered our expectations,
we would open ourselves to various opportunities and possibilities
whereas, if they are treated in a conscious and responsible manner,
then maybe we were really working for a society.
And having recognition for it.
And that is why, then, this house
caught the attention of so many people.
For these and other reasons, but fundamentally for these reasons.
For it still being an exception
in this relationship between architecture and society.
And our work and desire
it is to be perfected and multiplied.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Hello.
I came here to talk
about architecture and society.
And for that, I present the Casa da Vila Matilde.
This house, located in a normal neighborhood,
it is not a noble neighborhood, it is a normal neighborhood of the city of São Paulo;
a house of 95 square meters;
a house that has come down to us in a very common way among architects,
by indication of friends and family;
and a house that, when inside the office,
was also treated fairly,
in the same way as any other project,
not more or less.
This house was built,
we seek to promote this house,
and, since the disclosure, there has been an enormous repercussion,
at first in social networks, and then in the broader media.
After this repercussion came several awards,
among them the best house in the world,
according to popular vote of the most accessed site of architecture of the world.
It was part of the Brazilian representation
in the world’s main architecture biennial,
the Venice Biennale.
And the question became inevitable: why?
Why something so simple, so trivial,
was so commented, caught the attention of so many people?
Historically and predominantly,
architecture has always been linked
and performed
through some kind of financial power,
be it church, state or private.
Institutions seek, in architecture,
a way of representing their values,
generally beautiful and grandiose.
And architecture, by its side,
these institutions
a space conducive to self-assertion,
and present them, beautiful and grandiose.
The works of architecture end up being beautiful and grandiose.
In this process, the majority of the population, ordinary people,
they play a central, fundamental role,
the spectator.
It is she who must admire, appreciate,
at most, enjoy some of that architecture.
This, then,
the majority of people in spectators.
And as a spectator he is not an actor,
people are not accustomed
to work, to see and to understand the architecture
as something important in your life, then the architects are inaccessible.
And the architecture also does not worry much,
does not find much in the people, in the majority of society,
an appropriate way of working.
Recently this has been changing,
and we believe that the house helps a little in this discussion,
then let us return to it.
The house came to us,
the family contacted us,
not a wish, a dream of a new house.
She presented us with a problem,
and it was a serious problem.
Windows for hallway,
infiltrations and cracks throughout the house.
In this way,
we professionals needed to act as follows:
we needed to diagnose, evaluate, and point paths.
How to exercise this process
is very close to an act of office, labor.
This legal, labor,
such as a doctor, a dentist,
which usually acts on something
immediate, urgent, individual
and not as a misunderstood artist in search of a masterpiece,
it is she who provides
performances that cater to ordinary people,
the majority of this population.
I would like you to notice, in this image,
the house next door.
The neighboring house, next door,
is a house also blocks,
and that certainly consumed more resources.
The difference is in:
diagnosis, evaluation and design.
In another example, I contrast another project
with houses from the Minha Casa Minha Vida program.
We have serious restrictions regarding the Minha Casa Minha Vida program.
But it is not he who defines what is good or bad architecture.
Much less does it say what architecture is for poor,
who does this is architecture.
But it is also the capacity
to give adequate responses to the various demands.
She has as tool,
instead of scalpels and motorcycles,
she has the drawing.
And the drawing,
not as an end in itself,
much less the purpose of the show.
The spectacle turns the architecture into a protagonist,
while we understand the architecture,
we understand that the specificity of the architecture is to be support.
When we become aware of this,
we open
for a broader and direct action, in front of the demands of society.
It is very common, in many professions,
especially among architects,
we consider ourselves special, very important,
relevant to building a better world.
I think it’s a bit exaggerated.
The intention is commendable, but not with these means,
with the means in which we have acted,
much less that being the goal.
But as a consequence of an official act,
worked everyday.
If we lowered our expectations,
we would open ourselves to various opportunities and possibilities
whereas, if they are treated in a conscious and responsible manner,
then maybe we were really working for a society.
And having recognition for it.
And that is why, then, this house
caught the attention of so many people.
For these and other reasons, but fundamentally for these reasons.
For it still being an exception
in this relationship between architecture and society.
And our work and desire
it is to be perfected and multiplied.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Please follow and like us: