top of page


“A table of my Composition 1: 140 x 100 cm of glossy paper and Indian ink that I sweated in the summer of 1976. As you can see, they are two axonometries of the Swiss Pavilion designed by Le Corbusier at the University of Paris. I found it again because the following year it was published with the rest of the project in the Faculty's yearbook. This design poses a problem which may take us a long time to discuss. For decades and decades, in most cases, architecture has been presented to the student as “modern” starting from a precise chronological threshold.

In the eighties some generations began to study with Palladio, but then they returned to tradition. Except that it is one thing to study Le Corbusier in 1928, when the car parked in front of the house is still for sale, or the ladies' clothes are still the same. It is different to study it today, when everything is antiques, except architecture.

Is the alternative to taking newer or older buildings? The problem is the historical or anti-historical view behind it.

Is modernity a paradigm shift? does it maintain a relationship with the current way of building? This would be the real topic of a technology course.

But every September is always more or less 1923, the year of Vers une Architecture. "

Francesco Garofalo.

Hi Prof!

bottom of page