Syntagmatic architectural overwriting

he painful season that we are living, since the beginning of the new century, puts us in the condition of having to learn from our experiences and to transform them into a change of course, or at least to define a reflection of transition that establishes new contours of possible scenarios of innovation. The political, economic, social problems and the natural disasters that have followed one another in this short beginning of the century, have determined a degradation in the ecological and social system, and lead us to the need to regenerate our living on earth and to indicate a possible new field of action for the discipline of architecture through the definition of a new language that adequately represents, in this time, the relationship between space and the man who inhabits it. We are witnessing a paradigm shift within the system of knowledge and the arts, which transits from a Cartesian scientific one, which proceeds by methods of simplification, also used by the great masters of architecture of the last century (Le Corbusier: the principle of universal determinism; Mies Van der Rhoe: the principle of disjunction; Aldo Rossi: that of reduction) to a more complex one suitable for a society in metabolic change. The Cartesian disjunctive logic, which separates and decontextualizes, is insufficient. Instead, it is necessary to conceive the language of architecture through a new paradigm understood as an inclusive system, diversity, transversality and adaptation. Therefore, the specific element of a theory is no longer to reduce complexity to simplicity, but to translate complexity into a possible theory. The new language, understood as the conjunction and the interweaving of different architectural “signs” between them and the hybridization with man and the environment, needs, then, a reinterpretation through the use of new tools suitable for complexity, which as catalytic agents, trigger reactions, activate processes of re-signification, promoting a “syntagmatic architectural overwriting” of the existing, for a new social and architectural identity and a new relationship between man, environment and built, able to propose a new complex symbolic message. Tools that in their constitutive identity, contribute to the change and co-production of the conditions of reciprocity with people, in which architecture takes on an evolutionary dimension. The result is a new and changed form, not only the outcome of a creative act but the adaptive result of a multirelational processual interweaving that has originated and conformed it.