Renzo Piano

Posted on June 9, 2016 by babbityjean

“The serenity of his best works can almost make you believe that we live in

a civilized world”

New  York Times, 2009

Renzo PianoBorn in Genoa in 1937, Renzo Piano is among the most well known, prolific, and active architects at an international level in the world.  He was the winner of the Prizker prize, which is “the Nobel” in the world of architecture.  The president of the United States at that time, Bill Clinton, presented the award to him at the White House in 1998.

In 2006 Piano became the first Italian to be included in Time 100, the list of the most influential people in the world, as well as among the top ten most important in the category of Art and Entertainment.  And in 2013 the former President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano named Piano Senator for life.

Both an architect and an engineer, Piano was born into a family of builders.  Thanks to his father, a property developer, he had the opportunity to understand the life of the construction site and the profession, as well as to establish his first relationships with clients.  From the beginning, his signature style is marked by a constant search for and experimentation with materials and structural forms, and by a total passion for technology and the construction itself.

This is the reason that Brunelleschi is his favorite architect from history.  The artist of the Renaissance studied the mechanism of the clock in order to be able to apply a system of large counterweights to raise the beams for the dome of the Florence cathedral.

At the beginning of his career, Piano was known for his collaboration with other architects, like the iconic Louis Kahn in Philadelphia.  He then established an architecture studio with Richard Rogers.  To great surprise, given their young ages, Piano and Rogers won the 1971 international competition to design the Georges Pompidou Center (known also as Centre Georges PompidouBeauborg) in Paris beating the other 681 contestants from 49 countries with a bold project that was revolutionary for its time.  The building has been described as a human body that has been stripped of its skin and showcases the tubes and channels of which it is made.

Piano called it “a joyous urban machine” and today it is one of the most visited monuments in Paris.  Reflecting on its construction, Piano said: “We had to make a structure of pieces of cast metal.  The entire French steel industry went up in arms:  It point-blank refused to make the material, saying that the structure would not hold up.  But we were sure of our facts and gave the work to the German company Krupp.  So the principal structure of the Center was made in Germany, and the beams had to be delivered during the night, almost in secret.  This was a case in which the technology protected the art.  Our understanding of the structure liberated our capacity for expression.”

Here are Renzi’s other significant works in order of design and construction.

Lingotto di Torino1983 – 2002 Lingotto di Torino.  Built in 1920 as a production plant for Fiat cars, it was the first and largest factories of mass production in Europe.  Renzi’s conversion of the factory provided for a multi-faceted center for technology, trade fairs, a university, a park, exhibition spaces, an auditorium, and a concert hall.  The auditorium, which was excavated to about 10 meters deep, has a system of automatic moving parts, which can vary the capacity.

1987 – 1990  The Bari Stadium.  Built for the World Cup (of soccer) in 1990, the Stadio di Baristadium is nicknamed the spaceship.  It has 60,000 seats and has an innovative lighting system.  The entire ellipse of the stadium is made up of 24 petals, each assembled out of 310 crescent-shaped elements, which were prefabricated out of concrete on site.

Porto di Genova1988 – 2001  The Port of Genoa.  The reclamation of the Old Port was begun for the Columbus Celebration (Expo ’92), which marked the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America.  Renzi renovated two areas and added the Acquarium and the Bigo, the panoramic elevator, which have become two major tourist attractions of the city.  The port underwent another redevelopment in 2001, again at the hands of Renzi, for the meeting of the G8.

1989 – 1991 Renzi Piano Workshop.  Renzi created his own studio in Genova Voltri, Renzo Piano Workshopon a steep buttress overlooking the sea.  The brilliance of the complex is its invisibility from land and sea, based on skillful cuts into the hillside.  Inside, on the other hand, the windows allow for fantastic views and excellent light.

Fondazione Beyeler1991 – 1997 Fondazione Beyeler.  The Beyeler Center in Basel, Switzerland, is a small, but clever design to create an exhibition space for contemporary art.  Beyeler and Piano formed a deep relationship.  At the end of the project, the architect felt like an art collector, and the art collector felt like an architect.  The building shows great attention to detail, from the garden to the choice of windows and doors.

1991 – 1998  The Tjibaou Cultural Center in New Caledonia.  On the other side of Tjibaou-Cultural-Center 2the world, Piano faced the difficulty of expressing the traditions of the Pacific in modern architectural language.  He created 10 structures of different sizes and functions, which are organized in 3 villages:  one is devoted to exhibitions; another is for administrative staff, historians, and other offices; and the third is for creative activities such as dance, painting, sculpture, and music.  The constructions are an expression of the harmonic relationship with the environment, which is typical of the local culture.  The curved structures resemble sails or huts, built out of wooden joists and ribs.  The interiors are equipped with all the latest technology of the time.

Potsdamer Platz1992 – 2000 Posdamer Platz in Berlin.  Piano’s respect for older cities enabled him to win the international competition to develop the master plan for the Potsdamer Platz, the center of social and cultural life in Berlin before the second world war.

1994 – 2002 The Auditorium Park of Music in Rome.  This complex covers an area of 55,000 square meters.  The main structures are 3 concert halls, of different sizes:  the largest on the left is for orchestras; the smallest on the rightAuditorium Parco della musica di Roma are for solo and chamber performances.  Jacopo played the piano there in 2011.   It is the most visited music facility in Europe.  The three halls hover over an open amphitheatre at the center, which can hold up to 3,000 spectators.  The form of the buildings resembles a beetle.

Shard di Londra2000 – 2012 The Shard of London.  At 310 meters high and with 87 floords, the Shard is the second tallest skyscraper in Europe.  Built between the city and the Tower of London, it was one of the first buildings NOT to include parking areas with the express intention of making it accessible only through the use of public transportation.  It is shaped as an irregular pyramid and is entirely covered in glass.

A Sample of Other Works and Projects:

  • Morgan Library, New York City
  • NEMO Science Museum, Amsterdam
  • Art Institute of Chicago expansion
  • A building of the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco
  • New York Times Building
  • Academy of Motion Pictures, Los Angeles
  • LACMA (2 buildings)
  • Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Architecture, Arte, English, Foto, Italia, New York | Leave a comment

La lingua o le lingue che parliamo…

Posted on June 2, 2016 by babbityjean

(addattato da un articolo sul Corriere della Sera)

Si dice che Carlo Magno abbia detto:  “Conoscere una seconda lingua significa possedere una seconda anima”.   Ne era convinto anche il linguista americano Benjamin Lee Whorf che, nel 1940, postulò la teoria secondo cui il linguaggio plasma (o modella) il cervello al punto che due persone con lingue differenti saranno sempre cognitivamente diverse.  Tale tesi passò di moda con gli studi di Noam Chomsky, che negli anni ’60 e ’70 propose la teoria di una “grammatica universale”, ovvero basi generali comuni per tutti i tipi di linguaggio.

A partire dagli anni ’80, però, alcuni studiosi hanno iniziato a rivalutare Whorf.  Così oggi sappiamo che, al di là di fondamenta concettuali simili, ogni linguaggio contiene in sè una sua “visione del mondo” e la infonde, almeno in parte, in chi lo parla.  Un esempio è il senso di colpa e di giustizia.  In inglese se un vaso si rompe si sottintende sempre la presenza e quindi la responsabilità di qualcuno.  In spagnolo, al contrario, si tende a dire semplicemente che il vaso si è rotto.  C’è una tendenza anglosassone a punire chi trasgredisce le regole, più ancora che risarcire le vittime.

Secondo un numero sempre più nutrito di studi, il linguaggio è in grado di “modellare” il nostro cervello, le convinzioni e gli atteggiamenti cambiando il modo di pensare e agire.  Essere di madrelingua inglese, cinese, italiana, o russa ha effetti diversi sull’architettura del pensiero.  Succede perchè ogni lingua pone l’accento su elementi diversi dell’esperienza, forgiando così un modo specifico di vedere il mondo.

Ci sono influenze culturali, spiega Jubin Abutalebi, neurologo cognitivista e docente di neuropsicologia dell’Università San Raffaele di Milano:  “La parola che indica uno stesso oggetto in lingue diverse può acquistare sfumature differenti, che dipendono dal substrato culturale specifico”.  In cinese, la parola “drago” ci rimanda non solo a un animale fantastico e pauroso ma soprattutto a un simbolo di fortuna, forza, saggezza.  Inevitabilmente un cinese vedrà in modo diverso da un occidentale perfino un essere del tutto irreale.  Accadrà lo stesso a un bilingue:  per un anglo-cinese un drago sarà meno spaventoso che per un inglese.  “La visione culturale sottesa alle parole di lingue differenti può influenzare chi conosce più di un idioma—sottolinea Abutalevi—il cervello, dovendo processare lingue con una semantica varia, associa ai singoli concetti elementi tratti dai linguaggi che conosce.  In genere poi chi padroneggia più lingue è più curioso nei confronti delle culture legate agli idiomi conosciuti e questo facilita una maggior apertura e una visione diversa delle cose.”

L’influenza del linguaggio sul nostro Io è tuttavia ancora più profonda, con effetti sorprendenti  perfino sulle decisioni coscienti.  Uno studio ha dimostrato che quando ci esprimiamo in una seconda lingua tendiamo ad avere meno remore morali.  I partecipanti all’esperimento  accettavano di sacrificare una persona per salvarne cinque—facendo una scelta “utilitaristica”—più spesso se veniva loro chiesto nella seconda lingua rispetto a quando dovevano esprimere il loro parere in madrelingua:  in questo secondo caso prevaleva infatti il divieto morale a uccidere.  “Un idioma che non sia appreso dalla nascita è meno influenzato dalle emozioni perchè mentre lo si parla si deve esercitare un controllo cognitivo maggiore per “spegnere” la madrelingua, che resta il vettore della morale, dell’etica, dei sentimenti,”  dice Abutalebi.

E la lingua può perfino modulare l’attitudine al risparmio come ha scoperto l’economista Keith Chen dell’Università di California a Los Angeles.  I cinesi, che non hanno un tempo verbale preciso per indicare il futuro, hanno una propensione a mettere da parte i soldi del 30% maggiore rispetto a chi parla lingue più “definite”.  Questo forse perchè “identificare linguisticamente il futuro in modo distinto dal presente lo rende più lontano, motivando meno a risparmiare,” ha spiegato Chen.

Si è scoperto che pure indicare il genere delle parole incide sulla visione del mondo.  Uno studio su bambini ebrei e finlandesi ha rivelato che i primi si accorgono in media un anno primo di essere maschi o femmine anche perchè la loro lingua assegna quasi sempre il genere alle parole, mentre in finlandese non accade.

Forse Shakespeare aveva torto: ciò che chiamiamo una rosa non profumerebbe così tanto, se la chiamassimo con un altro nome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Differenze culturali, Italia, Italiano, La Lingua | 1 Comment

The language or languages that we speak…

Posted on June 2, 2016 by babbityjean

(Adapted from an article in Corriere della sera)

It is said that Charlemagne once said:  “Knowing a second language is to possess a second soul.”  Also convinced of this was the American linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf who, in 1940, postulated the theory that language shapes the brain to the point that 2 people with different languages will always be cognitively different.  This thesis went out of fashion with the studies of Noam Chomsky, who in the ‘60s and ‘70s proposed the theory of a “universal grammar” as the general common basis for all types of language.

Beginning in the ‘80s, some scholars began to re-evaluate Whorf so that today it is believed that beyond similar conceptual foundations, each language implies its own “world view” and infuses it in the person who speaks that language.  An example is the sense of guilt and justice.  In English, when a vase is broken, our expressions tend to imply the presence and responsibility of someone.  Whereas, in Spanish, for example, one tends to simply say that the base is broken.  The English expressions are based on an Anglo-Saxon tendency to punish those who break the rules, even more than to compensate the victims.

According to a growing number of studies, language is able “to shape” our brain, beliefs, and attitudes changing the way people think and act.  To be a native speaker of English, Chinese, Italian, or Russian has different effects on the architecture of thought.  This happens because each language emphasizes different elements of an experience, forging a specific way of seeing the world.

There are cultural influences, explains Jubin Abutalebi, cognitive neurologist and professor of neuropsychology at the University of San Raffaele Hospital in Milan.  “The word that indicates the same object in different languages can acquire different shades of meaning.”  In Chinese, “dragon” refers not only to a fantastic and scary animal but above all to a symbol of luck, strength, and wisdom.  Inevitably, a Chinese person “sees” differently from a Westerner who might only consider a dragon as something completely unreal.  The same thing happens to a bilingual person:  a dragon will be less scary to an Anglo-Chinese than to an Englishman.  “The cultural vision underlying the words of different languages can affect those who know more than one language—emphasizes Abutalbi.  Having to process languages with semantic ranges, the brain combines individual elements from the languages the person knows.  Typically, those who master several languages are more curious about cultures, which facilitate more openness and diverse views.

The influence of language on our ego, however, is even more profound, with amazing effects on conscious decisions.  One study has shown that when we express ourselves in a second language, we tend to have fewer moral qualms.  The participants in this experiment agreed to sacrifice one person to save five—making a “utilitarian” choice –more often in the second language than when they had to give their opinion in the mother tongue.  In the latter case, what prevailed was the moral prohibition not to kill.  “A language that is not learned from birth is less influenced by emotions.   While you are speaking in the second language you have to exert more cognitive control to “turn off” the mother tongue, which is the carrier of morality, ethics, and feelings,” says Abutalebi.

Language can even modulate attitude towards savings, as discovered by the economist Keith Chen of UCLA.  The Chinese, who do not have a precise tense to indicate the future, have a propensity to put aside 30% more money than those who speak more specifically about the future.  Perhaps this is because “to linguistically identify the future in a distinct way from the present makes it seem far away, making it far less motivating to save money.”

It has also been discovered that to indicate the gender of words influences one’s world vision.  One study of Hebrew and Finish children revealed that the former noticed on average one year earlier whether they were male or female because their language almost always assigns a gender to words, while this doesn’t happen in Finland.

Perhaps Shakespeare was wrong:  that which we call a rose would not smell as sweet if we called it by another name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Abitudini, Differenze culturali, English, La Lingua | Leave a comment