The architecture is it architecture ?



Allow me to pester you a little. According to the previous definition : " the scenography, it is all that we decide it to be", the scenography has few things to be seen with the putting in space. It happens that it is the putting in space, but attention : only if we decided on it. This remark, which forbids the reflexes (for example : the decoration is the scenography), is rather disturbing : if the scenography is not still of the putting in space, the architecture is always of the architecture ?


It is so, by a simple symmetry, that we can ask ourselves the question. The entrances of cathedrals, which are also a hand stretched, are they of the architecture ? Are cathedrals themselves of the architecture ? It is not so safe. I take there on purpose the referent of cathedrals, because we shall not miss to set me that I take advantage of the ambiguity led by their decoration. I take advantage of it not at all, although I have a real worship this domain, and its artists. Because does not any place have a symbolic essence, and if it has a symbolic reading, is not it scenography ? To begin with your own house, or your apartment, or the place what you invested and which you reinvented ? And if it is true at your home(with you), you imagine what the situation is regarding a cathedral ?


It raises the question of the beginning, and also that of the outcome of a constructed physical representation, and in a case as in the other one, I do not see necessarily the architecture, or the architecture as the germ there.


On the other hand, I see some scenography, there o how much !