Humanity and architecture are not invariable, both are no longer part of a place, both mutate over time, their bodies and their souls are transformed according to need and function, their shape and size dimensions. skins reflect images and inspire ideas. Both are actors engaged in the perverse game of iconicism and symbolism. Both are dependent on the "star system", "reality TV", instant news, global communication.
It is for this reason that architecture and communication are in my eyes the main pillars of the globalized world. Both "format" the human environment, material and virtual, they allow him to be Present "here and now": a deterritorialized "here" and a timeless "now". Architecture becomes sign, icon, symbol, "a phenomenological consideration of our architectural relationship suggests to us that normally we enjoy architecture as a fact of communication even without excluding functionality" functionality which would in a way become a " second function ”from the point of view of communication according to the precepts of Eco (Eco, 1972).
The identity issue is far-reaching, amplified by the search for the “sensational” both among decision-makers caught up in the globalized trend and in search of recognition, and among promoters seeking to dazzle customers bewitched by the proliferation of forms that “ take your breath away ”. The architectures therefore become more and more "stimulating objects" which stand out and mark the place by their too powerful presence.
This tendency which makes architecture "the stimulating object" and not "a preparatory stimulus which replaces the stimulating object" 16 increases tenfold the impact of its "presence" which becomes almost hegemonic in its communicative approaches to a certain culture (or civilization to use the terms linked to the September 11, 2001 clash). This brings us back to the days of absolutism, or of the conquerors of past centuries, who replaced the culture of the place with their own. At this level, the possible damage incurred in new towns without an urban past is not enormous, but in memorial towns such as Beirut the impact is severe, both historically and from a socio-cultural point of view.
In the tumultuous framework of contemporary architecture where the race for "signatures" is becoming an important, if not essential, paradigm of presence on the map of a world that is excessively globalizing, there are many examples. From Asian metropolises suffering from suffocating overcrowding to emerging desert cities whose supply outrageously exceeds demand, examples of image and message architecture abound. What is the impact of place and history on these global cities? Some of these cities have been involved in the race since the creation of the phenomenon, and the impact of ancient history and the original place is no longer real: a new urban layer has formed erasing the previous ones or the original ones. relegating to the level of the “historic basement”. While other cities (emerging from the desert) are in a non-place, an immense void without history or architectural identity of their own, which brings us back to a simple observation: an abundance of parachuted architectural objects which “fill” a space. more or less vast, like a large display of masterpieces. It’s like a permanent universal exhibition.
By questioning Architecture through different examples and periods up to our contemporary world, we obtain many answers to existential questions that seem enigmatic to us. The phenomenon of communication or expression through architecture is not independent of the antagonism that led to the clash of civilizations. Through its Presence, architecture configures the world of man, responding to his material needs, but also to his aspirations, dreams and ideals. She carries her Ideas within her, reflects her "vision" or her images and communicates her Messages. It contributes to enchantment by building a new world. But she can also destroy it by assaulting her senses and polluting her minds with the ideas she reflects.
The architectural work also marks the place through its presence, it stigmatizes it and becomes a symbol or image, landmark, milestone in an international journey that takes on the aspect of a challenge, seeing a new war of power through emblematic buildings. This architecture which we call “Landmark” becomes an essential paradigm of presence and mutation. Its essential mission is to be beyond the instrument, an ever more innovative precept of communication. Architecture, through this new dimension, becomes an inescapable factor of stability and continuation of the world. A conveyor of the future not just a mirror of the past. But what future is it all about? What is the Image of this new world
that we that we create? This constructed world takes into account the "genius of the place ”of its identity, its history or are we transforming. . .”Our physical environment in a kind of constipated void devoid of meaning”
Architecture thereby becomes a major and main instrument of presence and communication of these cities to plural societies. The identification with these cities and the values they carry become universal. They are the cities par excellence of a globalized world where each inhabitant identifies with them regardless of their origins and identity. The architect is not required to respect a history or a "genius of the place" he must only make an object that fits in with contemporaneity juggling with materials and technology to meet new challenges: those of communicating and to communicate through an Architecture that makes people talk about it. In this game of "universal cities" there is no longer any place for indigenous cultures or identities which must necessarily come to terms with the idea of having to transform into citizens of the world, deny their own identity for the benefit of a globality. conqueror, to blend into the image of a universalized world, to ensure their presence in their own city which is no longer theirs since they no longer identify with it. The architect himself imposes his signature by marking a place often taking into account only the criteria of overall architecture. By this fact he imposes (in conjunction with the client, the promoter, and socio-political bodies) his ideas, his image and his communication, but his architecture juxtaposed to that of his colleague does not have the same presence as only object if she was alone. Ideas, Images and communication thereby create a polyphony which can become quite confusing. As at the time of the creation of the Manhattan district, each one will go further and higher, downgrading his neighbor even before his work-challenge is completed.
The antithesis would obviously be the city that develops on the basis of the criteria of identity and values specific to the place. Contemporary architecture is in line with the idea of continuation and images that integrate without creating a break between the past, the present and the future. The new therefore adapts to the old while remaining faithful to the precepts of contemporary architecture in terms of both function and form and new technologies. The architecture that takes root in the place marks it with its presence, but taking care not to distort it. The "brand" is not meant to be a wound but a signature, a variation on the theme, an inscription in today's world. With this in mind, the architect tries to find a way to get the place out of its rigid anchorage to the world of today. Its architecture communicates through its ability to be a link, a window on the contemporary world. A kind of mistrust, against architecture, modern imbued with the old, or the opposite. But this gymnastics is only done within the “intramural” framework of towns with a strong historical character. We cannot generalize it and extrapolate it to “character” cities that are trying to become emerging landmarks in the contemporary world. In other words, these cities cannot become global because they are too steeped in local culture. A citizen of the globalized world cannot identify with it, it is the place of change of scenery to ways of excellencies.
