Architecture never touches the great themes, the fundamental themes of our lives.
Architecture remains at the limit and intervenes only at a certain point in the process, usually when the behaviour has already been entirely codified, furnishing answers to rigidly stated problems.
Even if its answers are aberrant or subversive, the logic of their production and consumption avoids any real upheaval.
Architecture presents no alternative proposals, since it uses instruments accurately predisposed to avoid any deviation.
The working class home resembles a stately villa in the same way as the design of a radical architect resembles that of an academic or reactionary architect: the difference lies only in the quantities in play, the decisions on the quality of living have already been made.
Accepting his role, the architect becomes accomplice to the machinations of the system. The avant-garde architect fulfills one of the most rigidly fixed roles (rather like the "young lover" in plays).
It becomes then an act of coherence, or a last attempt of salvation, to concentrate on the redefinition of primary acts and examining in the first instance what are the relations between architecture and such acts. This operation becomes a therapy for the removal of architecture.This tentative anthropological and philosophical refundation of architecture becomes the centre of our reductive processes.