Note

The theme proposed in this issue is of great stimulus: starting from the arguments launched by the call and better specified in the topics, it was intended to start an interesting cultural and scientific comparison, never dormant, on the meaning of heteronomy of architecture.  Associated today with the complexity of design and construction, the concept of heteronomy calls for others as hybridization, contamination, recalling in various ways the inevitable and necessary relationship with different knowledge.  The contrast, still in progress, with that late modernist cultural line that considers the autonomy of architecture to be fundamentally an artistic, symbolic and pure form expression (Ginex, 2002) – Aldo van Eyck was one of the most fanatical supporters – it seems to find, starting from the end of the 70s, more coherent answers with the contemporaneity in which the architectural project begins to deal with technological innovation both in the transformations of language and in the evolution of construction techniques; an ever closer comparison between creativity and technical knowledge. Architecture, therefore, returns to being a synthesis between art and science of building, capable, of responding to an intrinsic aesthetic-formal need and, at the same time, functional to satisfy the multiple needs of the client.