Architecture as contemporary art: Despitethe fact that architecture is often used carelessly the westernaesthetic reflection has always excluded that architecture consists ofsole building technique, or it is a product of science, realized andappreciated on the basis of functional qualities. Among the contrastingvoices of the modern debate on visual and plastic arts, the Bauhausprogram can be cited as it proposed the unification of artisticdisciplines under the architecture banner. Today it is evident thatarchitecture has an aesthetic dimension which is properly artistic,even if this dimension is still debated.Recent contributions have shown that architecture is a constant term ofreference for contemporary visual and expressive hybridizations:installations, relational art, artistic design, symbolic art, streetart, land art, public art. Considering the multiple uses by the public,the unexstinguishable relationship of aesthetic and artistic aspectswith their political, economic, social and spatial context,architecture can be a perspective from which other contemporary artforms can be inquired.Internationally famous authors support the idea that the comprehensionof the aesthetics of contemporary architecture should consider singleartifacts, even if their collation produces urban junk-spaces, withoutany value. The Italian tradition and several advanced position in theinternational debate, on the contrary, showed that the cultural valueof architecture does not derive from the sum of single objects, butfrom their composition in an urban landscape, and from the setting of areal collection where the semiotic richness is perceived with regardsto the local context.The study of the formation of architectural collections allows one toarticulate themes that do not only pertain to architectural critique,but face innovative socioeconomic problems, that the reflection overother art forms probably do not deepen. Nonetheless, contemporaryarchitecture is a theme that economics has not even broached and urbanstudies has just started to explore, due to several theoretic obstaclesthat other art forms imply less explicitly.Global cities compete as architectural collectorsInmany economic sectors, after production and communication technologyinnovations induced relevant delocalization and ri-modulation dynamicsappeared worldwide, cities now assume new roles in integratinginnovative production and in providing specialized services. The citiesundergoing massive change were not only the metropolitan areas, butalso the centers of global material and immaterial flows, typical ofpost-industrial markets. In the last decade, greater attention has beengiven by scholars and policymakers to the role of famous designers`pieces of architecture not only in regenerating urban areas, but alsoin defining a positive and communicative image in the global economiccompetition among cities. Taking into account the general backgroundand changes of the global economy {e.g. the growing role of servicesand immaterial production, knowledge-based economy} and of westernsociety {e.g. more time for leisure, growing expense for culture,entertainment and tourism, open and cosmopolitan society}, thisperspective assumes that the use of a big architect`s name can give acompetitive advantage to a city in many ways.Global cities, of course, compete in collecting new pieces ofarchitecture as if they were pieces of art to show off, sometimeswithout taking in account the urban meaning and contextual function ofthe whole collection. Although moderate success in regeneration andtourist attraction may be achieved in some cases, the high expectationsaddressed by policymakers to competitiveness enhancement effects oftenare not met. Nonetheless, the use of urban marketing as a "quick fix"for contemporary cities is widespread in Western cities and regions andrece
uninews.unicredito.it/en/articles/page.php?id=9414