Resumen de Sobre los límites deformados: inlfexiones
Between the end of the 1980s and the m id-1990s, a group of interrelated texts (Earth Moves, by Bernard Caché -1983; 1995, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, by Gilles Deleuze -1988; 1993- and the different papers written by Greg Lynn collected in the volume Folds, Blobs and Bodies -1992-1996; 1998) lead to understand the formal notion of inflection as a mechanism of order whose translation to architecture would imply interweaving the internal organization of a building with the influence of its outside; therefore putting into question the very distinction between interior and exterior. A critical evaluation of how these texts conceived inflection in relation to the forms in which it had been previously considered in the critical literature -mainly by Trystan Edwards and Robert Venturi- shows that they clarified the conceptual framework from which to think the operative value of this mechanism during the second half of the 20th century while they limited to differential geometry its formal praxis. This formal limitation prevents, in turn, accurately understanding how architectural practices have explored the most interesting aspects which these texts have linked to the mechanism -namely, the questioning of the notions of inside and outside, of disciplinary autonomy and of the forms of relation between architecture and urbanism- and complicates the comprehension of the very scope of the technique. Building upon the more inclusive definition of inflection given by Venturi in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966) and upon the coincidence between the categories of active line, waviness, formless and topology used to describe the architectural practices based on inflection during the 1990s with formal categories employed in the 1950s, this dissertation inquires through which techniques of inflection those categories were built at both moments, in what forms these techniques conceived and produced the notions of interior and exterior and if they really questioned those notions and why and how those techniques became instrumental to (re)consider the relations between architecture and urbanism in two moments that equally confronted the expanded condition of the city and the necessity of reconsidering what is the operative realm of architecture.
