< Firmitas - Utilitas - Venustas …….“Digital-as” (?) >

Digital concerns the “substance” of Architecture or is it only a passing fashion? In Architecture, one thing is admitting that Digital changes the specificities of the program and the modality of the production (i.e. the digital translation from the design of product to the design of process), the other thing, which is completely different, is accepting that Digital could imprint itself in the “nature” of the “Architectural-Fact” (i.e. the Vitruvius Triad). Can Digital actualize the Tradition or go against it? - like “deus-ex-machina” that dematerializes the consolidated architectural typologies (some buildings with “digital” shape seem decorations, just on different scale). - like a modernization (i.e. Collaborative Design, B.I.M.) of the means of design as “verified conception”. Are the students, definitely, “software–filter-mediated” in their normal way of thinking architectural design or not? A didactic responsibility: students, often, still endure the digital, but they don’t metabolize it. Case study: two experiences with 260 students, made every year for three years. Could digital allow man to understand real phenomena in their intrinsic value, merit, and validity or is it just a game? Case study: visitors in museum, spontaneously, understand that digital resources can “augment” their natural capacities.