I like your presentation because I really like the work of Josh Bruce, because he was in Spain, in the north of Spain, the same years ago, a decade or more. And it was amazing how we worked the three-dimensional and two-dimensional idea of the space.

And the simple installation that we made was repainted, for example. And then there is lots of the main installation that we made in the space, when it cuts into lengths and so on, are amazing.

But that is the simple one, when it puts a white circle in the three -dimensional space, or when it gives the idea that the space is submerged on water, that it's only a white or blue color, maybe that limits.

And so when I was seeing your work, the last presentation is how you make this connection with architecture, and how you say that it's related with the elements of architecture, or the limits, the entrance, the windows, the passage, and so on.

But you do this in the conventional way of making perspectives, like the Renaissance architects make the perspectives to make bigger spaces of the sculpture and so on.

Or you have your own software tool, your own way to do it, how you can see the make, because you use different materials. That's interesting. But how is the process? So the process, it's actually quite easy, and I had, you know, it's funny, I had my students basically go back to the caves I took out.

That's why I showed the first lines. I mean, a lot of that, you know, as a side note, you've, I've never been, but the photographs you see. In a way, that was kind of the first anamorphic projection, because the caves are obviously undulating,

and there's the animals, or even the images that they put on the walls were put up from a very kind of particular point of view. So I joked with the students, we went all the way back to Chabot. So 30,000 years of history relating to the image and perspective and viewing can come down to very simple tools in the computer.

You had mentioned before about, you know, it's one thing to do the chalk painting, but not to understand mentally how that was constructed. You know, it's absolutely important. So as the students started to research this, they started to go through that.

But it's primarily, the process is based in rhyme. So it's some 3D software that, you know, you can very strategically begin to set up a camera. And it really is very simple. It's not anything other than setting up a camera in a very kind of particular point of view, and designing the architecture in the space based on that point of view.

So every move within the space that you make is set up based on the camera. Like Charles Russell's lens. Exactly. You check the image and then correct the expression. Correct. The only difference would be you're not, you know, you're, it is because of the distance in computer software.

You have to trust that the reality is going to be somewhere close to that. Because you have to get the science of the focal point of the eye and the dimension between the lens and the receptors. And I would say we are 90% confident that that would work, given where we are with the software.

But it always is a lie. And it always is a risk to actually try to set it up on the computer and then do a series of tests. Because it's not just the anamorphic part of it is only one, it's only one part of a much longer process for us.

Because the materiality is huge. Do you deal with color? Do you deal with reflectivity? Do you deal with mirrors? I don't want to set up a circus or a kind of joke of a space. I want this to be a real kind of architectural experience.

So the materiality is a huge part of that. The last thing I'll say to you in terms of the process is it is important for me that the users of the space understand the idea that there is one point that they can see, but it's not the primary goal.

If someone moves through a space and never knows that that's the reality, never knows that that's how it was, that's perfectly fine with me. Just like in the reflective tape installation, I never called out where those points of view were.

And if people never found those points of view on their camera, so be it. They knew that there was reflective tape in the space. But they weren't quite sure that there were moments of alignment within that process. And that's part of discovery. That's part of trying to engage the space.

It's like if you go see a film, the difference between a film and a Hollywood film. A Hollywood film, everything's given to you. You don't need to do any thinking. I don't want to give that to them. I want people to try to give that stuff back.

This perspective, Cosometale, has changed the way of conceiving a cultural project.

Your project. As the way I think, Cosometale is a way to think project. This perspective has changed anything, the way of conceiving. This is Cosometale is not my code, of course it's from the mountains.

But there is a truth in everything you do. It's not only geometry that constructs, not only software that constructs. It's much more than simply that kind of technologies, whatever they are.

Before that, before everything, we have a core that constructs everything. That puts everything together. It's like you will have different interfaces and make it together.

So, a number of causes. It's like we have a new experience as Cosometale. I'm using this kind of perception of space.

For example, we see that here we are in the square space with windows, doors, tables and so on. And we can see this as a very, very, I would say, we can see this when we go in from outside.

We just understand this very clearly. And sometimes it's not Cosometale, as you want to say. Yes, something that we have, we know at the time. So, Cosometale is something very deep.

It's like I tried to say, it's an optical thought. Something that you need to touch, need to go deeper inside your way of doing architecture or even drawings or even your strategies of constructing and making space.

For example, leading our space is a role. And put something that connects with the, not an illusion, because it's not an illusion. It makes a new perception.

It's our way of seeing space with a new perception. So, Cosometale is something more deep, more difficult to explain. It's nice to use this word, because from Leonardo it works always very well. And I bring open time for all the communication, even if it's in the beginning or in the end.

So, if I want to be a synthesis, I'd say that everything we do comes from a very real, clear space.

Space, I say space, because not physical space, but a real space, a deep space. And that connects all the world. Okay? I have one last question for Sebastian.

Do you think that in this process, the architectural quality has not compromised? It has been compromised by the land? Yes.

It's provocative, man. I really don't think so. I think it's the opposite. I think that most parts of the architects have had the possibility of doing the approaches they wanted, despite the land. So, the difference is that, for what I studied in all those management processes,

is that the plan was strictly defended in the cases where the architects wanted to do something that was continually opposite to the general ideas.

But in the small things, and in the process of developing the approaches, there was no intervention. They were really quite free about what they wanted to do, and they had the opportunity to do it. Even in the case of Almer Cissé, it's the most clear, because it changed everything.

The first plan, the library, was meant to be a seven-star light building with a small tower. And it changed it, dislocated it, and changed the core of the building, without nothing more than to present the idea, and that was the second plan.

So, in fact, they had the opportunity to do what they want. There's a similar case, which is the project of Filippo supporta. It's the only one that doesn't have rhythm to say it.

And that was a fight between supporta and the management, which supporta won. So, the building has been deserted, as he won it. So, in fact, no, I think one of the things that is particularly important in this management process in Almer

is the fact that it was possible to conduct the plan all over the duration of the plan, which is until now.

Maintaining the idea of the plan, and without having to change the plan, and despite that the project was able to do what they want, in most parts of the situations, without having problems. So, the military mission was completed? European?

Yes, it is, practically. It is almost completed, really. There are some buildings yet to be built, but, as I remember, there's one space that still stays without construction, because there are so many funds, as you were looking for,

so the construction is slowed down, but it's partly completed. And that's why they have the other plan on the other side of the building, or the building on the circular buildings.

Any questions? On my commentary, this session, I think this session is what we would like the symposium to be, our trend since the first, I'd say, positive debate between several points of views regarding formalization in architecture.

Piono, after your two years ago presentation, I would love to invite you again.

Okay, thank you very much. I don't try to be so nervous. I take some pills before. And now I can say that there's always the English, some words that are open,

and I hold my mouth also, it's so strange. And now I can say that we are not off record, of course, and I just ask to practice. How am I going to do this in English?

And I don't want to read, and it just says to me, okay, try to make your best, but okay, reading is not so good, but if I'm not going to read, I'm going to say rubbish. And so now I can't apologize, because I don't like to read,

and I just have communication because they are boring. I remember all the time when I was a student, when they began to read, I began to draw my books. So at the end, I hope you didn't do the assignments, but everyone is okay.

I apologize now. I might apologize to make some readings. I try to do my best. Thank you for the next invitation. Maybe with some exercise I will do it better.

Thank you very much. Sergio, thank you for bringing here a concrete example. When we are in the real world, we have to personally be free to join with several methods. When we are going to do a real project, we have to do formal methods,

we have to do semi-formal methods, we don't know why something happens, it happens right. And then we reflect on what happened, what was good and what was bad, and we formalize that, but only after.

It's a very good example of what really happens. Like I would say that, well, formalization is not only a way to solve problems, but you can bring it, I think I can bring it as other problems we can think about.

I think that, if not always, most of the time, it's a reflection on the language, on formalization. And formalization is not to add rings as an individual expression,

and the possibility to achieve and conquer new worlds. And, well, formalization is one of the means we have to arrive at. It's not, as many people say, some incompatibility between formal and art, I think,

and if I think so, it's not always a reflection, some thinking about the language.

She, I won't listen. I lost myself in it. That reflection, that thinking about language, is always present in the world that I live in.

Come here.