After Study the Text, I have to say that I personally find the approach of the School of Valparaíso both fascinating but as well challenging. The idea that poetry is not just an influence on architecture as we are used to it but its very foundation forces me to rethink how spaces are conceived and created. The notion that the word precedes action overturns conventional architectural thinking, where form typically emerges from function, analysis, or necessity.

One of the biggest questions for me which arrised is: How does poetry become architecture? ( furthermore what is than the differente between Art and Architecture?) If a design is not driven by a program, structural logic, or a defined function, what guides its material and spatial expression? Can a built environment truly emerge from poetic acts alone, or is there an underlying process that translates abstract ideas into physical form?

The concept of Ciudad Abierta also makes me reflect on the permanence and purpose in architecture. A space that evolves through collective creation, free from institutional constraints, sounds liberating. But how sustainable is it or would it be in the real world? Can a radically poetic approach survive beyond an experimental setting, where budgets, regulations, and functionality are unavoidable?

Another key aspect then would be the role of the collective in the design process. The School rejects individual authorship in favor of shared creativity. While this opens up new ways of thinking about architecture, does it risk diluting personal vision and architectural identity? Or does it push design towards something more profound,where space is shaped by shared experience rather than singular intent?

Ultimately, I wonder whether the poetic method of the School of Valparaíso is a viable model for architecture beyond its unique context. Is this an alternative way forward for design, or does it remain an artistic experiment with limited practical application?

It stands out as well, that the architectural projects of the students are conducted quite freely: The time frame is adjustable and never are any credits, grades or certifications mentioned. It seems that instead of the personal achievements, the personal enlightenments, experiences and observations in different teaching practices are valued. This leads to an open space for explorations and learnings from nature itself without pressure.

The hollistic and poetic approach is in my opinion very contemporary and it would be intriguing to see and learn from the projects emerging from it. What could we learn from that approach regarding our education model? What do we learn about architecture itself, if we consider different ways of learning?

This approach embraces absolute creative freedom, allowing language to shape reality rather than merely reflect it. In this philosophy, the “poetic act” becomes a force for opening new fields of thought and design.

The aim is to discover a new poetic identity for South America - one that is not constrained by historical circumstances or by an imposed or longed-for image. Godofredo Iommi propose, “the word as the real constructor of the world by freeing it from meanings”, enabling a transformation of reality through a transformation of language.

There is an examination of poetry as the founding principle of the school and its approach to architecture. I find this an intriguing proposal and one about which I was thinking when reading the Amereida, wondering how the sensitivity and sensibility of poetry could be translated into an architectural and spatial approach. The Valparaíso School’s proposal, following Rimbaud’s axiom of considering poetry before action, of viewing poetry as an openness, an opening, is a curious proposal and one which one may wonder how to implement in other academic settings—or does it work only holistically as it is implemented in Valparaíso? And how could the idea of continuous reinventions of the world through poetic acts be implemented in other settings of architectural education? Could it be a bridge between the architect’s vision and that of those who become the architecture’s, or the space’s, users?

The author proceeds to give further details on the implementation of the poetic practice with Ciudad Abierta and Travesías, an experimental community and poetic trips respectively, both linked to the school, as is the game of Phalène. They are an exercise in the Poetic Act, which requires also observation and the learning of observation by the students. The spontaneous aspect is reinforced by work in Ronda and an unrestricted interpretation of projects, as open-ended. I find it fascinating how the school tackles the themes of knowledge as an ‘unceasing return to not knowing,’ which allows for the exploration of the unknown in a spontaneous and constantly-changing way, there is no separation of architecture and life.

I wonder, however how in the method of Travesías one can unite the thought of spontaneous architecture, reactions to space, with a wish not to colonise the places one visits and experiences. On one hand I see the beauty of the architectural intervention, of viewing architecture as much as a language which is capable of highlighting certain aspects of the place as poetry, however through the intervention one also changes the space, making an encounter with it different. I wonder how these methods are interpreted in light of the current of modern thought on decolonisation and whether this particular approach is still valid or how it could be transformed? In this aspect I would also wonder whether the poetic approach from the Amereida has, despite itself, become an ideological stance? And if so, how could it be reinterpreted for today’s architectural practice?

The Valparaiso School challenge the conventional understanding of architecture and the preparation for its practice, as the author of the text highlights. I would be thrilled to experiment with such approaches, but I also wonder how they are impacted by the time, whether the temporality does not affect? Or perhaps should it affect the approaches to the Poetic Act?

The School of Valparaiso’s „Poetic Act“ seems to me to be an essential design strategy that challenges Western colonial approaches. Western colonial powers claimed ownership of knowledge (for example about art, architecture, landscape or culture) and imposed these theories on territories they got confronted with, rather than perceiving and seeing already existing realities. Therefore, the poetic vision „Amereida“ proposes a radically inclusive approach, where the act of making is always also a process of discovery, where meaning is being co-created rather than imposed.

So one could also compare this methodology to colonial design methods, where „action“ (conquest, control) was primary, and „words“ (justifications, narratives of civilization) followed. Poetry was used to justify conquest, and architecture was the tool of domination. Through the proposed inversion of the order „action, then words“ to „words, then action“, as practiced by the School of Valparaiso, poetry is not descriptive, but generative. It opens up new ways of seeing and building that challenge the colonial design logic.

Rather than opposing the western theories on a certain site, the poetic act aims to open up a space for invention, it reveals the specificity of a place and removes preconceptions through engaging with the unknown. Also the creative collectiveness starts to include everyone in the design and construction process without any restrictions.

Through time not being limited, structures are adaptable to certain conditions and are allowed to transform over time. In this way, a particular place is not being dominated in a rigid, controllable and unchangeable way, as it is often found in colonialized urban places. 

I believe that these poetic strategies are nowadays still relevant to influence the way us as architects approach towards a certain site, and in the end, a structure. Can architecture be practiced through the act of listening, rather than imposing ideas? Can act of listening become a design methodology in architectural practice, and somehow replace the method of imposing ideas? And how can we design collaboratively structures that keep an openness and adaptability towards the unforeseen and the unknown?

I also find it interesting that there is no single author of the project, as is usually the case in architecture. In Ciudada Abierta, the work is collective, without a single figurehead. This certainly leads to more open and shared solutions, but perhaps it can also make it more difficult to maintain a clear direction and strong identity in the project.

The other aspect that makes me think is the idea of leaving room for the unexpected. Rather than controlling every detail from the outset, architecture evolves over time, adapting to situations. It is a fascinating concept because it completely changes the role of the architect: no longer someone who designs everything, but someone who builds by listening and interacting with the context.

I wonder how we can bring a more open and poetic approach to architecture without losing the functionality and organisation of a project? Is there a balance between creative freedom and practical needs?

The Valparaíso School's rejection of this logic is not simply an aesthetic or methodological choice, but a philosophical and political stance. It directly opposes the Western colonialism, which for a long time asserted dominance over territories through architecture and used design as a tool for control and eradication. By reversing the sequence of action and words to words and actions, the Poetic Act resists this legacy and makes architecture an open process of co-creation rather than an imposition of predefined meaning.

Can the Poetic Act remain truly open-ended, or has it become another framework with its own set of rules? Does it work on a larger scale, or is its strength limited to small, experimental interventions? And ultimately, in the pursuit of openness and fluidity, don’t we still need a certain level of top-down structure to ensure efficiency and coherence in architecture?

They believe in constructing the possibilities of the world through continually renewed perspectives. Through "poetic actions," they attempt to create an origin, allowing the unforeseen and uncertain strangeness to emerge, challenging the known facts of the world. The goal is not to solve problems but to always open new domains, and this is what the poetic action aims to change—by gaining a deeper understanding of the problem, remaining unbound by any symbols, and maintaining openness to all things.

In a context of information overload, is it possible to discard existing "inventions" and realize the unknown and open poetic actions? Perhaps this is precisely the kind of action that is much needed in an era of information excess.

I believe that architecture is a complex medium that encompasses social, political, and historical dimensions. It must not only engage with these facets but also respond to the contemporary context. Architecture has the potential to address these complexities. I positively believe this to be true. However, architecture as a practice is a science that necessitates a system to bring the architect’s vision to fruition. When this scientific approach is applied to poetic actions (improvisation), I believe it becomes an art form that stimulates thought and reflection rather than an architectural practice. I am questioning if improvisation in a public context can really be an aptitude for opening up to reality? The practical realities of architecture often require architects to sustain their ideals with ambitious optimism.

At the heart of this approach is the poetic act—a ritual that marks the beginning of every project. Writing a poem together before designing isn’t just symbolic; it’s a way of setting ideas in motion, of thinking spatially through words before materials and putting observation before all else. This process reinforces the idea that both poetry and architecture emerge from collaboration, where meaning is built collectively rather than dictated by a single author.

The school's approach to the process of obersation and time also manifests in its construction processes. Projects are often developed through iterative stages, allowing for reflection and adaptation and collective discussion. This method acknowledges that buildings evolve over time, responding to context, function, and the insights gained during the creation process. Such an approach is a great contrast to architectural practices as we know it, which adhere to rigid timelines, instead embracing a more fluid and simultaneous development.

Poetry isn’t just a tool for description—it actively shapes the way space is imagined and constructed. This approach emphasizes architecture as an art of shared authorship, where words and forms build upon each other to create something greater than the sum of their parts.

The School of Architecture in Valparaíso challenges this logic with a radically different approach. Here, poetry is not just artistic expression but an act that inaugurates reality. In the Poetic Act, words do not precede construction to dominate it but to open new possibilities. The Ciudad Abierta, founded on collaboration between students and professors, embodies this vision: each project emerges from a dialogue with the territory, rather than its erasure.

While Western urban planning uses language to justify spatial control, the poetic practice of Valparaíso returns space to collective imagination. The real question, then, is not just who has the right to transform a place, but how to do so without erasing its existence. Perhaps building does not mean imposing meanings from above, but recognizing those already present and reinventing them together.

Amereida, in terms of Latin American literature, sets up an entirely different geographic and subjective conquest: poetic and existential. From an architectural point of view, it resists the rigid logic of a predetermined form, instead proposing an open-ended process through poetic acts from which space and meaning can gain substance. The Ciudad Abierta takes this approach to heart through its emphasis on improvisation and collective creation, where architecture, rather than simply a given quantity of matter, is a response to an unknown that must be rediscovered each time. Here lies a gesture against traditional architectural practice, always grounded in the notion of function and permanence, proposing instead a fluid, living architecture that is forever on the road to becoming. If architecture is really to engage with the unknown, never can it be fully "made", or does it always have to be incomplete?

They are re questioning the poetry as a writing art by enabling the poetry in a more improvised way, through the voice. Every time these poetic acts occurs, people are wearing costumes to generate a new atmosphere. The acts are made collectively and in the present moment. Everyone can participate to it without restrictions. The notion of duration is questioned because of the dilatation of the generation process of the project.

This leads to project with a lot of sensibilities toward the site it is built on.

It opens a new fresh way of designing buildings while questioning the idea that we make ourselves of the figure of the architect. Somehow we could ask ourselves how the conventional practice of architecture could be changed with these new concepts of poetry and community? But also how much this way of designing could really be implemented in the architectural practice? How much can all the people can be equally involved in the discussions and on the decision making process?

I wonder and ask myself what happens if you apply this approach to a highly structured city like Zurich? Would it be both, radical and revealing? Zurich’s urban fabric is shaped by strict zoning laws, efficiency-driven planning, and a clear delineation between public and private space. If a poetic act were introduced here, it would disrupt the norm, creating unexpected encounters with the inhabitants and space.

What if we imagine students mapping the city not through regulations but through movement, sound, and ephemeral marks in a Studio at ETH? Streets might be reimagined not as infrastructure but as places of gathering. What would such an experiment provoke?

These processes within our subconscious are neither purely passive nor entirely active thought processes. It is therefore an advantage to meet the unknown with openness—not to appropriate it, but to observe it, to look at it with such intensity that meaning does not need to be imposed but can instead reveal itself.

It is the willingness to dwell in uncertainty, to create space for the unforeseen. This perspective suggests that architecture is not merely about constructing buildings, but about constructing conditions for thought, for experience, and for becoming. It is about allowing a space where the unknown is not a problem to be solved, but a presence to be encountered—a place where intuition and creativity can unfold without the need for immediate resolution.

The university aimed to reform itself by establishing a “non-abstract community”. This meant living, working and studying together at the “ciudad abierta”.

The goal articulated by a prominent member - Godofredo Iommi - was to emancipate the word from its representational role. To achieve this, the word should cease to narrate transpired actions and should instead precede them. In the eyes of Iommi, committing art to an external (preceding) cause, compromises it and “floods it with symbolism” which should be prevented.

This new poetic formulation is attained through the abandonment of writing and instead by pursuing recitation, thus creating in the voice and in the act the “poetic act”. There are two central aspects to this act. First, it should occur in the place and present moment, the poet should take the role of the “bearer of celebration”. The second aspect is the one of collectiveness. In a group - collectively that is - we can disclose the “peculiarity” of a certain place. This particularity is then marked with materials and resources at hand, this is referred to as the sign.

This poetic act “opens” a particular place, thus establishing a point of departure, an origin for the architecture free from the projects program.

The idea of the unknown is central to this approach. After the “opening” of the place the participants interpret the unknown. In a non-hierarchical discussion, everybody contributes ideas and speculate on a “possible route”. Instead of planning and materialising afterwards, the conception and materialisation of the building happens simultaneously, there is no projection and rather an erecting of the building.

1. One prerequisite for the word to emancipate from its representational role, is for it to be spoken and ephemeral, but then the architecture then materialises physically. Isn’t then architecture inevitably “flooded with symbolism”?

2. The “bearer of the celebration” sets the initial impulse in the collective process and thus has a particular agency. How is this non-hierarchical? What is the role of authorship in the “ciudad abierta”?

Through the student’s initial phase of observation, at the beginning of every project phase, they react contrarily to the approach of the explorer when they first arrived on the continent, which results in the contemplation and a sensible experience of space. For the projects they implement the locally available material in lightweight, ephemeral structures, that are situated in the landscape rather than dominating it. This as well stands in contrast to the colonial building type and organisation, which symbolised power and control over the indigenous lands and people.

By implementing poetry and the state that „… from now on the word will go on alone, ahead of the action“, they aim to change the narrative and continually renew their perspectives, which also leads them to not be tied to any symbols and significations. Design emerges from intuition, through dialogues and inspirations, rather than the imposition of already existing structures of the colonial urban planning.

I find the idea of the Unknown very interesting that is part of the Ciudad Abierta.

„„[…] we must empty ourselves of judgments so that we can give room to the question. … This return to not knowing, it is not about ignorance or ingenuity, on the contrary, it is a state of the spirit that tries to delve into the question, it is an opening and not a rush to answer as if it were to solve a problem’. […] without clinging to the acquired knowledge“, […] the School of Valparaíso believes in the possibility of building a world from an always renewed point of view.“  This also contains Iommi’s idea that the poem does not have to be written first, but can emerge in the speaking process itself. „A flor de labios“  signifies „that words bloom on the lips, that is, they are said at the same time as they are thought. In this way, through Architectural Observation, the thinking and building processes of the projects are blended in a rhythm in which the making is born from the contemplation of its execution.“

With that notion and the Taller de Obras the students build structures simultaneously to designing them right in the moment. From personal experience in a project, trying to work without having a specific outcome in mind, it is very difficult to apply this method onto our system. I wonder how this approach could be translated onto our process here and how we could apply it to prjects that require a more specified program. Associated with this comes the notion „work hic et nunc“, which makes me wonder what the framework of these mentioned „preparation“ points looks like. How far can the Taller des Obras be prepared, to not lose the notion of continuously reacting to the given now moment and state of project.

The text provides a stimulating insight into an extraordinary architectural approach. Instead of relying on a system in which knowledge is rigorously acquired through years of training, one relies on a kind of naive yet powerful intuition. Poetry is a liberation from the strict conventions of training - allowing the imagination to roam.

What projects might emerge from such an approach? Does it produce only poetic ideas or translated realities? Is this practice learned at university or is this unconventional sensibility inherent in each of us? Can anyone be an architect?

This represents an embrace of the unknown. Godofredo Iommi's practice at the School of Valparaíso affirms immediacy and presentness. Just as writing carries a certain delay, traditional architectural education reliant upon drawing also exhibits this lag. In contrast, practices like the Taller de Obras and the collective method known as working in Ronda (round) eliminate this delay, emphasising the immediacy formed by genuine lived experience and a willingness to engage with uncertainty.

The poet, as this non-figure, this anonymous figure, is represented without any ego or personality and, with that, can take on the mask of any personality. That’s why students at the School of Valparaíso are also encouraged to dress up in costumes for their presentations, as it makes it easier not to remain in their ego. Something I can imagine feeling very liberating, especially in a profession like architecture, which is strongly shaped by the egocentrism of authorship. I can even see the poet, as described in this article, as a sort of Joker who has the full freedom to explore, try and fail, and engage in absolute creativity.

The students at the School of Valparaíso practice this “poetic game” of Travesía, where they take their time to explore the environment without any agenda in mind so they can understand the space in its essence. The philosophy of the school pushes students to develop a holistic view of the world, from which they can access creativity and create their own projects. For that, they have to put themselves into a state of not-knowing, where they remain fully open to what is in front of and around them and where they are completely free of any judgment or prejudice. They say that only then can one be truly open with curiosity and freedom. They should also approach their environment not with the attitude of wanting to solve a problem but to fully acknowledge what is truly there.

Something I still don’t understand from the text, and which seems to be a central idea, is how to situate the terms poetic word and action. On one hand, the idea of the pedagogy is that there should not be any action but rather a reinterpretation of meaning through words. But then again, they talk about poetic action, which does not necessarily have to be conveyed through words. How is this translated into practice, whether by physically standing in the field or by lifting a pen to bring something down on paper?