PhD in Architecture. History and Project | Politecnico di Torino
A+ Lectures 2025|Light and Shadow. Projects|José Ignacio Linazasoro
Thursday 27 March 2025| 1.00-2.30 PM Room 201 Lingotto|Recordings on YouTube
Contacts
5 thoughts on “A+ Lectures 2025|Light and Shadow. Projects|José Ignacio Linazasoro”
Devanshi Thakuriya
The lecture by Jose Ignacia Linazasoro showcased some amazing projects that highlighted the balance use of natural light and artificial light . Some of the interesting key takeaways was how the architect approached to find meaning through paintings in a different approach for the case of lighting where he showed one painting of a window side room, and how it affected the ambience of the space. The takeaway was that fenestrations are not just sources of air but also do a beautiful play of light and shade inside the space which affect the overall emotion of the space inside. Another interesting debate was till what extent reliance of software vs the humanistic approach to contemporary architecture should be balanced with each other. The answer to this probably lies in the subjective human perception and intuition which is beyond any software to conclude.
José Ignacio Linazasoro’s approach to light and shadow feels less like a technical solution and more like an ongoing dialogue across time. In projects like Convento di Santa Teresa and Escuelas Pías, he doesn’t just preserve history, he reanimates it. Using light to weave new stories into old spaces. At Escuelas Pías, for instance, the decision to leave the ruins exposed, with daylight filtering through gaps, turns decay into a living archive. Meanwhile, Centro Congressi a Troyes shows his sensitivity to urban fabric, breaking down a massive structure into fragments that echo the rhythm of the medieval city. But his rigorous control over light, as seen in Biblioteca della UNED, begs the question of how flexible places can be when light is so carefully planned?
Jose Ignacio Linazasoro’s lecture was a profound exploration of light not just as an architectural element but as a narrative force that shapes space, atmosphere, and perception. His approach to light is not merely technical; it is poetic, an interplay of materiality and illumination that defines the character of a building. Rather than treating windows as simple openings, he sees them as instruments that mediate between interior and exterior, controlling how light sculpts surfaces, reveals textures, and constructs a sense of time within space. His projects demonstrate how light can be a silent guide, subtly organizing movement and experience within a building, whether through the strategic fragmentation of spaces or the careful calibration of shadows. What is particularly fascinating is his sensitivity to the duality of light, not just its presence but its absence. The way he embraces shadows as an active architectural tool suggests a deep understanding that architecture is not about filling spaces with light but about choreographing the balance between illumination and obscurity, between clarity and mystery. His work invites us to think of architecture as a medium of transitions, where light is not static but an evolving dialogue with form, material, and history.
Jose Ignacio Linazasoro’s lecture explored light as more than an architectural element it is a narrative force that shapes space, atmosphere, and perception. His approach is deeply poetic, using light to sculpt surfaces, reveal textures, and construct a sense of time within space. Rather than simply illuminating, his work carefully orchestrates the interplay between brightness and shadow, using voids, openings, and material contrasts to create dynamic spatial experiences. Particularly fascinating is his treatment of ruins, where light bridges the past and present, highlighting the unfinished nature of history. He also embraces the ambiguity of light not just its presence but its strategic absence, allowing shadows to define space as much as illumination does. This sensitivity transforms his buildings into living entities, where light moves and changes throughout the day, constantly redefining how a space is perceived. His work invites us to see architecture not as static but as a dialogue between form, material, and the passage of time.
In a very straightforward and suggestive lecture, José Ignacio Linazasoro showed us how each of his pieces has a strong dialectical link between the light—which is frequently uniform and smooth—and its shadows. The usage of materials, which are usually highlighted by their material qualities (as is the case with the Convent of Santa Teresa), is another stringent relationship. For this and light calibration, Linazasoro takes inspiration from Romanesque architecture in addition to Baroque building; however, there is also a certain desire in his work to highlight the ancient, to elevate the ruin, and to sculpt surfaces evoking a sense of the spiritual and sacred that is not exclusively associated with religion. He claims that his hunt for light is an artisanal endeavour and attributes it to a thorough examination of space rather than the use of certain software and simulators. I really enjoyed also how Linazoro highlights a type of “positive” eclecticism can be seen in some of his projects, which in some ways resembles what Mollino referred to as “synthetic” eclecticism. This speaks to his own desire to depict an architectural object’s concept in all of its complexity, where more fragmented ideas, internal figures, and eclectically different elements can be seen in the relation with each other.
The lecture by Jose Ignacia Linazasoro showcased some amazing projects that highlighted the balance use of natural light and artificial light . Some of the interesting key takeaways was how the architect approached to find meaning through paintings in a different approach for the case of lighting where he showed one painting of a window side room, and how it affected the ambience of the space. The takeaway was that fenestrations are not just sources of air but also do a beautiful play of light and shade inside the space which affect the overall emotion of the space inside. Another interesting debate was till what extent reliance of software vs the humanistic approach to contemporary architecture should be balanced with each other. The answer to this probably lies in the subjective human perception and intuition which is beyond any software to conclude.
José Ignacio Linazasoro’s approach to light and shadow feels less like a technical solution and more like an ongoing dialogue across time. In projects like Convento di Santa Teresa and Escuelas Pías, he doesn’t just preserve history, he reanimates it. Using light to weave new stories into old spaces. At Escuelas Pías, for instance, the decision to leave the ruins exposed, with daylight filtering through gaps, turns decay into a living archive. Meanwhile, Centro Congressi a Troyes shows his sensitivity to urban fabric, breaking down a massive structure into fragments that echo the rhythm of the medieval city. But his rigorous control over light, as seen in Biblioteca della UNED, begs the question of how flexible places can be when light is so carefully planned?
Jose Ignacio Linazasoro’s lecture was a profound exploration of light not just as an architectural element but as a narrative force that shapes space, atmosphere, and perception. His approach to light is not merely technical; it is poetic, an interplay of materiality and illumination that defines the character of a building. Rather than treating windows as simple openings, he sees them as instruments that mediate between interior and exterior, controlling how light sculpts surfaces, reveals textures, and constructs a sense of time within space. His projects demonstrate how light can be a silent guide, subtly organizing movement and experience within a building, whether through the strategic fragmentation of spaces or the careful calibration of shadows. What is particularly fascinating is his sensitivity to the duality of light, not just its presence but its absence. The way he embraces shadows as an active architectural tool suggests a deep understanding that architecture is not about filling spaces with light but about choreographing the balance between illumination and obscurity, between clarity and mystery. His work invites us to think of architecture as a medium of transitions, where light is not static but an evolving dialogue with form, material, and history.
Jose Ignacio Linazasoro’s lecture explored light as more than an architectural element it is a narrative force that shapes space, atmosphere, and perception. His approach is deeply poetic, using light to sculpt surfaces, reveal textures, and construct a sense of time within space. Rather than simply illuminating, his work carefully orchestrates the interplay between brightness and shadow, using voids, openings, and material contrasts to create dynamic spatial experiences. Particularly fascinating is his treatment of ruins, where light bridges the past and present, highlighting the unfinished nature of history. He also embraces the ambiguity of light not just its presence but its strategic absence, allowing shadows to define space as much as illumination does. This sensitivity transforms his buildings into living entities, where light moves and changes throughout the day, constantly redefining how a space is perceived. His work invites us to see architecture not as static but as a dialogue between form, material, and the passage of time.
In a very straightforward and suggestive lecture, José Ignacio Linazasoro showed us how each of his pieces has a strong dialectical link between the light—which is frequently uniform and smooth—and its shadows. The usage of materials, which are usually highlighted by their material qualities (as is the case with the Convent of Santa Teresa), is another stringent relationship. For this and light calibration, Linazasoro takes inspiration from Romanesque architecture in addition to Baroque building; however, there is also a certain desire in his work to highlight the ancient, to elevate the ruin, and to sculpt surfaces evoking a sense of the spiritual and sacred that is not exclusively associated with religion. He claims that his hunt for light is an artisanal endeavour and attributes it to a thorough examination of space rather than the use of certain software and simulators. I really enjoyed also how Linazoro highlights a type of “positive” eclecticism can be seen in some of his projects, which in some ways resembles what Mollino referred to as “synthetic” eclecticism. This speaks to his own desire to depict an architectural object’s concept in all of its complexity, where more fragmented ideas, internal figures, and eclectically different elements can be seen in the relation with each other.