Several themes appear and intensify when developing an architectural project in the Amazon. A place as biodiverse as this one gives architecture a depth of information that other environments simply do not have.

​

We can say with certainty that every architectural challenge becomes more complex in the Amazon: the extreme heat and humidity both outside and inside the spaces; the tension between ancestral building traditions and the realities of local labour and indigenous communities; the choice of materials versus the sustainability of the territory; the transportation of resources across difficult geographies; the programmatic needs, in this case the production and sale of handicrafts, versus the daily customs and cultural rhythms of the community; the remoteness of the site from populated centres, which makes the supply of construction materials difficult; the scarcity of water and the intermittence of electricity. If we add a limited budget to all of this, the project becomes a major challenge.

​

Recognising this complexity forced us to approach the architectural process differently. We could no longer act as we do in the city or in rural contexts, because here other considerations become essential. At this point, the architectural project becomes a key tool that allows synthesis. Through a synthetic reading of architecture, we grouped as many themes as possible and searched for what these variables had in common. This approach allowed us to unify criteria and design a coherent architectural space.

​

What do heat, humidity, labour, materials, geography, indigenous culture, transportation, cost, construction systems, time and the production and sale of crafts have in common? We believe the unifying element is found in the daily reality and idiosyncrasy of the indigenous community, which is directly connected to craft. We believe that working through craft can give meaning and direction to an architectural project.

​

The value of craftsmanship lies in the possibility of thinking and doing at the same time. As Richard Sennett proposes in his book "The Craftsman," craft is the art of making thought. He highlights craftsmanship as the discipline that writes, describes and prescribes the importance of doing, and places the act of doing with one's hands at the centre of acquiring and creating knowledge.

​

Sennett argues that doing is thinking. He suggests that one can think with the hands and that a specific type of intellectual knowledge is produced through the repetition of an activity, especially a physical one, and that this process is perhaps more evident in building an architectural space than in any other field.

​

He also argues that the craftsman is defined by doing a job well simply for the sake of doing it well. For Sennett, a craftsman can be a carpenter, a writer, an architect or a parent, as long as there is a genuine interest in doing each task well, and even better the next time.

​

Since Aristotle, theory and practice have been defined as separate realms. Theory is the capacity to think, to imagine, to see beyond, and to guide praxis, which is the application of theory. From a Platonic perspective, theory is the ideal and praxis is the execution of that ideal.

​

Theory deepens thought but does not leave a visible or tangible product in the world. Practice, on the other hand, produces something concrete, appreciable and lasting. The interesting moment appears when these two dimensions come together in what Aristotle called poiesis, which is creation with meaning. It is not just any type of making; it is a creative act that unites theory and practice.

​

According to Aristotle, our way of being in the world has these two dimensions: the theoretical and the practical. The most interesting moment occurs when we understand the relationship between them, when we think by doing or when we do by thinking. It is at this point that we begin to create with meaning, which Aristotle would call a poetic practice.

​

This reflection seems highly relevant today, especially in architecture. We live in a system that has separated thinking from doing, with negative consequences for the planet. This separation has contributed to what Koolhaas calls the generic building, whether it is an office, an airport or a house.

​

These constructions have polluted the planet with waste, discarded materials and the indiscriminate use of oil. They have also produced superficial architecture that ignores identity and could exist anywhere. Today more than ever we need specific works that recognise local values, that are built with local logic and that think from, with and for the place.