Review
editors
Nicola Campri
Claudia Mainardi
Luigi Mandraccio
Any experience regarding reality is grounded on what has already happened. Reviewing is a primary cognitive and critical process, which structures our relationship with real world through a retrospective motion operating to verify the present and guide the future. Before assuming an editorial or a discipline-specialized form, the review functions as a more or less intentional mode of critical reading. Reviewing is based on the prefix “re-“, which points to an action that begins as reflexive and then emerges transformative: by re-activating an event, fact, or idea from the past we reassess their relevance’s terms in the present and, in doin so, steer its potential future. In other words, the review allows us to re-formulate relationships and meanings. Moreover, it enables the production of knowledge without creating it ex nihilo, acting simultaneously in an archaeological and performative manner.
As a critical operation, when made explicit in written form, reviewing takes the shape of the classic review: a consolidated textual typology, which transposes the cognitive process of the review into language and argumentative structure. Within this established format, the review fully develops its expressive potential: even if it literally means “looking back,” then it is not limited to a retrospective exercise. In this sense, a review is not merely a description of its object; rather, it articulates a critical strategy that can transcend the individual case. It may encompass an entire era, a field of research, or a specific object or product, whether cultural or commercial. Sometimes, the review also emerges as a reaction to experiences of a place, an event, or a fact – as in the case of user-generated reviews on platforms like Google or Tripadvisor. Regardless of its length and context, the review remains a form of writing grounded in reality, always starting from something that already exists in order to to trace connections between past, present, and future.
In terms of critical programs, as generally-extended field of review, Italy has had well-known protagonists beyond the boundaries of national culture, architectural and otherwise. Figures who have left indisputable personal marks, such as Manfredo Tafuri, or those who have influenced by the ability to activate significant collective efforts – Vittorio Gregotti and his Casabella (not forgetting the seminal moments led by Giuseppe Pagano and Edoardo Persico, and later Ernesto Nathan Rogers), Bruno Zevi and Architettura. Cronaca e storia. But we should also recall those who, like Bruno Alfieri or Giovanni Klaus Koenig, are less central within the framework of established historiography.
Far beyond each possible categories – limited either by the context in which it is situated or by intrinsic characteristics, such as those attributable to an author’s style – the review is capable of providing unique insights. Whether it is Renato Bonelli’s piece on the Residential Quarter at Forte Quezzi in Genoa (1959), or an analyses (Groatz, 2024) of the sophisticated parallel that Colin Rowe draws between Reyner Banham’s New Brutalism: Ethics or Aesthetics? and Robert Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, on the pages of the New York Times Book Review (1967).
The review operates within architectural processes independently of strictly editorial ones. It constitutes a structural condition of the project, which develops through a confrontation with previous cases, experiences, and spatial conditions. Verification practices – whether in pedagogical, professional, or curatorial contexts – are not ancillary phases but moments of revision that orient the project as a non-linear process.
Today, the review is set within a broader practice of the production of space as a social product (Lefebvre), alongside the post-production forms (Bourriaud) and re-production (Steyerl), as expressed through practices of editing, montage, and re-interpretation. The review, as an operational action, is a process of re-writing and re-activating the cultural and symbolic materials of space, involving the re-opening of discourse and the questioning of its assumptions through the disarticulation of its hierarchies. To “re-view” means to restore temporal depth to events, ideas, and spaces, opposing the loss of history (Virno and Bergson) and inverting the logic of simultaneity.
Finally, many contemporary design practices incorporate review processes into their daily activities. These operations manifest concretely through the reuse of spaces or materials, post-occupancy monitoring, or curatorial practices that re-interpret and re-activate content, objects, and contexts. In this way, the review acts as a structuring principle of a cyclical design approach, founded on transformative continuity rather than a succession of isolated acts, connecting past, present, and future within a dynamic and participatory process.
Revision transforms not only the object but also the observer: the author, “in crisis” (Barthes, Foucault), critically re-orients their own experiences and tools, questioning intentions, hierarchies, and authority, while experiencing how sense and meaning no longer arise exclusively from their own intention but from practices of re-reading and re-interpretation.
Moving beyond the individual sphere, the review enters collective debate, showcasing approaches and methods that can be discussed, re-interpreted, and re-launched by broader communities. In this perspective, re-viewing takes on an ecological and sustainability dimension, concerning not only matter but also knowledge, practices, and spatial relationships. It becomes an act of care, maintenance, and transformative continuity, opposing the logic of destruction or replacement consumption and reaffirming the centrality of critical reflection in cultural and spatial production.
The 14th issue of GUD focuses on the review as an essential tool for verification and critical control, not only in architecture but in all disciplines intertwined with the production of space and culture. The present call for contributions invites explorations of this operation in its methodological, reflective, and operational dimensions, welcoming contributions that approach the review as a form of intervention or thinking on reality, both on an individual and collective level. Contributions may take the form of critical reviews, methodological experiments, or critical analyses, provided they explicitly detail the conceptual and operational strategies that substantiate the “review.” In this way, Issue 14 aims to build a collection of experiences, approaches, and reflections that make tangible the value of the review as a continuous practice of reading, interpreting, and transforming contemporary reality.
Review as a cognitive and critical process
How can practices of re-reading and re-elaborating the past influence the critical understanding of the present and open new research perspectives? How can these processes transform into devices capable of not only interpreting but generating knowledge? How are the individual and collective dimensions of experience articulated within these dynamics? What possibilities emerge when revisiting existing archives, narratives, or practices to redefine their meanings and relationships? What methodologies can support a reflection that is simultaneously analytical, transformative, and productive?
Review as a writing process
How can critical writing move beyond description to become a tool for the active interpretation of the present? How can the analysis of a work of art, a journal, a project, or an event, open connections between different times and contexts? What legacy do the experiences of Italian criticism – both successful and neglected – offer today in redefining tools and positionings? What forms and methods can make the critical review a device capable of impacting contemporary cultural and disciplinary debate?
Review as an operational practice in architecture
How can reviewing be understood as a structural condition of the project, rather than a subsequent or corrective phase? How do practices of verification, re-use, monitoring, or curation affect the redefinition of spatial functions and meanings? How can the confrontation with pre-existing configurations disarticulate hierarchies and reopen questions previously taken for granted? Which contemporary practices point out the project as a cyclical and transformative process, capable of connecting different timeframes within a continuous dynamic?
Review as a tool for continuity, care, and cultural sustainability
How does the review extend from the individual to the collective dimension, activating forms of shared discussion and re-launch? How can it be configured today as a practice of care and transformative continuity, capable of opposing the logic of consumption and replacement in cultural and spatial production?
Deadline for submission: 24 April 2026
Authors are invited to submit an abstract in Italian or English of 5,000 characters, including spaces, to the following email address: gud@stefanotermaninieditore.it
The abstract must be accompanied by a significant, high-quality image, licensed under Creative Commons or owned by the author. The abstract must be prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Authors, downloadable from the Submission page.
Each author may submit only one abstract (either individually or as part of a group of authors). In particular, each author is required to submit one file in .pdf format containing the title, abstract, and image, as well as the first name, last name, and contact details of the author or authors.
Following acceptance of the abstract, which will be communicated by 17 May 2026, authors will be asked to begin drafting the paper; such acceptance does not guarantee publication, which remains subject to the outcome of the double-blind peer review process.
PAPER – deadline: 6 July 2026
Following acceptance of the abstract, each author is required to prepare a paper of 15,000 characters, including spaces, inclusive of notes. Bibliographic references are excluded from the overall character count. The paper may be written in Italian or another language; please notify to the editorial staff.
The paper must be submitted in .docx format and prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Authors, downloadable from the Submission page. An abstract in English of 2,500 characters, including spaces, must be attached to the paper.
The paper must be accompanied by a maximum of 10 high-quality images (300 dpi, minimum width 10 cm), licensed under Creative Commons or owned by the author. In the event of selection, the Editorial Board reserves the right to use all submitted images and to request additional materials or integrations, where deemed necessary.
In particular, each author is required to submit the following materials:
– one anonymous .pdf file containing the title, abstract, and paper;
– a second .pdf file containing the title, abstract, and paper, as well as the first name, last name, and contact details of the author or authors;
– a folder containing the images and a .docx file with the corresponding captions.
All submitted papers will be subject to a double-blind peer review process. Notification regarding acceptance of the contributions and their possible publication will be communicated by 18 September 2026. Acceptance may be granted without revisions or subject to requested revisions to the contribution.
Calendar
March 23, 2026 – Call for papers published
April 24, 2026 – Abstract submission deadline
May 17, 2026 – Abstract acceptance notification
July 6, 2026 – Paper submission deadline
September 18, 2026 – Contribution acceptance notification
Guidelines
Failure to comply with the Editorial Rules may result in the non-acceptance of the article.
An author can appear only once in the same issue and cannot publish in two consecutive issues of the magazine. This rule also applies to group contributions.
Publication
The magazine will be published in digital format on the Stefano Termanini Editore website (www.stefanotermaninieditore.it). It is possible to buy hard copies of the magazine through the publisher’s website.
For more information, please refer to: https://www.stefanotermaninieditore.it/portale/gud-design-2/call-for-papers_review/