The ‘80s, Gaudí and La Pedrera

My relationship with the work of Antoni Gaudí (1852–1926) began in 1978, almost at the same time as the restoration of democracy in Spain.

When I arrived in Barcelona, I encountered Gaudí. Gaudí and Barcelona are inseparable, and from that very moment I began to study the artist and his work. At that time, I was deeply struck by the fact that every time I touched any part of his work, I ended up completely dirty, and I wondered why no one removed that thick layer of soot and, above all, atmospheric pollution from those works of art. In any case, that dust gave them a patina that only time can bestow, making them even more fascinating.

Shortly thereafter, I was commissioned to restore and clean some of his elements, which gave me a broader understanding of his scale, his art, and his knowledge.

It was within the field of restoration that my greatest doubts and challenges arose, prompting me to revive an old “Centre for Gaudí Studies,” which would later evolve into the “Gaudí Workshop of the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.” From there, we studied his work day after day for many years and became aware of how little we still know about this artist, despite all the research that has been carried out; we have more questions than answers.

Today, Gaudí’s works shine with their own light—and sometimes, perhaps, they shine too brightly. It is now very important to promote research and to disseminate those works which, because they are considered minor, have not yet received the attention they deserve or have not been sufficiently publicized.

To interpret all of Gaudí’s works in their proper dimension and scale, we cannot disregard any of his creations or details.

Hundreds of monographic studies have been published on around twenty of his most prominent works, such as the Sagrada Família, Casa Milà, or Park Güell; yet for other equally important works, publications are still lacking.

Gaudí had a very special personality and devoted the same energy to a renovation project as to a new one; he gave equal importance to hydraulic works and architectural works, and this is what has allowed his legacy to remain intact over time.

His work does not belong to a fashion or a fleeting movement. His work, as it has come down to us today, is a paradigm of movements that have yet to be fully conceived.

I believe that the photograph that accompanies this text clearly illustrates this need.

Luis Gueilburt