The biggest revolutions are the ones that come and go quietly and act in the shadow of night

because they happen in darkness, it is often difficult to discern what elements are at stake, whats being changed and what the changing things are being turned into. The light of day comes again before we know, and a new reality is just there, before our eyes. Where have all the old things gone? Where is the stuff we know? One day not so long ago, I myself was tempted to write this piece trying to use my previously acquired rationality and to use logic to investigate what had happened in that mysterious darkness there I was, biting my nails and watching the clock ticking, staring at my blank word document. Nothing would come: I have nothing to say. I am so bored. I have to do something else. So, as I was saying, the revolution comes quietly and when its gone, it is often difficult to point at whats actually been changed, and what these changes mean. This seems to be the case with what happened to architecture. For example, is the shift from analogue to digital really the object of the latest revolution architecture has undergone? It seems impossible that the radically new forms this discipline is taking come purely from a change in the technical means that produce it. Something else lies behind the contingent events that engendered it, and some have seen it. What really changed architecture is not the advent of the algorithm or the pixel, but the fundamental rethinking of its involvement with semiotics. What does this even mean and how can it be explained without the assistance of exceedingly boring arguments? Ill try this way: architecture has long been dominated by semiotics, especially during the flourishing of modernism and, to an extent, of post-modernism, until something just happened. Architectural constructs were charged with highly abstract metaphorical meanings, so, for instance, the long uninterrupted windows of the Villa Savoy