From the contemporary analysis of the design of the places where people perform their daily activities and of the very ways in which they live, the issue of calligraphy, as it refers to the style of architectural writing, has been completely sidelined. And if, in the abstract, no judgment of value can be expressed fully on the formal choice in relation to the provenance of the text, it is to the content that interest has shifted with regard to the project narrative. Indeed, what was once considered dubious is now commonly shared, with the conviction that the eclecticism with which we necessarily live today is nothing more than the “natural” product of a multicultural, complex and fragmented society, pervaded by a multitude of images that make any form of connection plausible and therefore unrestrained.

However, it is not a generalized and mindless “anything goes” attitude, but rather an unsurprising fact that involves every form of dialogue within the creative process. The eclecticism we see today in the world of architectural design is not, therefore, a style option, but an inevitable condition of the times in which we live, because ours is a complex society, characterized by a multitude of cultural, ethnic and social influences that, necessarily, interact with one another. This coexistence in the collective imagination of different and varied elements has led to the disappearance of the traditional ideological barriers, and to the pointlessness of stylistic controversies and of the claim of predominance of any architectural language, delivering the project to the field of inclusivity, where different influences and expressive opportunities hybridize incessantly. However, if globalization has permitted the spread and overlapping of ideas, it is also the cause of a paradoxical acceptance that tends to level differences and destroy specific identities, allowing that cultural flatness that had been sent out the door to reenter through the window. Against this latent risk of the loss of value of individual modes of expression, we must defend the plural condition of living, moving the accent to the latest significance of every narrative, regardless of the form with which it is proposed and publicized. If the fulcrum around which the interest in the project revolves is not the “how” but the “where”, it means that history has been overcome by a geography of behaviors that necessarily escapes the standardization and banalization of the project, linking the text to the context. We could therefore agree to take the direction of a “mindful eclecticism” to indicate an idea of living related to the specific characteristics of the places and their values, considering the act of design as a loose translation and interpretation in the form of a synthesis of different cultural messages, a sort of tribute to the value of the tolerance and acceptance which are absolutely essential for our daily life. In this way, the old idea of eclecticism changes from style to cultural practice, capable of creating spaces that have the ability to tell different and unusual stories.