Maybe not on the design and original plans? IIRC they're trying to do everything according to original designs, which would not be 'collaboration', just... implementation. It's been over 30 years since I was there though - some friends who went more recently said a lot more has been done since then. Might be fun to go back and look for the differences, but I do not remember much detail, just a sense of 'big'.

If I am not mistaken, the original designs were destroyed during the Spanish Civil War.

Yeah iirc his studio burned down at the hands of anarchist vandalists.

Building some great indulgent monument to god wasn't exactly uncontroversial in the political climate at the time, as I understand it.

Anyway, his plans wouldn't have been detailed enough to just go and build it. There was a lot of interpretation to be done in any case.

The destruction of Gaudi’s studio wasn’t exceptional. The Republican forces destroyed many other religious buildings and works of art throughout Spain before and during the Civil War.

I think all of this makes it a more fascinating building.

i understood it to mean that the architectural vision of Gaudi was so original and singular that and future work could only be completion of an original design, an imitation of the already completed work, or an obviously seperated style (like inserting a jazz solo in mozart)

in contrast other architects worked within a well defined style with rules and systems that can be worked within by modern architects to "posthumously" collaborate. like how you can use the principles of gothic architecture to add a modern addition to a gothic cathedral. the only principle Gaudi followed was natural inspiration and his own interpretation of that, something nobody could ever define

It's just a nice way of saying it's difficult work because Gaudi was a genius and they can't hope to equal him. It doesn't mean they won't try their best.

It’s referring to the collaboration on the design itself.

Even that isn't true. Lots of original models/drawings have been lost, new designers interpret or reconstruct what they think Gaudi wanted to do, based on incomplete plans or where decisions weren't fully made.

Not to mention new materials are available today that are being used and new processes/workflows which change the results slightly too.

Sagrada Familia isn't a 100% implementation of the original vision, as even the original vision was incomplete when Gaudi died.

Ok, maybe he didn't specify how all the statues, doors, windows and other embellishments should look like, but the basic structure and shape (the three portals and the 18 spires which also determine how the support columns in the interior of the church are placed) is the same as in Gaudí's original plans.

Buzzword bingo isn't restricted to software. The statement just says "Gaudi was a great architect". But it sounds more impressive to talk about "posthumous collaboration", especially if you don't analyze it.

Sometimes people say things indirectly.

In this case what they are saying is that Gaudi’s design sense is so unique and iconoclastic that it’s essentially impossible to mix it with other styles of design.

The original statement still makes sense, though, if you correctly interpret it as critique and warning.

> Sagrada Familia isn't a 100% implementation of the original vision

That's what makes it more interesting and fascinating.