In a well-known debate with Geraldo Ferraz in 1948, L?cio Costa argued that modern architecture as practiced in Brazil only became truly interesting when the functional grounds of this new architecture - bequeathed to us by Le Corbusier - were incorporated and developed by the national genius.

From then on - the argument goes -, we could actually be proud of an architecture that was authentically ours, deeply rooted in a tradition that went back to the colonial baroque style from Minas Gerais. Moreover, in our modern architectural production, Oscar Niemeyer played a role equivalent to that of Aleijadinho, embodying to the highest degree the latent possibilities of "Brazilianness". "There is much more affinity" - L?cio Costa insisted - "between Oscar's work, as seen in the admirable Pampulha ensemble, and Aleijadinho's masterpiece - the church of S?o Francisco de Assis, in Ouro Preto - than between Oscar's work and that of Warchavchik - which is, in my view, a quite significant fact."

Even more significant than that is the formula L?cio Costa applies when he's sorting out affinities and pushing the premise that the national element in this new architecture is actually more vigorous than the modern one. He argues that, on the one hand, there are genuine, innovative

works - seeds that sprout beautifully in our tropical soil, nurtured by the most authentic native sap; on the other hand, we also find imitations devoid of any ties to our traditions; these are second or third-hand copies, like exotic trees transplanted after full maturation somewhere else. L?cio Costa's words, pregnant with meanings, implications and commitments, outlines a distinction that has enjoyed a long history among us, that is: the distinction between Brazilian modern architecture and modern architecture in Brazil.