We're producing spaces that accommodate human activity. And what I'm interested in is not the styling of that, but the relationship of that as it enhances that activity. And that directly connects to ideas of city-making.
Architecture is a result of a process of asking questions and testing them and re-interrogating and changing in a repetitive way.
Architecture is involved with the world, but at the same time it has a certain autonomy. This autonomy cannot be explained in terms of traditional logic because the most interesting parts of the work are non-verbal. They operate within the terms of the work, like any art.
It's too simplistic to advance the notion of the autonomy of art as a reason for turning away from the public. You can have autonomy and simultaneously have connections with the social and political world.
Architecture is a negotiated art, and it's highly political, and if you want to make buildings, there is diplomacy required.
I think a lot of people have the Frank Lloyd Wright model in their brains. The architect comes in with this act of creation and lays it down, and that's it. But that's not me.
I've learned that in order to achieve what I wanted, it made more sense to negotiate than to defend the autonomy of my work by pounding my fist on the table.
We only exist in terms of how we think we exist. Meaning every cultural development is fabricated and can be fabricated.
The aesthetic of architecture has to be rooted in a broader idea about human activities like walking, relaxing and communicating. Architecture thinks about how these activities can be given added value.
But I absolutely believe that architecture is a social activity that has to do with some sort of communication or places of interaction, and that to change the environment is to change behaviour.
No matter what I've done, what I've tried to do, everybody says it can't be done. And it's continuous across the complete spectrum of the various kind of realities that you confront with your ideas.
So we can't go backwards, we can only go where the evolutionary trajectory is taking us and attune our ideas about ourselves and our existence to that course.
I'm interested in conflict and confrontation.
I've grown up a little bit. I understand the importance of the negotiation. It is a collective act.
So I am totally aware that when I defend the autonomy of art I'm going counter to my own development. It's more an instinctive reaction, meant to protect the private aspect of the work, the part I am most interested in and which nowadays is at risk in our culture.
My buildings don't speak in words but by means of their own spaciousness.
I think all good architecture should challenge you, make you start asking questions. You don't have to understand it. You may not like it. That's OK.
Scientific reality is the modern human condition, and you can see that in the symbolic nature of my work.
In architecture, you arrive so late. I look at doctors, lawyers I know, and they're all buying boats and bailing out at 62. My career is just getting started.
Find a place that you are comfortable with. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. Make a lot of mistakes.
