Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I understand this moment very well, because the vast majority of so-
called modern architecture now is really a kind of gimmicky
Modernism, and this creates space for traditionalism to be gimmicky
too. Its like a set of communicating vases, where movement in one
translates directly to movement in the other. I see this less from an
architectural perspective than from a social or anthropological one.
Recent years have seen an extraordinary growth in what I would call
quasi-vernacular, particularly across Europe.
Its at the same time a simple and a complex question. In its most
blatant sense I have a huge sympathy for orthogonal organisations,
and this, at some level, is very visible in the work. But at the same
time there is a counter force, as a result of my early years in
Indonesia. My parents took me to Jakarta when I was eight. I was
transplanted from a ruin to an extremely chaotic tropical city that
was in a state of euphoria because of its recent independence. There
I went to an Indonesian school, spoke Indonesian and behaved more
or less like an Asian child.
Yes, in particular China and Japan are very important countries for
me. Japan, for being the first non-Western country where there was
an architectural avant-garde. My interest in Metabolism is an
interest in how globalisation rearranged architectural areas of
initiative, in the sense that you can no longer claim that the Western
city is the model that fits all. I was interested in how this end of the
Western hegemony was already announced in Japan in the 60s.
In the case of China, I had visited it for the first time in 1995, years
before the CCTV competition in 2002. Working with Harvard
students, I had developed more or less an understanding of what
was going on and where the country was moving. This led me to the
political conviction that all of us have a huge stake in how things
develop in China. It is incredibly stupid for Europe to point fingers
and insist on Europe as the only model of democratic behaviour.
After the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there were a lot of
expectations that the world would turn into a seamless tapestry of
market economy and liberalism, which to me was clearly not going
to happen. On the contrary, what became obvious was that the
market economy would be joined by a very diverse patchwork of
different systems and different degrees of democracy. So essentially
I said yes, not so much to CCTV, but to participation in the
development of China.
I am happy you say that because very few people realise that
emptiness can be deeply historical. So yes, context is very important
in relation to this building. Of course only 60 years ago Rotterdam
was effectively a three-kilometre crater of nothingness in the centre
of the city. This has created a unique situation, where now the
periphery is old and the centre is new.
All of which is to say that the comparison of these two projects is less
a question of being torn between two languages but rather a
consequence of working within two completely different situations
within which projects are generated.
The profession has an investment in the idea that the architect has
superhuman powers. It is totally counterproductive, because it cuts
off any real communication between the architect and the public.
When we put ourselves on a pedestal it makes any engagement with
other aspects of the profession almost impossible. Since I am
interested in communication and I write, I like to understand what
the real issues are, and what the changing conditions are.
In the 60s and 70s the public sector was very strong, but in recent
decades that has given way to various forms of market economy.
This has enormously changed the conditions in which architecture
can be produced. In the first instance, the architect was expected to
do things for the public benefit. Now we are expected to broadcast
the interests of individuals or corporations. So, although we still
maintain the core values and ambitions of what architecture can do,
this change has radically transformed the architects work.
The profession has become entangled with that kind of thinking, but
there is branding and branding. The Anglo-Saxon version of
branding means you try to reduce something to its essence and then
ram that essence down everyones throat. And at a certain time, that
essence becomes a prison and you cannot change anything. But
maybe there are also more subtle forms of branding that are based
on contradiction or unpredictability. Our office has an affinity with
that approach.
http://www.architectural-review.com/comment-and-opinion/batik-biennale-and-the-
death-of-the-skyscraper-interview-with-rem-koolhaas/8659068.article