Archigram je odbacio pojmove tekto-nike, trajnosti i fiksiranih situacija u koristvizija pokretljivosti, fragmentacije arhitek-tonskih sklopova te otvorenog poimanjaarhitekture i u instrumentalnom i u druπtve-nom smislu. Nakon formalnog prestanka ra-da grupe, Colin Fournier nastavio je s razno-likom praktiËnom i pedagoπkom aktivnoπÊubaveÊi se temama od urbanog planiranjavelikog mjerila, preko suradnje s BernardomTschumijem na paradigmatskom Parc de laVilette u Parizu, do recentnog interesa zaprimjenu digitalnih tehnologija u arhitekturi.

Prilikom rada na Kunsthausu Fournierobnavlja suradnju s Cookom, πto je rezulti-ralo inteligentnom i provokativnom zgradomkoja je, unatoË samosvojne pojavnosti i od-jeka radikalizma iz 60-ih godina, istodobnona suptilan naËin i kontekstualna. Kunst-haus nastavlja slijed progresivnih arhitek-tonskih istraæivanja u Grazu, nadovezuje sena æivu scenu vizualne kulture i doprinosiurbanom æivotu Ëetvrti ”s pogreπne stranerijeke”.

Realizacija Kunsthausa, dovrπenog2003. povodom manifestacije ”Graz -

Kulturna prijestolnica Europe” poticajno jesjeciπte niza tendencija suvremene arhitek-ture. S institucionanog i ideoloπkog stano-viπta, Kunsthaus kritiËki propituje ideju tipo-logije muzeja, odnosno prostora za izlaganjei promoviranje vizualnih umjetnosti. Njego-va formalna koncepcija i izvedba proizlaze izprojektne metode koja se oslanja na moguÊ-nosti kompjutorskog trodimenzionalnog mo-deliranja i dio je recentnog pokreta ”bio-morfne” ili blob arhitekture.

Ne Ëudi da su se baπ u sluËaju Kunst-hausa susreli ideoloπki stav i formalni eks-periment, zato πto je ta zgrada rezultat Ëi-njenice da projekt potpisuju Peter Cook iColin Fournier - ”revolucionari” arhitekture,pripadnici utjecajne britanske skupine arhi-tekata Archigram koji su krajem 60-ih ipoËetkom 70-ih godina proπloga stoljeÊanizom nerealiziranih istraæivaËkih projekatai publikacija trajno destabilizirali brojne po-stulate arhitekture.

marojemrduljaπ

πto je muzej umjetnosti?what is an art museum?

razgovor s

colinom fournierom

interview with

colin fournier

46

t

1

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 46

The Kunsthaus building, finished in2003 when Graz became the Cultural

Capital of Europe, is a motivating focus ofseveral tendencies of contemporary archi-tecture. From the institutional and ideologi-cal viewpoint, the Kunsthaus critically exa-mines the idea of museum typology, of thespace for exhibiting and promoting visualarts. Its formal concept and realization re-sulted from a planning method relying onthe possibilities of computer 3D modeling,as part of the recent movement of “biomor-phic” or blob architecture.

It is not surprising that the Kunsthausmerges ideological position and formalexperiment, since the project for the build-ing was made by Peter Cook and ColinFournier - “architectural revolutionaries”,ex-members of Archigram, the influentialBritish group of architects that madenumerous unrealized research projects andpublications in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s,which have permanently unsettled manyarchitectural postulates.

Archigram rejected the concepts of tec-tonics, permanence and fixed situations, re-placing them with visions of mobility, frag-mentation of architectural structures, andan open understanding of architecture, bothinstrumentally and socially. When the groupwas formally disbanded, Colin Fournierwent on with a varied practical and peda-gogic career, dealing with topics from largescale urban planning, through the coopera-tion with Bernard Tschumi on the paradig-matic Parc de la Vilette in Paris, to hisrecent interest in implementing digital tech-nology in architecture.

When working on the Kunsthaus,Fournier renewed cooperation with Cook,which resulted in an intelligent and provo-cative house, which manages to be subtlycontextual despite its unusual appearanceand echoes of the 60s radicalism. TheKunsthaus continues the line of progressivearchitectural research in Graz, thriving onthe lively scene of visual culture and con-tributing to the urban life of the quarter “onthe wrong bank of the river”.

I talked to Fournier in Zagreb and Grazabout the topics touching on the fundamen-tal conceptual issues of architecture, its so-cial role and relevance, focusing on the spa-ces for exhibiting visual art. Fournier is aprofessor at Barlett School of Architecture inLondon.

47

l

l l You have a rich intellectual and pro-fessional background. Can you describeyour formative period?

My whole education and professionalcareer has always been shifting betweenarchitecture and urbanism. Whenever Iworked on a piece of architecture in somedetail, I got frustrated not to be dealing withbigger issues. Fundamentally, I believe itdoesn’t really matter how creative, innova-tive or experimental a single building is, it’sreally the city as a whole that should chan-ge. I have always had this psychologicalswing, so when I am doing architecture, Ithink I should do more on the city scale, butwhen I am working on a city, I feel it wouldreally be nice to work out some details. I’vealways been torn between the two.

My first professional activity after get-ting my diploma was to do the Monte Carlointernational competition project with PeterCook. Archigram was by far the most inter-esting movement in British architecture atthe time. I was very close to them, as wellas to Cedric Price, whom we all admiredenormously and is probably the architect Ihave most admired in my life. We alsoshared a mutual interest in BuckminsterFuller, who had a strong influence onCedric. When I got my diploma at the AA,Peter asked me if I would do a competition

with him. Peter and I, as well as DennisCrompton, did the Monte Carlo competitiontogether, because the other Archigrammembers were not in London at the time.We spent the summer doing Monte Carlo,and we won. So I became the only associ-ate of Archigram Architects. At that time,Archigram had never had a project before,never had a proper client nor a fixed office.Everyone still has the impression thatArchigram must have had a conventionalprofessional base, but it never did: thegroup would meet usually in the Architec-tural Association bar to discuss the nextpublication of the magazine. For the firsttime with the Monte Carlo project, therewas a big client, some real money, so weset up the office in London and worked onthe project for two years, a very playfulscheme. But the project got stopped andwas never built, for reasons which you don’treally need to know - local politics andunderlying mafia interests.

Then Richard Rogers approached meand asked if I would work on Beaubourg,which had just started. Richard and I werefriends, but I declined his offer. As youknow, Beaubourg was probably the mostimportant and radical museum project inthe late ‘60s, but I thought it was anachro-nistic nevertheless. At that point, one was

1. M City. European Cityscapes, 2005.-2006.2. Sol LeWitt: WALL, 2004.

2

I N T E R V I E W

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 47

tupu umjetnosti. Dakle, rekao sam ”ne”zbog ideoloπkih razloga. Nisam vidio svrhu;to je bio dinosaur joπ prije nego πto jeizgraen.

n n ZnaËi, bez obzira na to koliko je arhi-tektura Beaubourga bila radikalna u for-malnom smislu, prevladavala je predodæbao muzeju kao ustanovi. Za vas je to bilonazadno, a ne uËinkovito.

Pogotovo u tom Ëasu, kad smo veÊ po-Ëeli govoriti o novim medijima, koji zapravojoπ nisu postojali, ali govorilo se o πirenjuinformacija putem elektroniËkih medija iprije nego πto je zaæivio internet. Tada su setek uvodili dijapozitivi, projektori i sliËno.Budilo se shvaÊanje da umnoæivi materijalipotiËu razvitak demokracije, o Ëemu se za-pravo i trebalo raditi. Treba imati na umuda je u vrijeme gradnje Beaubourga francu-ska vlada morala iskoristiti, ako se dobrosjeÊam, dvije treÊine proraËuna Ministar-stva kulture da se Beaubourg izgradi i po-krene. SljedeÊih je deset godina Beaubourgsam samcat gutao pedeset posto radnogproraËuna Ministarstva, πto znaËi da su trp-

Zatim mi se obratio Richard Rogers ipitao me æelim li raditi na Beaubourgu kojije tada tek krenuo. Richard mi je bio prija-telj, ali odbio sam njegovu ponudu. Kao πtoznate, Beaubourg je vjerojatno bio najvaæni-ji i najradikalniji muzejski projekt krajemπezdesetih godina 20. stoljeÊa, ali meni jesvejedno izgledao kao anakronizam. Tadase veÊ govorilo o novim medijima, o Ëinjeni-ci da se umjetnost ne mora stavljati u mu-zeje, koliko god njihova arhitektura bilaradikalna. Kulturno sam bio sav u πezdesetosmoj pa nisam vidio svrhe u stvaranjukonvencionalnog muzejskog programa. Nijebilo vaæno koliko Êe zgrada biti moderna usmislu tehniËkih detalja, jer sam smatraoda je u osnovi anakronistiËki stavljati umjet-nost u muzej. Umjetnost mora biti naraspolaganju svima i ne bi je se trebaloveliËati kao ”visoku umjetnost”. Umjetnostse treba dogaati na ulici. Novac se ne bismio troπiti na jednu centraliziranuustanovu, nego bi trebao podupirati i poti-cati mjesne umjetnike i skupine. Bio sammnogo skloniji posve decentraliziranom,nehijerarhijskom, znatno slobodnijem pris-

S Fournierom sam u Zagrebu i Grazurazgovarao o temama koje se tiËu temeljnihkonceptualnih problema arhitekture, njezinedruπtvene uloge i relevantnosti, s naglaskomna prostoru za izlaganje vizualne umjetnos-ti. Fournier je danas profesor na BarlettSchool of Architecture u Londonu.

n n Imate bogatu intelektualnu i profe-sionalnu proπlost. Moæete li opisati vrijemeu kojem ste stasali?

Moje se cijelo obrazovanje i struËnakarijera stalno koleba izmeu arhitekture iurbanizma. Kad god sam detaljnije radio nanekom arhitektonskom projektu, uzrujavaosam se zbog toga πto ne rjeπavam πira pi-tanja. U osnovi smatram da nije tako vaænokoliko je neka odreena zgrada maπtovita,napredna ili eksperimentalna, uzimajuÊi uobzir da bi se zapravo trebao promijeniticijeli grad. Oduvijek imam tu psiholoπkudvojbu, pa kad stvaram arhitekturu, razmiπ-ljam kako bih trebao viπe raditi u gradskimrazmjerima, ali kad radim na nekom gradu,Ëini mi se da bi bilo zgodno razraditi pojedi-nosti. Oduvijek sam tako podvojen.

Moj prvi struËni posao nakon diplomebio je projekt za meunarodni natjeËaj uMonte Carlu zajedno s Peterom Cookom.Archigram je tada bio nesumnjivo najza-nimljiviji pokret u britanskoj arhitekturi. Biosam vrlo blizak tom pokretu, kao i CedricuPriceu, kojem smo se izuzetno divili. To je iinaËe vjerojatno arhitekt kojem se najviπedivim u æivotu. Osim toga, obojicu nas jezanimao Buckminster Fuller, koji je jakoutjecao na Cedrica. Kad sam diplomirao naArchitectural Association Peter me upitaoæelim li s njim raditi na natjeËaju. Peter i ja,ali i Dennis Crompton, zajedno smo izradiliprojekt za natjeËaj u Monte Carlu, prije sve-ga zato πto drugi Ëlanovi Archigrama tadanisu bili u Londonu. Proveli smo ljeto radeÊina Monte Carlu i pobijedili. Tako sampostao jedini vanjski suradnik ArchigramArchitectsa. U to vrijeme Archigram joπ nijeimao nijedan projekt, ni prave klijente nistalni ured. Svi i dalje misle da je Archigramimao Ëvrst temelj, ali nije bilo tako: skupinabi se obiËno sastajala u kavani ArchitecturalAssociationa i raspravljala o sljedeÊem bro-ju Ëasopisa. Projekt za Monte Carlo bio jeprvi s velikim klijentom i znatnom svotom,tako da smo osnovali ured u Londonu i dvi-je godine radili na projektu, na vrlo zaigra-noj shemi. No projekt je zaustavljen i nika-da nije ostvaren. Razlozi nisu za javnost -mjesna politika i zakulisni mafijaπki interesi.

48

3. Sol LeWitt: WALL, 2004. 3

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 48

already talking about new media, about thefact that art did not have to be put in amuseum, no matter how radical the archi-tecture may be. My whole culture was ‘68and I didn’t see the point of doing it, ofworking on a conventional museum pro-gramme. It didn’t matter how modern thebuilding might be in terms of technicaldetails; I felt it was basically an anachro-nistic idea to put art in a museum. Artshould be generally available, it should notbe celebrated as “high art”, it should hap-pen in the street. Money should not be putin one centralized institution, it should besupporting and encouraging local artistsand groups. I was much more in favour of acompletely decentralized, non-hierarchical,much freer artistic approach. So I said nofor ideological reasons. I didn’t see anypoint in it, it was a dinosaur even before itwas built.

l l So no matter how radical the archi-tecture of Beaubourg was in a formal way,the notion of a museum as institution wasprevailing. For you that was regressive, notoperative.

Especially at that point, when we werealready beginning to talk about new media,which didn’t really exist yet, but one was al-ready talking about the idea of sharing info-rmation by using electronic media, beforethe Internet became reality. At that point,one was just beginning to use slides, car-rousel projectors and things like that. Onewas beginning to understand that reprodu-cible material facilitated a democratic free-way, which was really what it should beabout. You must remember that whenBeaubourg was done, the French govern-ment had to use, I think, two thirds of thebudget of the Ministry of Culture to buildBeaubourg and operate it. For ten years af-ter it was built, Beaubourg absorbed on itsown fifty percent of the operational budgetof the Ministry, which meant that everyother museum in France suffered: theycouldn’t build another museum, they coul-dn’t operate anything. It was all spent onone centralized museum in the heart ofParis. It was exactly the opposite of what Ithought was right: it was not only concep-tually a dinosaur, but was also completelyreactionary as an institution. At that point,France was still a highly centralized coun-try, like in the days of Louis XIV. For me,the idea of contributing to that political,hierarchical centralization was completely

absurd. These questions are still valid now,and I think that the idea of museums asinstitutional monuments is really absurd.

l l You refused to work on the competi-tion for Beaubourg. What were the reasonsfor decision to work on the Kunsthaus?

This is a very pertinent question! Butfreedom, as Tristan Tzara once said, is theability to change your mind…

It happened because Peter and I hadvery good memories of working together onthe Monte Carlo project. At that point, wehad a very exciting interchange, becausewe are very different and complementaryand we were keen on doing another compe-tition together.

Since I lived part of the time in Austria,I knew the Austrian scene very well and theprojects being planned. There were threecompetitions for the Kunsthaus. One led toa first prize which was about to be imple-mented, but the city changed hands politi-cally, and the new politicians aborted theproject, as happens so often. So there wasa second competition, which we took partin. The second competition site was insidethe Schlossberg, the mountain - or ratherthe hill - that lies in the centre of Graz. Thehill has a number of tunnels inside: theywanted to connect up the tunnels to makeone big cave, and make the Kunsthausinside this cave. We got some of my beststudents together and we did this competi-tion. In a way, the history of the currentKunsthaus project goes back to that originalscheme: we proposed to line the inside ofthe cave with a smooth double-curvedmembrane material following its complexinternal geometry. Then we took the memb-rane out of the mountain into the city, like amulticoloured tongue (we called the scheme“die Zunge”). We already had some form ofnozzles, like little protuberances on that redtongue coming out of the mountain.

It was very strong project, but wefailed. We didn’t even get a prize at all. Itwas nine or ten years ago, at the peak ofthe somewhat boring Swiss fashion inarchitecture. Funnily enough, the people inGraz who organized the competition wereSwiss fanatics, they absolutely wanted aSwiss architect. Out of the six prizes, fivewere Swiss, including the first prizes, whichwas basically just a shoebox. There was anexhibition where all the competition pro-jects were shown. Peter Weibel, a fantasticman, who at the time was the director of

the Neue Galerie in Graz and was beingconsidered, together with Peter Pakesch, asone of the two possible candidates to beco-me the future director of the Kunsthaus,joined the debate. He wasn’t the only oneto come to the conclusion that there was noway they wanted a shoebox. He publiclydeclared that, if he became the director oneday, he would not want that project. Thenthere was a petition, a procedure which we,coming from England, found surprising butmost interesting, and, Peter Weibel being afriendly fox and a smooth operator, thewhole museum project was stopped for thesecond time.

A year and a half later, the city of Grazdecided to hold a third competition. Thearchitect Professor Volker Giencke, whowas nominated as president of the Jury,asked me if I wanted to be on the jury forthis competition or if I wanted to enter it. Isaid: of course I want to do it! He asked meif I would be doing it with Peter, and I saidyes, since we had done the previous com-petition together. We also discussed whoelse could be encouraged to take part inthis competition: I suggested that of courseone had to contact Zaha Hadid, TomMayne, Coop Himmelblau, etc…all theusual suspects. This is how the third andfinal competition for the Graz Kunsthauscame about.

At the time of judging the entries, thejury panel decided unanimously that therewould be only a first prize and nothing else.That was a very healthy decision, to makesure that our winning scheme would actu-ally be built.

l l What are the differences regardingyour attitude towards museum typologycomparing Beaubourg and the Kunsthaus?Is the Kunsthaus a critical statementagainst the institutionalized notion of anart museum?

Yes, I would say that, philosophically,my position is still the same. I question therelevance of an art museum, fundamentally.But in ‘68, one had incredibly rigid views; ifone had an ideological position, one stuckto it. I suppose I’ve got older and mellower,more ready to look at contradictions andcomplexity.

So I would still say that there is some-thing fundamentally inadequate about theidea of an art institution. But it doesn’tmean that one cannot experiment with it,see what one can do with it. What inte-

49

I N T E R V I E W

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 49

iskuπavati i gledati πto se moæe napraviti snjom. U konkretnom sluËaju Kunsthausazanimalo me to πto nema stalni postav. Bioje vrlo otvoren u smislu moguÊeg koriπtenja.I dalje smatram da se institucija muzejamora stalno iskuπavati i propitivati u pogle-du njezina znaËenja. Uvaæio sam, moædazbog godina i iskustva, klasiËnu predodæbuda je tjelesni dodir predmeta takoer odtemeljne vaænosti i da se moæda ne moæenadomjestiti. Ali mora se dovesti u pitanje iaura originala. Ne moæete surfati na inter-netu, πto danas svakodnevno radimo, nemoæete istraæivati druge naËine prikupljanjainformacija, a onda joπ govoriti o auri origi-nala onako kako se govorilo u 19. stoljeÊu.Naravno, moje poËetno odbacivanje institu-cije muzeja viπe mi nije tako samorazumlji-vo kao πto je bilo u πezdesetim godinama20. stoljeÊa. Svejedno, osnova se mora ne-prestano iskuπavati i stalno se mora pitati”Radim li neπto znaËajno ili ne?”.

Razmiπljali smo o Kunsthausu koji bibio pokusna platforma za nove medije,novo suËelje prema korisnicima, posve novpristup, mnogo radikalniji stav. Smatraosam da bi takvo pomagalo moæda bilo ko-risno. Mislim da je to moja pomirba s pre-dodæbom muzeja.

n n U zadnjih petnaest godina doπlo je dosvjetskog mnoæenja gradnje tipologijemuzeja za koje se ponekad tvrdi da suurbani generatori ili priskrbljuju gradovimai regijama spektakularne arhitektonskeoblike i simbole. Kako gledate na tipologi-ju muzeja i galerija danas? Kako ona moæedoprinijeti suvremenoj kulturi opÊenito?

Pogledajmo πiri kontekst. Istina je dasu se muzeji kao vrsta graevina na nekinaËin preporodili u zadnjih pedeset godinaπirom svijeta. Na tu se pojavu moæe gledaticiniËno: mjesnim politiËarima jako odgo-vara koristiti muzeje kao naËin obnove gra-dova zato πto znaju da se zbog gradnjemuzeja mogu viπe pojavljivati u medijima.Znaju da poticanjem arhitekata da stvoreneobiËne zgrade mogu privuÊi meunarod-nu paænju i eventualnu slavu za grad. Tako-er znaju da je moderni muzej umjetnostirelativno mala investicija kad se usporedi sdrugim kulturnim ustanovama: izgradnjaopere je vrlo skupa ideja, ne samo u pogle-du gradnje nego i funkcioniranja, a tometreba dodati nedostatak da javnost operuobiËno smatra zabavom za elitu. Muzej jevrlo dobar naËin stvaranja kulturne plat-forme koja ne mora biti elitistiËka. Osim

Bilo je to prije desetak godina, na vrhuncupomalo dosadne πvicarske mode u arhitek-turi. Smijeπno, ali ljudi u Grazu koji su orga-nizirali natjeËaj bili su ludi za ©vicarcima;svakako su htjeli πvicarskog arhitekta. Odπest nagrada, pet su dobili ©vicarci, kao iprvu nagradu za projekt koji je u osnovi na-likovao obiËnoj kutiji za cipele. Odræana jeizloæba na kojoj su prikazani svi natjeËajniprojekti. Tada se raspravi pridruæio PeterWeibel, nevjerojatan Ëovjek koji je tada biodirektor Neue Galerie u Grazu i jedan od dvakandidata - drugi je bio Peter Pakesch - zabuduÊeg direktora Kunsthausa. Nije bio je-dini koji je zakljuËio da nipoπto ne æele kuti-ju za cipele. Javno je proglasio da ne bi pri-hvatio taj projekt ako jednog dana postanedirektor. Zatim se pojavila peticija, πto jenas iz Engleske iznenadilo i zaintrigiralo, akako je Peter Weibel bio lukavi lisac, cijelije projekt muzeja zaustavljen po drugi put.

Godinu i pol kasnije Graz je odluËioodræati treÊi natjeËaj. Arhitekt i profesorVolker Giencke, koji je postavljen za pred-sjednika æirija, zapitao me æelim li za tajnatjeËaj biti u æiriju ili meu natjecateljima.Rekao sam: naravno da se æelim natjecati!Pitao me hoÊu li raditi s Peterom, a ja samrekao da hoÊu, zato πto smo zajedno radilina prethodnom natjeËaju. Osim toga, raz-govarali smo o drugim ljudima koje bismomogli potaknuti da sudjeluju u ovom natje-Ëaju: predloæio sam da svakako treba kon-taktirati Zahu Hadida, Toma Maynea, CoopHimmelblau i ostale sve potvrene majs-tore. Tako je doπlo do treÊeg i konaËnognatjeËaja za Kunsthaus u Grazu.

U vrijeme ocjenjivanja radova æiri jejednoglasno odluËio da Êe se dodijeliti sa-mo jedna prva nagrada i niπta drugo. To jebila vrlo razborita odluka kako bi se osigu-ralo da se pobjedniËki rad uistinu izgradi.

n n Po Ëemu se vaπ stav prema tipologijimuzeja razlikuje kad su u pitanju Beau-bourg i Kunsthaus? Je li Kunsthaus kritiËkagesta protiv umjetniËkog muzeja kao insti-tucije?

Da, rekao bih da u filozofskom smislujoπ imam isti stav. Dovodim u pitanje te-meljnu vaænost muzeja umjetnosti. Ipak,stavovi su 1968. bili nevjerojatno kruti: akoste imali ideoloπko glediπte, niste ga mije-njali. Vjerojatno sam smekπao s godinamapa bolje vidim proturjeËja i sloæenost.

Dakle, i danas bih rekao da predodæbao ustanovi za umjetnost u sebi ima nekuosnovnu manu. To ne znaËi da je ne moæete

jeli svi drugi muzeji u Francuskoj: nisu semogli graditi drugi muzeji, nije se moglopokrenuti niπta. Sve se troπilo na jedan cen-tralizirani muzej u srcu Pariza. To je bilosuπta suprotnost onome πto se meni Ëiniloispravno: ne samo da se radilo o koncepcij-skom dinosauru, nego i o posve nazadnja-Ëkoj ustanovi. U tom je Ëasu Francuska joπbila jako centralizirana zemlja, kao u dobaLuja XIV. Za mene je pomisao da doprine-sem takvoj politiËkoj, hijerarhijskoj centrali-zaciji, bila Ëisti apsurd. Ta su pitanja aktual-na i danas, a mislim da je predodæba o mu-zejima kao ustanovama-spomenicima zbiljaapsurdna.

n n Odbili ste raditi na natjeËaju zaBeaubourg. Zbog Ëega ste se odluËili raditina Kunsthausu?

To je vrlo umjesno pitanje! Ali sloboda,prema rijeËima Tristana Tzare, jest sposob-nost da promijenite miπljenje…

Do toga je doπlo zato πto smo Peter i jaimali vrlo lijepe uspomene na zajedniËki radna projektu Monte Carlo. Onda smo imalivrlo uzbudljivu suradnju, zato πto se jakorazlikujemo i dopunjujemo, pa smo jedvaËekali da napravimo joπ jedan natjeËajzajedno.

S obzirom na to da sam dijelom æivio uAustriji, vrlo sam dobro poznavao austrijskuscenu i projekte koji se spremaju. Za Kunst-haus su napravljena tri natjeËaja. Na prvo-me je dodijeljena prva nagrada koju je tre-balo izvesti, ali grad je potpao pod novopolitiËko vodstvo, a novi su politiËari odus-tali od projekta, kao πto se Ëesto dogaa.Zatim je odræan drugi natjeËaj u kojem smosudjelovali i mi. Lokacija drugog natjeËajabila je unutar Schlossberga, one planine -toËnije, brda - koja stoji u srediπtu Graza.Brdo u sebi ima viπe tunela: zamisao je bilapovezati tunele i stvoriti jednu veliku spiljuunutar koje bi bio Kunsthaus. Okupili smoneke od mojih najboljih studenata i izradilinatjeËajni rad. Na odreeni naËin, sadaπnjiprojekt Kunsthausa vuËe porijeklo iz oneizvorne sheme: predloæili smo da se unu-traπnjost spilje obloæi glatkim, dvostrukozakrivljenim opnastim materijalom koji bislijedio njezinu sloæenu unutarnju geometri-ju. Zatim smo izvukli opnu iz planine u gradkao raznobojni jezik (shemu smo nazvalidie Zunge). VeÊ smo imali neku vrstu igle,malih kvrga na tom crvenom jeziku kojiizlazi iz planine.

Projekt je bio vrlo ”jak”, ali nismo us-pjeli. »ak nismo dobili nijednu nagradu.

50

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 50

l l During the last fifteen years, we havebeen witnessing a worldwide proliferationof museum building typologies, which aresometimes considered to be urban genera-tors or to provide cities or regions withspectacular architectural forms. How doyou see the typology of museums and gal-leries of today, and how can it contributeto contemporary culture in general?

Well, let’s go to the broader context.Yes, museums as a building type have beenthrough a sort of renaissance in the last fiftyyears, all around the world. There is a cyn-ical way of looking at this phenomenon:local politicians find it very convenient touse museums as a way to regenerate citiesbecause they know they can get a lot ofmedia coverage by doing a museum. Theyknow that if they encourage architects toproduce buildings that are out of the ordi-nary, they can bring a lot of internationalattention and potential fame to the city.They also know that a modern art museumis a relatively low investment compared toother cultural institutions: the constructionof an opera house is a very expensive pro-position, not just to build, but also to run,with the added disadvantage that it is usu-ally perceived by the general public asbeing elitist. A museum is a very good way

of providing a cultural platform that doesnot have to be elitist. It’s also not a bad wayto give presence to a city architecturally,with public money. Of all our big-scalearchitectural investments, now that wehave lost the cathedrals, the railway sta-tions, the major public buildings, what’sleft? The art museum is one of the fewthings left.

It has been used in France, in Englandand elsewhere as a way of provoking socialand economic change in a city. Sometimesit has been successful in generating a newlease of life. In Bilbao, the effect has beenconsiderable, while in some cases it hasnot. Time will tell if projects of this kindwere actually able to achieve major urbantransformations. There are both positiveand negative aspects. The negative side isthat such developments have always result-ed in a gentrification of the area where themuseum has been implanted: propertyprices go up, the socio-economic contextchanges, the activities that were around themuseum before construction are displaced.In a way, it is a weapon used by the city inorder to “improve” its image, but there’s aprice to be paid, and it is politically quiteawkward to be caught in this situation. Butsuch is the reality of these transformations.I still think the overall effect is beneficial,because the infrastructure that’s injectedinto the city in order to make the museumpossible does benefit the city as a whole.Even if a red light district gets moved, as ishappening here in Graz, and has happenedin Paris around Beaubourg, it’s a relativelysmall negative effect.

l l Museum typology is an introvert one.It’s always a question of how it really con-tributes to the local area. Is it possible toimagine a museum as a more open type?Should we think more about the possibili-ty of creating public spaces which are notclosed as a kind of fortress of art, butsomething which is open and which inte-grates civic life with the life of the art?

Well, that’s a very interesting point,especially at the time when art itself isbeing redefined. You find art events whichare much less elitist and much more inte-grated with daily life. At that moment, youwould expect the art institutions to alsochange their character, otherwise there’s anincredible discrepancy between the two.We’re hoping that both the curatorial con-tent of the Kunsthaus and the design phi-

51

I N T E R V I E W

rested me in the particular case of theKunsthaus is that it doesn’t have a perma-nent collection. It was very open in terms ofhow it could be used. I still believe that theinstitution of a museum has to be continu-ously challenged and questioned as to whatit means. Maybe through age and experi-ence, I’ve come to recognize the classicalidea that physical contact with the object isalso essential and maybe cannot bereplaced. But one also has to dispute theaura of the original. You can’t be surfing onthe net, the way we do every day, you can’tbe exploring other ways of getting informa-tion, and still talk about the aura of theoriginal in the way one did in the 19th cen-tury. Clearly, my initial rejection of themuseum institution is a proposition whichis not so obvious to me now as it was in thesixties. But still, one has to constantly chal-lenge the brief, constantly think “am I doingsomething relevant here or not?”

We were thinking about a Kunsthauswhich would be an experimental platformfor new media, a new interface to users, acompletely new approach, a much moreradical position. I felt that maybe that kindof instrument would be useful. I think thatreconciles me with the idea of the museum.

4. CHIKAKU: Time and memory in Japan, 2004.4

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 51

toga, to nije loπ naËin da javnim novcemgrad dobije arhitektonski znaËaj. ©to jeostalo od svih naπih velikih arhitektonskihinvesticija, nakon πto smo izgubili kate-drale, æeljezniËke kolodvore i velike javnezgrade? UmjetniËki muzej je jedna od rijet-kih preostalih stvari.

U Francuskoj, Engleskoj i drugim zem-ljama muzej se koristi kako bi izazvaodruπtvene i gospodarske promjene u gradu.Ponegdje je uspjeπno stvorio nove moguÊ-nosti. U Bilbaou je imao znatan uËinak, dokdrugdje nije. Vrijeme Êe pokazati jesu liovakvi projekti uistinu uspjeli donijeti vaæneurbane promjene. Ima i pozitivnih i negativ-nih aspekata. Negativna je strana da takviprojekti uvijek daju veÊi prestiæ podruËju nakojem je muzej smjeπten: cijene nekretninarastu, mijenja se druπtveno-ekonomski kon-tekst, odlaze djelatnosti koje su postojaleoko muzeja prije izgradnje. To je odreenooruæje koje grad koristi da ”popravi” svojimidæ, ali treba platiti cijenu, a politiËki jepriliËno nezgodno naÊi se u takvom poloæa-ju. Ipak, to je Ëinjenica u vezi s takvim pre-obrazbama. I dalje mislim da je ukupanuËinak dobar, zato πto infrastruktura koja seusauje u grad kako bi se omoguÊio muzejdoista donosi korist cijelom gradu. »ak iako se preseli ”kvart poroka”, kao πto sedogaa ovdje u Grazu, a veÊ se dogodilo uParizu oko Beaubourga, to je relativno malanegativna posljedica.

n n Tipologija muzeja je introvertna. Uvi-jek se postavlja pitanje koliko on uistinudoprinosi okolici. Moæe li se zamisliti mu-zej otvorenijeg tipa? Trebamo li viπe misli-ti o moguÊnosti stvaranja javnih prostorakoji nisu zatvoreni kao nekakve tvraveumjetnosti, nego su otvoreni i spajaju gra-anski æivot sa æivotom umjetnosti?

Pa to je vrlo zanimljivo pitanje, pogoto-vo u vrijeme kad se i sama umjetnost rede-finira. Moæe se naÊi umjetniËkih dogaajakoji su u znatno manjoj mjeri okrenuti eliti au znatno veÊoj ukljuËeni u svakodnevnicu. Utakvom bi se trenutku oËekivalo da i umjet-niËke ustanove promijene svoju narav, inaËeÊe doÊi do velikog rascjepa izmeu togadvoga. Nadamo se da i kustosi Kunsthausai filozofija oblikovanja zgrade idu u tomsmjeru. Izmeu ostaloga zbog toga je zgra-da takva kakva jest: nismo htjeli ozbiljnuzgradu, nego zgradu koja je zaigrana iuzbudljiva, koja Êe zabaviti odrasle, djecu isvakoga. Nije umiπljena, nego se namjernosuprotstavlja umiπljenosti ustanova.

52

5. M City. European Cityscapes, 2005.-2006. 5

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 52

losophy of the building are going in thatdirection. That’s also why the building isthe way it is; we didn’t want a seriousbuilding, rather a building which is playfuland fun, that people, children and every-body would be amused by. It’s not preten-tious, it’s deliberately playing against insti-tutional pretentiousness.

l l It’s also ambitious and experimentalin its own way. Contemporary art is notonly about painting and sculpture, it con-sists of mixed media, of processes, perfor-mances, concepts... How is it possible toimagine all these different situations whenwe think about the spaces of the muse-ums? It’s counterproductive, even impossi-ble to predict what artists are going to do.

It is indeed a very contradictory situa-tion to have to plan something that youdon’t know. The Kunsthaus was alwaysthought of as a platform which would lenditself to different interpretations, differentthoughts about art work etc… We did notdesign this project with any particular typeof art in mind, neither classical paintings inframes nor installation art, nor any otherparticular art form. Despite its iconic image,the building was designed to be flexiblearchitecturally: the intention for the insidewas just to provide a platform, a well ser-viced deck: every 2.5 meters we have out-lets for air, for power, for computer data; soyou can plug into every node; there areactually outlets for electronic data. You canuse this platform in many different waysand should be able to reconfigure it freely.

Have we designed it in a way that willmake certain kinds of art form in futureimpossible? I don’t really know yet. You cansee that quite a wide range of imaginativelydifferent things have already been done byPeter Pakesch and his team. I’m still wait-ing for a big choreographic piece to bedone, where this space would not be usedfor hanging works, but for a dance or amusical performance. Nothing stops usfrom caring about space and actually havinga performance of a different order, an artis-tic presence of a different kind. There wasalso the novel idea of using the façade: thebuilding has a programmable façade, con-ceived by the Berlin based firm “Realities:United” which can display information,film, images etc… on a completely openbasis. With about 900 pixels, it is a low-res,deliberately low-tech concept with a user-friendly programming interface. The inten-

tion here again is not to dictate what thefaçade looks like or is used for. An artistshould be able to start using the façade in adifferent way, doing something else with it.

l l The Kunsthaus has a strong pres-ence, both the interior and the exterior butit offers flexible exhibition spaces. Is awhite cube or white box also flexible with-in its neutrality?

I think there’s no objective way of say-ing that one is better than the other. Thewhite box offers a lot of flexibility in thesense that it is spatially neutral, isotropic.This kind of biomorphic building, on theother hand, is, a priori, more constraining,but in fact, if you make a space that’s bigenough, then it offers the same kind of flex-ibility. I don’t think there’s any way of real-ly deciding between the two, except thatthe white box has become such a universaltypology that it can be frustrating and notsufficiently challenging. With the Kunst-haus, we have had a lot of interesting res-ponses from artists and curators who say:finally we’re dealing with a space which isactually engaging us and making usrespond to it, while a neutral background isindifferent and could be anywhere.

l l Does it mean that artists and curatorsoften enter the exhibition space without adefinitive idea? Just after entering thespace, they decide how to set up theirexhibition or installation.

I’m very interested in such specificinstallations. Obviously, this is somethingthat many artists have immediately respon-ded to. One of the best examples is SolLeWitt. When he came here, he immediate-ly said that he wanted to do something withthe building, that he wanted to start a dia-log and make a piece that would provoke aconversation between his piece and thespace. He produced a curving wall on thetop floor of the space. The curve of that wallwas not following the curve of the building;it had a different geometry. He establishedan extraordinary tension between the two.

There are a number of artists who havealso responded in a way that offers thebuilding unique opportunities to be a keypart of the concept, and offers them theopportunity to do something site specific.The Kunsthaus is different from the stan-dard white box, but also from Frank Gehry’sBilbao, because there the geometry isalways present. The Kunsthaus is a design

statement that we wanted to make quiteambiguous, saying: well, it is highly iconicand highly specific as a geometry, but theinfrastructure is designed in a flexible way.This raises the key question: is that flexibil-ity sufficient to make each installationinside very different or, on the other hand,is it still imposing too many constraints?This building was not intended to give justone big surprise to the city, but a series ofsurprises on the occasion of each show,every three or six months, as a result of thecurators giving it a completely differentinterpretation.

l l The Kunsthaus in Graz also raises thequestion of the relationship between thecenter and the periphery. Graz was con-sidered to be at the edge, at the border. Doyou think that the strong iconic presenceand cultural significance of the events thatbuilding houses contributed to a new iden-tity for the city?

It is one of the pleasures of architec-ture that it can help to establish an identityfor a city and sometimes has quite signifi-cant repercussions for the whole culturallife, not just the architectural scene, butculture in general. This is why it was a verygood thing that this building coincided withthe “European cultural capital of the year”phenomenon in Graz: it wasn’t an isolatedarchitectural experiment, but somethingthat was part of a whole series of newbuildings and events.

I think it’s very appropriate for themuseum to be symbolically perceived as ahinge between eastern and western Europe,as a way of bringing together two parts ofthe world, one of which was up to now rel-atively unknown to me (I have to admit myown cultural limitations!). I would love,both symbolically and actually, for theKunsthaus to start playing that role of cul-tural mediator, by virtue of the fact that ithas an international flavour. The interestingthing about Austria, and about this particu-lar part of Austria, is its open boundaries,the fact that there is no longer an edge.

To take the example of Zagreb, the factthat you are going to have a Museum ofcontemporary art is a symptom of the factthat the former frontier is continuouslybeing pushed and opened up. The fact thatthere will be another significant pole ofartistic activity nearby and that its pro-gramme and architecture are very differentfrom ours is great!

I N T E R V I E W

53

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 53

n n Kunsthaus u Grazu izaziva joπ jednopitanje, a to je pitanje o odnosu izmeusrediπta i periferije. Graz se smatrao rub-nim, graniËnim mjestom. Smatrate li da jejaka ikoniËna prisutnost zgrade i kulturnavaænost dogaaja smjeπtenih u njoj dopri-nijela novom identitetu grada?

Jedan je od uæitaka arhitekture to πtomoæe pomoÊi da se uspostavi gradski iden-titet i ponekad ima znatne posljedice zacijeli kulturni æivot - ne samo za arhitekton-sku scenu, nego za kulturu opÊenito. Zatoje bilo jako dobro πto se ta zgrada poklopi-la s proglaπenjem Graza ”Kulturnom prijes-tolnicom Europe” te godine: to nije bio iz-dvojen arhitektonski pokus, nego dio cijelogniza novih zgrada i dogaaja.

Mislim da je vrlo prikladno za muzej dase simboliËki sagledava kao poveznica iz-meu IstoËne i Zapadne Europe, kao naËinzbliæavanja dva dijela svijeta od kojih mi jejedan dosada bio relativno nepoznat(moram priznati vlastita kulturna ograniËe-nja!). Volio bih, i simboliËki i konkretno, daKunsthaus poËne igrati takvu ulogu kultur-nog posrednika, i to zbog njegova meuna-rodnog ugoaja. Ono πto je zanimljivo kodAustrije, pogotovo kod ovog dijela Austrije,jesu otvorene granice i Ëinjenica da viπenema ruba.

Ako uzmemo Zagreb kao primjer, toπto Êete imati Muzej suvremene umjetnostipokazuje da se nekadaπnja granica stalnopomiËe i otvara. »injenica da Êe u blizinibiti drugo znaËajno æariπte umjetniËke dje-latnosti, s programom i arhitekturom koji sejako razlikuju od naπih, velika je stvar!

n n Zgrada u Zagrebu namijenjena je stal-nom postavu. Nakratko ste je posjetili. Ide-ja prelaska na drugu obalu rijeke sliËna jeGrazu, ali u Zagrebu su udaljenosti mnogoveÊe, a modernistiËki CIAM-ovski dio gradakao kontekst se razlikuje od okoliπa Kunst-hausa u Grazu.

Na neki je naËin i ta zgrada izvanze-maljac. Okolina u koju je smjeπtena zapra-vo je izvidnica. Sama je zgrada presaenanekamo daleko. U tom smislu preuzima ve-Êi rizik nego zgrada Kunsthausa, ne izravnokroz svoju arhitekturu, nego zbog urbanis-tiËkih odluka koje su donesene. Istina,Kunsthaus je na krivoj obali rijeke, ali sve-jedno ostaje vrlo blizu povijesnom srediπtu.To nije tako straπno. U vaπem je sluËaju,kad se radi ovako kako vi radite, viπe togana kocki. OËekujem da Êe taj muzej takoerpromijeniti grad i da Êe se zbog toga poËeti

kocka ili bijela kutija takoer prilagodljivau svojoj neutralnosti?

Mislim da se ne moæe objektivno reÊikako je neπto od toga bolje. Bijela kutija jejako prilagodljiva u smislu toga da je pros-torno neutralna, izotropna. S druge strane,ta vrsta biomorfne zgrade sama po sebi viπeograniËava, ali zapravo ako napravite do-voljno velik prostor, imat Êete istu vrstu pri-lagodljivosti. Smatram da nema naËina dase uistinu odluËite izmeu toga dvoga, osimπto je bijela kutija postala tako sveopÊatipologija da moæe biti naporna i nedovoljnoizazovna. U sluËaju Kunsthausa dobili smomnogo zanimljivih reakcija umjetnika i kus-tosa koji kaæu: napokon radimo u prostorukoji nam se obraÊa i navodi nas da reagi-ramo, dok je neutralna pozadina bezliËna imoæe biti bilo gdje.

n n ZnaËi li to da umjetnici i kustosi Ëestoulaze u izloæbeni prostor bez konaËne pre-dodæbe? Tek nakon ulaska u prostorodluËuju kako Êe postaviti svoju izloæbu iliinstalaciju.

Jako me zanimaju takve specifiËne in-stalacije. To je oËito neπto na πto su mnogiumjetnici odmah reagirali. Jedan od najbo-ljih primjera je Sol LeWitt. Kad je doπaoovamo, odmah je rekao da æeli neπto uËinitisa zgradom, da æeli zapoËeti dijalog i izvestidjelo koje Êe potaknuti razgovor izmeu um-jetnine i prostora. Izradio je zakrivljeni zidna najviπem katu prostora. Krivulja zida nijepratila krivulju zgrade, nego je bila geo-metrijski razliËita od nje. Autor je uspostavioiznimnu napetost izmeu tih dviju krivulja.

Viπe je umjetnika takoer reagiralo nanaËin koji zgradi daje jedinstvenu prigoduda bude kljuËni dio koncepta, a njima nudipriliku da uËine neπto prikladno mjestu.Kunsthaus se razlikuje od standardne bijelekutije, ali i od Bilbaoa Franka Gehryja, potome πto je tamo geometrija sveprisutna.Kunsthaus je projektantska gesta koju smohtjeli uËiniti priliËno dvoznaËnom i reÊi: eto,vrlo je slikovita i krajnje originalna u smislugeometrije, ali infrastruktura je projektiranana fleksibilan naËin. Zato se javlja presud-no pitanje: je li ta fleksibilnost dovoljna dase svaka instalacija unutra jako razlikuje ili,s druge strane, nameÊe previπe ograniËe-nja? Ta zgrada nije trebala samo jedanputjako iznenaditi grad, nego je trebala iznena-ivati svaki put kad doe nova postava,svakih tri ili πest mjeseci, zato πto je kustosiposve drugaËije tumaËe.

n n Uz to je joπ i ambiciozna i eksperi-mentalna na svoj naËin. Suvremena um-jetnost ne sastoji se samo od slika i skulp-tura, nego i od mijeπanih medija, procesa,performansa, koncepata... Kako se moguzamisliti sve te razliËite situacije kad gov-orimo o muzejskim prostorima? Nije koris-no, pa Ëak ni moguÊe, predviati πto Êeumjetnici napraviti.

Doista je vrlo proturjeËno kad morateplanirati neπto πto ne znate. Kunsthaus seuvijek smatrao platformom koja bi omogu-Êila razna tumaËenja, razne misli o umjet-niËkim djelima itd. Osmislili smo ovaj pro-jekt ne misleÊi ni na koju konkretnu vrstuumjetnosti - ni na klasiËne uokvirene slike,ni na instalacije, kao ni na bilo koji drugiodreeni oblik umjetnosti. UnatoË prepoz-natljivu izgledu zgrada je projektirana takoda bude arhitektonski prilagodljiva: unu-traπnjost je trebala samo pruæiti platformu,dobro opremljen prostor: svaka 2,5 metraimamo izlaze za ventilaciju, struju, kompju-torske podatke, tako da se moæete ukljuËitiu sve mreæe zato πto postoje izlazi za elek-tronske podatke. Ta se platforma moæe ko-ristiti na mnogo razliËitih naËina i trebala bise slobodno preureivati.

Jesmo li je osmislili na naËin koji ÊeonemoguÊiti neke umjetniËke vrste buduÊ-nosti? Zapravo joπ ne znam. Moæete vidjetida su Peter Pakesch i njegova ekipa veÊnapravili maπtovite i raznovrsne stvari uvrlo πirokom rasponu. Joπ Ëekam da seizvede veliki koreografski komad, gdje seovaj prostor ne bi koristio za vjeπanje slika,nego za plesnu ili glazbenu izvedbu. Niπtanam ne brani da se brinemo za prostor iistovremeno ugostimo izvedbu na drugojrazini, da prihvatimo umjetniËku nazoËnostdruge vrste. Javila se i originalna ideja zakoriπtenje fasade: zgrada ima fasadu kojase moæe programirati, a osmislila ju je ber-linska tvrtka Realities: United. Fasada mo-æe prikazivati informacije, filmove, slike iostale sadræaje na posve otvorenoj osnovi.S oko 900 piksela, to je koncept male re-zolucije i namjerno jednostavne tehnologi-je, s programskim suËeljem koje je prila-goeno nestruËnjaku. Ni ovdje se ne æelidiktirati izgled ni koriπtenje fasade. Umjet-nik mora imati moguÊnost da poËne koris-titi fasadu na drugi naËin, da od nje na-pravi neπto drugo.

n n Kunsthaus izgleda dojmljivo, kako iz-nutra tako i izvana, ali osim toga nudi i pri-lagodljive izloæbene prostore. Je li bijela

54

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 54

l l The building in Zagreb is meant for apermanent setting. You briefly visited it.The idea of going to the other side of theriver is similar to Graz, but in Zagreb dis-tances are much bigger and the modernist,CIAM part of the city forms a different con-text to the setting of the Kunsthaus inGraz.

In a sense, that building is an alien aswell. The environment in which it is locat-ed is really an outpost. The building itself isa transplant into somewhere way out there.In that sense, it’s taking more risks than theKunsthaus building, not directly through itsarchitecture, but by virtue of the urbandecisions that were made. The Kunsthausmay be on the wrong side of the river, butit still remains really close to the historiccentre. It’s not such a big deal. In your caseit’s more of a gamble, to do what is beingdone. I expect that it will also have a trans-formative effect on the city and that thingswill start happening as a result. That build-ing is a major investment, a major pres-ence. How long it will take for urbanchange to occur and what form it will takeis still much less predictable than here inGraz.

l l The fact is that Novi Zagreb lackspublic programs. It’s not easy to imagine ascenario, a strategy, of how this building

could really contribute to Novi Zagreb. It’slegitimate to think that the museum insuch an environment could be combinedwith complementary or hybrid programs.

You need something to draw peopleinto the building. You really need somethingelse, whether a commercial activity orsports or other kinds of cultural activities, Idon’t know. But I agree that, given the con-text, it is unlikely to be successful untilother things start connecting to it and cre-ating more than just this element. Also,because you don’t have an urban tissue,you don’t have a very dense, compact net-work of streets like here. It doesn’t helppublic life.

l l The Kunsthaus couldn’t be done orexecuted without sophisticated 3D model-ing technologies. Do you think that usingthese techniques today is obligatory?

No, I think it’s still a question ofchoice. The fun of it is that you don’t haveto, you do it because it’s actually offering anew paradigm, a series of new ways ofdesigning. There’s no doubt it will becomemore and more dominant, but more forintellectual reasons, for the fact that itallows you to work differently.

The incredible thing that we discov-ered in doing this project was that thewhole tradition of architecture in terms of

drawing plans and elevations and sectionsand all the usual representational tech-niques of architecture has become mean-ingless, because you can’t draw this type ofbuilding with plans and elevations and sec-tions. You try, but you fail, because youwould have to cut sections every ten cen-timeters, say, in order to describe thegeometry precisely, which becomes impos-sible. Gradually, drawings become less andless important, and the design work isessentially the creation of a data set of vir-tual points in the computer. This was quitea discovery for us. You don’t technicallyneed to produce conventional plans anymore because the manufacturers andbuilders can take information directly andmore precisely from the computers.

There is a major revolution takingplace in the way in which architects willfunction in the future. The old trades, theold traditions of working - it’s not that theyare becoming irrelevant, but they are notsuitable to describe and construct this kindof building. For me - and I’m now 61 yearsold - it’s a discovery that you have tochange your way of thinking. Yes, it’s still achoice now, but will soon become a neces-sity. It will have lots of advantages too,because once the construction industrybecomes heavily computerized, it can havea major effect on the speed of designing

55

I N T E R V I E W

6. Michel Majerus,Installations, 92-02,2005.

6

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 55

n n Kunsthaus se nije mogao projektiratini ostvariti bez sofisticiranih tehnologijatrodimenzionalnog modeliranja. Mislite lida se danas takve tehnike moraju obavez-no koristiti?

Ne, mislim da je to i dalje pitanje izbo-ra. Zabavno je to πto ih ne morate koristiti.Uzimate ih zato πto zapravo nude novu pa-radigmu i niz novih naËina projektiranja.Nema sumnje da Êe one sve viπe prevlada-vati, ali viπe zbog intelektualnih razloga,zbog Ëinjenice da vam omoguÊuju raditidrukËije.

RadeÊi taj projekt, otkrili smo neπtonevjerojatno: cijela arhitektonska tradicija,u smislu crtanja tlocrta, pogleda i presjeka,kao i svih uobiËajenih tehnika predstavlja-nja arhitekture, postaje besmislena, zatoπto ne moæete nacrtati tu vrstu zgrade po-moÊu tlocrta, pogleda i presjeka. Pokuπa-vate, ali ne uspijevate, zato πto biste moraliraditi presjeke svakih deset centimetara,recimo, kako biste precizno opisali geome-triju, πto postaje nemoguÊe. Crtanje postup-no gubi na vaænosti, a projektiranje se svodina stvaranje skupa podataka o virtualnimtoËkama u kompjutoru. Nama je to bilo pra-vo otkriÊe. TehniËki viπe ne morate izrai-vati konvencionalne planove zato πto proiz-voaËi i graevinari mogu uzimati informa-cije izravno i preciznije iz kompjutora.

Dolazi do velike revolucije u naËinufunkcioniranja arhitekata u buduÊnosti.Stari zanati, stari radni obiËaji ne postajunevaæni, ali nisu prikladni za opisivanje iizgradnju ovakve zgrade. Ja, koji imam 61godinu, otkrivam da moram promijeniti na-Ëin razmiπljanja. Da, danas je to joπ pitanjeodluke, ali uskoro Êe postati nuænost. ImatÊe i mnogo prednosti, jer kad se graevin-ska industrija jako kompjutorizira, moæeznatno utjecati na brzinu projektiranja itroπkove izgradnje. Cijela graevinska bran-πa je vrlo konzervativna i zarauje kroz ne-djelotvornost, sporost, tromost.

Kad se to dovede u pitanje, nadam seda Êe arhitektura biti sposobnija rjeπavatidruπtvene potrebe po razumnoj cijeni, um-jesto da se svodi na nepoπtene profite. Fazakroz koju upravo prolazimo je estetska revo-lucija, a mogla bi biti i revolucija u naËinuizrade. Softver i konceptualno promiπljanjepostali su vaæniji od materijala koje koristi-te. PomoÊu kompjutorskog softvera moæeteodrediti najbolje iskoriπtenje cigala i æbuke,kao i svih drugih materijala.

Treba vam neπto da privuËete ljude uzgradu. Zapravo vam treba neπto drugo -moæda neka trgovaËka djelatnost, sport ilidruge vrste kulturnog djelovanja, ne znam.Ali slaæem se da Êe zgrada s obzirom nakontekst teπko biti uspjeπna sve dok se dru-ge stvari ne poËnu vezivati uz nju i stvarativiπe od jednog elementa. Osim toga, kakonemate urbano tkivo, nedostaje vam vrlogusta, kompaktna mreæa ulica kao ovdje.To ne pomaæe javnom æivotu.

dogaati neke stvari. Ta je zgrada velika in-vesticija, velika pojava. Koliko Êe trajati dokne doe do urbane promjene i kako Êe tapromjena izgledati, joπ je teæe predvidjetinego ovdje u Grazu.

n n »injenica je da Novi Zagreb nemajavnih programa. Nije lako zamisliti scena-rij, strategiju stvarnog doprinosa te zgradeNovom Zagrebu. Opravdano je misliti da bise muzej u takvom okoliπu mogao poveza-ti s komplementarnim ili hibridnim progra-mima.

56

7. M City. European Cityscapes, 2005.-2006.7

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 56

and on construction cost. The whole build-ing industry establishment is a very conser-vative one, and one that makes its moneyby being inefficient, slow, heavy.

Once this is challenged, I hope thatarchitecture will become more capable ofanswering social needs at a reasonablecost, instead of being basically a profiteer-ing racket. The phase we are going throughnow is not just an aesthetic revolution, itcould also be a revolution in how things getdone. The important thing is software andconceptual thinking, not so much whatmaterials you are using. You can use com-puter software in order to optimize the useof bricks and mortar just as much as anyother material.

l l It could also be related to the factthat architects are thinking less about theabstract function and more about theevents that take place in spaces. Archi-tecture becomes the outcome of differentsets of vectors and diagrams. This couldalso be done within rather simple forms.

I think the advantage of these organicforms is primarily one of attracting attentionto the fact that design can be conceived inmany different ways. The end result doesnot have to be organic. You can have ahighly intelligent building that is a conven-tional Euclidean space, but radical in itsfunctions, in the speed with which it is con-structed or whatever. It would be reallywrong to think that architecture should shifttowards a particular type of form. As youwere saying yourself about architecture, theconceptual approach counts more than thespecific form it takes. I think that the con-cept is changing, the concept of how youdesign, how long it takes to design and howit gets built from that design. These chan-ges will have a broader impact than justone particular form; they’ll have an impacton the profession as a whole.

l l Still, there is another thing which Iwould like to stress in the Kunsthaus: theattempt to deconstruct the internal hierar-chy and spatial typology.

Indeed, the circulation system, forinstance, is not immediately obvious inrelation to the form. The way in which spa-ce is structured is actually more of a grid,an isotropic type of space, rather than aspecific form. The space in which we aresitting, the so-called Needle, is straight, lin-ear, deliberately in opposition to the rest.

l l How do you perceive the term of socialattractor or social condenser in relation tothis building? Can you imagine some newhybrids in architecture which could be con-temporary social generators?

Indeed, it is what this building is tryingto do, to some extent. The incredible vitalityin the early years of the Soviet revolution,when you had these ideas of social con-densers, of the “agitprop” trains and allthose stimulating, provocative design activi-ties, is something that in a way this buildingtries to relate to, in the sense that the muse-um is speaking to the city and engaging adialog, a bit like agitprop trains used to dowith their speakers and projections ofmovies. In a very different way, this build-ing, by wanting to display outside projec-tions, was also meant to be an instrument oran organ that provokes communication anddebate. The question is to what extent archi-tecture and the decisions of the architectcan have this kind of influence. It dependsso much on the way in which the building isused or has been interpreted. But it has allthe tools to become a social condenser, inthe sense that the project is calling for atten-tion, is accessible to the public in a friendly,relaxed, gregarious way, and that it has live-ly means of communication at its disposal.

l l What are the programs or architec-tural tools that could engage stimulating orunpredictable social and public potentialsof space?

This question is outside of my control.By making, for instance, the ground floor ina way that does not make the institutionintimidating as an elitist museum space,we were keen on its being used creativelyand in a way diverted from its use, if nec-essary. What I like about this space as it isnow is that it is used as a discotheque twonights a week: they take over the buildingand transgress its original intention. Thathas been a very important and unpredic-table byproduct of this space. It is also useda lot for meetings, debates, film societies,people who can rent the space to do whatthey want with it.

But for the museum space itself, weare dependent on the intentions of the cura-tors, their desire to redefine their ownboundaries, their own definitions of whatart is or what its social potential might be.Most of the exhibitions have been fairly rea-sonable until now, but I can see the signsof something else happening: I understand

that Peter Pakesch and Adam Budak arecurrently thinking of an art show withoutany conventional manifestations of “art”, anart show which is more about the behaviourof the public, the reaction of the public, afeeling that the public is not here just topassively observe a painting on a wall, butthat the event is the result of the publicusing the building. They are putting togeth-er some ideas for the next “SteirischeHerbst”, whereby the Kunsthaus will be aplace where the movement and reactions ofthe public will be the event itself. There willbe questions of why they are here, what ishappening, they are being manipulated orencouraged to use the building in a waythat is less passive.

These are things that architects shouldnot attempt to predict, because any delib-erate intention to create a social condenserof any kind can be dangerous when it be-comes a program, the conscious intentionof one person. It would actually be a con-tradiction if it were the intention of one per-son. It’s important to create the possibilityfor the building to be subverted and used byothers, but it’s very important not to dictatewhat this social condenser should be.

This building has no fixed ideologicalagenda, it only has a relatively playful anddynamic way of responding to the brief fora museum. It gives the chance of beingused or misused. The fact that this buildingdoesn’t immediately proclaim “I’m an artbuilding” is encouraging in the sense that abuilding does not have to be of a particulartypology in order to facilitate a particularfunction.

l l It’s an extremely ambivalent situa-tion.

Yes, and I think it should be. The wordswe’ve been using in our conversation - thehybrid nature, the polymorphous nature ofthe building - It’s very important that thetypology should not be clearly identifiable asa particular thing. It’s very, very important.

l l It’s so hard for architects to under-stand what this openness really meanswhen they have to operate with and with-in tectonic elements. Architecture is ine-vitably involved with the boundaries;walls, floors, ceilings, enclosures... Butconsequences of architecture are emergingform the concept, from thinking aboutcomplex situations that this elementsconditioned by gravity are sheltering.

57

I N T E R V I E W

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 57

Dosad je veÊina izloæaba bila manje-viπeumjerena, ali vidim naznake da se dogaaneπto drugo: koliko znam, Peter Pakesch iAdam Budak trenutaËno smiπljaju umjet-niËki nastup bez ikakvih konvencionalnih”umjetniËkih” pojava. To je umjetniËki nas-tup koji Êe se viπe baviti ponaπanjem pub-like, reakcijom publike, osjeÊajem da publi-ka nije ovdje samo da pasivno promatrasliku na zidu, nego πto Êe dogaaj proizlazi-ti iz javnog koriπtenja zgrade. Smiπljaju ide-je za sljedeÊe ©tajerske jeseni, gdje ÊeKunsthaus biti mjesto u kojem kretanja ireakcije javnosti Ëine sam dogaaj. Javit Êese pitanja zaπto su tamo, πto se dogaa, bitÊe manipulirani ili potaknuti da koristezgradu na manje pasivan naËin.

To su stvari koje arhitekti ne bi smjelipokuπati prognozirati, zato πto svaki nam-jerni pokuπaj da se stvori kakav god druπ-tveni magnet moæe biti opasan kad se pre-tvori u program ili u svjesnu namjeru jedneosobe. Zapravo se upada u proturjeËje akose radi o namjeri jedne osobe. Vaæno jestvoriti moguÊnost da zgradu okupiraju i ko-riste drugi, ali vrlo je vaæno ne diktirati πtoÊe biti druπtveni magnet.

Ta zgrada nema fiksni ideoloπki pro-gram, nego samo relativno zaigranu i dina-miËnu reakciju na ulogu muzeja. Omogu-Êuje uporabu i zloporabu. »injenica da ta

To jako ovisi o naËinu na koji se zgrada ko-risti ili tumaËi. Ipak, ova zgrada ima sva po-magala da postane druπtveni magnet. Dru-gim rijeËima, projekt privlaËi paænju, pristu-paËan je javnosti na prijateljski, opuπten,druπtven naËin, a uz to ima i razigrana ko-munikacijska sredstva na raspolaganju.

n n Koji programi ili arhitektonski alatimogu potaknuti stimulativne ili nepred-vidljive druπtvene i javne potencijale pros-tora?

To je pitanje izvan moje moÊi. Na pri-mjer, kad smo napravili prizemlje tako daustanova ne izgleda zastraπujuÊe kao elitis-tiËki muzejski prostor, bilo nam je vaæno dase ono koristi kreativno i da se nekako od-makne od svoje uporabe ako bude potreb-no. Kod tog prostora kakav je sada svia mise to πto se dvije veËeri tjedno koristi kaodisko: ljudi preuzimaju zgradu i krπe njezi-nu izvornu svrhu. To je vrlo vaæan i nepred-vidljiv nusproizvod tog prostora. Koristi se iza mnogo sastanaka, rasprava, filmskihdruπtava, a koriste ga i ljudi koji mogu unaj-miti prostor i raditi s njim πto hoÊe.

No πto se tiËe samog muzejskog pros-tora, ovisimo o namjerama kustosa, o nji-hovoj æelji da redefiniraju vlastite granice ivlastite definicije onoga πto je umjetnost iliπto je druπtveni potencijal umjetnosti.

n n To je moæda vezano uz Ëinjenicu daarhitekti manje razmiπljaju o apstraktnojfunkciji, a viπe o dogaajima koji se odvija-ju u prostorima. Arhitektura postaje ishodrazliËitih skupova vektora i dijagrama. Sli-Ëan pristup mogao bi se izvesti i unutarpriliËno jednostavnih oblika.

Mislim da je prednost tih organskih ob-lika prvenstveno u tome πto skreÊu paænjuna Ëinjenicu da se projektirati moæe namnogo razliËitih naËina. KonaËan ishod nemora biti organski. Moæete imati krajnjeinteligentnu zgradu koja je konvencionalnieuklidski prostor, ali je radikalna po funkci-jama, brzini kojom je izgraena ili drugimstvarima. Bilo bi posve krivo misliti daarhitektura treba prijeÊi na odreenu vrstuoblika. Kao πto ste i sami rekli za arhitektu-ru, konceptualni je pristup vaæniji od kon-kretnog oblika koji on preuzme. Mislim dase koncept mijenja, koncept metode i traja-nja projektiranja, kao i naËina gradnje natemelju projekta. Te Êe promjene imati πireposljedice od samo jednog konkretnog obli-ka - djelovat Êe na cijelu struku.

n n Ipak, æelio bih u Kunsthausu naglasitijoπ neπto: pokuπaj dekonstrukcije unutar-nje hijerarhije i prostorne tipologije.

Uistinu, sustav cirkulacije, na primjer,nije odmah oËigledan s obzirom na oblik.NaËin strukturiranja prostora zapravo jeviπe koordinatna mreæa, izotropna vrsta pro-stora, a ne konkretan oblik. Prostor u kojemsjedimo, takozvana Igla, jest pravocrtan, li-nearan, namjerno suprotstavljen ostalome.

n n Kako gledate na pojam druπtvenogatraktora ili druπtvenog magneta u odnosuna ovu zgradu? Moæete li zamisliti nekenove arhitektonske hibride koji bi moglibiti suvremeni druπtveni generatori?

Doista, ova zgrada to pokuπava do od-reene mjere. Nevjerojatna æivost u prvimgodinama sovjetske revolucije, kad su se ja-vile zamisli o druπtvenim magnetima, ”agit-prop-vlakovima” i svakakvim poticajnim,provokativnim projektantskim djelatnosti-ma, jest neπto na πto se ova zgrada æelinekako nadovezati, i to na naËin da se mu-zej obraÊa gradu i zapoËinje dijalog, pomalokao πto su radili agitprop-vlakovi sa zvuË-nicima i projekcijama filmova. Ova je zgra-da, na vrlo razliËit naËin, æeleÊi prikazativanjske projekcije, takoer trebala biti sred-stvo ili organ koji potiËe komunikaciju i ras-pravu. Pitanje je u kojoj mjeri arhitektura iarhitektove odluke mogu imati takav utjecaj.

58

8

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 58

Architecture is in a paradoxical situa-tion: it has to draw boundaries and yet ithas to give the illusion that it has no boun-daries, or at least some people want to givethat illusion. But it is precisely because ar-chitecture has all these constraints, allthese material requirements, that the ex-pression of their transgression is particular-ly important, noticeable and valuable. If Ican quote my friend, Bernard Tschumi al-ways says that the more constraints thereare in a project, the better it is or the morechallenging it is. I think that’s true of archi-tecture in general: it needs to be relativelyfixed, the desire to be as non-fixed as pos-sible within these constraints then becomesan important psychological and politicalnecessity.

Whether we are aware of it or not, weare always dealing with how you respond toa program, how you meet all the require-ments, and yet not precondition how differ-ent people, or different generations in thelong term, will be able to transform it andpush it in a different direction.

I guess the most important political sta-tement that architecture can make is not totranslate into stone, in physical form, a sin-gle ideology in a way that you can’t breakout of it, that you can’t deconstruct it and dosomething else. This is definitely what thisbuilding is trying to do. It’s a very importantconcept, you must never think that thingshave to remain the same. This has reper-cussions for the whole of one’s cultural andpolitical behavior. One has to be prepared tosay, as Cedric Price used to insist, that one’sfavourite building must be changed or rein-terpreted and eventually torn down.

l l Without much nostalgia…No nostalgia at all. No self-respect

either.

l l There is a lot of self-respect in yourstatement because of the strong ethicalattitude behind it.

To go back to your topic, probably themost fundamental question we have raisedin our discussion concerns the fundamental“raison d’être” of a museum, whether itmakes sense to have a particular space orinstitution which claims that it is the privi-leged locale for artists to express them-selves and show their work and allowingpeople to have access to it. There are seri-ous questions and doubts about whetherthis is the case or not.

We are living in a period of transition,where we may be witnessing the final man-ifestations of a tradition of building a certainkind of social institution which may becompletely irrelevant in the near future. Ithink it is very healthy to have doubts aboutit. I’m still torn by that, I still wonder - espe-cially with respect to art - whether thenotion of a specific space where this is hap-pening, as opposed to its happening onradio waves, electronic data diffusion or theinternet or whatever, is not totally anachro-nistic in the 21st century. It is the big ques-tion of our time and maybe has alwaysbeen the question confronting the art world.

Museums are a relatively recent phe-nomenon, a 19th century invention, whichis so much part of the early capitalist, colo-nial ideology of accumulating possessionsin certain privileged spaces. The wholemechanism of the art industry and theforms that it takes, of which the museumsare complicit, is something which shouldbe transformed and is in a way alreadybeing transformed.

We could say that most of the thingswhich are artistically valuable right nowprobably don’t fall in the categories whichwe are used to. There is a proliferation ofmusic scenes that are not yet recognised,but that’s where it’s at, new forms of litera-

ture and poetry, unknown artists definingtheir particular province. I’m more interest-ed in “off off” manifestations of art, thingsthat you cannot hang on a wall, things thatdefy the categories of art. I think that themajority of interesting artists are torn by thesame question. At the same time, they arepart of an economic system and a star sys-tem which forces them to make compro-mises.

I think architecture has to try to play arole in destabilizing this. That’s why, as wehave been saying all along, a buildingwhich does not try to follow a too narrowdefinition of what an art museum is, whichtries to push it somehow in a different di-rection, is one way one can contribute toquestioning the way artists produce. I quitelike the question not being phrased in termsof the product, but as the activity, thenotion - what is the best way to respond tonotions postulated by new art forms? Is it todesign a very accessible web site? Is it a dif-ferent kind of publication, like you are doingin Zagreb? And you’re not just doing one,you’re doing a number, which have differ-ent profiles and are not tied to one place.That would be a more radical question, andI think architects should put themselves inthat situation. It would be a general ques-tion about the nature of conceptual and

59

I N T E R V I E W

8-9. M City. European Cityscapes, 2005.-2006.9

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 59

jest jedan naËin kako se moæe doprinijetiispitivanju naËina umjetniËkog stvaralaπtva.Jako mi se svia πto to pitanje nije izraæenou smislu proizvoda, nego kao djelatnost,predodæba - koji je najbolji naËin da se rea-gira na predodæbe koje stvaraju novi obliciumjetnosti? Je li to stvaranje vrlo privlaËneinternetske stranice? Je li to originalan Ëa-sopis, poput vaπeg u Zagrebu? Osim toga,vi ne radite samo jedan Ëasopis, radite ihviπe, s razliËitim obiljeæjima i na razliËitimmjestima. To bi bilo radikalnije pitanje, amislim da bi se arhitekti trebali staviti u tajpoloæaj. Bilo bi to opÊe pitanje o naravi kon-ceptualne i intelektualne misli, kao i o na-Ëinu da se ona izvede.

»vrsto sam uvjeren, iako sam uæivao uradu na projektu za Kunsthaus, da je samovrlo malen dio odgovora u arhitekturi.Mislim da je ona upravo zato zanimljiva -ako ste svjesni njezinih moguÊnosti i ogra-niËenja, postaje zanimljivija nego ako samoobjektivno proizvodite stvari, predmete.

Meni su ta πira znaËenja Kunsthausazanimljivija od same zgrade. Urbani i druπ-tveni problemi koje ste dotaknuli u svojimpitanjima vaæniji su od toga je li zgradaplava i ima li ovojnicu od akrilika ili zabav-nu organsku geometriju. To je vaæno meta-foriËki i simboliËki, ali nije temeljno.

n n Umjetnost nije fiksirana uz postavizloæbe. Izloæba samo potiËe diskurs koji semoæe prenositi ili posredovati na mnogoraznih naËina.

Na neki naËin, glavni dogaaj nijetamo gdje mislite da jest. To je vrlo vaænozapaæanje. Moæda glavni dojam te zgradene Ëini ona sama, nego neπto drugo. Kaoπto ste natuknuli, ima druge druπtvene po-sljedice. Drugi bi ljudi mogli promijeniti tajprostor ili bi se ondje mogle odvijati drugekulturne aktivnosti. U tome uæivam. Tako-er uæivam πto tako izgleda, a usto ima dru-ge naËine da kaæe ono πto æeli.

n n Zgrada uspostavlja mnogo πiri men-talni prostor utjecaja od onoga koji je unu-tar njezine koæe.

To je vrlo dobro sroËeno. Rekli ste tovrlo jasno. t

n n Bez mnogo nostalgije…Nimalo nostalgije. Ni samopoπtovanja.

n n Vaπa izjava ima mnogo samopoπtova-nja zato πto se zasniva na jakom etiËkomstavu.

Da se vratimo na vaπu temu, vjerojat-no se osnovno pitanje koje smo dotaknuli urazgovoru tiËe temeljnog raison d’être mu-zeja - ima li smisla oblikovati konkretanprostor ili instituciju koji tvrde da su povlaπ-teno mjesto na kojem bi se umjetnici trebaliizraæavati, izlagati svoja djela i dopuπtatiljudima da ih doæive. Postoje ozbiljna pita-nja i dvojbe o tome je li uistinu tako.

Æivimo u tranzicijskom razdoblju, u ko-jem moæda svjedoËimo zadnjim ostvarenji-ma u tradiciji izgradnje odreene vrste dru-πtvene ustanove koja Êe u bliskoj buduÊ-nosti moæda biti posve nevaæna. Mislim daje vrlo zdravo tako sumnjati. To me joπ mu-Ëi, joπ se pitam - pogotovo u odnosu na um-jetnost - nije li predodæba o konkretnomprostoru za dogaaje, za razliku od dogaa-ja na radijskim valovima, elektronskom pri-jenosu podataka, internetu ili Ëemu drugo-me, posve zastarjela u 21. stoljeÊu. To jeveliko pitanje naπeg doba, a moæda oduvi-jek prati svijet umjetnosti.

Muzeji su relativno nova pojava. Oni suizum 19. stoljeÊa koji je ujedno dio ranekapitalistiËke, kolonijalne ideologije gomila-nja imovine u odreenim povlaπtenim pro-storima. Cijeli mehanizam umjetniËke prak-se i oblici koje preuzima, u Ëemu su muzejisudionici, jest neπto πto se treba promijeni-ti, a na neki se naËin veÊ mijenja.

Mogli bismo reÊi da veÊina stvari kojesu danas umjetniËki vrijedne vjerojatno nepripada kategorijama na koje smo navikli.Dolazi do bujanja glazbenih æariπta koja joπnisu priznata, ali u kojima se dogaaju uz-budljive stvari, kao i do pojave novih oblikaknjiæevnosti i pjesniπtva nepoznatih umjet-nika koji definiraju svoje konkretno pod-ruËje. Viπe me zanimaju umjetniËki iskazikoji su off off, ono πto ne moæete objesiti nazid, ono πto prkosi kategorijama umjetnos-ti. Smatram da veÊinu zanimljivih umjetni-ka muËi isto pitanje. S druge strane, oni seubrajaju u gospodarski sustav i sustav zvi-jezda koji ih tjera na kompromise.

Mislim da arhitektura treba pokuπatiodigrati ulogu u remeÊenju toga. Upravozato, kao πto cijelo vrijeme govorimo, zgra-da koja se ne æeli dræati preuske definicijeonoga πto je umjetniËki muzej, koja je po-kuπava nekako pokrenuti u drugom smjeru,

zgrada ne viËe ”ja sam graena za umjet-nost” jest poticajna zbog toga πto se zgradane mora ubrajati u odreenu tipologiju da bise omoguÊila odreena funkcija.

n n To je krajnje viπeznaËna situacija. Da, mislim da takva i treba biti. Gle-

dajte rijeËi koje koristimo u razgovoru - hib-ridna narav, polimorfna narav zgrade. Vrloje vaæno da tipologija ne bude jasno pre-poznatljiva kao konkretna stvar. To je vrlo,vrlo vaæno.

n n Arhitektima je teπko shvatiti πto taotvorenost doista znaËi kad moraju raditi stektonskim elementima i unutar njih. Arhi-tektura je neizbjeæno vezana uz granice: zi-dove, podove, stropove, ograde... Ali arhi-tektonske posljedice izviru iz koncepta, izrazmiπljanja o sloæenim situacijama kojeudomljuju elementi uvjetovani silomteæom.

Arhitektura je u paradoksalnoj situaci-ji: mora povlaËiti granice, ali pritom moraostaviti dojam kao da nema granica; ili ba-rem neki ljudi æele ostaviti taj dojam. Me-utim, upravo zato πto arhitektura ima svata ograniËenja, sve te materijalne potrebe,izraz njihova krπenja je posebno vaæan, pri-mjetan i vrijedan. Da citiram prijatelja,Bernard Tschumi uvijek kaæe: πto neki pro-jekt ima viπe ograniËenja, to je bolji ili iza-zovniji. Mislim da to vrijedi za arhitekturuopÊenito: ona mora biti relativno fiksna, pazbog toga æelja da se bude πto pokretljivijiunutar tih granica postaje vaæna psiholoπkai politiËka nuænost.

Bez obzira jesmo li toga svjesni ili ne,uvijek se radi o tome kako reagirati na nekiprogram, kako ispuniti sve uvjete i pritomne predodrediti kako Êe razliËiti ljudi, ilirazliËite generacije na dugi rok, biti sposob-ni to promijeniti i gurnuti u drugom smjeru.

Rekao bih da najvaænija politiËka poru-ka koju arhitektura moæe poslati jest da nesmijete prenijeti u kamen, u fiziËki oblik,samo jednu ideologiju tako da se iz nje nemoæete probiti, da je ne moæete razgraditi iuËiniti neπto drugo. Ova zgrada definitivnopokuπava upravo to. Radi se o vrlo vaænojpostavci. Nikad ne smijete misliti da stvarimoraju ostati kakve jesu. To djeluje na Ëo-vjekove cjelokupne kulturne i politiËke pos-tupke. Treba biti spreman reÊi, kao πto jeuporno tvrdio Cedric Price, da se vlastitaomiljena zgrada mora promijeniti ili druk-Ëije tumaËiti, a na kraju i sruπiti.

60

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:10 Page 60

intellectual thought and how one can facil-itate it.

I strongly believe, although I enjoyeddoing the Kunsthaus project, that architec-ture is only a very small part of the answer.I think that’s why architecture is interesting,because if one is aware of its potential andits limitations, it becomes more interestingthan if you’re only objectively producingthings, objects.

For me, these broader ramifications ofthe Kunsthaus are more important than thebuilding itself. The urban and social issuesyou raised in your questions are more im-portant than whether this building is blue orhas an acrylic skin or a funny organicgeometry. It’s important metaphorically andsymbolically, but it’s not fundamental.

l l The art is not fixed to the setting ofthe exhibition. The exhibition is only pro-voking a discourse which can be transmit-ted or mediated in many different ways.

In a way, the main event is not whereyou think it is. That’s a very important ob-

servation. Maybe the main impact of thisbuilding is not this building, it’s somethingelse. As you implied, it has other social re-percussions, other people might transformthis space, or other cultural activities takeplace. That’s what I enjoy. I also enjoy theway it looks, but it has other ways to saywhat it has to say.

l l The building settles a much broadermental space of influence than the onewithin its skin.

That’s a very good way of putting it.You said it very clearly. l

Transkript i prijevod s engleskog: Marko Maras

61

≥ Maroje Mrduljaπ je arhitekt i publicist izZagreba. Radi na Arhitektonskom fakultetuSveuËiliπta u Zagrebu. »lan je uredniπtvaËasopisa Oris i Æivot umjetnosti te urednikbiblioteke Plan, AGM.

Maroje Mrduljaπ is architect and publicistfrom Zagreb. Works at the Faculty ofArchitecture, University of Zagreb. Memberof editorial boards of magazines Oris andÆivot umjetnosti and editor of Plan series,AGM.

10. M City. European Cityscapes, 2005.-2006.

I N T E R V I E W

10

76/7_ZU_9 13.03.2006 15:11 Page 61