Heaven and Earth
Festschrift to Honor Karsten Harries
August 2007
|
|
Heaven and Earth |
|
|
Vol. 12,
No. 1
August 2007 |
| ___Diana
Soeiro Lisbon |
Spatial Belonging – Living in the Architectural Space |
|
1. Meiji
Restoration (1887) and Western Influence The chain of events that explains any occurrence you can think of is endless. Japanese architecture during the 60’s and 70’s is no exception. That’s why I will start by describing this subject’s perimeter instead of explaining it. In the end, so I hope, the subject in review will appear under a brighter light. After the end of the Tokugawa period, politically, Japan went from a feudal society ruled by samurais to an imperial monarchy when Emperor Meiji took over in 1887. A few years later, that same monarchy became a constitutional monarchy in 1889. Before that, and for more than two centuries in Japan, any kind of foreign interaction was officially forbidden. During that time, despite being an archipelago, Japan used it’s openness to the sea as a protective shield. After the Meiji Restoration Japan declared himself open to the world. No wonder things would rapidly change. Japan could now unveil its mysteries to world and the world could unveil its mysteries to Japan. After 1889, Japan’s architecture, it’s a living proof of this mutual curiosity. Japan’s first great foreign influence in Architecture was Josiah Condor (1852-1920), an English professor who was invited to prepare a graduate architecture course in 1877 for the “newly founded Imperial College of Engineering in Tokyo. In 1886 the architectural section of the College of Engineering became part of the new Tokyo Imperial University, where Condor taught for a further two years” [1] in what was now called the Faculty of Architecture of Tokyo Technical University.[2] After that he established a private practice in Tokyo doing several western style buildings.[3] Japanese had an admiration and natural curiosity towards Europe, especially towards England[4], and therefore an English architect seemed like a natural option. Therefore, while in Japan, not only Condor has designed several western buildings, as he has educated Japan’s first architect’s generation. This means that the first Japanese architects, in the western sense, graduated during the end of the XIX century. “They had been trained in the spirit of European historicism.”[5] This “historicism” is a different approach than the traditional Japanese one: “The Japanese (…) regarded each new style as a minor variation of an older form. Never was there a complete rejection of an existing style; old and new co-existed harmoniously.”[6] The conflicts in architecture during the 20th century, and the different points of view that “modernism” will generate, will show that both approaches are a good starting point to understand architecture’s development in Japan. 2. What is a 20th Century Architecture like? The beginning of the century starts with a tough discussion on how far should western architecture influence go. Several voices defending all possible points of view were heard: reject western architecture completely (ITOH Chuta), accept western architecture and then adapt it to the traditional Japanese style (OHTSUKA Yashuharu), forget “style” and focus on architecture’s function since it’s not an Art form (SANO Rikichi).[7] Still, they all had in common a will to show that Japan was ready to face the 20th century. But what architecture should Japan have? That was not obvious at all. 3. What is Modernism? Frank Lloyd Wright’s (1867-1959) Imperial Hotel in Tokyo (1919-1922) is a crucial event. Wright was 52 years old when the building process starts. By that time he had already developed a curiosity about Japan – due to his contact with Boston Orientalists – becoming also a compulsive ukiyo-e[8] collector. The Imperial Hotel is therefore a project that shows a mutual influence. Not only Wright has influenced some Japanese architects, as we will see, but Japan also has undeniably influenced him[9]. Wright is also a crucial reference to help clarify an existing big confusion on the concept of modernism. And consequently, also on the impact of modernism in Japanese architecture.[10] 3.1. Frank Lloyd Wright The easiest way to start is by quoting Wright’s essay “Organic Architecture Looks at Modern Architecture” (1952)[11]. Here, he explains how the initial concept of modernism was distorted, leading to what he calls “box” architecture. According to Wright’s objectives, “modern” would be an architecture based on American territory, made for the American people (a democratic architecture), to which he would add a personal style with slight variations, for architecture’s key element is place. The idea was not that architecture should only exist if it was American. Not at all. What Wright was trying to state is that architecture must somehow embody a relation with place, in order to create space. And place is defined according to culture, society and human gestures that for long years have inhabited that place. But the “modern” concept was altered and Wright stated a new concept that would maintain the initial “modern” meaning (his meaning): organic architecture. But what made “modern” change its original sense? What did the world thought modern architecture was by the time Wright writes this essay that made him give up being called “modern”? 3. 2. Bauhaus In Europe, two things were happening that would have a direct impact both in the United States and Japan: Werkbund and Bauhaus. The Deutscher Werkbund founded in 1907 aimed to promote the co-operation between artists and the industry.[12] Walter Gropius (1883-1969) joined it in 1912. In 1919, Gropius was invited to direct the Weimar Academy of Fine Arts and it is then that he proclaims the Bauhaus Manifesto: new unity of arts and crafts. Having problems with the rising German nationalism, the school moves to Dessau in 1925. Gropius creates an architecture department in 1927. The following year, a decisive change takes place: Hannes Meyer (1889-1954), the man who used to run the department, becomes the Bauhaus director after Gropius resigned. If we consider the academy’s new orientation, under Meyer’s direction, we have there an important factor to understand the change on the concept of “modernism”: “new emphasis on designing for cheap mass production”.[13] In 1930 Meyer is forced to resign for being deemed too left-wing and Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969) takes his place emphasizing on objects and interior design workshops. This means that Werkbund and Gropius are closer to Wright – and also to SHINOHARA and ANDÔ: “modernism” here means tradition and technique at the artist’s service. Bauhaus (Meyer) is closer to a vision of architecture as pure function, not as art. This last approach was the one that ended up dominating the concept of “modernism” being understood as a vision that brings forward first the technique and only then the architect (in extreme interpretation, not an artist but as an engineer). As Wright feared, “modern architecture” would become theoretically closer to the Bauhaus interpretation and not to his initial project. In 1933 Mies dissolves the Bauhaus and several teachers go to the United States. “If the Bauhaus met with a warmer welcome in America this was partly because radical design proposals, oriented to modern technological media such as reinforced concrete and glass for building purposes, were more readily accepted there than in Europe in the verge of war. People were far more open to new ideas in design. Leading figures from Bauhaus, including Gropius, Mies, Albers and Moholy-Nagy, found their way to America in the 1930s, often via England.”[14] According to Wright, the Bauhaus’ enthusiastic reception in the United States had to do with it being understood as a movement offering an excellent business opportunity: cheap houses, cheap materials and a mass production market for a growing population. Harvard University and Chicago became the new Bauhaus place.[15] There, two “modernisms” clash. 4. Japan after 1945: How to Rebuilt This clash co-exists therefore in the United States - Japan’s main influence after the 1945 World War.[16] Japan had lost the war and was completely devastated. The feeling was that the whole country had to start from scratch: socially, economically, and politically. What architecture should Japan have then? The same question of the beginning of the century reappears only now the urgency for a specific answer was required by millions of people with no home. Japan will look for answers in the United States, recognizing it as a powerful force. The same clash, concerning architecture’s approach, will now take place in Japan: two “modernisms”. SHINOHARA and ANDÔ will take Wright’s interpretation as the one more fitted to architecture and to their own idea of what an architect should be. They both start building residential houses and small spaces as if those were part of an investigation to find out what architecture would best fit people’s needs. Their main concern was not that the cities needed to be rebuilt fast, their main concern was that people needed to find harmony and be in peace again. And the best way to give them that was to pay close attention to each project. On this, SHINOHARA and ANDÔ agreed, but looking at both they do have slightly different approaches and these reflect Japan’s own problematic on how to deal with architecture. In what way? It all starts again, in Europe. 4. 1. Framing the “Modern” Problem in Japan The Vienna Secession (1897-1938) is both a political and artistic movement that has a special concern with “identity”. “The Secession wanted to be modern and its pluralistic character moved it in that direction, but its commitment to a tradition of continuity and the generally conservative cultural atmosphere in Austria seems to have influenced it away from making any radical break with its own stylistic past.”[17] The movement resisted for two World Wars having ended in March 1938 when Hitler’s invasion declared Austria as a part of the German empire.[18] A concern with “identity” and an attempt to break away from tradition (having no success in doing so) definitely describes important features of Japan’s problem. That’s why in Japan, the Japanese Succession movement also took place: the “identity” problematic: tradition vs. industrialization. During the twenties a group of Japanese architects recently graduated from Tokyo University started this movement. “The formation of this group marks the beginning of the modern movement in Japan.”[19] (Here, “modern” should be taken as closer to Wright’s interpretation.) The Japanese Secession starts the modern movement In Japan and essentially it defines the main frame in which architectural conflicts will happen. The end result of these conflicts, within this frame, will reach their peak in the 80’s. Chaotic cities. 4. 2. Shinohara: Change as Personal Revolution During the twenties, at the same time the Japanese Secession was being founded, a second event was starting to get shape: the Avant-garde movement. It had the participation of artists proposing several changes to each art form. SHNOHARA was among them as an architect.[20] The movement, apparently, was closer to what would be called as “international architecture”. But this is again deceitful to say.[21] The Avant-garde main influence in architecture was Le Corbusier (1887-1965) and in spite of being called “modern” his approach on architecture is closer to Wright’s than to Bauhaus. If Corbusier’s architecture makes you doubt, his written texts show basic important similarities with Wright’s texts: nature, harmony, emotion, proportion, balance, unity, etc.[22] When author Egon Tempel says that “the Japanese avant-garde of 1925 made contact promptly with international architectural movements”[23] we have to recall the two “modern” concepts previously stated. “International architecture” was Bauhaus’ “modern architecture” and not Wright’s “modern architecture”. Now it can be said that the Japanese Avant-garde movement was influenced by Le Corbusier and Bauhaus for several students went to work at both of them. Gropius’ book on international architecture (defending art over technology and not technique over art) also had considerable influence.[24] Thus, the Avant-garde movement was truly a place where differences co-existed being used to promote individual creativity in a non-judgmental way. In this movement, the rule was that there was no rule. 4. 3. ANDÔ: Change as Personal Continuum So, SHINOHARA was an Avant-garde influenced by Corbusier and Bauhaus (though above all he considered himself an independent creative spirit) and ANDÔ was mainly influenced by Wright and Corbusier.[25] After having started by doing residential houses, SHINOHARA will further his career creating public spaces always in conflict with the urban surroundings, making strong creative statements using bold visible technology. Each project is taken as a new experiment, like everything was possible at each time. ANDÔ after also doing residential projects starts making several public buildings, first small, then larger. His work is always a strong statement but more like he is always developing the same idea a bit further. Like if there is continuity from project to project. Technology also plays an important part but that is not shown in an obvious way in the structure. The final result is always simple. Though geometry plays an important role for both architects, in the practical sense SHINOHARA has a more bi-dimensional approach in his structures, perhaps closer to a functional / rationalistic Bauhaus style. ANDÔ is more tri-dimensional on his approach, therefore closer to Wright, intersecting different planes. Therefore, SHINOHARA’s work feels like a shout and ANDÔ’s work feels like a moment of silence. 5. What is architecture’s place in the city’s space? After 1945, this was a question that needed an urgent answer. Lots of different people at that time tried different answers and a lot of theory was produced in order to find the best possible solution. The 50’s bring an extraordinary economic recovery for Japan and as everything was rapidly changing, architecture needed to make a statement that would fit the new space that Japanese people were creating. Should architecture serve a political interest or should it be independent? Should it be an end in itself or be used at will? Is architecture’s integrity at stake when it serves a political / economical purpose? In 1967 SHINOHARA declares: “For now, I’m a solitary architect that continues his fight with enthusiasm to conceive small projects that he has in his heart.”[26] Being 16 years older than ANDÔ this might’ve been true for a while. But ANDÔ will share the same vision towards the relation between city space and residential space. The similarities can be read in SHINOHARA’s above mentioned article and in ANDÔ’s article “Un councours de circonstances” (1977)[27] also published for the first time in the same magazine as SHINOHARA’s article, Shinkenchiku. Both articles will now be reviewed. 6. Where do we Stand? SHINOHARA identifies the current days, back in 1967, in this way: “ (…) our inhumane society (…) only wants to consume, use, destroy”[28] adding “(…) a great deal of what is done is stereotyped”.[29] Japan’s relation with economy and technology, since the end of the war, looked like being unstoppable. This had a strong impact in urban environment making cities grow at a fast pace. What SHINOHARA is evaluating in this article is precisely that impact. He does not deny either technology or economy, he simply questions its use: “Our problem is therefore to find out how a new space, based on a new conception of life including the use of modern technology, can change things.”[30] “For us, individual housing architects, the city pales and becomes uniform, a place where the infinite variants of human emotion are banned, it’s not the city of the future. Unless we are able to harmonize the wonderful technique with human emotion to create a rich urban environment, it’s better to abandon residential architecture.”[31] The emphasis on residential architecture is not at all a form of alienation or a whim. It is a conscious option taken as the best choice. “The best way for architecture to be according society’s expectations, is to start by dealing with individual problems and then gradually gain a general view.”[32] There is not a refusal of big and public spaces. There’s a priority of residential space over big and public spaces. ANDÔ puts it this way “it seems to me that the only way to achieve a living and vibrant space is gathering strong individual entities.”[33] “The urge is to produce a residential form that balances skillfully that socio-economical pressure.”[34] – says SHINOHARA. Being such the frame of mind of those days, SHINOHARA’s natural question follows: “In today’s frenzy of the current modern times, where the creation of big constructions is essentially functional, what should small residential structures be?”[35] 6. 1. What to do? SHINOHARA’S View 6.1.1. The urgency |
||
  Kazuo Shinohara Umbrella House (1961) |
SHINOHARA
clearly states his priority: “I, concerning house building, am worried about
“human desires” (ningen no yokubô) and with producing lasting
things.”[36]
By “lasting”, SHINOHARA means the “eternal” presence of things, of
architectural works: “ (…) while building a house, my deepest desire is to
embody in it something eternity oriented”.[37] But how to create eternal works in a growing industrialized environment? “If the characteristics of highly industrialized modern society become more and more visible, the deepest human emotional processes should be intensified and mobilized in opposition to that tendency.”[38] Therefore, the answer is intensification of the emotional process as an opposite of industrialized forces. The urgency to do this is recognized by SHINOHARA: “Violent forces, invisible, generated by prosperous societies, are about to destroy human emotions that are not according to the system.”[39] 6.1.2. “Spaces of thought”, “idea spaces” and style “Spaces of thought” is one of several concepts that SHINOHARA refers to, to better express his ideas, being a ground one. “Right now, what do you need to give our small spaces? I think it is “spaces of thought” (shisô no kûkan).”[40] His purpose, I’ll say it again, is to give a specific answer to a specific problem and not a theoretical alienation. “Right now” he says. “The conception of individual houses should be deeply connected to the way people are living nowadays.”[41] This urge for a practical solution is also stated in the “idea spaces” concept. Concerning which, he says that the best way to get what this means is by looking at his work, theory is not enough.[42] Cities unify and create their own rules[43] and therefore, says SHINOHARA, “The lack of style is responsible for a sickness (…) that is why we should now make an effort to create a style (yoshiki [44]) grounded in a new state of mind.”[45] For him, that meant going abstract: “in fact I have chosen abstract forms not because I despise the human element, but because I was eager to open up the way for a new style.”[46] And this was no small task.[47] 6.1.3. “Symbolic spaces” and “abstract extensions”. The “human scale” The spaces SHINOHARA tries to describe (through his buildings and words) are the ones that have a direct connection with people’s daily life. This is an important feature that SHINOHARA shares with ANDÔ (as we will see). “ [Architects] as I, propel daily life to “symbolic spaces” (shôchô kûkan) called “abstract extensions” (chûshôtekina hiro).”[48] This connection with daily life, SHINOHARA recognizes that it is a reaction to functionalism. Still, having a different departure point, traditional Japanese architecture, he has found abstract space deeply connected to “human scale”. “It is known that functionalists think about creating spaces adequate to daily life, and architects that conceive space at human scale are nothing but a response to the official authority. Space at “human scale” is hard to explain in an ordinary way. My own spaces were created as a reaction to functionalism and rationalism, the dominant features after the war. Taking traditional Japanese architecture as a starting point, I have found out that from its interior a kind of abstract space develops.”[49] This means that to SHINOHARA, the daily life relation with architecture is established using the abstract element. The concept allowing this is that of “human scale”. 6.1.4. Architecture and technology “Houses are art.”[50] In what sense? “(…) [R]esidential architecture poses subtle technical problems. That is why certain architects dedicate a lot of energy to creating houses. And that is why I think that houses have become an art. When an architect conceives a house that touches the human heart, he produces a work of art and receives equal reward.”[51] For SHINOHARA, the art form of a house is rooted in its relation with technique. Nevertheless, “[e]quipment is the backset of space and it should maintain its secondary role.”[52] His main concern in his evaluation of the relation between technology and architecture is again emotion: “Those who love a house will always protect it. The idea of reducing a house to a thing that can be consumed has to do with giving privilege to technical features related with the fast development of different kinds of equipments.”[53] Not only architecture should protect those who are under its roof but also those who are protected must be instigated to protect the space that shelters them. “I dream about a society that no matter what embodies continuity.”[54] And this continuity is the creating spaces that people love and protect. “After all, isn’t that natural for an architect to wish that a house, authored by him, is loved by the family who lives in it and that it lasts long enough to touch several hearts of a large number of people?”[55] Equally, architects and people play an important role to assure the eternal character of buildings. Only like this can spatial belonging take place. That’s why residential space is a truly strong ground element in city’s space. Being so, “the work of an architect is, in its essence, something other than a simple mastering of technical methods.”[56] “Technology is extraordinary, but human life is even more extraordinary.”[57] 6.1.5. “Spatial expression” and “prototypes” SHINOHARA defines “spatial expression” in this way: “Spatial dimension should have its own spatial expression; that is what I call 'specific value of spatial expression'”.[58] So this implies that architecture should transform spatial dimension in such a way that it then expresses something: space itself. This was why he, for several years, tried to find the specific features of Japanese space, studying traditional Japanese architecture. Expression and abstract forms was also a way to escape stereotype - an industrialization consequence.[59] “Prototypes” are the result of an important method used by SHINOHARA. The concept truly shows how his architectural practice was deeply connected with a desire to experiment and of thinking architecture through architecture making. What was the method like? “When I have to conceive a house and I find myself confronted with the impossibility of going any further than the ground floor plan, or the elevation plan, without modifying the previously given data of the project, I focus on its individual characteristics. The exemplary solutions, out of that task, I classified them as 'prototypes'.”[60] Having traditional Japanese architecture always in mind that was his main resource to solve any practical doubt. And that was why each solution was not only a solution for a specific project but also a “prototype” solution that could be applied again in the future. The goal was to continuously develop a Japanese architecture concept, re-invented through traditional Japanese architecture. In 1991 SHINOHARA declares, “I did not belong to ‘Japanese Modernism’.”[61] And in fact, taken in the “international architecture” sense, he did not. He states that throughout his career what he tried to do was to solve the equation between his Umbrella House (1961) and “Chaos city” (Tokyo).[62] ANDÔ, despite recognizing that he has learned with modernism, distances himself from “international architecture”. His attachment, as we have seen before, is towards Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. 6.2. What to do? ANDÔ’S View 6.2.1. Promoting Individuality |
|
 Tadao Andô Chapel on the Water (1988) Theater on the Water (1989) |
Ten years
after SHINOHARA’s article, ANDÔ writes “An occasion of circumstances”
(1977)[63].
This article deals exactly with what SHINOHARA had predicted. Maybe that
is why he has influenced a lot of young architects starting their
careers in the 70s. During the 70s the urban environment became degraded
and architects looked for new approaches for their works. The
environment is no longer a safe inspiration and therefore they create
escape environments where people can find physical and spiritual
harmony.[64]
SHINOHARA Kazuo (1925-2006) "A theory on residential architecture" (1967) ANDÔ Tadao (b. 1941) "Several specific circumstances" (1977)
Notes: [1] NUTE, Kevin, Frank Lloyd Wright and Japan – The role of traditional Japanese art and architecture in the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, Routledge, London & New York, 2000, p. 19, 20. [2] NUTE, Kevin, Frank Lloyd Wright and Japan – The role of traditional Japanese art and architecture in the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, Routledge, London & New York, 2000, p. 19 and TEMPEL, Egon, New Japanese Architecture – Neue japanische Architektur (by. E. Rockwell), Thames & Hudson/ Verlag Gerd Hatje, London/ Stuttgart, 1969, p. 8. [3] NUTE, Kevin, Frank Lloyd Wright and Japan – The role of traditional Japanese art and architecture in the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, Routledge, London & New York, 2000, p. 20. [4] ANDÔ Tadao (interview) in: ENJUTO, José Manuel Álvarez, “El ritmo del espacio”, Lapiz – Revista Internacional de Arte, nº103, ano XII, Mayo 1994, Madrid, p. 56. [5] TEMPEL, Egon, New Japanese Architecture – Neue japanische Architektur (by. E. Rockwell), Thames & Hudson/ Verlag Gerd Hatje, London/ Stuttgart, 1969, p. 10. [6] idem, p. 10. [7] idem, p. 10. [8] Japanese traditional prints. [9] See, for example, NUTE, Kevin, Frank Lloyd Wright and Japan – The role of traditional Japanese art and architecture in the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, Routledge, London & New York, 2000. [10] Here, because this is not this paper’s specific purpose, I will try to put it roughly. [11] WRIGHT, Frank Lloyd, “Organic Architecture Looks at Modern Architecture” (1952)” in: PFEIFFER, Bruce Books (ed.), Frank Lloyd Wright – Collected Writings, vol. 5 – 1949-1959, Rizzoli/ New York and Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, USA , 1995, pp. 45-50. [12] WESTPAHL, Uwe, The Bauhaus, Gallery Books, NY, 1991, p. 167. [13] idem, p. 167. [14] idem, p. 159. [15] Curiously enough, Chicago was “Wright’s city”, where he had matured as an architect, that he had seen to develop while working for his “liebe Meister”, Louis Sullivan (1856-1924). [16] ANDÔ Tadao (interview) in: ENJUTO, José Manuel Álvarez, “El ritmo del espacio”, Lapiz – Revista Internacional de Arte, nº 103, ano XII, Mayo 1994, Madrid, p. 56. [17] SHEDEL, James, “Art and identity, the Wiener Secession, 1887-1938” in: The Vienna Secession – from temple of art to exhibition hall (ed. Vereinigung bildender Kunstler Wiener Secession), Verlag Gerd Hatje, Germany, 1997, p. 37. [18] idem p. 43. [19] TEMPEL, Egon, New Japanese Architecture – Neue japanische Architektur (by. E. Rockwell), Thames & Hudson/ Verlag Gerd Hatje, London/ Stuttgart, 1969, p. 10. [20] RIICHI, Miyake, “Maisons expérimentales de l’après-guerre” in: Japon des avant gardes, 1910-1970, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1986, p. 409. [21] The “International architecture” definition was established by Henry-Russell Hitchcock (1903-1987) and Philip Johnson (1906-2005), in 1932, during the preparation of the “Modern Architecture Exhibition”. Wright was invited to participate despite not being conceived as “a full-modern”. Wright on his side considered the exhibition a marketing maneuver for classifying several architect’s work as “international style”. (JURGEN, Paul, “Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson” in: LAMERS-SHUTZE, Petra (ed.), Teoria da Arquitectura – do renascimento aos nossos dias, Taschen, Koln, 2003, p. 714-p. 716) Gropius was also discontent with the fact that the word “style” had been attached to his work, since one of his purposes was to promote individual creativity. (LUPFER, Gilbert, “Walter Gropius” in: LAMERS-SHUTZE, Petra (ed.), Teoria da Arquitectura – do renascimento aos nossos dias, Taschen, Koln, 2003, pp. 722-725). [22] GUITON, Jacques, Le Corbusier – Textes choisis – architecture et urbanisme, CEP Edition (Éditions de Moniteur), Paris, 1982. [23] TEMPEL, Egon, New Japanese Architecture – Neue japanische Architektur (by. E. Rockwell), Thames & Hudson/ Verlag Gerd Hatje, London/ Stuttgart, 1969, p. 12. [24] ibidem. [25] “Their works have inspired me to be an architect. From Frank Lloyd Wright I have learned the strength that embodies his work and the drama that he is able to create for each space. From Le Corbusier, the permanent quest for the “new” element, going always further: his idealist braveness. I would also like to quote Mies van de Rohe, from whom I learned what modern age is.” (original quote in Spanish language) Tadao Ando (interview) in: ENJUTO, José Manuel Álvarez, “El ritmo del espacio”, Lapiz – Revista Internacional de Arte, nº103, ano XII, Mayo 1994, Madrid, p. 56. [26] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 328. [27] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, pp. 386-390. [28] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 316. [29] idem, p. 320. [30] idem, p. 322. [31] idem, p. 326. [32] idem, p. 319. [33] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 390. [34] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 316. [35] idem, p. 318. [36] idem, p. 316. [37] ibidem. [38] ibidem. [39] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 328. [40] idem, p. 319. [41] idem, p. 326. [42] ibidem. [43] “In the cities, the big constructions (…) develop their own rules. The city’s organization controls and unifies the whole.” SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 326. [44] style (yoshiki). NAUSSUME, Yann in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 315. [45] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 322. [46] idem, p. 327. [47] “Nowadays, building a house that is able to respond to all present needs doesn’t need to call for an architect. Comparing with the works done by recognized architects, conceiving a house is a too small task.” idem, p. 319. [48] idem, p. 321. [49] ibidem. [50] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 318. [51] p. 318. [52] p. 317. [53] ibidem. [54] SHINOHARA Kazuo, “Une théorie de l’architecture résidentielle” (juillet 1967) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 324. [55] idem, p. 316. [56] idem, p. 320. [57] idem, p. 321. [58] idem, p. 325. [59] “Whithin a work like mine where is a big part is given to symbolism, it’s necessary to give even a bigger place to expression in order to overcome the stereotype abstract forms.” idem, p. 327. [60] idem, p. 325. [61] SHINOHARA Kazuo in: Kazuo Shinohara, (ed. Axel Menges), Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1994, p. 134. [62] ibidem. [63] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004. [64] NUSSAUME, Yann in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 370. [65] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 388. [66] ibidem. [67] ibidem. [68] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 390. [69] idem, p. 388. [70] NUSSAUME, Yann in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 386. [71] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 389. [72] ibidem. [73] ANDÔ Tadao, “Un councours de circonstances” (1977) in: Anthologie critique de la théorie architecturale japonaise – Le regard du milieu (ed. Yann Nussaume – Préface de Iain Borden), Ousia, Belgique, 2004, p. 390. [74] ibidem. [75] ANDÔ Tadao. Interview. Osaka, January, 1993 cit. HENEGHAN, Tom, “The Archtecture of Tadao Andô – Predicated on Participation” in: GA Architect 12 – Tadao Ando 1988-1993, vol. 2 (English/ Japanese), A.D.A. Edita, Tokyo, 1993, p. 22.
Images: ANDO – GA, nº 20 (June 1988), p. 11 SHINOHARA - SHINOHARA Kazuo in: Kazuo Shinohara, (ed. Axel Menges), Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1994, pp. 22, 24. |
|
|
|
||
| feedback |
|
|