On the importance of visions, architecture, and art, about space and light with Michal Kutálek

Vision

Jana Kazimour Hladíková: The name of your architectural office "Next Level Studio" is not only connected to your practice; you presented the project "Next Level" in 2008 as an urban vision for the megacity's development. In a new unexplored environment of geostationary orbit, with the potential to become the 7th continent of Earth. The vision of architects going beyond the boundaries of houses and cities is unusual and more of an exception...
Michal Kutálek: This project began as a semester project in the studio FLO(W) led by doc. Miloš Florián in 2005. I chose this assignment out of a feeling of inner necessity to address the long-standing issue of finding the "ideal city." The project referenced significant advancements in nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other technical fields. Collecting, studying, and evaluating information took me half a year, and only after clarifying whether I wanted to focus on a technically feasible vision at that moment or a look into the future did I begin working on the project in the following semester. After submitting the project, I focused on my diploma thesis, where I preferred to return to Earth. However, after less than a year, I returned to the project and further developed individual ideas.

The project received significant awards!
It made it to the TOP 10 in the international competition focused on digital architecture, the FEIDAD Award, held in Hong Kong. The competition was in three rounds and submissions were made in the form of web pages created for specific projects. Success in a wide competition of digital architecture projects was, of course, a great encouragement for a budding architect. (The project is available online at www.nextlevel.xf.cz - note by the author.)

You drew from Vitruvius, C. L. Ledoux, R. Herron. I once saw the exhibition Frank Lloyd Wright and the Living City. I was impressed by his clear, bold message. When I realize that these and similarly sovereign ideas were presented fifty, a hundred years ago and the subsequent generations of architects live off them, what about the generations after us? How important are visions for an architect?
Visions are important, even if they do not materialize in 50 years; they can contribute to a different perspective on solving common tasks and the development of future architecture. Without Archigram, Centre Pompidou and High-Tech architecture of the 80s and 90s would hardly have come into being. The visions of architects 50, 100, or 2000 years ago differ in the issues relevant at the time that they sought to bridge, but they share the same goal - to create a safe, well-structured, healthy city.

Do bold visions even receive enough space in today's time?
No one has yet created the ideal place to live, and perhaps it isn't even possible. What is ideal for one person is unacceptable for another. So the quest for an optimal solution will always exist. Recently, I bought a book Utopia Forever in London, and I was surprised by how many interesting projects it featured. Most of them were school projects from the Bartlett School and the Architectural Association.

What role do schools play here?
Schools should offer students the opportunity for a different perspective on what is termed realizable architecture. Above all, students should value the chance to work "freely" without all the limitations that practice brings. They should develop their skills and strive to transcend normal boundaries. If they adhere strictly to the "wall" during their studies and are guided to do so, what will they do in regular practice? The same: decent architecture that does not offend but repeats established stereotypes. Students are the first to absorb new stimuli from the world, technical procedures, and methods - while they still have time for it. They should strive to seek information. I believe that any school is, in a way, somewhat rigid. In large established firms that have existential problems, it is difficult and expensive to embark on experiments. I do not claim that every student should engage directly in experiments or visions, but they should strive to squeeze the maximum out of each project and not fear going further into typically unfeasible themes and processes.



Your no less striking school project was "Tears for Reconciliation," which you worked on together with Marek Růžička. It is also a vision.
Yes, in this case, it is more realizable. It was a competition project launched as part of the international competition "Glasshouse - House for the New Millennium." Influenced by the events of September 11, 2001, we proposed glass structures, chapels in the shape of a tear. These were certain spiritual "meditative" spaces meant to convey the idea of mutual understanding of different cultures and religions. They were intended to be scattered around the world as a symbol of reconciliation. The fully glass unified structures allowed for a change in the typical coloring specific to particular religions. Last but not least, "smart glass" with an OLED layer was meant to allow for dimming while preserving local clear openings, thereby regulating the lighting atmosphere within. Thus, it was a modern digital stained glass.

Both of the aforementioned projects received awards in international competitions. Another project, "Take off House," was nominated for the school award at ČVUT, the Lead Dusan. I dare say that the appearance and concept of the house you designed are significantly different from the student works presented at that time.
It is a project from 2005; at that time, I began to think more about the relationship between the fields of architecture vs. design vs. art. Generally, there is a strong black line drawn between them. I see the work of an architect as a certain connection among these fields. Architecture has the greatest responsibility and is unique in its ability to absorb and integrate the other disciplines. At certain moments, it can utilize technological processes applicable in industrial sectors dealing with consumer goods, automotive, or aerospace industries, etc. Architecture can also strongly intertwine with art. Art has followed architecture since its inception. In gothic or baroque church buildings, there was a complete merging of architecture with sculpture and painting. In the works of Le Corbusier or today, for example, Zaha Hadid, this intertwining is very pronounced, whether in their paintings or sculptures integrated into buildings or the very "sculpting" of the forms of their buildings. After all, Karel Honzík in his book From the Life of the Avant-Garde describes the "generation of 1900" as primary painters and poets who gradually evolved into architects. This connection has always existed; today, however, in our environment, architecture is understood as a purely technical field.

Let's diverge for a moment to technology. As one of the first, you were engaged in robotics at FA. Even then, it was not a vision of the future, but a reality…
I see the future development of architecture precisely in the robotization and automation of production processes. The introduction of 3D software and the subsequent possibility of parametric design has initiated a revolution that I would compare to the discovery of the reinforced concrete skeleton. Currently, with the emergence of unconventional freeform objects, we still face the issues of feasibility using CAD/CAM systems. While they work precisely, once a part produced in this way arrives at the construction site and is touched by human hands, problems arise related to inaccuracies, complications in placement, connections to other components, etc. Construction processes should be automated and precision-enhanced during assembly.

In your lecture, you mentioned that for your diploma project for the Warsaw Museum of Modern Art, you had to seek specialists outside the faculty.
It was a structurally demanding project where I utilized a structural engineer from the Faculty of Civil Engineering. He worked out an assessment using the finite element method. I had to redesign the project so that the demanding reinforced concrete structure did not exhibit unauthorized deflections. I also obtained structural assessment for the Take off House project. There, it was a demanding steel structure. At that time, the assessment was done by doc. Micka from the Research Aeronautical Institute. In this, I see a shortcoming of the official connectivity between the individual faculties. If a student wants to deal with something other than the usual architecture based on common forms of construction, they do not have access to a specialist with whom they could consult. It is solely up to them and possibly the effort of the studio leader whether they can find and negotiate with an external expert who will be willing to address some "crazy" student project in their free time.

You were one of the first graduates of Miloš Florián's studio; how do you remember that time?
When the studio was established in the winter semester of 2005, there were about six of us. Four projects in the individual category and the studio itself were nominated for the Lead Dusan. It was a successful start for a studio dealing with unconventional architecture in our country. Before that, I went around quality studios of prof. Navrátil, doc. Kroupa, and doc. Koucký. It was a valuable experience to closely observe different approaches to teaching and thinking about architecture. I graduated with doc. Florián with a project for the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. In this studio, I appreciated a certain freedom connected with trust in the student's abilities and also support in the effort to find different solutions than the commonly used structural or technological ones. Miloš, to a certain extent, lives through his studio and is willing to significantly accommodate students. Whether it's about obtaining information from foreign literature, which he systematically buys and is mostly unavailable in libraries, or financial support for creating demanding models, and so on. This makes it even more disappointing when not every student fully immerses themselves in their work, and the outcome does not meet high expectations.

Architecture - Art - Design

You consider the connection between architecture, art, and design to be essential. How do you approach individual projects?
It depends on the type of assignment, specific restrictions, client requirements, and the legitimacy of the architect's intervention. However, functionality and operational logic always come first.


How do your projects actually come about?
At the beginning, like probably every architect, I discuss with the investor, take notes, record thoughts, evaluate constraints and priorities. I always sketch a lot, even when creating shape-demanding objects, whose morphology could be better explored in a 3D interface. The computer only comes into play when I have a sense of the direction I need to go. More than just the shape, the sketch foreshadows a principle or concept. However, I always try to postpone the moment when I take the pencil in hand to make the first sketch. It can happen that a poorly executed doodle may lead me to abandon thoughts or principles that, upon longer consideration and better reflection, could be beneficial. Until I know which direction to take, I do not want to be tied down by a quickly sketched drawing. Once I make it, it leads me somewhere, and I develop a specific principle. There is a danger that I may become too attached to it, stop being self-critical, and waste time on the wrong path.

In general, I don’t create many variants. I stand by one correct option that I believe in. Sometimes, however, I have to put on a bit of a "show" in front of the client and present other variants. But I make those so poorly that the correct one can be distinctly chosen by the client's own judgment (smile - note by the author).


This may sound naive, but I still ask: Is there a big difference between your school projects and your current ones?
They are certainly more realizable and more rational. I am forced to use commonly available materials to stay within budget. I also have much less time for the study itself, but on the other hand, I can and must work faster. Many things are not resolved on paper or on the screen, but directly on the construction site or somewhere in a workshop. I visit construction sites very often; the advantage is that most realizations are around Uherské Hradiště.