Interview with Boštjan Vuga

In the morning, we visited the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Vinohrady together. I already understood that defining the relationship to the work of your compatriot Jože Plečnik is very fundamental for you. How do you perceive his figure, and what do you think is relevant about his work today?
Thank you for this question. It is an interesting topic because this year many events converge. As we know, it has been fifty years since Plečnik's death, and in Ljubljana, the city where Plečnik worked most, there are a number of celebrations taking place. Starting with the exhibition of his work at the National Gallery, discussions, lectures, and ending, for example, with organized tours of his buildings.
A month or two ago, I came up with the idea of looking at Plečnik's work from various perspectives. I proposed to the editorial board of the architectural bulletin AB, a Ljubljana theoretical magazine with a long tradition, to publish an issue dedicated to Plečnik, simply titled "Plečnik 2007." The intention is to find out how to evaluate his work from today's perspective, what from his work can be used as a source of inspiration for contemporary creation. The publication should offer a very pragmatic and practical view of his legacy. The underlying idea is to demystify Plečnik and his work.

Is he, according to you, a myth?
Definitely. Especially in Slovenia - and I am not exaggerating - he is perceived almost as a saint. This is evidenced by the recent events, for example, there are proposals for him to be beatified.

Really?
Yes, it is bizarre. On the other hand, there are significant speculations on how to protect his buildings. Nowadays in Slovenia, you can also hear voices advocating for the construction of a fourth bridge over the Ljubljanica River; it should lead to the marketplace and look exactly as Plečnik designed it in the 1930s.

From the tone of your voice, I can infer that you are not inclined to this idea...
I think it is nonsense. We do not live in the 1930s...
Let me add a third fact: On the new Slovenian euro coin, I think it is the 1 euro, Plečnik's parliament is depicted, which is interesting in itself. It is merely a sketch. The building was never realized, and there was never a real project developed for it. It is just an idea, an image - and yet it has gained the power of an icon. Just imagine tourists arriving in Ljubljana and futilely searching for this building in the streets... I believe that on the euros of the countries that have already adopted this currency, there is no other unbuilt building. And that also says something about the mentality of the nation. And perhaps these facts led me to the proposal of the mentioned issue of AB. We need to re-update Plečnik's work. So that it becomes one of the potential sources that the rich European tradition of the twentieth century offers. Similar to the works of Le Corbusier, Aalto, or Scharoun. In the breadth of his production, projects should simply be distinguished as less and more contemporary, less and more useful for today. It is simply not one package.

The willingness to differentiate the value of individual works of an artist usually declines in relation to the significance generally attributed to the author. Undoubtedly, it is needed. Which of Plečnik's works do you value more?
Thank you for arranging the tour of the church in Vinohrady for us, because I personally believe it is one of his most interesting and contemporary buildings. It resonates with a very current approach to architecture. One can draw lessons here, find answers to creative questions, and take them away as sources for one's own creation.

What specifically?
I consider, for example, the way of handling the ornament on the surface to be very contemporary, which basically suppresses the relationship between detail and whole, as well as the solution to the relationship between the interior and the exterior: there is absolutely different work with scale in the interior and the exterior. On the outside, the building appears as a thriving, inflated ornament, while inside - I am now specifically talking about the tower - there is a dominant expression of a significant upward movement along a ramp. Then, when you stand in front of the clock, an element of transparency is applied, which also reflects the opposite side. And further, there is, let’s say, a play of supporting elements on the ceiling of the main hall, where the structure basically becomes an ornament or decoration.
All these motifs can be considered relevant. And this is how I personally, or our whole office sees Plečnik: not as history, but as a source for contemporary creation.

I know that it is not realistic, but still: If you met Plečnik and had the chance to ask him a question, what would you ask him?
That is indeed a very interesting thought. You know, I graduated in Ljubljana, I went through a school where Plečnik was in a way present. I would almost say he was in spirit. I am certainly exaggerating now, but one could feel his presence. Then I went abroad, and when I returned, it took me about ten years to become interested in him again.
What would I ask him? Whether he was creative enough. His entire work is basically ars combinatoria. It is about assembling elements. If we take, for example, the church in Vinohrady: it is essentially a construction of an ancient temple; you can trace modern thinking from the 1930s about movement here, but you can also find Semper's "theory of dressing" (which explains the origin of most decorative elements in architecture from textile art - author's note). I keep asking myself again and again: Is it really just about assembling individual elements, or is it a new spatial concept? I dare to speculate at this moment that if Plečnik had stayed in Prague or Vienna, his work would have been much more contemporary, much more in tune with modern tendencies.

Was the return then a mistake?
When he returned to Ljubljana, I believe it was his task to insert a new layer into the city. Ljubljana was at that time a small, beautiful, yet provincial city of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy... He came back with a visionary idea of Ljubljana as a Slovenian acropolis, thus bringing his visions of a metropolis into the city. At that time, the city lacked the generous concept of Prague, Vienna, or Paris, and Plečnik therefore inserted a new sufficiently strong layer that we now call Plečnik's Ljubljana.

Ljubljana only became the capital in 1991. Do you think this is an advantage or disadvantage for the city? I mean, whether the absence of a long-term structure gives architects more space today. And is it even necessary to adapt the city to its new function in an urban - architectural sense?
Ljubljana wasn’t a capital… although it always depends on this: a capital of what. It was the capital of the southern province of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, during the Napoleonic wars also briefly the capital of the French Illyrian provinces, after 1918 it was one of the administrative centers of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia then the capital of the Drava Banovina. After World War II, it again became the capital of Slovenia within the former federal Yugoslavia...

So I am mistaken...
Not that much. It is true that Ljubljana is somehow "not used" to being the capital of an independent state.
In the twentieth century, it had two great architectural personalities: in the 1930s and 1940s Plečnik and in the 1960s Edvard Ravnikar. Both left a strong influence, although Plečnik's is certainly more coherent. When we established our office, we were sure that what Ljubljana needs are new spatial situations. Not another style, not an imprint of another group of architects. But new spatial concepts. The Formula New Ljubljana thus represents a platform for how to stimulate the city and allow it to continuously change its appearance. This means that the layers or identities of the city should change and complement. We are convinced that we have an undeniable right to add our own layer to Ljubljana at the beginning of the 21st century - of course without destroying the previous ones. We perceive it as our ethical duty to the city.

Your theoretical thinking about architecture aims at creating formulas... It is a rather complex concept. I understand that you use them in your work, but can you also reveal formulas in the buildings of other authors?
Formulas are created and defined by our office. They essentially represent its concept. I will try to illustrate it using the example of one formula: cinematographic structures. You can see it, for example, in Bernini's colonnade in Rome or in Plečnik's promenade. These are buildings that define different environments through movement. We take this principle and try to create space with its help. As in the extension of the National Gallery: it is a pure concept of how to create a mono-volume in which cinematographic - film movement of perception helps you to identify diverse experiences, different feelings and various environments.

Also in your overall work, there is a great diversity, which probably relates to the already mentioned reluctance to create a style.
I believe that if we realized our buildings in different places, in different countries for example, they would resemble each other much more, and the formulas would also be more similar. But because we are a local office and about 90 percent of our houses are located in Ljubljana, we actually make an effort to find different spatial concepts for different places. And that is because we want to present the city itself as a cinematographic structure. If I return to the criticism of Plečnik and Ravnikar: with them, you see a city created by one hand. Well, actually two…

Thank you for the interview.
Kateřina Lopatová