 Recently, the name of Professor Ladislav Lábus has appeared mainly in connection with his election as the future dean of the Faculty of Architecture CTU. However, an interview regarding the direction of the school under his leadership will be brought by Archiweb only after Professor Lábus takes office – he will assume it starting in February 2014.In the current interview, we return to an event that somewhat overshadowed the recent dean elections, although it certainly had stronger resonance on the international stage: namely, the awarding of honorary membership in the American Institute of Architects and the subsequent trip across the United States.
You recently returned from the AIA Congress in Denver, where you received the title of Honorary Fellow AIA. What preceded this event? Membership in AIA, which was founded in 1857, is not a prerequisite for practicing the profession but is rather a prestigious association of architects who wish to contribute to the development of architecture and the profession. The American Institute of Architects decided in 1952 to create an elite membership group and established the College of Fellows, and since then, they have enshrined in their statutes a prestigious title of Fellow – FAIA, in addition to basic membership for their members. Since 1954, they have been awarding honorary membership – Honorary Fellow, abbreviated as Hon. FAIA, to foreign architects. Unlike American architects who are AIA members, foreign members must be nominated by one of the AIA sections. Aside from the most commonly awarded category – architectural or urban design, the title can also be earned for activities in four other areas, specifically education or research, as well as construction and public administration related to architecture. When I was nominated last year, I had to fill out a number of forms and send AIA my resume and portfolio. Additionally, the nominated architect must designate at least five individuals whom AIA subsequently requests for references. I proposed six representatives representing our architectural scene. I sought recommendations from both the academic world and the practical world both domestically and abroad.
It took place in June at the AIA Congress in Denver and was associated with the awarding of the Fellow title to American architects; incidentally, this year around 120 AIA members received the title. Honorary membership – Honorary Fellow, awarded to foreign architects, is much more unique. This year, there were seven of us, mostly nominated for architectural design: two Germans – Zvi Hecker and Matthias Sauerbruch, Spanish Francisco Mangado, Dutch Ben van Berkel, Mexican Fernando Romero, and Chinese Siegfried Zhiqiang Wu, who was the only one awarded for urbanism. The ceremony occurred at the Denver Opera with all the American pomp and seriousness. They even had ceremonial black robes made for us, which resemble the gowns we know from our graduations. The president and former presidents or chancellors of AIA also wore gowns in different colors, who introduced and welcomed us individually on stage. As I said, the atmosphere was very dignified, reflecting the fact that American architects highly value this recognition. Incidentally, part of the Congress also included the presentation of three main awards and many other AIA awards to selected personalities from the American scene and significant buildings. Which personalities were involved? The Gold Medal was awarded to Thom Mayne of Morphosis studio. The award for best architectural firm went to Tom Williams and Billie Tsien. And then there was an award that I found very appealing: it was awarded to buildings after twenty-five years of operation. This year, it was received by the Menil Collection museum designed by Renzo Piano in Houston, Texas. Additionally, awards are given to individual buildings in three categories – architecture, interior design, and urbanism. It was quite appealing to me that, unlike our Grand Prix, about ten projects were awarded in each area, but without mentioning the order. Of course, this is related to the size of the country and the number of realizations, but still, I found this principle interesting even for our more modest conditions. Moreover, they award additional partial awards, one of which is dedicated to young architects. And again: it is not about individuals; this year, 15 young architects were awarded. It was also interesting for me to see the awarding of six prizes to people collaborating with AIA in the field of architecture who work in public administration, universities, or various cultural institutions. In connection with the current revival of discussions about the architecture award being prepared by ČKA, I again emphasize that AIA is not an organization that grants a license to practice architecture. It is not a chamber but a professional association at the level of our Union of Architects.
Was the audience familiar with your work? The nomination is determined by a committee that receives the portfolio, which should present at least five works over about fifteen pages. From that, the committee prepared a brief presentation, which was shown during the award ceremony and later during the festive dinner. By the way, like every year, the Americans invited two of the seven foreign Honorary AIA members for a short lecture and a moderated discussion. I was fortunate to be chosen alongside Francisco Mangado. What did you want to convey to your American colleagues? In those approximately twenty minutes, I focused on characterizing my priorities and values. I presented these through individual buildings or areas of tasks and themes we are engaged in. I spoke about buildings for seniors, which led us to focus more on the users of our homes and we began to take a more intense interest in how they are affected – alongside aesthetic and technical categories, we closely monitor the communicative aspects and functionality of the designs. Another characteristic of our studio's activities includes residential buildings, including family homes. I enjoy working with private investors, for instance on small projects, which bring very personal, immediate interactions, and due to the small scale of villas, it is also very creative work, almost like sculpture. The third phenomenon involves renovations, extensions, and additions, including constructions in historic environments. We like to express ourselves in this context with contemporary means, but we want them to not stick out prominently. We approach this more from the application of similar principles rather than direct imitation. In short, it is more about systematic rather than literal referencing to the world we are entering.
How did the Congress audience react? Was there space for discussion? The discussion was open, and I was pleased that the attendees understood the essence of our work and were receptive to our messages. I spoke about simple matters that are not closely monitored in contemporary architecture. My lecture about our work was positively received, in part probably because it fit into the context of the conference. Its leading theme was oriented towards social programs and humanism in architecture, and of course, to sustainability. Thus, artistic or technical exhibitions did not dominate; key lectures were delivered by personalities dealing with, for example, aid systems in developing countries, humanizing environments, etc.
I might disappoint you. I based my trip more on exploring natural wonders rather than architecture, so we primarily visited national parks. From the big cities, I only saw Denver and San Francisco. From the smaller towns, Bozeman, where Tomáš Bitnar lives and works, who introduced us not only to his realizations but also to many other buildings. Thanks to him, I had the opportunity to get to know the environment of preparation and realization of buildings in the USA more deeply. At first, I was very surprised by the level and character of standard construction. I expected a conservative environment, but I did not think that contemporary architecture, as one knows it from Western Europe, does not really exist in some states there. Postmodernism has firmly established itself there: clients do not want modern or even contemporary architectural work. Fortunately, there are still people who build traditional structures well and with knowledge of the craft. However, in recent years, there has been a trend towards approaching traditional architecture creatively and individually, as learned in modernist-oriented schools, so mere application of a Victorian template does not satisfy the authors. This leads to a desire to mix different styles and materials, and the result looks rather undignified for my taste. What do you think is the cause of this? Let me first say that in Denver and, in general, in large cities, it is somewhat different than in Bozeman, which is a smaller, somewhat cowboyish town. In large cities, modernist buildings generally prevail, which have often insensitively affected historic districts: thus their caution and vigilance towards modernism is understandable. I see the essence, in addition to the mentioned conservatism of the clientele, also in the fact that an important role in the design process here is not played by the architect but by the contractor – the supplier. The contractor, alongside the client, has the decisive word and lacks the desire to create something new or even to experiment. The architect proposes a study that is somewhat coordinated with the professions, possibly a one-tier project for the building permit, and does not carry much responsibility for the technical solution. However, this also means having less influence.
You mentioned your surprise at the mediocrity of regular construction. Isn't your Honorary membership in the central organization of North American architects, thus the recognition of an author of significantly modern work, a certain paradox? It is indeed a paradox that in AIA, authors of buildings that are rather rarely constructed in some parts of the USA are honored. My work, in comparison with the other honorary members, is probably the least extravagant... Of course, modern things are built in the USA too; I don’t need to remind you of Liebskind or Gehry, etc. When the Art Museum is built, it is presumably expected to be oddly shaped and sharp-edged, and it will be made by Liebskind, but otherwise, an ordinary American would not invite it across their threshold... In short, architects there cannot do what they would like, because they function in a subordinate role. And when an investor, for example, decides based on the contractor's recommendation that the object will be in Victorian style, the architect will have to design it in Victorian style. Most clients do not crave for contemporary architecture there, and when someone happens to appear, contractors and managers quickly dissuade them: advising against building a modern house even for oneself, because it is necessary to consider that the house will have to be sold profitably after a few years. By the way, there are truly beautiful old townhouses, old barns, or old wooden family homes in America, so it’s no wonder that what is being built today often impresses most people and is close to them… Interestingly, very traditionalist approaches are strongly applied in the American scene, which is at odds with the technological developments in the USA that focus on advancement in construction.
How would you compare the design process there with the situation here? We still have a triumvirate of architect, investor, and contractor maintained in a relatively balanced relationship. In the USA, the architect is now just one of the professions. The management or contracting model of construction, however, is spreading to Western Europe and thus to us, especially in large development projects… In this system, it is more about investment and development interests than the needs of those who are building a specific house or school…
Yes, that is true, but in the USA, there is no self-governing chamber; access to the profession is officially regulated at the level of individual states. This may also explain the difference in the seriousness of AIA within the community of American architects, as the institute is their self-governing association. We have a self-governing chamber, and thus the association is essentially a duplicative program, but this brings problems, for example, when the chamber starts to consider introducing excellence through elite membership or awarding prizes. Indeed, education when entering the profession in EU countries is recognized, and only the acquisition of knowledge regarding office management and legislation is checked. The situation in the USA allows schools to experiment more, but at the same time, it is more difficult to evidence some standard of content and quality of study. Some schools there do not take responsibility for the comprehensiveness of education; they focus more on the creative aspects of the profession and overlook, for example, knowledge of the technical field of education. Schools in the USA are very free, but this also manifests in a huge dispersion of quality among schools and their graduates. They do not operate like our schools, which engage in comprehensive education. Some of their graduates learn to construct houses only when they enter a firm. Let me return to the Denver Congress. What topic was it focused on? The central motto was: Leaders-Builders, in other words, architects are leaders. For the final key lecture, the organizers even invited a statesman – General Powell, who led American forces in the Gulf War. By the way, I recently read Karpf's memories: he worked in the USA for many years and worked with Wright. He writes about how they envy the power that the architect has; everyone trembles before him when he arrives at the site. He signs the contractor's invoices – and without his signature, banks will not pay. Much has probably changed since then, but I do not want to claim that I am knowledgeable about the education system or construction production there; my opinions are limited to partial insights into the North American scene.
If you tried to summarize your North American experience in your thoughts, in what way was the journey inspiring for you? Probably in everything, but the predominant aspect was the amazing nature. The sheer size of the country, its diversity, and the disarming friendliness and warmth of the people... The interesting thing is the new approaches there and the emphasis placed on the quality of urban life conditions. For instance, their changing attitude towards greenery. They are transitioning from hygiene and aesthetics, more precisely decorative functions, to elements of utility. In cities, various crops are starting to be grown in parks and on rooftops: fruits and vegetables or herbs, etc., and this new phenomenon has another purpose and effect: it brings people together. The current problem is that due to computers, we have been living some sort of side, virtual life: people are beginning to stop communicating with each other because they sit at home at their computers, or are usually at work all day, also typically at the computer – and come home by car, so they do not meet anyone throughout the day. That’s why walking and cycling are gaining traction in the USA, although the small structure of individual residential development in cities and the associated absence of public transport certainly does not facilitate this, as does the mentioned gardening of vegetables or fruits – with someone, perhaps a neighbor, in a shared space – perhaps in a square or on a green roof. Thank you for the interview. Jiří Horský
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
4 comments
add comment
Subject
Author
Date
Rozdíl: Postmoderna, současná architektura?
goory
19.11.13 02:50
Goorymu
T.Fiala
19.11.13 03:56
re:rozdíl
Zdeněk Skála
19.11.13 05:48
re Rozdíl: Postmoderna, současná architektura?
Vích
20.11.13 02:20
show all comments
|
