Tadao Ando: The Paths of Architectural Intentions

During the process in which the architect's idea transforms into a building, the whole and its parts enter into a tense relationship that persists until the entire building is complete. This relationship of tension forms the context of architectural details. Details are traces left by the main idea of architecture as it bridges the gap between the whole and the parts. It is from the complications encountered in this process that the most suitable details of the building emerge. The goal is to create details that activate each other and thus come alive.
All materials that exist in the world have a generally accepted meaning. However, the design of architecture is not just a simple projection of meanings into the building. Only when a person has noticed the essence of the given subject are they able to shape and define the form that the material will take. The deeper the idea, the more thoroughly the form crystallizes. Only in this way does the process of creation stand out. However, there is a significant distance between logic and essence or form and material in architecture. In my case, what helps bridge that distance is my sense of aesthetics. This sense allows architecture to emerge, creating subtle adjustments in the relationship of the building to function while maintaining the autonomous character of material and form.
Details in architecture are not merely a matter of technical solutions or arrangements. In design, the starting point is the search for the logic of architecture that permeates the whole, and ultimately, one always returns to the starting point. Within this cycle, the relationship between the whole and the parts, and between the material and shapes must be taken into account. I believe that a sensitivity to the weight, hardness, and texture of materials, as well as an intuitive understanding of their technical processing limitations, is essential. Above all, however, the architect must define their own vision concerning technique. Without clear individual goals, architecture becomes an object of economic logic and banal conventions that govern technique. Technique is nothing more than knowledge. The architect's intentions and ideas guide that knowledge—they are more substantial.
Drawings are a means of communication among those engaged with architecture. At the same time, they also represent a system of signs that breathes life into matter. Therefore, drawings should bear the imprint of the author's intentions; without them, architecture is not possible.
The orthodox method of architectural drawings is the projection of three-dimensional space into two dimensions. It is a method that has proven itself over time. However, it is by no means ideal, as architectural spaces that encompass relationships between planes cannot be fully understood from two-dimensional expressions. I like to express a summary of my intentions concisely in one drawing. I overlap plans, their parts, perspectives, and axonometrics and occasionally insert a drawing at a different scale into the plans to suggest a detail. The mutual relationship of the parts that create architectural space can only be understood when such drawing methods, which possess three-dimensional quality, are combined and ultimately lead to an understanding of the whole.