Compilation of interview illustrations by Mario Botta.
Archi.ru:
How would you define your own creative credo? In what terms - "postmodernism", "neo-traditionalism"?
Mario Botta:
- Definitions are chosen by critics. When there is a project on the table in front of you, it is not at all necessary to know who you are - a rationalist, post-traditionalist, modernist or postmodernist. I think that all these labels are hung by cultural fashion, while today, unlike the era of large historical movements, there is no room for rigid definitions. Today there are so many things and everything is changing so quickly that it is difficult to find a strictly assigned place for yourself.
- You are a student of the most important inventor of "radical" directions with strict definitions - Le Corbusier
- I would very much like to be a representative of "postantika". I believe that the great modernist tradition in which we grew up, the post-Bauhaus tradition, makes it difficult for us to choose the territory of memory, which, in my opinion, is the main [territory] where the architect works. Today our choice is hindered by the speed of change. All of these architectural movements ultimately defined the cultural context with which we can now work. Nowadays, an architect tries to do his job well and create in his own way, tries to respect the needs of society, but regardless of any ideological credo. Today I feel a bit an orphan, it seems to me that modern movements are too fluid, they give society formless answers - including, without an ideological form, without morality. Everything becomes possible. In my opinion, this is not very good, because architecture is what lives on after the architect, his duty is also to be able to propose models that would exist for future generations.
But the architect is very dependent on the customer …
- Yes, the customer is part of the project, the architect cannot do what he wants.
A part, but not a leader?
- There are the necessary parameters to implement the project: the order - "I want a house", "I want a hospital", "I want a church" - this is not decided by the architect. The architect determines where they will live, work, pray, heal, give shape to these institutions through a sense of their time. That is, this dualism is always present, the architect cannot define the program himself. And it would be wrong if he defined it. The program is provided by the society. What does it mean to build housing today? Church? Theatre? And this is different from the way it was yesterday. An architect is called to interpret the culture of his time. Culture is the formal embodiment of history.
Did you have to abandon the project because you did not share the ideas of the customer?
- Yes. If the customer is on a different wavelength, it is useless to continue working. Sometimes at first it seems that everyone agrees, but in the course of work it turns out that this is not so. You need to be able to say no. Perhaps there will be someone else who can do the required work.
What could be the reason for your refusal?
- If the given topic is not close to me. For example, a prison: I don't understand why I should build a prison. Or if the context is very far from my interests, and it is difficult for me to interpret it. For example, it would be difficult for me to design a mosque. It is easier for me to design what belongs to the European, Western culture.
- Moreover, you are a "multifunctional" architect, you have buildings of the most diverse typology
- This is the wealth of our work. Every day, topics come to me that I have never encountered.
- Your works, with all the variety of their functions, always contain a very significant monumental component. For example, the Petra winery leaves a strong impression precisely because of its monumentality, because you do not expect such powerful expressiveness from a winery - in fact, an industrial building. Each of your buildings is like an object from a surreal picture
- I will give two answers. One is about the language. There is an identification of an architectural language. A language that loves completeness, light, the theme of memory. And it always finds expression: when you build a house, and when you build a winery, and when you build a theater. It is part of my handwriting. Each of us has our own vocabulary, and I think that we need to work within this vocabulary, and not change it constantly. And this is my first answer. The problem here is not style, but language. Picasso's language is recognizable, Paul Klee's language is recognizable - both when they make a tragic picture, and when a joyful one. I believe that none of us can change this language. You can pronounce words with less or more force, but the language remains the same.
Second answer. Why does even a winery have to be monumental? It is monumental because they wanted to get it. The customer wanted this territory, these vineyards, in a word, this winery to be full of history and memory, but at the same time be modern. And I think this is true. This act, as you say, is monumental, it is the story of the interpretation of matter that is monumental - the vine, the vineyard, the wine, which comes from millennia - it is the fruit of the earth. This is not an easy thing to do. She talks about the sun, about heating, about nourishing the earth. These are the topics that connect me with the history and geography of the territory. Thus, the more monumental, the more interesting to me, the more fleeting, the less interesting. The building should kind of lead to the origin of the problem. What is a winery? The earth turns into this liquid - wine, and then gives spirit, joy, taste to man. And it seems to me that this is part of the architecture. You can probably keep good wine at Disneyland too, but Disneyland is made for other purposes. Here I was interested in this original thought, on which the "institution" is based, which, in our case, turns the sun and earth into wine.
Was it difficult for you to work with a customer who is far from architecture? With this question, I would like to throw a bridge to the following: you have built many churches, how did the relationship with their customers develop? How often have you encountered misunderstandings?
- Yes, almost always. This is a very difficult problem.
- In Russia, for example, the volume of church construction has sharply increased, but no new architectural language was invented, and new churches continue to reproduce the old typology
- Yes, I understand, this is a well-known problem of the new language for cult architecture. But you have already answered your own question. If I am asked to build a house, then I ask myself: what is a house today? If they ask for a church, then I ask - what is a church today? How to build a church today, after the avant-garde, after Picasso, after Duchamp … after those who turned our sense of the sacred … Before Rudolf Schwarz [Rudolf Schwarz, German architect, known primarily for his designs of Catholic churches of the 1940s - 1960s - approx. A. V.] it was still possible to speak of some kind of historical continuity, then a break occurred. But even today, it seems to me, since there is a demand, there is also a need for space for silence, for reflection, and for believers - for prayer. In any society, there has always been a space dedicated to this action - that is, non-action, meditation in silence, in between everyday activities. That is, the problem for an architect is how to give shape to such a space. How to formulate today's worldview? It is completely wrong to continue building churches the same way as in the past. The churches of the past were built on the basis of continuous historical evolution. After all, the neoclassical church in St. Petersburg is not at all like the baroque church in St. Petersburg. Why is our society incapable of answering this request? In a sense, the same thing happens with the theater. This is very important because theater in a city is a place of collective imagination. But the theater today is not at all like the theater even 20 or 50 years ago. He's completely different. There are new technologies, laser projections … That is, the need to dream remains, but the tools are changing. It's the same for a cult building. The same applies to housing and the place of work or entertainment.
- But in the case of the church, perhaps the believers themselves have a more traditionalist mentality, in a sense, more conformist, and do not like the new architecture
- Yes, but this is not an architect's problem. Anyone who wants to order a traditionalist building will easily find a contractor. But in my opinion, the “traditionalist” church is a caricature of the old typology, not the new church. And here, of course, there is a conflict, I am not saying that there is none. My task is not to reproduce ancient samples, but to build a church that would speak of a new worldview. We all have a mobile phone in our pocket, and we live in the culture of our time. I don’t understand why we should dress modernly, but moreover, see reactionary historical forgeries around. I believe that architecture should always be authentic. You cannot make caricatures of the past.
You said that you prefer to work in a European cultural context. But you also have projects implemented in Asia. How do you work in these countries?
- I am currently working on one project in China. In a strange way, China is more congenial to me, there is a social upsurge there, which has declined in Europe and America. I am working at the Academy of Fine Arts in Shenyang, north of Beijing. And I see that there is this power of the spirit of rebirth, which is very interesting. After all, I am also partly Chinese: I use things made in China. An architect today is above all a citizen of the world. Later, if someone prefers Indian mysticism, he draws inspiration from it. Nevertheless, if I can work in old Europe, then I am very pleased with it.
Have you ever had to turn to construction technicians from other cultures, for example, while working in China?
- Today we use triple glass structures, including here, with us. I'm not at all opposed to technology, the question is different: if a stone is beautiful, ages well and costs less, why should I use aluminum, which, moreover, requires a lot of energy costs for production?
Have you always been satisfied with the implementation of your buildings abroad?
- I have worked on four continents, Australia is missing. It's not that everything is the same everywhere, you can't generalize. I just finished a hotel in Shanghai and it was built very well. But there are also poorly constructed works. My Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco was well built, and in North Carolina, in the city of Charlotte, it was also good. But you cannot generalize. It all depends on many reasons: from the customer, from the developer … I have poorly built objects here, with us.
Have you ever worked for Russian customers?
- I have done two or three projects - business centers in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But they were not implemented: not because of their architectural qualities, but because the customer had rather confused ideas, he did not have confidence and did not have a site … But this happens here, not only in Russia.
Where did you study?
- In Venice. I studied with Scarpa, Gardella, Samona, they are all Venetians.
Do you feel like a representative of a special generation of architects?
- Yes. Let's call it the “after the masters” generation. My generation saw the death of great masters: Wright, Alvar Aalto, Gropius, Le Corbusier. We had a great interest in the modern movement, and then we saw the physical end of its participants. My generation of architects - Cellini and Purini in Rome, for example - is the generation that came after the '68 generation.
Have you also worked with Luis Kahn?
- Yes. While still a student, I was his assistant on the design of an exhibition at the Palazzo Doge in Venice about his project for the Palace of Congresses for this city [in 1968 - approx. A. V.]. And then we spent a whole month together, developing plans, in a small studio in the Palazzo Doge. This is a great man. For me, this is the greatest thinker I have ever met. As a writer Friedrich Dürrenmatt, a great thinker who reflected on the culture of the twentieth century.
Have you been influenced by Kahn's creative worldview?
- Of course. Anyway, I hope!
- You manage to combine the professional activity of a practicing architect and teaching
- Yes a little. I still work at the Mendrisio Architectural Academy where I lecture and coordinate first year students.
In your opinion, is it important for an architect to teach?
- If he is fascinated by it, then yes. I do this because this is how I learn from the students. Students are the best thermometer that can sense the culture - the "temperature" of their time. We seem to have a little more experience than they do, we pass on this experience to them, and in return they provide us with a seismograph of our time.
What are the most important things to explain to architecture students in their first year?
- First of all, you need to understand the importance of the influence of external factors, something that 10–20 years ago did not pay much attention to. The problems of natural balance, the problem of energy resources, climate change, all those things that are "boiling" now. At least you need to know about them. You need to have a general idea of the world in order to work later in a specific place. We explain to architects all the complexity of their profession, so to speak, "from the spoon to the city." At the same time, we teach them to remember about external problems - climate, transport. It is also important to designate for yourself the goals that are associated specifically with our profession, are its integral part - such as, for example, the territory of memory. We, as creative people, transform the conditions of nature into the conditions of culture, that is, we carry the spirit of our time. The spirit of our time is not just chatter about what the future will be like. We also carry the memory of the past, of history, of past generations. Historical centers are of great importance in a modern city. We live in a kind of cities of the dead, where, moreover, it is pleasant for us to be, more pleasant, for example, than in Rotterdam … We are trying to convey to students the complexity and speed of changes that the modern world has witnessed. This is our task.
Do you yourself prefer to work in a historical context or in a new developing city?
- What does the architect prefer? Maybe just go for a walk down the street. The architect makes those projects that come across to him. Of course, I really enjoy working in a historical environment. In such a task, there are more contradictions, that is, more energy. But the new city also has a transformation problem. What used to be a steppe must become a city. Working on such a site is not a joke at all. Each time you need to have the ability as well as the humility to read the context. Reading the context is an integral part of the project. The context of the relief or historic city is also part of the project. What should our project do? Build a dialogue with the realities of the environment. I see the context as a piece of paper on which the project will be "drawn".
What is your favorite project or building?
- Next. Each object is like its own child. Moreover, we are still looking to the future. I love all my projects, even those that have failed. Even, perhaps, the failed ones are more than others, you know, like with a stupid child. You love him because he is just your child. I don't like coming up with models that represent themselves. Each project speaks about the circumstances for which it is created. Sometimes about the happy, sometimes about the difficult. My next project will be my favorite, I promise you that! It will be beautiful!
- You also work for the "Stations of Art" of the Naples Metro [a program for the construction of new stations with the participation of leading architects and artists from Italy and from abroad - approx. Archi.ru]
- Yes, I am doing two projects. One is very small, this is the Tribunal station. The other is a little more, for it we have already completed the design stage, this station is located in the area of the famous Neapolitan prison of Poggio Reale. The facility already has an old station, ours will be located at the intersection of two lines. But today's buildings are somewhat less noble than those that were done earlier [within the framework of the same program]. They are much more modest, including for economic reasons. I designed both stations in travertine, let's see what happens in the end.
How did you work with the Naples metro?
- Very good. The theme is good, the enthusiasm is pleasant, it's great that the project had stations on which the artists also worked.
Do you work with any artist?
- No, but I would really like to. The object will be handed over rather a long time ago. There is a project, but now we have to slowly implement it.
That is, here, too, you had to work with the historical environment and include an already existing station in your project?
- The problem was not even so much with the inclusion of the historical part as it was of a technical nature: it was necessary to design an underground facility, include paths, etc. There were no significant archaeological sites on our site. It was the technical and engineering part that was very difficult.
- A question I cannot avoid: your memories of Le Corbusier
- I knew three great masters. I studied with Carlo Scarpa at the Institute of Architecture of the University of Venice (IUAV) and defended my diploma. Scarpa, in my opinion, was a great master, maybe even the best in terms of using the material. He could make the poorest material, such as pebbles or earth, speak, and made them noble. I have never again met anyone who was so sensitive to the humblest, poorest materials, who knew how to treat them with the same poetry. Scarpa's strength, in my opinion, lies precisely in this. I don't think he had any outstanding vision of space. But he knew how to take and how to cut a stone, how to give strength to a tree, he understood the nature of iron, and in this he was great.
I met Le Corbusier when I worked as an apprentice in his bureau, but I communicated with his employees, with him directly - never. But his strength, I think, was that he was able to turn the events of life - war destruction, problems of hygiene and reconstruction - into architecture. He invented the Citroan House for pre-fabricated construction, and then the Radiant City for the reconstruction of cities. He turned half a century of history into architecture.
Meeting Kan for me was like meeting the Messiah. Kahn pondered the origins of the problems. Kahn said that two people who talk to each other under a tree are already a school. The tree is like a microclimate, and the school is communication. Kahn, perhaps more than anyone else, foresaw the dangers of the technological era, multiplication, globalization, and foresaw a possible "leveling". Then he said that you need to dig deep and look for the origins of the craft. The idea of gravity, the idea of spirituality. I had three outstanding teachers.
Could you name one of the masters of the past as your teacher?
- When you see Michelangelo, you always say - he is a genius! Or Borromini … But those were completely different times, it is difficult to compare yourself with them. Scarpa, Le Corbusier and Kahn, in my opinion, were "teachers of the present", teachers of the "post-Bauhaus" era, they had three special visions of material, society and human thought … very deep.
Do you still feel connected with Italian culture?
- Yes, the starting points of my work are in Italy.
- You combine traditional Italian techniques with modern building technologies: for example, Roman brick or Florentine facade cladding with colored marble
- Yes, I like working with traditional materials. First, they are economical, and I have never had very rich customers. Secondly, they require knowledge of the craft and convey the character of "handicraft", as well as age beautifully. I don't understand why I absolutely have to use aluminum or high-tech glass. I don’t think they are so necessary to make architecture. To fly to the moon - yes, there is no way without high technology, but to build a house, to lay a roof, to make a window, you need not so much. Structures that are laden with history are also laden with knowledge and have a long lifespan. Modern architecture is aging rather badly. I was at EXPO 2015 in Milan. The pavilions, built just six months ago, are already old! Not in the sense that they are no longer fashionable, but in the fact that their exploitation has aged very quickly - in just six months. I would like my buildings to serve for six hundred years.
