Archi.ru would like to thank Povla Philippe Sonne-Frederiksen for his help in preparing the publication.
Peter Merkley came to Russia with the support of the Swiss Council for Culture "Pro Helvetia" as part of the "Swiss Made in Russia" program to visit Nikola-Lenivets. He also gave a lecture at MARSH School during the Bachelor's and Master's Open Days.
Archi.ru:
You are known as an architect with an extensive track record, where every object can be highly appreciated. One of your participation in the project of the campus for the pharmaceutical company Novartis in Basel [Merkley designed a visitor center there - note YA], where only the "stars" took part - SANAA, Frank Gehry, Raphael Moneo, David Chipperfield - a kind of recognition. At the same time, you keep aloof, a little aloof from these "architectural giants", you still have an "atelier", and you clearly do not plan to grow. How and why did your professional position take shape?
Peter Merkley:
- I would like to know what you mean when you say that I keep apart (smiles). I am doing my job, not promoting it. My studio has a team of 10-14 people. Having received the next order, we can afford not only to come up with a concept, but also to work out the entire project in detail, and this scrupulousness is extremely important for me, because it is it that corresponds to my ideas about the profession. And I don't think quantity is a measure of value. It's like at auctions, take, for example, Rubens, there are original originals, they are sold at Sotheby’s, and there are works by his workshop. And it's not only the quality of the paintings themselves, but, of course, the price. In my case, everything is more unambiguous: I just enjoy watching how the project is developing, making amendments, moving from small to large - and vice versa.
You started your professional career quite early, who influenced your formation?
- I graduated from high school and received a certificate of maturity: for 15 years I studied grammar and other sciences, but during these 15 years of schooling no one made a single attempt to teach my eyes. There was a little piano playing, but there was nothing to teach me to see. And then suddenly there is a desire to become an architect, that is, to find a profession in which the main organ is your eye. When I entered the Federal Technical School in Zurich (ETH) I did not have my own language. Fortunately, I was lucky: thanks to my school physics teacher, who loved architecture, Rudolph Olgati entered my life. He was 40 years older than me and lived in a village in the canton of Graubünden. This was the beginning. I had a huge sensory baggage, but I did not have the necessary knowledge and language. Olgati became my first teacher who introduced me to the world of architecture, and two years after entering ETH, I met the sculptor Hans Josefson. That, in fact, is all (laughs).
Recently in Zurich, in the main building of the ETH, on the occasion of the completion of your professorship, an exhibition of your students' works was held. Why did you decide to leave the teaching position? Do you plan to be somehow involved in the educational process, act as a guest critic, give lectures, as now at MARCH, or is this rather an exception, and you need to seize the moment?
- Let's not guess (laughs). I devoted most of my life to teaching, but at some point I began to think that I want to have more time for myself. These thirteen or fourteen years spent at the Technical School were extremely important, and on reflection, I decided that it would not be my creations that would best tell about them, but a retrospective of the work of my students. I have always wondered what kind of people they are - today's students and female students who voluntarily come to architecture. I have always expected only two things from them: joy and passion, and never perfection. On the contrary, I was ready to face mistakes and delusions, because only youth has such a privilege as the right to make mistakes.
That is why it is so important when there is someone who says to a young person: “You still know little about your profession, but your emotional intelligence, which you possess today, is more important than professional knowledge, and you must act according to it. If you think what you are doing is good and important for yourself, you must defend this important and good even if you do not keep up with everyone. You just have to say: this is how I feel and how I feel. Such conversations are very much needed, perhaps no less than the educational process itself.
How would you describe your teaching experience, what is your methodology?
- My technique is to see the personality in everyone. Sometimes there were a lot of us, up to 50 people on the course, however, we always refused group projects. Only individual work, because this was the only way to understand how everyone thinks and creates. And, of course, I do my best to promote hand-drawn graphics, because architectural drawings and hand-drawn sketches are beautiful and rational. We experimented a lot in this area. Yes, it is possible that five out of fifty students did not understand what we were doing. On the other hand, maybe it was a sign from above that they need to change their profession? (smiles) So much the better for them. I often remember how, picking up a pen or pencil, everyone was immersed in their thoughts, not thinking that someone would see their work: the result was always beautiful.
There was one young woman among the students, when she was sketching, it felt like she had a chisel in her hand. She never laughed, black hair, black clothes. But time passed, and she began to smile, just a little, but smile. Each sketch showed a character and a way of thinking. This is how the language was born. Then we learned to speak it. In the process of studying, we performed many tasks related to both objects in the context of the existing urban environment and outside it. Outside the city, we developed a special "high-precision" language needed to properly fit the building into the landscape space. The morphology of the landscape has its own peculiarities, there are no geometric patterns, so to fix the "main thing" we made a lot of sketches. Only after that, based on a hand-drawn sketch, we detailed the context in which it was planned to fit the building. Initial detailing: a detailed image of various kinds of contour lines, mountain ranges, etc. would be too costly, both from an economic and an artistic point of view, while the primary morphological characters are of much greater interest in this case. This topic has always struck me as extremely exciting.
What was the reason for your visit to Moscow?
- I came at the invitation of the Nikola-Lenivets park, with the support of the Swiss Council for Culture “Pro Helvetia” in the framework of the “Swiss Made in Russia” program. Ksenia Adjubey, speaking as a representative of the park, invited me to go there, see this place and discuss possible cooperation. I would be glad to realize my first project in Russia in such a beautiful place. We were there yesterday. There was snow, a lot of snow. It was cold and the sun was shining. The place is wonderfully inscribed in nature. There is no feeling of airtight clogging, isolation, but there are excellent objects.
This "accessibility", openness, reminded me of the sculpture museum "La Conjunta" in Ticino, designed for Hans Josefson [built by Merkley in 1992 - approx. Archi.ru]. Everyone who came there opened the front door himself, taking the key from a bar nearby. It had no infrastructure, no heating, and no artificial light. Therefore, what I saw in the park touched me.
In your interviews, you often talk about language in architecture. In this regard, there are two questions. If a building is a complete statement, then: what do your works speak about and with whom do you talk?
- In fact, people use several languages of communication: for each sense organ - its own. But most people believe that language is one and consists of speech and writing, and grammar serves to unite the two halves. If we had not lived in the era of the so-called. consumer society, perhaps we would not have to talk about this and we would understand that language is a kind of convention, a kind of agreement between people. In architecture, as well as in so-called free painting or sculpture, there are "agreements". The existence of some kind of collective agreement does not at all indicate the dominance of boring traditionalism, since the existence of traditions does not at all exclude fantasy.
Every era that functioned at least somewhat normally relied on a system of treaties and agreements. The variety of these "eras" that you and I are familiar with has also become possible thanks to the intricacies of various kinds of agreements. The first question I ask students has nothing to do with architecture; rather, it is of a social or political nature: “What kind of existence do I choose for myself when I think about my life? What is happiness for me? Self-sufficiency? " The second version of the question is directly opposite to the first: "Do I want" neighborhood "and constant interchange with other people?" If the first, "self-sufficient" option suits someone more, it means that this person can make a choice in favor of a "personal" language, and if the choice falls on the option of coexistence with other people, then this language does not suit them.
There is no bias in me. Rather, it appears when someone in our profession insists that they speak "their" language, but at the same time I do not understand it. Otherwise, I am a person who adheres to all agreements and conventions. If we extrapolate these reflections to the sphere of politics, they look about the same: I am sitting here, and they are there, and we are not able to understand each other. And, again, the whole point is in the “individuality” of the language, in which only one side speaks, and therefore it is absolutely unclear how to build “neighborly” relations then. And here I have a question: what does the world really want from our profession, if we are not talking about utilitarian needs? And what sensational works does the world consider to be truly outstanding? After all, if you think about it, you understand that the total barbarism that we observe in urban development and landscape design is a sign that few people care about everything that happens, because everyone flies on airplanes, drives cars, and in between a computer. Architecture, on the other hand, as a special language for expressing the attitude in life and the joy of life, is becoming a thing of the past, and only some enthusiasts continue to bend their line - because it is important and necessary. Yes, no one has ever died from the bad and the ugly, moreover, you gradually get used to it. The eye resigns itself to the horrors that it constantly sees.
Recently a lecture by the architectural philosopher Alexander Rappaport was held at MARCH, where he also spoke about the death of architecture, which, in his opinion, is due to the lack of human need in a global sense …
- Yes it is. But I still remain an optimist. I never tire of repeating that humanity simply cannot afford it, and I do not believe that a person who exists in a rigid canon: happiness is unhappiness, birth is death, can so easily refuse it. It just so happened that we lost our orientation for a while. It happens. And I do not believe that painting is also dead. There are many artists who talk about the decline of art, but my nature does not want to accept this. We must correct our future today, build and correct.
You asked me another question: is what the architect does a kind of message, a personal statement in dialogue with the city and the people around him? Imagine, you see a house, it evokes certain sensations in you, and through these sensations an understanding is born in you that you share the views and outlook of its author. But it also happens in another way: you look at the house and understand that the architect's worldview is absolutely different from yours. Therefore, I am confident that the "message" encoded in the architecture of the building can be clear enough. True, sometimes it's not about the "message" itself, but about the ability to read it.
It seems to me important that the building has its own beauty and charm. Life is so arranged that I will never cross the threshold of most of the buildings that I see when I visit different cities and villages, if only simply because some of them are privately owned. However, if I just walk down the street and pass by a building that has the attraction of beauty, it ennobles me as a person. If a building is devoid of this attraction, it simply does not enter into dialogue.
In your lecture in 2007 at the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, you called Mario Bott a fool because he built a round one-family house [so-called
round house in Stabio in the canton of Ticino - approx. Yu. A.]. Why does this project evoke such a reaction in you?
- We know Mario Botta personally, so I allowed myself to say so. The fact is that geometry is the foundation of our profession. The number of geometric shapes is ridiculously small and versatile. The circle is a circle in China too, that is, it is simply not a topic for discussion. And this radical basic form, as far as I know history, was used, as a rule, in the construction of certain religious buildings, for example, baptisteries, in the center of which there was a font. And if you are building a round house for one family today, then tell me, what will you do when you receive another similar order, do you use the circle as the main figure again? Oh, and where by the way, where did you put the toilet? And the nursery? What if everyone starts building round private houses? Whole streets of round houses will appear. This is absurd. Scream into the void. I want to say that the architect must know exactly what he wants to say, giving preference to one form or another. And trust me, giving up on something is sometimes more effective than reckless use. By the way, Corbusier also never built round houses, although Botta refers to him, he also refers us to the traditions of Ticino architecture, but the local architects also never built round houses. When I talk with young people, I always tell them: look for yourself, look carefully and decide whether it suits you or not … Look and decide. The only way…
Your buildings are designed according to the proportional system of your own invention based on the division of eighths, do you leave room for error?
- Errors are different, but, as a rule, they happen on their own, without our permission. By giving your home stability with proportion, you can already give yourself some freedom. Nevertheless, we have to work in the proposed circumstances and, perhaps, there is no need to complain about them. Remember how painters and sculptors worked during the Renaissance. They could no longer afford what their colleagues did in ancient times. On the other hand, we have many opportunities that we have not yet realized, the way up is endless …
Recently your new book “Peter Merkley. Drawings "(Peter Märkli. Zeichnungen / Drawings), in connection with which I have several questions. Your drawings live in the semiotic world of architecture, i.e. are complete statements: what is this - a way of thinking? Do you consider them architecture, small projects? Looking at your work, I noticed that you are limiting, shielding your objects, highlighting the territory with color, hinting at grass, etc. Why is context necessary for some objects, while others are independent of it?
- Remember what we talked about at the beginning? About developing your own language. These architectural sketches are not associated with any specific project and to a large extent reflect the different stages of learning "linguistic". When you are busy with this kind of work, refusing to talk about the fact that nothing new can be discovered, then everything that happens becomes similar to the situation in mathematics, when you know the formula, but do not know how to derive it. I like people who do not know the formula, but know the way to it.
2D images are exclusively facades. Facades only. They are always small in size, I do this on purpose to avoid a lot of detail. They are not part of the whole, they are on their own. In addition, they are not a statement, and if they contain an informational message, then, rather, of a utilitarian content: information concerning tectonics, color, type of stone. They do not border on anything and are not involved in any neighborhood. These are not architectural sketches within the framework of a specific project, but sketches that are of a research nature. It is quite possible that these sketches contain what will be in demand in urban planning in 20 years. Work on the development of the language must go on constantly, because we did not inherit anything from our fathers. I was born tongueless …
Three-dimensional images are bird's-eye views, they are tied to a specific situation and a specific object, but sometimes, as in this book, I supply them with fictional details: it can be a street, a hill, a tree or a house. I usually do 3D sketches and sketches from a bird's eye view when I want to grasp the essence of the project, to feel it. My “virtual” models are also relatively small to dispense with many details.
The book contains articles by architects, I would even say, your friends. How did you react when you read what they think of you?
- Before the book came out, I had not read these texts. And now, when I think, for example, about an interview with Alexander Brodsky, I feel joy, because I feel the depth of his understanding, which he expressed in only his own manner, and, to be honest, I am not at all sure that anyone else, who has not gone the way he did, could express it in the same way. There are curators and art critics who have a fantastic gift for describing everything they see, but I, nevertheless, am not quite sure that they will be able to penetrate the depths to which one who not only possesses the gift of words, but also he does what he says. When you read Brodsky's text, you understand: these are not just words.
Did you take part in book design, font selection, etc.?
- Honestly, I did not think about it. Now, if you take the "white" book [Approximations: The Architecture of Peter Märkli - note by YA], published under the editorship of the London Architectural Association, I was probably surprised there. They immediately told me: "Peter, you will be surprised" - in the sense of paper and so on. And I had no idea what it would be. Of course, I looked at the text for errors, but actually I am in favor of the publisher doing this. This is his work and it is not for me to decide what his book will look like. The main thing for me is that there are no mistakes. As for exhibitions, even here I usually do not interfere - I will make a couple of comments, but even then rarely. In fact, everything always turns out in a new and unusual way. In London, they put all the work on red paper: typically in British style, at MOMAT in Japan - on wooden planks, Brodsky also did everything his own way. If the work is successful, it is good from any angle and in any situation. By and large, I like working with people who do not do things that contradict your essence, that is, they choose a font that you yourself would choose … But, if possible, I try not to interfere with anything, as I save energy for their work. I am in favor of saving and storing energy, because we are already constantly distracted.
I think it is very important, while you are young, not to get hung up on one thing. But if you are hooked on something, then you need to try it and decide whether it is important to you or not, and then take the next step.
- How important is color to you, what is its purpose, or is it an intuitive search process? For example, a friend of mine always wanted to know why
two houses in Trubbach in the canton of St. Gallen was the red kraplak chosen?
- You have an idea. You want to give it some stability. To do this, you should take several steps. The first step is sizing and proportioning. This is what is absolutely necessary. Having made a layout out of cardboard, you apply paint and color to it. This paint has very specific characteristics, while the layout is an abstraction: it is small, cardboard, unplastered, etc. It turns out that the choice of paint and its application to the layout is a kind of artistic act, since you apply it not to a real object, but to an abstraction. You could just as well paint the layout any other color, or even skip painting altogether. The combination of naturalism and abstraction seems to me very strange in this case.
In reality, however, the choice of building color largely depends on the local lighting conditions, on the presence or absence of vegetation. For example, in Switzerland, you are limited in your choice of color due to the peculiarities of lighting there. Unfortunately, in our workshop there are craftsmen who manage to "implant" the bright, sunny colors of the South American prairies into the Zurich greenery. It turns out to be real horror. Cold tones are needed for my forms, ocher is simply contraindicated for me, although I always wanted to build a house and paint it with ocher paint. But he couldn’t. Although he built the house, he covered it with red kraplak (laughs).
Once you said: “I am interested in everything that happens in the present, education is about the past, and my aspirations and thoughts are directed to the future”. How do you feel about time in general? Given that the pace of life is accelerating, how does this affect architecture? Don't you think that you are slowing down the passage of time in a good way?
- Yes, that's right. I think that the perception of time is directly related to the worldview of a person. First there was a car, then the Internet and a cell phone, and now you no longer notice the world around you. Even when you are on the train, you are not looking around. We behave like blind people, everything is spinning around with incredible speed, emails arrive at such a speed that sometimes it looks like tactlessness. The spelling laws are sometimes violated so grossly that we do not understand each other. But you can't live so fast: high speed kills interest and enslaves. Nevertheless, I am convinced that in the future what is human in a person will not change. Look around: the houses are as they stood, and the streets are where they used to be. After the flight to the moon, nothing has changed.
But in the way all these meaningless concepts - speed, acceleration, movement - sound today, there is some half-truth and pseudo-philosophicality. Do you find happiness faster today or do you feel unhappy faster? Everything happens the same as it used to be. Life is determined by completely different parameters, such as joy, pain and the understanding that you are mortal. And it is this knowledge that puts everything in its place. Because deconstructivist architecture appeared in the world, man did not leave the horizontal environment; everyone, including the adherents of this trend, did not start drinking and eating in the vertical plane - simply because the soup would pour out of the plate this way. Habits, agreements that we observe, our joys and, finally, this bourgeois horizontal plane: all this is our life, and you yourself must answer the question of what is important for you, and what are empty words, what is interesting for you, and what - no. It's up to you to decide.
The next Venice Biennale will open soon. Who needs such events? An architectural community going there for Opening Day from all over the Earth, or?
- I was a participant in the 2012 Biennale. It was a wonderful experience. But the "World Exhibition" in the era of the Internet is losing its relevance, and, unfortunately, rather resembles a theatrical stage. It was really fun in the 19th century - elephants, baobabs (laughs).
