Georges Heintz is a French architect, founder of Heintz-Kehr Architectes, professor at the Strasbourg National School of Architecture (ENSAS), also teaches and taught in Stuttgart, Sofia, Ho Chi Minh City and other cities around the world. Chairman of the Forum for Young Architects (IFYA) 1994-2001. Winner of the Swiss-German-French Bartholdi Prize for Higher Education (2009).
I know that Andrei Chernikhov is very principled in his approach to the selection of laureates - both the Yakov Chernikhov Prize and the student awards, which are awarded by the Yakov Chernikhov Foundation. The winners must be true innovators. Tell us how the work of the jury went - obviously not easy?
- First of all, I would like to say that the work that the Yakov Chernikhov Foundation is engaged in is very important, because engaging in hyper-modern, avant-garde architecture today is valor, this is a position. This is not a question of a new form, it is related to the original role of architecture - to give shelter to people, and moreover, to bring innovation into their lives as an image of the future. Of course, we must not forget about the artistic, technical, social dimension of architecture. These ideas formed the basis of the foundation's policy, which 30 years ago was engaged in supporting students, awarding grants, etc.
This activity found its culmination about ten years ago at the Yakov Chernikhov International Prize. Its goal is to support young architects who find it difficult to bring their projects to life, find customers, and gain recognition. It is about the development of architecture as a discipline.
The task of the jury is to predict what from today's variety of ideas and approaches will become a “trend” or a key direction in the future. Therefore, the selection is carried out according to very strict criteria, because there are many very talented architects in the world. Someone is engaged at times with incredible inventiveness projects for the construction of social housing in very difficult conditions, while others are dealing with issues of space, interpreting it in a completely new way. Therefore, the choice was very difficult.
For me, this task was especially interesting, since I have been associated with the Yakov Chernikhov Foundation for a very long time. In addition, I was the chairman of the International Forum of Young Architects. I know many experts around the world who form a kind of network of talented and experienced architects, most of whom also teach. It is also important that they are not tendentious: their approach to the profession is very free, they are not functionalists or postmodernists, because the Chernikhov Prize is awarded not for a specific style - not for “neo-nothing” or “post-everything”.
These experts nominated over 70 participants this time. The jury had a hard time, as at least ten of the best candidates were very strong professionals. In fact, we should have awarded 10 prizes.
- How was it chosen
Anna Holtrop?
- His works are very interesting, unusual, seductive. They contain a mixture of rationality and fantasy, not so far from the architectural fantasies of Yakov Chernikhov. In Holtrop's drawings, geometry is transformed into natural forms. It is also a very sensitive architecture, sensitive to materiality, to light and shadow - as a result, the space turns out to be fluid, sensual. It is also important that his buildings are of very high quality.
You say that there are two main paths in modern architecture, formal experiments and social projects …
- No I do not think so. There are not two ways, but many more. And I make no distinction between social and artistic. The real goal of architecture is to make space for people a work of art. With housing, this rarely succeeds, more often it happens with public buildings, public spaces. It's a great challenge to turn people's lives into art, isn't it? Enhance their lives with an architectural shell. This goal has a humanistic dimension and concerns everyone, and when it is achieved, anyone can immediately understand it. Whoever you are, if you find yourself in such a place, you feel it, architecture then affects the soul. Such a building is well thought out, comfortable, it “works” - and at the same time it has new dimensions, it is beautiful, and a person feels good in it. It is the perfect building, no matter if it is square or round, red or white. To achieve this is a worthy, but also the most difficult goal for architects, especially young ones. Let's hope that they will strive for it, and not only dream of getting on the cover of a magazine and becoming a "star".
You walked around Moscow all day today. Did you like any of the new buildings, like Rem Koolhaas's Garage? How do you like its facade, there is no consensus among Russian architects as to whether it looks good, how long it will last
- Yes, I really liked Garage. As for the facade, I did the same in one of my buildings back in 1999. Before that, polycarbonate was used only for stairwells - to give them natural light, and in industrial buildings. It turned out beautifully, it was a very successful project on the whole.
On the other hand, I worked with Rem Koolhaas for seven years. I was GAP in his bureau from 1985 to 1992, and then took part in OMA projects for another five years. When I came to Rem's studio, I took the place of Zaha Hadid, she quit just then, and in total Koolhaas employed 13 people, and four of them were not architects. That is, then there were nine architects, and now there are 700 or so.
What I love about Koolhaas and his bureau is their ability to do eccentric things, be the first to use this or that technique - and then the whole world starts to do the same. Moreover, people do not notice this: the more memories we have, the more we forget. We can say that all modern "icons" were invented in the Rohm bureau. Moreover, they are capable of both "crazy" projects and very simple ones.
Simple, like "Garage"?
- Yes, but there is also a surreal approach. You find the skeleton, the skeleton of a building and transform it into something extraordinary. The old building, this Soviet restaurant reminiscent of the cadavre exquis, the surrealist game, when they composed phrases one word at a time or drew on a sheet in turn, not knowing what their comrades had written or depicted on this sheet before them, has now been turned into a very strict, almost anonymous project. It's as if the architects of OMA decided they might not perform well because they are already the best. A beautiful shell that lets light inside, since the main thing here is art, not architecture. It is a museum as a tool, unlike the self-exhibiting museums of Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, etc. - although they may be outstanding architecture.
In "Garage", on the other hand, you can show anything - huge works of Panamarenko, miniatures or landscapes of the 18th century: it suits everything. At the same time, the history of the building is revealed, and the orange color of the wardrobe reminds: "Hey, I'm Dutch!"
You are a teacher with great experience. How and what should be taught in architecture universities so that students understand the purpose of the profession, its prospects, social responsibility?
- You may be disappointed, but I do not believe in methodology in architecture. The only thing worth learning is love. The main thing in architecture is people, and therefore we must learn to love people. This is to improve their future by designing better buildings for them. Therefore, architecture is about love, not about technology or money. When a space evokes strong feelings in you, it is not because it is built of marble, it can be paper. And it's not a matter of complexity, it can just be a cube. Also architecture is about generosity, it is not the privilege of extraordinary orders with extraordinary budgets. You can feel as if you left the Earth, in the smallest cave or chapel in the world - because the architecture touched your soul. And who created this space is no longer important: a famous or unknown architect, shipbuilding engineer, self-taught …
I have been teaching for about thirty years, and the main thing that unites my students is the energy aimed at changing lives - their own and those around them - with the help of my talent as an architect and generosity, as well as freedom: there can be no love without freedom.
However, it is also important for an architect to be well educated, to have a high level of general culture, and the younger generation has a big problem with history. They want to receive everything immediately, and architecture is cosa mentale ("mental thing", the definition of art given by Leonardo da Vinci - approx. Archi.ru), it is intellectual work related to history, arts, anthropology, technology - from the ancient to the most modern. I completely agree with the wonderful words of Adolf Loos "An architect is a bricklayer who learned Latin", that is, he must be very simple and very educated at the same time. History is very important, for example, because the concept of public space appeared simultaneously with the concept of democracy: in the middle of the first millennium BC. A person was able to dispute the words of the ruler, was able to debate, a new situation arose - and a new world. And instead of the tyrant's citadel, the main place was the square - agora, forum. So urbanism follows philosophy, politics follows words.
