BUILD Magazine, 2010

A major characteristic of your working philosophy is the integration of other disciplines and sciences into the architectural work, introducing the latter into a far bigger framework. Could you elaborate on that a bit more? What are the main fields of interest outside the “traditional” architectural world from which you draw further knowledge, what are the aims?

I am actually torn on this subject because although I do believe that disciplinary crossovers are critical to architecture’s evolution, as I get older I am more and more convinced that architecture is a distinct form of knowledge. But I wouldn’t go so far, as some people do, to say that it is autonomous. I just believe in expertise, and that architecture gets weakened when it becomes a medium for reflecting the agendas of other disciplines. That’s why, when I talk about biology, I always make a point to use disciplinary terms and make disciplinary inventions. Otherwise it’s easy to fall into the trap of dealing with both biology and architecture as a dilettante. To some extent this was the problem with Deconstructivism, where architecture became a visual aid for linguistic philosophy, and frankly neither was being dealt with at a very high level.

Download PDF