Interview with Richard Meier

Publicada originalmente en español en ET, el 22 de mayo del 2005

In this Q&A, Pritzker Prize winner Richard Meier talks about design, politics, Ground Zero, Donald Trump, you name it.


What made you an architect?
I decided when I was around 14 years old that that was what I wanted to do. I probably didn't know what it meant, but I just said 'I wanna be an architect'. I made models and I drew from a young age and it seemed to me something I would enjoy doing.

What makes a building a piece of architecture?
If it's a work of art it's architecture. If it's not it's just construction.

What makes a building a work of art?
The quality of the space, the idea that goes into it, the way on which it relates to what surrounds it, the way in which it is used and people experience it, all of these things are factors that are important in making a work of architecture.

Do you think today's idea of use and dispose will be benevolent with your buildings?
I think we build for a long time. I don't think buildings are disposable, I don't think architecture is disposable. It's built for 50 to 100 years. If it's not, it's probably not worth doing.

So 100 years from now we won't be seeing any of your work still standing?
I'm not saying it wont be standing, I'm saying I hope it will still be around in 100 years.


How is it to be a great American architect in today's America?
It changes. It depends on where you are and what you're doing. There's a renewed awareness of architecture in New York City which for me is very exciting, people appreciate good architecture and respond to it. That hasn't always been the way. In different cities in America there are different attitudes so I don't think you can say there's a generalized view of what architecture is in this country. It really depends on where you are and what moment it is.

The Charles and BeachHouse: what's the biggest difference in designing for Miami and designing for New York regarding the city identity...
New York has no city identity in terms of architecture. There's all kinds of works from the 19th century to the 21st century. It's a very diverse city. Miami, as well, has a very rich cultural history in the 1930's and 40's and then it sort of changed into something else. And so contemporary architecture, modern architecture, is really appreciated there. I think that's also becoming the situation in New York.

Is there a work you consider the best one you have done?
Well I don't think there's one single work you can say it's the best. I think that some works are more influential than others. Certainly the church in Rome was a very important work and the Getty Center was a very important work. But they're fairly different from one another. I don't think you can say one is more important than the other.

Do you have a favorite made by any another architect?
There are many great architects throughout the world and there are many fine buildings. I wouldn't say there's one that's my favorite. I appreciate the work of Le Corbusier as well as the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. In the past there have been many great architects and there are many great architects today everywhere.

Now that you mention Frank Lloyd Wright... You designed the reading room of the Guggenheim: Do you think your architecture resembles Frank Lloyd Wright's?
No I don't.

You have a project going on in Prague: how is it building for the 21st century in a city famous for its long-term architecture?
What's interesting is that Prague 4, the area in which the new building is being built, is not in the heart of the city, not in the historic district. It's really a little bit away from the wonderful historic buildings that exist in Prague. So it's almost a suburb of the city and therefore it's a place which is sort of developing at the moment. And it isn't related either culturally or architecturally to what was there before. So I think the building we're doing really speaks of the present and the future, an expansion of the city outside the historic center.

What do you prefer: a public building or a private one...
You know, for a while I stopped doing private spaces. I didn't do houses because I felt that really we should just focus in public spaces. But I think they're different. I'm still doing a few private projects, but by and large it's the public spaces which interest me.

Urban planning nowadays calls for mass scale and very cheap projects that can be affordable. Is there a possibility of mass-scale architecture?
Absolutely. And that's a problem very many countries around the world are facing. And it's a situation that needs to be focused on and innovative solutions ought to arise, to figure out how do you deal, at this scale, with their development.

But mass solutions, rarely think about the designing factor...
It shouldn't be forgotten. It's very important weather it's large scale or small scale. I don't know why it's forgotten because it's probably more important at the large scale than it is in small scale.

The architect-client relation... Is there absolute freedom for you?
There's never absolute freedom. Every client comes with a site and a program and a budget. And it's the architect's task to try to make all of these things work together. You work with the client to try to figure out the best way to make, within the budget, the best design you can.

To which extent does the need for security interfere with the liberty of designing?
Up until now it hasn't really been a factor. I think that.., well, you know, I have done two Federal Courthouse buildings and security was always a consideration in designing the Federal Courthouse. But I think that there's an increased awareness of security and on the other hand I don't think that it's gonna tie architects' hands and force a kind of gray, monolithic and introverted way of thinking about architecture.

What do you think about Donald Trump's proposal to basically rebuild the Twin Towers?
I don't think that rebuilding the Twin Towers is a valid answer to rebuild downtown. I never did think so.

You never really liked the Twin Towers...
Well, it's not a question of not liking them, I never thought that they were extraordinary architecture. I think they were a wonderful symbol of the skyline of New York and we miss them. But rebuilding them is not the answer to rebuilding downtown. In a proposal which we made for Ground Zero we showed an alternate way of rebuilding in a way that multiuses and multifunctions and all kinds of activities could occur and create a major public space. I think that's what's more important than the buildings that will occur there: it's the way in which it's choosed and the public spaces that are created in this area.

Being one of the groups that presented a design for Ground Zero, what do you feel about the decision to redesign the winning proposal by Daniel Libeskind?
It's a nightmare what's going on and the problem is there's no one in charge. There's no one really directing the project. Different people get involved at different times and everyone has a different interest. Until that is solved there can be no meaningful architecture coming out of there.

How do you like Libeskind's project?
It's been transformed so many times in so many different configurations, that today, you know, it doesn't matter. It's just another office building. And probably that's what the developer Larry Silverstein wants. He wants a very simple, economical office building. He doesn't want a great piece of architecture and he doesn't really care what happens on the rest of the site. You have to think of this in totality, not in terms of pieces. As long as it's thought of in terms of various items there's no real coming together to make the kind of place that should be generated down there.


How, if in any way, is technology freeing the architect's mind?
I don't know if technology frees the mind. Technology makes things possible in a way that might not have been possible before. I think that we can do things because of technology in a much better way than we could before but it doesn't really change the thinking process and the fact that good architecture comes from good ideas, not from technology.


What books are you reading now?
I'm reading a wonderful biography of Willem de Kooning, by Mark Stevens, absolutely fascinating.

How do you feel about the way the US handles it's international politics?
Many of us here in the United States are not very happy about where we are at the moment and I guess we live in a democracy but we don't seem to have much of a voice in that democracy. And I think it's unfortunate where we are and I hope we find a way out of it.

Is there a place you haven't built in which you'd like to?
Many places. Because when you build in places you haven't been before you learn so much... You learn about the people, you learn about the place, you learn about the history, the culture and it's a very enriching experience. I haven't built anywhere in South America and I'd love to do that. I haven't built in most parts of Asia and I would love to do that.

In the matter of urban planning, what is you opinion about planned cities?Each situation is different. I don't think you can generalize the creation of a new city in an area that has no habitation before. Brasilia and Chandigarh are absolutely unique and I don't know of any place that would necessarily desire to go outside of an existing urban area to create a new urban area, totally new, in the way that Brasilia and Chandigarh were created.

If somebody gave you that kind of project, would you take it?
Absolutely

Contra el maquillaje

“Ocúpate del alma”, dijo el gordo vendedor de carne.

Joaquín Sabina

El maquillaje encaja porque somos muchos en la pasarela y hay que destacarse. Hay que jugar. Y toca mostrar que, a pesar de ser tan iguales, todos somos especiales y diferentes: el actor-futbolista que llega a un restaurante disfrazado de actor-futbolista para que lo reconozcan. La de la cartera llena de eles y de ves o la que tiene el pelo cortico sin orden. El hippie con su mochila urbana, verde militar. El que se baja del carro y tiene que llegar a la barra mostrando el llavero del círculo partido en tres, el que carga su libro para todas partes y siempre va en la misma página. La que asegura en voz alta que “el condón lo cargo yo”, la que baraja los teléfonos de sus hombres para ver de cuál se deja llamar hoy. O el que mira por encima del hombro al estrato 5.

O peor aún, el que no contento con maquillarse solo (¿será que cree que no nos damos cuenta?) decide maquillar a su compañía a punta de silicona.

Otros llegan al extremo de maquillar los espacios y ni siquiera un parque de barrio puede llamarse ‘el parque’, porque ‘el parque’ es el de la calle 93. Como si no hubiera unos más grandes y más bonitos.

Defendiendo el territorio propio, todos tan distintos, todos buscando lo mismo. Todos con el maquillaje que nos da nuestro lugar. Y todos, o casi todos, salimos a buscar a alguien sin maquillaje. Alguien que no tenga que esconderse detrás de sus angustias ni sus chequeras para enamorarnos o para meterse en nuestro parche.

Pero la falsedad que vendemos sólo compra falsedades: la fanática de fútbol que no sabe qué es un fuera de lugar o el incapaz emocional que reparte la tarjeta de crédito para comprar carteras con iniciales y de paso un poco de compañía. La avezada que carga condones y no se ha dado cuenta de que la fecha de vencimiento, de cinco años, se cumple el mes entrante. La que un día se enamora del círculo del símbolo de la paz y al otro del de Mercedes. El de la 4X4 inglesa que la deja estorbando en la calle porque no tiene para el parqueadero. La punk que sueña con su pelo largo o la que tiene fama de bruta y se encama con el intelectual pero sólo si los libros que vende le alcanzan para ir a la peluquería del club y ponerse extensiones en el pelo.

A veces el maquillaje mezclado con un poco de alcohol o de drogas nos puede meter en la cama con alguien. Oh glorioso sexo sin amor. A nadie le sobra y quien lo diga está mintiendo o no sabe lo que se pierde. Pero casi siempre nos entrega de vuelta un polvo vacío, sin emociones. Y en los peores casos, sin placer.

Es por eso que hoy y casi todos los días son mejores sin maquillaje. Porque pierde la gracia tocar con la lengua un lóbulo que no devuelve piel sino sabor a mandarina con Issey Miyake, porque los labios no pueden quedar manchados ni de pintalabios –o como se diga– ni de nada. Eso no sabe rico. Claro, hay maquillaje que viene sin sabores y sin olores. No mancha ni se diluye ni deja marcas en la ropa. Pero cubre el olor y el sabor de verdad.

Es mejor sin maquillaje porque a pesar de todos los esfuerzos el único olor que se percibe al día siguiente, por encima del del cigarrillo en el pelo (de punk o con extensiones), es el del sudor. Porque saben rico las clavículas saladas y sabe rico el sexo sin olor a aloe vera. Porque una mujer en la ducha, sin preocuparse porque se le está mojando el pelo, se ve hermosa. Porque huele rico una recién bajada de su caballo, porque nada se debería correr sobre la cara de una que se está corriendo.

El maquillaje, ese que todos usamos en mayor o menor medida, nos separa de lo que somos y nos aleja de lo que queremos. En otra de las contradicciones de ser humanos, nos pasamos la vida recorriendo la sección de cosméticos en busca de una carilavada.