Interview with Juhani Pallasmaa

Filip Šenk: The first question, of course, relates to the title of the entire conference Fora 2000 “The World We Want to Live In.” Do you think architecture has a significant impact on human lives? Can it truly influence a person profoundly? Is it the background of human life?
Juhani Pallasmaa: In my opinion, architecture should frame people's lives, and it does so in any case. For me, the role of architecture is primarily existential, cultural, and social. Architecture also helps us understand time and ourselves. Architecture is a human culture tool that creates frameworks and horizons of understanding. Therefore, I am quite critical of today’s tendencies for architecture to become a foreground object. I do not believe that this is its role. Of course, there can be situations where architecture can become a foreground object. But the ordinary obligation of architecture is to create a quiet background.

FŠ: Do you perceive architecture more as an art or an engineering discipline?
JP: I perceive it as art, but it is simultaneously both. And that is precisely the paradoxical, impure nature of architecture, which makes it difficult to theorize about and also to understand that it is both a utility and an art. However, it is definitely art in the sense that it expresses human existence. Just like it is in art.

Finnish Institute, Paris, 1986-91 (photo Gérard Dufresne)

FŠ: In relation to that, one might exaggerate and say that there are two types of architects. Some emphasize construction and the technical side of things - like Norman Foster, while others see architecture more with artistic eyes like Zaha Hadid. Where would you place yourself?
JP: I think that as important as similarities are differences. When I say that architecture is a form of art, it is a different kind of art than painting and sculpture. And this difference has to be acknowledged and understood. Nowadays, much architecture is celebrated that, in my opinion, goes beyond the domain of architecture, including Zaha Hadid. I have difficulty understanding this as architecture.

FŠ: When you talk about celebration, it occurs to me that this is something that Charles Jencks talks a lot about. He writes about iconic buildings, and with this, the term "starchitect" is also associated. Does that bother you? Would you prefer a less celebrated position for architecture?
JP: I have nothing against celebrating architecture or architects. I think architects do important work. What matters is what form of architecture we appreciate and how we perceive the role of architecture in our society. And in my opinion, contemporary journalism, by how it presents architecture, does a disservice to a true understanding of architecture. Unfortunately, today architecture is too intertwined with economic interests and also political ones. In my opinion, architecture serves more general cultural interests than the interests of any owner or client.

FŠ: You touched on an interesting topic. When a client comes to your studio, does he or she already have a clear vision of what they want, and you try to fulfill it, or does it happen more often that you try to convince the client of a different, better solution? Does the client listen to you?
JP: Yes. I think it's the same as a therapist's role to understand the patient. An architect's role is to understand and interpret the client. Because most people have feelings about architecture, but they cannot articulate their opinions and intentions in words. Therefore, the architect must be able to verbalize or transform into concrete forms the desires and intentions that are often confused or even suppressed.

FŠ: In your lecture on Friday at the Bethlehem Chapel, you mentioned twelve main themes of your architecture. Unfortunately, it's not possible to go through all of them here. Could you identify the most important one?
JP: All twelve are important. However, the number twelve is purely arbitrary; it could easily be twenty or two dozen. (He thinks.) I believe the most important criterion would be wholeness. Architecture should create wholeness. The wholeness of the landscape, the wholeness of the city, the wholeness of human relationships, the wholeness of understanding oneself. And because of that, architecture should also strive to have an objective foundation rather than being a self-expression. I would feel foolish if I expressed my self in my work. I must express or find what the situation itself wants to express.

FŠ: That sounds like a very challenging task. An architect must deal with many things around the building, such as statics, construction, etc. There is only limited time. Does one even find a moment to think deeply and search like this?
JP: A major problem today is that there is no time for anything. Projects tend to be built before there is even time to think. In the past, it took decades to build an important building. Or even centuries. (He thinks.) I believe that architecture arises more from understanding life than from questions of form. From understanding tradition; life and tradition. For me, life and tradition have gained considerable importance. Tradition, not traditionalism, a sense of cultural continuity. That is important.

FŠ: You also mentioned understanding time through architecture. What role do building materials play in this case? Can they help significantly?
JP: Yes, of course. The language of materials is very important. I learned this only with age. And also in later years, I learned how important it is that architecture and buildings record and express the flow of time. I think we can only have confidence in the future if we have a strong sense of the past.

FŠ: Should therefore one of the goals of architecture in the current situation be to slow down?
JP: Yes. And to be less preoccupied with fashion. (laughs)

FŠ: It is very remarkable how trends in architecture become popular, even if only for a short time. For example, deconstructivism. It was quite popular in the late 80s and 90s, and today...
JP: ...it is gone.

FŠ: Twenty years in terms of the longevity of architecture is nothing. That is why I am personally surprised how it could become so popular.
JP: I think it is partly due to the loss of temporality. Everything is instant, and architecture also has to have an immediate reach. I think it is inherently the nature of architecture that it is a slow art. It speaks slowly and quietly, but permanently. I do not understand why architecture should compete with rock music. But that is precisely what it attempts to do. (smiles)

Arrival Plaza and astronomical structure, Cranbrook Academy, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1994 - in collaboration with Dan Hoffman and Cranbrook Architecture Studio (photo Balthazar Korab)

FŠ: Still regarding time and architecture. Older architecture, in my view, had, for example, clear rhythms in baroque enfilades or in gothic cathedrals. An individual walks through a building and clearly perceives this rhythm. Today, I have the impression that the rhythm present in buildings is absent. What about shopping malls? There one might speak, even exaggeratedly, of a rhythm of passage. You yourself have designed two shopping malls. What was your aim in creating them?
JP: To try to avoid the commercial image of architecture. In a way, I was going against my client in this. (laughs)

FŠ: And was your client satisfied with the result?
JP: I think so. Because I strive for more lasting qualities than those represented by the usual shopping malls, which act like a set of stages.

FŠ: In your lecture, you also mentioned that you find shopping frustrating.
JP: Yes, I can only shop for books. Bookstores are pleasant places, but most stores drive me crazy. (laughs)

FŠ: You also mentioned several water columns that you designed for one shopping mall to calm the space. A place where one can rest while shopping.
JP: Yes, and also so that something real can be experienced there. Gravity is real – you see how the water flows. However, I must say that I do not like such tasks. I feel frustrated when I get a task to design something for shopping.

FŠ: What then do you enjoy doing? Family houses?
JP: Yes. For example, I also enjoy renovations, because the moral sense in them is clear and evident. My favorite task is to take something really ugly and transform it into something beautiful. In that, I really find satisfaction.

FŠ: Renovation is also a challenging task. This is a common theme in Prague. And how do you view new buildings in the historic center?
JP: I would not oppose them. But I think it cannot simply be said in such general terms. Perhaps only that my effort would be to give each historical era its own voice, so that there is no confusion of historical periods. I enjoy watching contemporary buildings that express our time in a historical context, albeit in a cultural, discreet way. As I said in my lecture, architecture can be polite and considerate. And it should always be considerate.

FŠ: I would like to return to materials once again. Do you have a particularly favorite one?
JP: I have done many things out of wood. (He thinks.) Wood has two voices. The voice of organic life and then also the voice of craftsmanship. That is why I like it; it is a very rich material. My values stem from my youth, and as a young man, I worked on construction sites in Finland.

FŠ: In Finland, there is a long tradition of wooden buildings. Do you see yourself as part of this tradition? Are you happy to be part of this tradition?
JP: Yes. I think tradition carries values. You must accept tradition, and tradition must accept you. If tradition does not accept your work, then it does not have much value. And that is crucial for contemporary architecture. Starchitects ponder whether tradition will accept them. And in the case of the previously mentioned deconstructivism, I do not believe that tradition accepted it.

FŠ: Yes, that may be why it lasted only about twenty years. However, wood is also a very old building material. People have used it since time immemorial. Could it also be one of the reasons why starchitects have problems with tradition, the fact that they use new technologies, new materials, and digital technology plays a significant role in the design process? Is it not the case that they do not yet know how to perfectly utilize new means? However, it is clear that in architecture, it is necessary to use new materials and possibilities.
JP: Yes, I agree. We are constantly inventing new materials. The history of architecture is also largely the history of building materials and inventions. I have nothing against that, of course. I think the beauty of architecture lies in continuing to invent. Not for the sake of inventing itself or novelty, but to come up with solutions for specific tasks or problems.

FŠ: Let us please return once more to the client. When a client comes to you and has a building plot, do you often go to see the site itself? Are you interested in the genius loci?
JP: Yes, of course. Architecture always improves the plot. It somehow balances the place. In the best cases, architecture heals the wounds left by previous generations. I think that the task of architecture is also to weave things together rather than to divide. And again, I do not agree with the current radicalism, which tends to divide rather than unify.

Sāmi Lapp Museum, Inari, Lapland, Finland, 1998 (photo Rauno Träskelin)

FŠ: Which of your colleagues do you truly admire?
JP: There are quite a few of them. One of my favorites is the Mexican architect Luis Barragán, who is very poetic and metaphysical, while being traditional at the same time. I think Luis Barragán and Alvar Aalto are examples of architecture that continues in tradition while being very unique.

FŠ: Alvar Aalto did not engage in the mainstream of architecture in his time, in the international style. Do you think it is difficult for an architect to go against the mainstream?
JP: I don't think so. Great thinkers are always independent. And the definition of greatness is independence of thought. Therefore, I don't think it was difficult for him to do what he did. Especially in Finland, he was highly valued and received almost ideal commissions. Aalto was very strongly connected to Finnish culture. His best works are also in Finland, even though he built in Germany, Denmark, America, France... Just because Finland is his homeland.

FŠ: Allow me to mention Eero Saarinen. I would be interested in your view of this architect because he was also quite radical and yet he is one of the most famous Finnish architects.
JP: He was quite forgotten for a long time after his death. Now he has been rediscovered. I like some of his works. On the other hand, there is a design approach that annoys me a bit. You do not feel this way with Aalto at all. His architecture is very natural and relaxed. However, Saarinen was undoubtedly a great architect. I think his obsession with searching for new forms stemmed from the fact that he was the son of a famous father. He had to assert himself against the shadow of his father.

FŠ: If you had the opportunity to build your ideal house now, what would it look like? Do you have an idea of an ideal house?
JP: I am constantly building something for myself or my family. (laughs) If I were to start building a completely new house now, it would be extremely simple, primitive, yet refined. (laughs)

FŠ: This is not your first time in the Czech Republic. Do you have a favorite building or place here?
JP: Just yesterday, I was at Ještěd. I really like that project. I was impressed by the almost romantic futuristic atmosphere. I like it very much. Prague is my favorite city in the world. I always feel nostalgic when I am here.

FŠ: So it would be interesting for you to build here?
JP: Well, of course. (laughs)

FŠ: Let's hope that the opportunity arises.
JP: I am getting older; I don't have much time left. I recently turned 74. (laughs)

FŠ: Considering your activities and vitality, it is hard to believe. Last two questions. When you studied architecture, did you have any architectural heroes, role models?
JP: When I started studying, Le Corbusier was my hero. And now when I teach, I recommend students to also engage with Le Corbusier's early villas. I advise them to study the drawings and imagine spaces, just as a composer or conductor reads a score and imagines the music. For learning this, Le Corbusier is a very good tool. Then I became interested in Mies van der Rohe. But later, I was drawn to a whole range of architects, as I have mentioned, like Luis Barragán, but there were many. Michelangelo's architecture always deeply affects me; it makes me cry with how powerful and emotional it is.

FŠ: Do you draw a lot?
JP: To infinity. Drawing internalizes the work. I do not believe you can design effectively if you do not have the project inside you. You work more within yourself than outside. When I teach, and I teach almost all the time, I usually prohibit work on computers. Like now in Illinois. I have two rules - no computers and no headphones. I do not like when students escape into privacy. The studio means being and working together, learning from each other.

FŠ: Thank you for the interview and for your time.
JP: Thank you.

The interview was originally conducted for the weekly The Prague Post