Interview with Vasa Perović / Bevk Perović architects

Publisher
Filip Šenk
08.10.2012 08:00
Vasa J. Perović
bevk perović arhitekti

Vasa J. Perović (*1965)
The opening of the Slovenian studio Bevk Perović at the Jaroslav Fragner Gallery is literally overflowing with people. Maneuvering through the crowd to the individual projects and buildings is no easy task. Part of the crowd moves smoothly around the tablets displaying changing plans and photos of the buildings. Some linger and chat. It’s too noisy in the gallery, so the conversation, quick and improvised, is arranged and conducted outside the gallery. With a glass of red wine, Vasa Perović answers decisively and calmly.
Filip Šenk: How did your exhibition come to Prague?
Vasa Perović:
Actually by chance. We had been in contact with the Jaroslav Fragner Gallery (GJF) for a long time and had an agreement to organize an exhibition next year. But now they had an open slot in the gallery and we had the exhibition more or less ready, so we simply said, why not now?!

FŠ: So you have presented something similar elsewhere?
VP:
We started the exhibition in this form a year and a half ago in Belgrade, where we had several tonds, fragments. Then we also had a joint exhibition with OFIS Arhitekti at the Kunsthalle in Bielefeld last year. Now at GJF we are showing another version of this exhibition because we are continually changing and expanding it. We will still be traveling with it further, exhibitions are planned in Paris and London. But again in different versions, because we always try to consider what would be interesting to show in a given city.

FŠ: Why did you choose the form of tonds?
VP:
It is derived from the history of art, from tonds, mainly from the Renaissance and Baroque periods. The essence is that tonds have no edges, and thus they are not tied to the idea of a picture as a window. The circular image is related to the idea of perspective, only linear perspective. We also like that this form is primarily associated with mannerism, and it seems to us that we are experiencing one such period of mannerism today. Furthermore, when you display a fragment on a square surface, it immediately starts to look like an ordinary photograph. But we wanted something that doesn’t look like a conventional detail photograph. We wanted it to look like a random cut.

Student House Poljane, Ljubljana (2005-06)

FŠ: It seems that you have a close relationship with art. How do you think about the relationship between architecture and art?
VP:
I believe that architecture is not art. Architecture does not have the freedom that art has. We are very interested in art, we often collaborate with artists, although these projects are not represented here. We have built houses for artists and museums. We also design exhibitions; we did an exhibition for the Venice Biennale (The Structure of Survival, 2003) and a few other exhibitions in Slovenia.
Art really interests us, but we see a significant difference between art and architecture. An artwork does not impact public space as much as architecture does. Built architecture is in place for two hundred years, while a bad sculpture, a bad painting, or a bad installation remains in place only for the duration of the exhibition. There is a clear difference in responsibility. Of course, I do not deny that certain aspects are shared between architecture and art. The noticeable difference is between the freedom of the artist to comment on what is happening in society and the architect's responsibility.

FŠ: You take the architect's responsibility very seriously. Do you care about how people feel, about whether the buildings are user-friendly? Simply put, do you think about future inhabitants when designing?
VP:
Even though our buildings often appear to a number of people at first glance to be quite, let's say, aesthetic, beautiful, the foundation for us is always the end user; the person is always the aim of the project. If you as an architect do not start precisely from that, I don’t know what else you would want to start from.

FŠ: What does your communication with the client look like then? Do you try to convince them, guide them, ...
VP:
I cannot answer clearly; it varies, especially with smaller buildings. The people who order a house are always part of the project. However, people often have diverse ideas.

FŠ: And often lack the experience and knowledge that you as an architect have. So you can advise and adjust their ideas, or perhaps show their shortcomings.
VP:
Yes, but it is important to realize that architecture is not a service. Architects do not serve in the sense that, say, waiters do. An architect always has a responsibility that exceeds the obligation to the client. Buildings remain present longer than the given client.
We work a lot with clients; we talk a lot with them. It is probably difficult to collaborate with us, but we are not dictatorial either. How to put it. We do not have a house that we do not show. We do not have works of category A and category B. We show everything we do. We never let a project just pass through our studio without being absolutely sure at that moment that it is the very best that could have been created.
Yes, we do not perceive our field as a service in the sense of waiters. Most architects understand and act this way today, even if perhaps to survive, which should be respected.
We ourselves decided very early on to talk to people. Talking to people makes a lot of difference. We have clients from poorer ones to extremely wealthy people. However, our approach does not change; we always work the same way. We must arrive at the basic idea of the house together; after all, in the end, it is their house. We never do interiors; we completely refuse to do that because we want people to inhabit the house as it suits them. Designing interiors does not interest us per se.

Blejec House, Ljubljana (2003-04)

FŠ: From what you have presented, it seems that you like to use steel. Is it cold for family houses?
VP:
Honestly, we have also done a number of wooden houses and even concrete ones. We have tried a whole range of materials. My colleague is building a house entirely out of concrete. And many people tell him, well of course, what else would you want to build it from? But we have made a number of steel houses and steel structures. We like a certain precision that cannot be achieved in brick or concrete. Concrete is essentially a muddy form that only hardens later. The fact that parts of the steel structure are created very precisely is something that appeals to us. We had a period when precision attracted us a lot. Today, that is no longer the case, although our buildings give the impression of perfect precision and we are still obsessed with details. Primarily how to technically execute the building. That is very important; the technical aspect must always be resolved, again related to the previously mentioned responsibility. When you look at a building in ten years, it should not look like an old theater stage from the National Theatre. It should maintain its structural integrity.

FŠ: Do you take care of how your buildings will age?
VP:
We always think about how the material will change over time. With some materials, we have experimented and made a number of mistakes like everyone else. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is part of the idea of architecture. Architecture does not need to stand forever, just maybe a hundred years; 25 years is nothing in terms of a building. When you imagine that it will fall apart after 25 years, it is just a scene, a backdrop.

FŠ: I assume you are well acquainted with Jože Plečnik's work here. Is that a reason why you tried to have an exhibition in the Czech Republic?
VP:
Of course, we are well aware of that. That is why we are also showing the project for the National Library, which was not included in the exhibition in Germany. It is something that we share, that we have in common; it is part of both of our cultures. Although Plečnik was Slovenian, he built one of the most important parts of the Czech Republic. That connects us, even if it may not be apparent at first glance. For us, it was important to start a dialogue with this idea. Of course, we know well everything that Plečnik has done. Today we had the chance to see his interiors again at the Castle.
For us, Matija and me, Plečnik is really important. I do not want to claim that we are traditionalists… Maybe we are. Maybe you would say we are conservative. But we truly have the need to express, in our work, however international it may seem at first glance, a belonging to our cultural space.

Weekend House, Silba Island, Croatia (2007-08)

FŠ: Are you talking about regionalism?
VP:
No, that is not regionalism. Let me put it this way. Plečnik has a huge influence. When you are a Slovenian architect, you cannot not know Plečnik. It is impossible to overlook him; he is a firm part of our culture... Maybe it is a burden. Either way, it is something that co-creates us as architects. When you are a Slovenian architect, something from his work must always appear in yours.
That is why I critically approach most contemporary Eastern European architecture - Czech, Slovenian, or any other. We very quickly adopted the Western cultural model as our own. When you come to Prague today, you will see a number of really interesting buildings that, judging by their appearance, could have been created by any Western European office. That is fine; we live in a time when the world is compressed, so during a minute you can communicate almost with anyone and anything. At the same time, however, we lack something… I do not want to say that we should build here like Jan Kotěra. I would like to see architecture influenced by what has happened here. That perhaps is not critical regionalism per se, is it? I argue that we all come from a certain cultural environment, and what we do must in some way reflect that environment. It cannot reflect only the general conditions in which we live. We all have the internet, we all have the same information, we all have Domus, etc. We also have a responsibility to the space in which we live and from which we come. It does not have to be a great responsibility, but we must at least feel it a little. I would like to see more Czech architecture. Rather than more attractive architecture.

FŠ: What is the situation in Slovenia?
VP:
It is the same for us. Countries like Slovenia or the Czech Republic, all underwent a political change, and the model of societal organization changed rapidly. The change occurred over a very short time. Naturally, it is really complicated to bring about such a change at all levels of society. Both of our countries quickly and easily appropriated cultural models from the so-called Western and so-called capitalist societies. With the uncritical influx of capital also came the uncritical influx of cultural models, including in the architectural environment.
We should all be aware of that. You cannot deliberately change that; you cannot wake up tomorrow morning and say, from now on I will do Czech architecture. It is important to be aware of what has happened. Yes, we are part of a globalized world, but it is precisely these small differences that make us richer or better.
It is also about looking at your own work through this lens. I do not claim that our work is significantly Slovenian. When you look at our buildings, they may seem like typical contemporary architectural production. However, there is always a background present, or whatever to call it, with foundations in the environment from which we emerged. That is a topic for a round table.

Administrative and Residential Complex, Ljubljana-Podutik (2007-08)

FŠ: That is true. We cannot answer that here. Let's stay in Slovenia. What are the conditions for building in Ljubljana? When I was there, the city seemed quite unreadable to me. Was the city marked by the communist government?
VP:
Many great architectures were created in Slovenia even during the communist regime. That is a big difference in the histories of Czech and Slovenian architecture, but that is just my opinion; I am not a historian. After figures like Kotěra or Plečnik, there was a huge gap in your country that did not disappear until the Expo in Brussels in 1958. But it actually lasted until the 1970s, when interesting architecture emerged again. In Slovenia, it was different because Le Corbusier was approved by the communists, so there is a sort of transition from Plečnik to Corbusier. Therefore, in the 1950s and 1960s, you can find a number of interesting architectures. Of course, from that time we also have countless flaws, but that was the same in all these regimes. Interesting architecture could arise in our country because Le Corbusier was an acceptable cultural model.

FŠ: When you work in Ljubljana, do you try to define the city or make it clearer?
VP:
As you have seen, we have some projects on the very edge of the city, and there we try to create an edge of the city. But naturally, individual projects cannot do much. They can only fulfill their task well.
When you look at the architectural production in Slovenia, you will see a number of bad projects and a number of very good projects. It is the same for you. It seems to be on a larger scale here because your country is larger with a stronger economy.
We are facing the same problems. Slovenia perhaps has a higher percentage of interesting buildings. In Slovenia, there are about six to seven offices similar in age to ours that do very different things, but all can be considered interesting. The Ljubljana school has long been significantly smaller than the Prague one, so there was a stronger connection between students and teachers.

FŠ: Last question. Would you be tempted to realize a culturally important building in Prague? To follow in Plečnik's footsteps?
VP:
We are building a house for a young family on the outskirts of Prague. A normal project with a normal budget. Prague is a great city; we are amazed by the city. We are not naturally amazed by the tourism that has perfectly killed the city center. It’s a shame that the center has been sold to tourism. On the other hand, the city is very interesting and diverse. Today we met with several developers and other potential collaborators and saw many different faces of Prague in one day.
It would be interesting. The most interesting are always public buildings. Yet, none of our countries, those former socialist countries, have managed to secure activity in the field of public contracts. All these countries are either too poor or completely uninterested in public buildings. The same goes for us and for you. Everyone would like to do a public building; those are the buildings that push the city forward.
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment

Related articles