Tadao Ando: Face to Face with the Architecture Crisis

Universality is a global phenomenon today. The expansion and development of civilization has undoubtedly been enabled by the particular becoming universal; however, universality (generality) is also just another expression of commonality and standardization. For civilization, these traits are advantageous, but for culture, it is quite the opposite. Culture arises in opposition to generalization and standardization. Therefore, the development of universality threatens culture and can even bring it to a state of crisis.
I believe that architecture is not a part of civilization, but of culture. Architecture arises and grows only against the backdrop of history, tradition, climate, and other natural factors. Universality jeopardizes these foundations. Behind the support of universality lies the notion that functionality equals economic rationality. The principle of economic rationality obliterates the rich, cultural aspects of architecture. Similar buildings are being constructed all over the world, and as cities lose their individuality, they become ominously monotonous.
Today, strict functionalism in architecture is being questioned, and various movements complicate its expression. One prominent movement, postmodernism, sees only one side of Modernism—which is, after all, the most significant legacy of architectural culture of the 20th century—and stubbornly rejects it. It makes no sense to introduce ornaments simply because Modernism rejected them. If Modernism has antihuman aspects, they must be embodied in the roots of its approach to architecture, not just in the forms of modern architecture. In my opinion, postmodernism is merely old wine in new bottles with added nostalgic ornamentation. I do not believe it offers fundamental solutions. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the best architects of postmodernism tirelessly fight against the trend of universality.
Universality does not allow for individuality. People with their various emotions and wills are tossed into one bag, labeled as “masses,” and stripped of their individual character. They are reduced to units that are easier to analyze and manipulate. The creation of architecture is particularly an individual endeavor; however, today’s trend is to separate production from individuals and leave the making of things to organizations. Dreams and experiences of individuals, which were once such an important element in architecture, are replaced by mediocrity and common sense. Average buildings are rising in cities around the world.
I am convinced, however anachronistic it may sound, that it is important to ask the fundamental question: "What is architecture?" The creation of architecture must surely be a critical stance towards the problems of today. It must be a defiance to existing conditions. Only when one directly confronts today’s problems can one genuinely begin to deal with architecture.
Architecture has certain social, economic, legal, and political constraints. Especially in today’s Japan, it is impossible to think of architecture in isolation from construction as an economic activity. On the other hand, it is true that architecture is not just about coping with external conditions. I believe in the autonomy of ideas in architecture. Architecture, as a collection of autonomous ideas, has in reality nothing to do with external constraints. Nowadays, architects no longer seriously reflect on architecture and are simply kept in pace with solving everyday problems, viewing architecture merely as an economic activity, addressing issues of the external environment. The organization of human society leaves architects no time for discovering architecture - at best, they can create "error-free architecture." Thus, only insignificant architecture is produced.
I believe that architecture must again be individualized if standardized and monotonous urban spaces (cityscapes) are to be transformed into places where we experience discovery and surprise. In architecture, we must once again grant freedom to the expansion of imagination, which truly arises only in the mind of the individual.