His answer to the question about his supposed "value system" is acceptable, but not satisfactory; he surely can deny having any ideology or influences, but he is too much of an intelligent person to not know that our habitat, or the way he was taught architecture, have a direct and meaningful impact on his works. And with all his experience in the field, he certainly cannot notice some fil rouge between all his projects, not in the moment of creation, but looking back at them as a "critic" (quite like he did in this lecture, in a way). I think claiming post ideologism can be quite an ideology nowadays, or an excuse to not justify some behaviours in the creative process (behaviours that he actually justified sometimes, i.e. talking about the position of the building on the barraco, Mexico)
how can mr. herzog first talk about how "a discipline is what it is, ... architecture is architecture" etc. and that he is not interested in "things about things, narrative, illustrative" etc. and then in the second project (museum long island) explain how the idea of the museum is that it should look like those artists studios, like a little village made of resized copies of those studios? Isn't he explaining the project as a "thing about a thing"? How can you be more narrative or illustrative?
I hace the same dilema. Im guessing my idea of narrative architecture is not what i think it is. Because at the end all his projects had a narrative. Idk who is wrong here.
um..u could be right but i think its just a matter of interpretation...hes trying to say that the architecture shouldnt owe its reputation to any other thing than the architecture.. and it must be successful as an architectural piece rather than due to representing a popular poem or else..
Highly interesting lecture by one of the best living architects! Thanks for uploading. H & D represent Switzerland's cultural contribution to the world as Roger Federer does to tennis.
