Architecture is not like sculpture, painting, etc, because it must 1st and foremost meet the needs of the activity that will transpire within it. It's interesting that at the 4:23 mark that he says " "Every building is built for a specific use, for a specific place, for a specific society..and it has nothing to do with style" and yet the LACMA building he has designed.. for a growing musem..in a growing Los Angeles.. is smaller than the buildings it replaces, and thus will never satisfy the use needs of the society it serves. Nice for him he gets to add this piece to his portfolio.. most people will not know that it was a failure before construction began.
I completely disagree with his ideas. A good architectural work should be beautiful, perform well (thermal comfort, energy consumption, sustainability, etc.), and integrate into the surrounding architectural style of the place. And last but not least, architecture does not have to tell as story. Just think about all the magnificent architecture in Europe we still adore to this day. Are they design to tell a story, or are they design to fulfil the requirements I mentioned above?
As an architect, I could not make sense of this. An architect is a problem solver....first understand the requirements then produce a structure that serves them. However in their quest for fame, or by incompetence, some architects try to produce art at the expense of practicality. If the building works as space for people and is a sound form, and is beautiful, you have made architecture.
