Прежде всего хочу вас поздравить с «Прицкером». Премия как-то повлияла на вашу жизнь: чувствуете ли, что появились новые возможности, или большую ответственность?

Премия действительно оказалась для меня неожиданностью, и мне все еще трудно говорить об этом. Вы спросили про ответственность, а у нас все ровно наоборот. Можно было бы предположить, что от нас теперь ждут слишком многого, и этот груз ожиданий будет давить на плечи. Но мы чувствуем себя совершенно иначе. С этой наградой у нас появилась свобода: теперь мы можем рисковать даже больше, чем раньше. Лауреат Прицкеровской премии больше не должен ничего никому доказывать, и это значит, что ты больше ничего не боишься.

Знаете, архитектурная практика — дорогая вещь, стоит денег, времени, энергии. Нужно прежде всего заработать доверие заказчиков, а доверие — такая штука, которую легко потерять. Каждая неудача будет мешать дальнейшей работе, а Прицкеровская премия гарантирует определенную репутацию и качественные проекты. Так что теперь мы займемся теми проектами, которыми боялись заниматься раньше, потому что риск был слишком велик. Впрочем, мы и раньше не оченьто боялись рисковать: обычно мы занимаемся теми проблемами, о которых ничего не знаем. До 2000-х мы никогда не строили социальное жилье, но сделали это. До 2010-го не занимались реконструкцией после цунами, но тоже сделали это. А теперь «Прицкер» дает нам шанс рисковать еще больше.

First of all, congratulations! How do you feel after receiving the Prize? Has it changed anything? Do you feel more responsible in a way, now? What is life like after receiving the Pritzker Prize?  

Well, it was very unexpected, very hard to digest.  I think, actually, it’s still very hard today for me to talk about it. It’s not a mental thing, it’s an emotional thing, I would say. But, about having changed, there are many questions in your question; the question of responsibility is associated with weight. Now you have something on your shoulder that makes your practice heavier. And for us it’s just the contrary. We feel, in a word, freedom.  Now we can move freely, into fields that may be more risky, in the sense that, with such an award you don’t have to prove anything to anybody any more. You’re more willing to fail...

More willing to fail?

Yes, in the sense that when it’s still not clear whether you’re good or not, every failure in your project is considered a threat to your own development. And, of course, when you go to clients or to public institutions, they need to trust you. Architecture is very costly; it costs a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of energy, so your clients need to trust you. If you have too many failures, or if your last project was a failure, then it’s very difficult for them to trust you. But with such an award it’s more or less guaranteed that you can do good things. And that, in our case, has translated into a feeling that, hey, our professional prestige does not depend on opinions anymore, so let’s go for projects that we wouldn’t otherwise have dared to because of the risk of failure being so high. 

В этом году вы удостоились не только главной архитектурной премии, но и чести стать куратором Архитектурной биеннале в Венеции. Как думаете, почему в обоих случаях выбрали именно вас? Значит ли это определенный поворот в архитектуре? Конец эры звездных архитекторов? Архитектура становится более ответственной, уделяет больше внимания социальным проблемам?

Я думаю, что изменились вопросы, которые архитектурный мир себе задает. Обычно мы думаем об архитектурных трендах как об ответах на тот или иной вопрос ответы могут быть постмодернистскими, конструктивистскими, минималистскими. В зависимости от ответа вы пытаетесь интерпретировать премию как признание влиятельным того или иного направления. Но теперь архитекторы стали размышлять о большем количестве вопросов. Если мир искусства и культуры и раньше находился в нашей компетенции, то теперь и общество готово признать, что архитекторы могут со знанием дела говорить о миграции, бедности, то есть отвечать на те вопросы, для решения которых прежде мы сами себя считали недостаточно квалифицированными.

What can it be?

I don’t know, let’s say social housing, for example. The risk of failure is very high. There’s very little budget, you’re dealing with governments; everything is complicated. Actually, many of our projects are not necessarily successful in the conventional way.  All the wins are relative, not absolute. And yet we go there and take these things on because we believe there’s a relevant question to be answered, there’s an important problem. You wouldn’t want to risk your professional reputation by going into projects that are too difficult, but with this kind of prize, we’re okay. Let’s go into a project that in normal circumstances we wouldn’t have accepted but if the outcome is a potential public gain, let’s go for it. This is connected with a later question that you have for me, but we normally do things that we have no idea about. As for social housing, we didn’t have any experience before the year  2000, and yet we did it. With reconstruction after the earthquake and tsunami, we didn’t have any experience before 2010, and yet we did it. And so we consistently go into fields that we have no idea about. It’s the question that’s important; whether the problem matters. I guess, in a word, it encourages us to take even more risks. Yeah, we’re less afraid of failure now. 

Having the two biggest honours in the architectural world, curating the Biennale and winning the Pritzker Prize, do you think that this means something? Is it a sign that architecture is tending to be more responsible now, to be more socially focussed? In terms of yourself, not an author of “starchitecture”, as we have become used to, but somebody who speaks about migration, disasters, about the most important problems of our times, what does it mean for architecture to have chosen you in this way? And why do you think you, specifically, were chosen? 

I have no idea, you should ask the jury! I don’t think it’s a good thing to ask – I try to think about it but I can’t say. The only thing that I would say is that perhaps, if anything, it reflects that what has changed is the question, not the answer.  Normally, different architectural trends are perceived as different answers to a given question.  I could answer in a postmodern way, I could answer it in a constructivist way, or I could answer in a minimalist way. So, I guess, based upon the answer, you would try to interpret a prize like that in one direction or another.  What I think has changed here is not the answer, but the question. The question is different now. We are witnessing in our everyday practice what architects all over the world are, that the questions are different. They require us to respond to a much wider gamut of dimensions. From the artistic and the cultural dimension – which is already a gained field; we already have a society that thinks an architect is somebody who can engage in a conversation about art and culture. But instead of replacing that with basic needs, or these concrete, very down to earth needs, my interpretation would be that we’re widening the response to new dimensions that previously were not necessarily what society expected from architects. And we, architects, are finding new tools to engage in debates that before we might not have felt qualified enough to handle. 

Давайте поговорим собственно о биеннале. Интересно, что у вас нет никакого опыта выставочной деятельности. Понятно, что любите рисковать в своей архитектурной практике, но, как думаете, какую пользу биеннале может принести неопытный куратор?

Каждый день мы с коллегами занимаемся темами, о которых не знаем ничего. И наше невежество позволяет нам задавать те вопросы, которые нормальный эксперт никогда бы себе не задал, а счел чем-то самим собой разумеющимся. Мы не пытаемся стать экспертами в кураторстве, мы в первую очередь архитекторы, и больше всего нас интересует следующий вопрос: зачем в принципе нужно отправляться в Венецию, тратить деньги на билет, да еще и платить за вход? Мы хотим, чтобы в нашей биеннале был реальный ответ на этот вопрос. Чтобы архитекторы на биеннале узнали что-то, что поможет им в дальнейшей работе, чтобы они получили те решения, которые смогут использовать в собственной практике, когда вернутся домой. В конце концов, мы хотим сделать биеннале, которое изменит качество архитектурной практики во всем мире. Если это получится, то я сделал достойную биеннале.

What debate will you bring to the Biennale? It’s very funny that you have no experience of curating, so how will you do it in general? You referred to it as answering questions that you don’t know the response to, so how will you curate the Biennale, and what is the opportunity of curating a Biennale with no experience of curating? 

Well, this is exactly what I meant before. Normally it’s our everyday experience to go into fields that we know nothing about. So we’re very rigorous with our ignorance. We want to use ignorance to ask those stupid questions that normally an expert wouldn’t do because he’d take such things for granted. We cannot take anything for granted because we have no idea about the things that we are entering into. That was the case in social housing. It was the case in city design and with natural disasters. And with the social riots and conflicts in the mining industry in the north of the country.  And by definition, this is the core of our practice; we go into fields where there’s not enough knowledge to answer these new questions. And that, by definition, is called innovation.  So, in curating something, we don’t try to become expert curators. We’re architects, and so we start asking the stupid questions that we would ask as if we were just members of the general public. On the other hand, I’m a practising architect, so I ask; what would be useful to me in my practice that might make me go to a Biennale?  I’m in Chile, far away from Venice. It’s very expensive to go to Europe, and then you have to pay the entry fee too. Why should I even consider that as a possibility?  So we have tried to create an event where that question could be answered. Can I find something out that I would have missed by not visiting the Biennale? Is there knowledge that I can swallow? That might help my practice back at home? Can I meet experiences, projects, or people that it would, in normal circumstances, be very hard for me to do on my own? Of course, these kind of questions are not that different when going into social housing because the ultimate question is, would I live here? Would my family live here? That kind of very stupid, basic question allows us, I guess, to go to the core of something. Then of course you’re not that worried about the interpretation of the thing. We just want to create an event that would be useful, that would be interesting, that would change your perspective, and might improve the way we are trying to address the quality of the built environment. In the end, this is about architecture.  Architecture is giving form to the places where people live.  It’s no more complicated than that, but it’s no simpler either. Give form to the places where people live.  So, by going to the Biennale, will I be able to give new forms to the places people live? Will I find out about new forms of living that are appearing and that I was not aware of? Will I be able to make the forms where people live back home in a better way if I can look at other experiences? If the answer is yes, then maybe I would consider going to the Biennale

Национальные павильоны на биеннале обычно показывают проекты, которыми они гордятся. А вы можете вообразить себе обратную картину — биеннале архитектурных неудач и провалов?

То название, которое мы придумали, как раз про это, про вмешательство различных сил и конфликты. В письме каждому архитектору мы просили придумать, за что сегодня сражается архитектура, какое у нее важнейшее поле боя, какая проблема в архитектуре так важна, что будет интересна простому горожанину — политику, полицейскому, учителю, домохозяйке. Загрязнение городов, миграция и безопасность — об этом будет интересно поговорить каждому человеку: это касается его повседневной жизни. А дальше уже архитектор должен был представить проект в ответ на проблему, объясняя, как он пришел к решению. Честно рассказать о том, что за ошибки и провалы его ожидали на пути, как именно в голову пришла удачная идея. Делиться провалами невероятно важно, и на биеннале я начну с собственного примера, поделюсь своими неудачами и сомнениями, провалами в кураторстве. Финальная тема Репортаж с линии фронта была не первой, до того мы придумали несколько вариантов, но не смогли их проработать до конца. Какие-то из них оказались слишком сложными, какие-то слишком дорогостоящими. На биеннале я покажу, что за идеи были отброшены и почему, объясню, как была устроена внутренняя кухня.

Can you imagine a Biennale of failure? All the national pavilions are trying somehow to show the projects that they are proud of during the Biennale. So, if there existed a Biennale of failure, what would be its topic, and what might we see there? 

I suppose the title we gave was getting at that in a way. When you say “reporting from the front”, it means there is friction, there are forces in conflict. And the ultimate aim is that we share knowledge. What it took, what it was like to produce something. Success and failure are useful to share. It will depend then on every architect to decide how much of their failures or successes they  would like to show. Ultimately, and this was pretty much in the brief we sent to every architect, we were asking them: Give me the name of a battle, of a problem, of an issue that that I as a citizen – not as an architect, but as a citizen - should care about. So that even if I’m a housekeeper, or a politician or a policeman or a teacher or whatever, I might feel – oh yes, insecurity, that’s something that I’m worried about. Traffic jams, that’s something that makes my life miserable. Pollution, waste, migration, inequalities... There are all kinds of problems that every single person might be interested in discussing or hearing a solution for. So we ask architects to choose a battle, let’s say, or a problem or challenge, and then share with the rest of us what they did to address that issue. It could be a project, or a process, – you choose, you choose your project. In explaining what it took to get from A to B, what difficulties or failures there may have been then, how you may have changed your mind, you may have realised – oh, that’s why I was hitting a wall, because I was formulating the question in the wrong way, but then I turned it round and eventually succeeded. If we can share that experience, it will be useful. Like the way we ourselves are presenting the title of the Biennale, for example. We will show that the first title was rejected. Reporting from the front is the second title we submitted after the first one was rejected.

Какие из провалов архитекторов, участвующих в биеннале, вам кажутся интереснее всех?

Отмечать отдельные проекты было бы с моей стороны, наверное, неправильно и нечестно. Кроме того, мне кажется, что главная цель выставки — постараться показать общую картину. А как куратор я готовлю для зрителей ключи — пишу тексты для каталога и выставки, где объясняю, почему выбрал каждого архитектора, в том числе и Бориса Бернаскони с Александром Бродским. Вместо того чтобы зритель угадывал, что означает проект каждого из участников и почему он оказался здесь, я взял на себя риск высказаться по этому поводу.

What was the first one? 

You’ll have to wait until the Biennale to see!  And we even had two or three initiatives that we wanted to do as curators. We didn’t find the money, there wasn’t enough interest, it was too complicated, it would have taken too much time and then risked failing. And so we took them out. So we’re showing that there were two or three things that we were actually trying to develop, but we did not get enough funding for, and we had to take them out. All this - let’s call it the “cooking” of the thing – is something that is valuable to share. We start with our own example by showing our failures in trying to find out what it is to curate a Biennale. I would say there is a certain percentage of architects that would also be willing to share their own difficulties, and also the tipping point – where was that moment where they found the idea to move forward? So from that point of view, the title itself is open to learning from success and failure.

I know that it’s like asking a mother which of her children she likes most, but I can’t not ask you; what in your opinion will be the most interesting pavilions of the Biennale, or maybe ideas or projects, or objects? Is there something that you’d like to share for the moment, maybe you have some little spoilers for us?

No, I don’t think it’s fair to do that, since for the architects, in the end, whether they want it or not, whether they are looking for it or not, there are awards in play here. If I mention one or two, or even ten, the ones that I don’t mention, well, they might not then seem eligible for an award. It’s a matter of the fairness of the exhibition, but also the lesson of the exhibition too, to take a look at the overall thing.  And in order to do that, I’m trying as a curator to help the visitor to get some clues. I’m writing the texts, in the catalogue and in the exhibition, to explain why I invited each architect. So I’m writing a text about why I invited  Boris Bernaskoni, and I’m writing a text why I invited Brodsky, so that instead of leaving the visitor with the responsibility to guess why this or that person matters, I took the risk of saying something. It might well be a different reason to why the architect thinks the work they’re doing is important, but I’m just trying to give some hints. If you just walk through and spend two seconds in every project, then you at least get some lesson, you can learn something. Even if you don’t stop in an exhibition, you get something out of it. So I’m not naming anybody yet at this point. You look at everybody in the first layer of experience of the exhibition. You may already get some information, some knowledge. 

Так почему вы выбрали Бернаскони и Бродского? Тема биеннале довольно «левых» интересов, нужно обратить свой взгляд на проблемы третьего мира, миграции, бедность и катастрофы. Но Бродский и Бернаскони, кажется, делают фокус совсем на других темах. А Бернаскони вообще представит супертехнологичное дорогое здание в элитарном квартале, то есть архитектуру для богатых, а не для бедных.

От темы Вести с передовой мы ждем гуманистического подхода, рассуждений о миграции и так далее. Но разговор о качестве архитектуры выходит за пределы проблем развивающихся стран. Европа переполнена банальными архитектурными решениями, и авторитарный взгляд в политике богатых стран может оказаться не менее опасным, чем дефицит ресурсов у бедных. Архитектура придает форму жизни человека, а в нашей жизни есть кое-что помимо базовых потребностей. Да, жилье должно защищать от холода, как, например, в России. В других странах прежде всего надо задуматься о доступе к чистой воде. Но жизнь намного сложнее. Менее очевидное поле боя архитектуры — перестать строить посредственное жилье, победить банальность. Работа Бернаскони как раз про это. Бюджет здания превышает возможности сотен людей, работающих в Африке, но тот же бюджет можно было бы освоить намного хуже, например, как это происходит в Дубае. Есть свое достоинство и элегантность в том, чтобы расходовать деньги и ресурсы эффективно, бросать вызов новым технологиям.

Для биеннале мы старались выбрать в том числе тех архитекторов, которые выбиваются из карикатурного образа святых гуманистов, потому что размышление о качестве жизни людей намного сложнее, чем решение базовых потребностей человечества. Да, ни Бродский, ни Бернаскони не задумываются о том, как обеспечить страны третьего мира чистой водой, но есть другие, кто этим занимается. А ваши архитекторы честно ведут войну с банальностью. На мой взгляд, это не менее важно для архитектуры сегодня.

So why did you choose Bernaskoni and Brodsky?
The topic of the Biennale is quite social, reporting from the front, migration etc., but you choose quite a luxury building from Bernaskoni, at an innovation area in Moscow, one that is super-technological and doesn’t solve any of these problems of migration, of social housing and so on. It’s very elite, so why did you take it?  

I think that’s why I like the question so much. With the assumption of reporting from the front, the immediate reaction would that this concerns humanitarian things: poverty, migration, pollution or sustainability or that kind of thing. And it’s true, that is one end of the spectrum that we very explicitly would like to have people sharing what they have been doing on those fronts. But ultimately this is a debate about the quality of the built environment. And when you get beyond the toughness of circumstances, let’s say poverty or scarcity of means, or underdeveloped countries or weak institutions, or corruption or any of that, this still won’t guarantee the quality of the built environment. And if you look at Europe, if you see the mediocrity, the banality of the solutions, or the greed of the capitalist world, or the laziness of bureaucracies, or the authoritarian look of a political power, all this may be quite as dangerous as the lack of resources. So when I mention that architecture is about giving form to the places where we live, life is a set of basic needs that have to be satisfied, that’s true. Particularly in Russia, it’s so cold that unless you provide the right environment, you die of cold. So there’s a very basic, concrete, down-to-earth need for shelter, for a roof, for warmth, for heat, say. In other places it’s about access to water or sanitation or security in very violent places. But if you solve all that, okay, now you don’t die, now you have access to water, but is that life? Life is much more complex than just breathing and eating. Life, the complexity and richness of the human condition, this also covers collective living, the experience of having a life that penetrates into the mystery of the human condition. And if that is not satisfied, if that is not fulfilled, then the quality of life – well, it may not be life-threatening, but you won’t have a life all the same. The less obvious fronts are also connected to stopping the production of banal, mediocre built environments. Bernaskoni’s work definitely tries to address the richness of the human condition. Even though it’s on a high-end spectrum, his design for example had a big budget, compared to people working in Africa or something, and you can use that budget in the worst possible way, like in Dubai, or like the financial district in Moscow, just showing off. Or you can try to produce a form that is rigorous, that is pertinent to the question, that is trying to address knowledge-creation, the role of technology and knowledge-creation in overcoming poverty. This is relevant as, if the people working  in that place do their job well, they will be creating wealth. And eventually you are creating a working environment that is much better than going to fancy, showing-off places like Dubai or the financial district. So, the rigour, I would say there is a certain elegance, even, in not wasting resources in an unnecessary way. Or using them to achieve quality of construction that might serve as an example to all those people using their wealth in the wrong way. That is also part of the debate. And so, what I’m trying to say here, is that for us it was very important when choosing people, that we would get beyond the caricature of humanitarian good people. The quality of the built environment is much more complex than just basic needs. And I think the work of Bernaskoni, but also that of Brodsky, is relevant here. Of course you could ask – but what about the access to clean water and sewage? Well, there are other people trying to address that. He’s trying to understand, or penetrate or capture the integrity of the human condition, at least that’s what I think, in a very honest search, in trying to abandon the banality and the mediocrity of architectural production. And that, I would say is as important for the quality of life as, satisfying basic needs. 

В архитектуре вы больше всего не любите банальность?

Да, но не меньше меня раздражают в архитекторах лень, отсутствие упорства, с которым нужно искать ответ на заданный вопрос. А еще бывает, многие пытаются решить новый вопрос с помощью старых ответов, оказываются недостаточно изобретательны и используют клише. Просто следуют трендам, которые сегодня хорошо продаются. Но грустнее всего, конечно, когда архитекторы копируют сами себя: придумали успешный язык — и воспроизводят свои же здания без конца, не задумываясь о контексте. Да, в архитектуре меня больше всего волнует этот баланс между упорством и инновацией.

Is banality the thing you hate the most in architecture?

One of the things, yes. Banality, a retardedness, a lack of... I would say it’s two things. On the one hand is the lack of pertinence. To a given question there are pertinent or non-pertinent answers, so I would say that in order to engage in a broader conversation, pertinence is one of the most important attributes of architecture. If the question is connected with sophisticated knowledge and technology, then you have to judge the answer according to that brief. And it is to that brief you have to find a pertinent answer. If the question is one of basic needs, then you have to find the pertinent answer for that brief. So pertinence is one thing. The other one is when you try to answer new questions with old responses. The lack of inventiveness.  When you use cliché. When you just engage in an existing trend because it’s what gets published. Or when you try to copy yourself. I would say one of the saddest things is when an architect finds a style or a language that is successful, and then he begins to copy himself, not even caring about what the question is. So I would say this balance between inventiveness and pertinence is the thing that interests me the most. And their opposite is what bothers me most. 

So there is no architecture for rich and poor, there is just good architecture and bad architecture?   

Yes, pertinent and not pertinent, dealing with the question and not doing so. Sometimes the questions are very clear, easily measured things, like having no money, or access to water. Sometimes the question is very intangible, and it’s hard to grasp the character of a building. With this, I’m saying that sometimes, like life itself, sometimes you can measure it in a very clear, simple way, and consequently prove it. But sometimes it’s the kind of thing that you just know but can’t articulate. This also belongs to the richness of human life. And the issue is; can we cover the whole spectrum and integrate all these dimensions, instead of choosing one or the other? Which seems, ultimately, to be the discussion today. We went from star architects dealing with the kind of character of thing. So now we need to go to the NGO, just dealing with the basic needs. I think that would be a mistake; it would make for as poor or as impoverished a built environment. The question is to integrate more than one dimension at a time. 

Вы опубликовали в свободном доступе в Интернете четыре своих архитектурных проекта. Не боитесь, что в результате получится как раз то самое бездумное копирование? Ведь вы даете заранее ответы, которые могут использоваться к неподходящим вопросам.

Да, но в них содержится ответ на тот вопрос, который уже давно беспокоит весь мир. Нам нужно строить дома для миллиона людей каждую неделю — не дороже $10 тыс. каждый. В одну только Германию в прошлом году приехал миллион беженцев из стран, затронутых военными конфликтами, и в этом году приедет столько же. Но это только Германия, а в мире каждую неделю миллион людей переселяется в города, и нужно создать им достойные условия для жизни.

Кроме того, наш проект — открытая система, которую можно совершенствовать и дорабатывать в зависимости от конкретных условий. Мы не можем ответить на главный вызов современности, пока сидим в Чили в своем архитектурном бюро, но можем хотя бы предложить профессионалам средство, как справиться с этой проблемой, а они пусть уже придумывают, как лучше его использовать. Миграция в города — огромнейшая проблема, и в ее решении остается место для каждого, нам удалось сделать лишь крошечный вклад.

What do you think is the most important question in architecture that you would like to answer, but don’t know how to approach it? Or is architecture itself a never-ending list of questions? 

It’s hard to say. I can only answer with our own attitude, which is; do not want something, or do not have an answer in advance. Wait until you have understood what the question is. There’s nothing worse than answering the wrong question well. We spend a lot of time in getting to grips with what the question is that we need to respond to. We decide on the question before going on to the answer. What informs the form of a given project? Structure, laws, budget, environment, the environment, the character, the size of a community, the needs of a community. As soon as you’ve understood this cloud of forces at play then you translate that into form. It is very important to understand what informs the form of a project. And the question that comes out of that attitude may be one that it’s impossible that you would already have known before starting the project. So in principle you should suspend your own preferences as much as possible. Not wanting something too soon. As soon as you want something, you fall in love with your own idea, and then you forget about the real reason why you even started working. 

But you published four of your projects online, so you are giving the answers in a way. Aren’t you a little bit afraid that they will be used for the wrong questions? In your words, everything should start with a question, but here you’re giving the answers. 

In this case the question is a worldwide question that has already been raised. I mean, we already have the question. We need to house one million people per week, with 10,000 dollars per family. That question already is in the world. The thing is that nobody has realised that it’s out there yet.  The migration of people towards cities, looking for opportunities and quality of life, has created it. Forget about migrants from war-torn regions; Germany will have one million in 2016. They already had one million in 2015, but compared to the numbers in the world, we have one million migrants per week coming to cities. Not per year, but per week. That question is already out there. We’re just trying to say, here is some experience for that question that we are happy to share if it helps you in your own home country. And this lets you give some hints that can be used. That’s the only thing that we have done. Of course, these being open systems, by definition we’re not giving an answer. It’s one part of the answer. Because it’s something that will need to be completed and adjusted. And by definition, an open system wouldn’t have to be the final answer, it’s not even something done by us, it’s done by the people that will occupy and finish these things. It’s like creating a platform on an iPhone and then you are just providing a frame for other people to begin to add their own knowledge. The size of the question is so big that, unless we use these people’s own capacity, we won’t solve the equation. And if you don’t solve the problem of the one million people coming to the city per week, on 10,000 dollars, people won’t stop coming to cities. They will come anyhow, but they will live in awful conditions.  This is something that will mainly happen between the Tropics, in countries that are poor and are hot. Maybe Europe will say that they don’t see the point, it’s somewhere else, it’s not here. But in terms of the magnitude of the challenge and the potential conflict that might be created there, it’s one of the biggest questions of our time.  

Do you think giving away your projects for free will change the profession? Or is it just one case, and not that significant.  

We hope so. I mean, in the sense that the size of the challenge is so big, and the responses that we’ve been giving are so marginal, that, in terms of shifting the paradigm, it’s important. The move we made is just an attempt to try to match the magnitude of the challenge. Again, we won’t solve the question of migration and inhabitation in cities unless we use people’s own capacities. We won’t build enough units, just us here in Chile, a very tiny, modest architectural office. We won’t solve the issue unless many more professionals feel that they have a tool there with which they can contribute to the discussion. The question is so big, there is room for everybody, there is a need for everybody to contribute with their own knowledge. And this is just what we’re doing. It’s a tiny one-millimetre contribution to a huge, huge challenge

Архитектура реагирует на все эти вызовы, что похвально, но есть и другие примеры. Вот, например, сайт archdaily.com объявляет об архитектурном конкурсе на проект стены между США и Мексикой. Вы не думаете, что архитектуре требуется сегодня новый этический стандарт?

Конечно, строительство стены — глупейшая вещь на свете. Но разговоры о морали и долге — это очень личное. Когда я рассказывал о своей биеннале в Лондоне, журналисты спросили меня, нужно ли архитекторам больше размышлять о своем моральном долге. Я сказал, что нет, и меня не очень поняли. Понимаете, я не священник и не имею права учить людей подобным вещам. Я не чувствую морального превосходства и, кроме того, просто физически не смог бы контролировать всех на свете, у меня нет на то власти. Все, что я могу, — это подать пример, просто сказать, что это глупо. И не рассматривать всерьез работу с теми людьми, которые сейчас занимаются этим проектом.

Do you think architecture today needs new standards of ethics?  I’m speaking of the example of the wall between the USA and Mexico, and the architectural site that has the link to the competition to build this wall. How can this even be possible? What is your attitude to the fact?  

I guess it’s like pretty much like anything in life, people can say whatever they want. The question is, do I engage in this conversation or not? I was asked when making a press tour for the Biennale in London, if I felt that architects had a moral duty towards social responsibility and that kind of thing, and I said no. Of course they didn’t give the whole quote. My point was that kind of moral duty is a personal thing, an ethical thing. That’s for either priests or religions or your own conscience. I’m nobody to claim any kind of direction towards personal preferences. It belongs to a realm where I’m nobody to say anything. The same thing with that wall. If somebody wants to make a brief for a killing machine, well fine!

How come? How can it be fine? 

Can I control the kind of person doing that kind of thing? I can’t. And as for who I am, I don’t have the power in the first place, I don’t have any kind of moral superiority to claim anything. But I believe that it’s wrong. And since I believe it’s wrong, I try not to be involved in any kind of thing like that. I may use my own platform to say this is stupid, this is bullshit. But again, it’s mainly a personal, private decision. That thing about the wall between the United States and Mexico, I think it’s the most stupid thing ever, so that I wouldn’t even consider debating it. But then, how can I control and prevent somebody else from doing it? There’s enough people. What needs to happen is this: If somebody makes a brief like that, well the next time they do something I would say this is a stupid thing. I wouldn’t waste time paying attention. This is not serious. It’s not a serious thing.  

Если вы не готовы давать советы в области морали, то, может быть, дадите профессиональное напутствие молодым архитекторам, которые мечтают однажды возглавить биеннале и получить Прицкеровскую премию?

Не обращайте внимания на призы и биеннале и больше думайте о своей работе. Послушайте, я живу в Чили, не хожу на правильные коктейльные вечеринки, не играю в гольф с нужными людьми. Работать в Чили — худшая стратегия из возможных. Все, что мы делаем, — занимаемся проектами и проблемами, которые считаем интересными, пытаемся внести свой вклад в профессию. Прицкеровская премия — это следствие, а не цель. Поэтому не старайтесь именно получить приз, иначе ничего не выйдет. И так во всем в жизни.

If you don’t feel responsible to give moral direction, what professional direction would you give young architects that are dreaming of receiving the Pritzker prize or of becoming curators of biennales?  

Well, first of all don’t even pay attention to the prizes and the biennales. What you should do is focus on the quality of the work you are producing. As a consequence of that you may eventually be recognised. Many people have said, well, now that you’ve received the Pritzker Prize, there’s no bigger prize than that. What else is there in life? My answer was, well, if I thought life was about prizes and awards, my life would be finished because I couldn’t carry on living. But since life is not about awards but about projects, the amount of projects that we still have to do is so big that we’re just starting. We haven’t even arrived; we’re just starting, finally, to do projects that we consider challenging. The advice would be; try to choose difficult relevant questions. Not architectural questions. Questions that anybody would feel are relevant in your community, in your society. As a citizen before anything else.  And then try to go into that non-architectural debate with your own tools, which is the architectural capacity of synthesis, of organising information in a proposal. We architects by definition do not write a paper or a diagnosis about the problem. We understand the problem and then make a proposal. And this is very powerful. So concentrate on a problem that matters, use your knowledge to try to provide a solution, and then give it back to society so they can judge whether what you did was right or wrong. And ultimately you learn for the next time. Look, I live in Chile; it’s far away from everywhere. I’m not at the right cocktail parties. I’m not playing golf with the people i should be playing golf with. Choosing to live in Chile was the worst strategy ever for winning the Pritzker Prize and curating the Biennale! You’re not in the right places. And yet we were focussing on projects and problems and challenges that we thought were useful, that were challenging, and for which we thought we might make a contribution as architects. And as a consequence, this thing came about. Who on earth would have thought it? We were so surprised, in this corner of the world to have this happen! So I guess if you try too much to look for these things, you will never get there. Like pretty much everything else in life. These are consequences not goals.

Последний вопрос будет не очень серьезным. Во время обсуждения ваших новых регалий среди архитекторов так или иначе всплывает комплимент вашей прическе. Кто ваш парикмахер?

Сейчас я буду жаловаться на факты: в моих жилах, кажется, течет индейская кровь, а у индейцев в Чили волосы не самые прекрасные. Они слабые, с ними в принципе трудно справиться, нужно просто смириться и позволить им жить своей жизнью. А стрижет мои волосы старший сын. Все равно они лежат, как хотят, — какая, к черту, разница?!

I’ve got a funny last question, maybe it won’t make it into the magazine... I’ve always wanted to ask you about the style of your hair, what is the name of your hairdresser? 

Haha, this is determined by a certain fact; it’s impossible that I don’t have Indian native blood running through my veins. Chilean Indians – Mapuches – do have very thick hair.
This kind of hair – you look at the Indians in the south of Chile, you can’t control their hair! It’s very hard, thick hair, very non-elite, very non-aristocratic hair. So as soon as you understand that, you let your hair go its own way. Now I always cut my own hair. There was a period of time, when my older son was younger, about six years old, when I asked him to cut my hair. It kept growing its own way anyhow. 

I think your son will now become the richest hairdresser in the world; everyone will fly to Chile and ask him to cut their hair!  

Well, he cuts his own hair now, haha!  

Cool, one question from me, what is architecture in one short sentence? 

It’s to give form to the places where people live. 

Cool, thank you!