Reaction to the current state of architectural work

Transkript

1 w M C A A T E L I E R Ing. arch. Miroslav Cikán I Ing. arch. Pavla Melková Dykova 1 I Prague 10 Vinohrady I I Czech republic I e: mca@mca-atelier.com I T: G o a l s o f O u r A r c h i t e c t u r e Uncovering of the hidden potential of new life and the new function of historic structures, and their embodiment through new architectural interventions. Uncovering of lost ties and connections, and development of points of resonance at the key points of this spatial network, resonances with the place for which they are a perceptible detail and shaper of the atmosphere. Seeking a method for recycling extant built structures as conditions for the sustainable development of cities and landscapes. Connecting the past and the future through an architectonic embodiment, such that our own era is evident in this line across the space-time continuum, and is a fully valid material imprint of the moment of its creation as well as a linchpin in time and space. Respecting context, place and purpose. Expressing humility towards the character of the site and the value of extant historic structures, and simultaneously creating an openly contemporary trace of modern architecture, which is a reflection of our society as it is today, no less so than in the previous historic layers. Restoring the humanistic and communicative role of architecture. Reinstating the dimension of architecture as the craft of forming the human environment. Returning to the long gestation period of creation, and the reflection and personal presence of the architect-creator in the entire process, including the actual construction and reaching down to the last detail. Rather than building buildings creating spaces that can become a firm component of cultures and landscapes. Architecture as an experience of being, immediate sensuousness, materiality as well as poetry. Architecture as formal simplicity uncovering references to the context of memory, the character of a place, tradition. Architecture where the expressive force is not determined by passing fashion but is always created anew, based on the context of the project. Reaction to the current state of architectural work What marks the contemporary age is a state of fragmentation, of a loss of continuity and contextuality in both space and time. No less true is that architecture is increasingly losing its humanistic role, the embodiment of continuity, context and the meaning of life for individuals and social values, a role that it always defended throughout history in its essence, and under the influence of technological modernisation is becoming little more than an instrumental discipline. Architecture has begun to lose its dimension as the craft of formulating the human environment and is even losing its relationship to its very own purpose. Now, the predominant ethos is of liberation from traditional values: overblown autonomy and media-generated spectacles, architecture reduced to its fragmentary visual image. Traditional structures of settlement, with their density, proportions, level of detail and rich mixture of functions corresponding to the natural scale and needs of the human being, are replaced with fragmentary, disjointed real estate. Within the historic structures of cities, villages and landscapes, we find neglect and a failure to use the large quantity of historical structures and localities, at the same time as new spatial needs are artificially met by new megapolitan objects or urban complexes with no ties to the original built fabric, often mindlessly churning their compactness into the margins and at the same time unnecessarily slicing up what remains of open space. And yet historic structures still contain, within a framework of reconstruction, revitalisation, and measured interventions, a deep potential for the insertion of new life and new functions, needing only to be discovered and embodied by a corresponding architectural approach. The capability of recycled earlier construction to meet the functional and qualitative demands of society today Similarly to other area in the life of a society, one of the key principles for the development of cities is the sustainable development of recycling. The main reasons behind the construction of new buildings are, at the present time, the increasing demand for square metres of built-up space per inhabitant on the one hand, and on the other the rising and changing demands for building functions. If we accept these demands as a premise even though part of the reflections according to the principle of sustainable development must equally include the very justifiability of such demands we can realised their fulfilment either at the expense of covering still open space with new construction, replacement of an earlier building with a new one without the occupation of open space, or the recycling of an earlier building. Recycling earlier buildings would appear, in terms of sustainability, the most evidently suitable methods, and not only for questions of using the extant material substance or the conservation of open space, but also for the preservation and strengthening of wider social values. The precondition for the recycling of extant buildings is their capability for adaptation for new qualitative and functional demands, insofar as the apparent incapacity for adaptation, which is usually the absence of imagination on the part of the investor or architect, or a reaction to excessive regulatory principles, is currently perhaps the more frequent cause for the variation of a new building in previously open space, more so than the poor technical condition of the older building. In the following examples, we have supplied instances that prove that original buildings can, on the basis of the appropriate alterations, be capable of meeting current functional, social and technical demands to the fully applicable extent, as much as any new construction.

2 Revitalisation of the Crucifix Bastion Investor: District government of Prague 2 Realisation: Locality: Prague 2, Nové Město Karlov Though itself of Baroque date, Bastion XXXI is a part of the medieval fortifications of the New Town of Prague, founded in 1348 by Emperor Charles IV. Along with the fortress of Vyšehrad, another significant monument of the city fortifications, the ramparts form a significant defensive complex, yet one hidden beneath the later layers of the contemporary built fabric of central Prague, now a UNESCO heritage site. The impermeability of the area created an inner periphery, a strip of inaccessible and unused greenery within the central city, in certain points approaching the character of a brownfield. The construction is part of a wider planned conception for linking the green areas and public spaces of the university campus at Albertov with the adjoining neighbourhoods of the New Town (Nové Město) and Vinohrady. Our goal was the landscaping of the public area, the addition of an open-air café and gallery on the site of a ruined building of 19th-century date, and linking the spaces inside and outside the medieval fortification line that has kept the area of gardens and the university campus separate from the other sections of the city. Revitalisation was completed on the basis of the winning entry in a public architectural competition, held by the district government of Prague 2 in The new structure for public facilities was designed as a building below ground, a hidden acropolis attracting visitors with its contents and its form, not through mere visibility. It is conceived as an autonomous, solid seashell, inserted into the layerings of the archaeologically defined stratigraphic levels of Baroque and modern terrain, while not disturbing the character of the fortifications and the visual outline of the defensive walls. In its formal vocabulary, the building is elementary, minimal, and grounded in the material principles of fortification architecture: firmness. The structure is available for varying uses: a universal hall for exhibitions, social functions or a café, facilities for the public and for operation. With its open front sliding-glass wall, turned towards the panorama of Vyšehrad, the exterior becomes a fully valid component of the interior. Included in the realization is the reconstruction of the wall chapel, supplemented with a contemporary sculpture, The Crucifixion (Boží muka). Revitalisation of the Bastion is the first realized stage of a much larger project intended to spur the process of revival in the wider vicinity, leading local residents to visit the area, and attracting public attention to allow for the continuation of further stages in the project. Insertion of new recreational and cultural functions into the structure of heritage objects makes possible their rescuing not as lifeless museum-objects, but as a natural, living part of the city. The ensuing architectonic form is proof of the possibilities of connecting the heritage approach to the restoration of historically valuable structures, and the measured yet self-confident contemporary implementation of new contextually aware architecture. In addition to the contextual supplementing and the increasing of the potential of the extant environment, the new buildings can also provide the aesthetic experience of their architecture in itself. Complexly layered volumes were created not through the mere accretion of details, but instead through the placement of a layer of volumes into the actual masses and space, volumes that accent, initiate or even merely play host to the subtle impressions of the environment.

3 M o d e r n i s a t i o n a n d e n l a r g e m e n t o f t h e v i l l a N a L u žc i i n P ra g u e - Vo ko v i c e Client: Private investor Realisation: 2009 Locality: Prague 6 The building is part of a characteristic original patter of construction from the 1920s, with a definite conception of an urban plan and a deliberately unified appearance of single-family houses, forming a valuable component of the wider structure of the city, for which preservation should be a clear priority. Wherever the original houses have been replaced with new structures, often with a completely different urban character, the error of such a path is often evident. Recycling of individual structures, in this case, is also a participation in the recycling of the larger whole. The primary problem with the using of the original houses, however, is that in many parameters they do not meet the requirements for the qualities of a modern residence: originally planned as cheap residential housing, this requirement has shaped the structural, material, spatial and organisational solution of the individual houses. The goal for revitalisation of the house lay in the increase of the quality of the structure for its full suitability with the contemporary lifestyle, while retaining the maximum of the original built substance and equally the characteristic original values from the urban plan to the structural details. The central spatial interventions consisted in the creation of large-scaled, freely connected spaces created through the opening of the original floor plan, and primarily the opening of the living space to the garden through a newly added all-glass section. This addition allows for direct physical as well as optical contact with the garden on a single level, which is generally lacking in older houses adapted to the different living styles of an earlier era. No less significant in the revitalisation was the adaptation of what was originally a notably energy-inefficient structure for a completely different energy system. Generally, the most significant basic measures were implemented for the reconstruction of historic buildings: insulation of the horizontal structures, external façade insulation (while retaining the original three-dimensional qualities of its surface), highly skilful renovation of the windows and the use of hybrid heat sources a combination of renewable energy sources, with a geothermal boring and a water pump with a bivalent source, electric boiler and wood-burning stoves.

4 Reconstruction Vinohrady of the Hussite Church in Client: Czechoslovak Hussite Church Location: Prague 10 Realisation: The importance of the reconstruction of the building can be viewed on several levels. In terms of the general scope, it is the lengthening of the life of an exceptional instance of Functionalist architecture and thus the preservation of its message for future generations. At the same time, it is not merely the maintaining, but equally the generation of new spaces in the original subordinate areas in the building, for increasing its current social functions, of importance to public activities of the larger surrounding locality of Vinohrady. In the residential section, one necessary part of renovation consisted in the adaptation of the structure to modern comfort; in this case, primarily consisting of the improvement of the structural and physical qualities of the environment. The insulation qualities of the building were reinforced with an insulating system formed through the combination of thick layers of coarse stucco and thickly anchored thermo-insulation façade slabs. The goal was to find a balance between the structural, economic, heritage and aesthetic criteria, with a stress on the authenticity of the overall whole. From our calculations, we arrived at a compromise of minimal insulation, primarily for the reason of preserving the plasticity of the facades; an automatic application of current standards could have had a greater effect, yet at the cost of losing authenticity in those points where the compositional and material essence is of central importance to the experience of this exceptional Functionalist work. Adjustment of the physical processes in the structure helped the building reach stability in terms of heat insulation, materials, and construction; on the economic level it brought about the effect of long-term balance without heat stresses and thus without the need for frequent repairs. In spatial terms, the original design by architect Pavel Janák was found more or less to fulfil the greater part of modern ideas of a good residence, which we can also regard in turn as proof of the timelessness of good architectural design. Atelier MCA is located in the Hussite Assembly in Prague-Vinohrady, in the ground space enclosed by the columbarium and the intensive life of the park between the past of the dead and the future of the living. If these two worlds attempt to make contact, it takes place, quite probably, through this boundary, through the space in which we work, perhaps even through us ourselves. And so perhaps the method and goal of our work, lying frequently in the formation of a connecting link between the past and the future embodied by a new architectural contribution, is no accident.

5 Reconstruction of an apartment block, Mánesova ulice, Prague 2 Client: Private investor Realisation: 1998 Locality: Prague 2 The greater part of the residential areas of central Prague is formed by a fabric of traditional apartment blocks from the 19th and early 20th centuries. In terms of space and social functions, the original standards of these residential forms completely achieved, in some circumstances even surpassed, current living requirements; the reasons why such flats are now often regarded as unsuitable at present are primarily their transformation in the second half of the 20th century, first being shamefully split up under nationalisation into purely utilitarian and ill-thought smaller units, or later (during the 1990s) rebuilt as offices or hotels. Structural-physical comfort in these buildings is often, particularly in certain parameters such as humidity and heat stability, essentially comparable with the greater bulk of new construction, but for increasing energy efficiency it is always necessary to make several basic changes. In the listed examples of reconstruction of apartment buildings, the most important features were the heat insulation of horizontal structures, high-quality renovation of the windows, and a change in the system of heating control. Also important for lowering the energy demands was the replacement of separated systems of central heating and their unification to a central boiler with effective burning, measurement and regulation. Similarly, an added benefit was the freeing up of the restored chimneys for occasional heating with wood in stoves or fireplaces, i.e. a return of the original (if now alternative) heating method. The goal of the recycling of these structures was to restore or re-create the social standard of the flats, created not only through their size and the generosity of layout, but also the character of the original details their form, quantity, material standard and above all the value they embodied, in which for the creation of an adequate social environment it was no less important to apply these very same principles to the shared public areas of the building.

6 Revitalisation of Náměstí Jiřího z Poděbrad, Prague-Vinohrady Client: District Office of Prague 3 Locality: Prague-Vinohrady 1st prize in architectural competition 2002 Realisation of project: 2001, 2011 Anti-flood barrier of the Čertovka Stream Client: City Council of Prague Locality: Malá Strana (Lesser Quarter), Prague Realisation: 2005 The area for situating the barriers for the flood-protection system is situated within Prague s most strictly protected landmark district, at the point where the rivulet known as the Čertovka (Devil s Stream) enters into the Vltava, a point exceptionally open to public view. The design for the barrier is completely subordinated to these surroundings, where the priority is not to disturb the spatial concavity of the historical formation of the mouth of the Čertovka. The importance of the architectonic and technical solution of the new barrier lies in the near-invisibility of what is actually a quite extensive utilitarian-technical structure. In other words, it is a prototype of a newly developed original form of a technical work, never before used in any other situation. At times of high water, the river bed is closed off with a sliding wall, which under ordinary conditions remains hidden, slid into the existing embankment wall. The supporting structural reinforcements, the staircase blocks and columns that form a non-invasive and functional part of the embankment s public parterre, also help with ensuring the stability of the flood-wall. The articulation and surfaces are derived from the formal vocabulary of the contemporary elements along the Vltava on Kampa Island, and thus make a natural contribution. The aim was to revitalise the urban square containing the famed Church of the Sacred Heart by Josip Plečnik. Plečnik situated the new church into a newly created park, which was, however, never completed as he originally planned. Indeed, the form of the site was degraded during the second half of the 20th century by several utilitarian and ill-conceived additions primarily linked to the construction of the metro station. The key question behind the design of the new alterations is whether the space should be a park or a square. Bearing in mind the current character of the site, regarded and used by the residents as a park, and also aware of the visual dominance of the church as well as the social and cultural significance of the vicinity, we arrived at a solution that preserves the character of the space as a city park with a high level of green yet also creates, in front of the church, a smaller square that forms a dignified foregrounding of the landmark and also a social area for assembling and communicating. An imposing new line of plane trees forms a visual transition between the monumental height of the church and the surrounding area of a much smaller scale, and fulfils the general idea of monumental trees in the vicinity of the church as captured in Plečnik s original sketches. The basic geometry of the design is orthogonal, with a firm diagonal axis. On the dimension of height, the space is formed by three main floors the pavement (grass), the tree-floor and the mass of the church. The presence of the church, with its striking architecture, determines the formal vocabulary of the supplementary architecture of the square at ground level: we selected a simple, geometrical form with a minimum of expressive methods and the use of traditional materials.

7 Single-family house in Prague-Jinonice Client: Private investor Locality: Jinonice (Prague) Realisation: 2006 Considering the small plot of land (455m2) amid an extant setting of earlier single-family houses, the necessary first step was to design an object with highly efficient volume, which would have a generous amount of space (197m2 of usable space) with a variable internal layout, yet at the same time appear sufficiently imposing. Our goal was to leave the maximum undisturbed area of the current garden with its fruit trees, linked by a terrace above the below-ground sections of the building. Additionally, though, it was necessary to ensure that the house did not clash with the structure of the original grouping of houses. Of crucial importance was variability of the living area, rather than total floor area, an environmentally friendly and efficient heating system, optimally simple and cheap construction methods that met all requirements for structural solidity, heat-accumulation and insulation. The result is an energy-efficient, visually light, spacious and highly liveable house, with subtle natural materials, an alternative offering a restrained balance of quality and the absence of over-designed luxury. It is a thoughtful investment in the technologically balanced systems of the future, and the permanent values of wise treatment of the natural environment. Yet no less is it the creation of a new opportunity in contemporary residential construction, as part of the directed thickening of the current built-up area, and the improvement of the spatial value of the locality through the new addition of high-quality contemporary architecture.

8 C o nvers i o n o f a fo r m e r fa c to r y, P ra g u e - Vyso čany Zen Gard en Client: Designblok Locality: Kolbenova ulice, Prague-Vysočany Realisation: 2006 The first step in the re-conversion of the former manufacturing hall in the Prague industrial suburb of Vysočany is considering its use for cultural purposes, i.e. the artistic installations and theatre performances in the Zenová zahrada (Zen Garden). With the definitive end to the building s original function, the deserted factory originally the symbol of deafening, all-encompassing activity became its opposite: a place of quiet, of meditation. The remnants of inoperable machinery, the dead containers, were transformed into symbols of the now-lost activity. The goal of the exhibitions and performances was to attempt to present to the view his or her own limited space of existence in the infinite eternity of the universe. This space of the present moment became the strip of the arid Japanese garden formed only by well-tended sand, in the shape of waves in water. The visitor became part of the present moment upon entering into the dry garden, where it was possible to take part in the shaping of its surface using special rakes, which can briefly give form to the surface of the dry water, until the next person arrives. The dry garden is the outcome of the Zen Buddhist refinement of thought through long hours of meditation, journeys without a destination, pilgrimages in the spheres of silence and the relaxation of the spirit. They are an entirely unique and unparalleled philosophical realisation on the aesthetic plane: not striving to create inspiring atmospheres by means of rich quantities of beauty, colours and shapes, but through means entirely reversed implications and the most refined simplicity. The forms of the Zen garden, installed in a deserted factory and supplemented with the forms of sound, image and movement in passing across the dried bed of a river, enter in this installation into context with the other meditative space of industrial architecture.

9 N e w c o m m e r c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l c e n t r e, O p a v a Client: Private investor Locality: Horní náměstí, Opava Design: 2011 The design is for a new building on Opava s historic main square, on the site originally occupied by houses destroyed by fire during World War II. Grounded in the starting points of history and context, the design takes as its decisive point, in our view, the choice of the correct mass of the object: the overall size, the proportions of individual masses and their articulation, the level of detail, and above all the choice of the correct proportions from the detail up to the whole. Ideally, the aim is to bring together two scales : the scale of the unified block (set by the current delineation of the now-unified sites and the assumed unified function and operations of the building) and the scale of the original division of the land and its resulting visual articulation of the original construction in its individual layers (the variegated roof outline, facade tectonics, sculptural qualities, quantity of detail). Nonetheless, the method of drawing upon the chronological layerings of the urban structure is not a QUOTATION, assuming the surface features from previous stylistic eras, but rather an EVOCATION on the basis of understanding and using the principles of the environmental qualities of a specific site in the course of its development through time. The contiguous mass of the buildings on the level of the ground floor up to the next-to-last always manifested itself on this site as a firm block with a monolithic facade unaltered by interior floor plans. The presence of individual buildings was revealed primarily on the level of the final storey, with differing heights of cornices forming a strikingly modelled section of the horizon. The new building is created on similar principles: the final, height-differentiated floor is an evocation of the original articulation of the site into different buildings. At the heart of the design is the principle: permeability. A barrier-free space is the function of the mass of the building in the context of the surrounding urban environment. Maximum connection of the building with the surroundings. Connection through open passageways, open spaces and narrowed masses on the level of the parterre. Connection of human presence on the level of terraces arising in the gaps in the articulation of masses on the roof level the terraces become part of the parterre and form permeability (an anti-barrier ) between the square and the adjoining spaces. Optical connection views through the mass on all height levels, distant views of nearby structures. And no less, views outward from the rooftop terraces through the gaps. The associative source is: content container wrapping. The building (its function is commercial, cultural and social) is metaphorically a commodity a package formed by the contents (goods cultural spaces, shops, restaurants, services), the container the box formed by the internal solid curtain wall with the windows, and the wrapping paper formed by the exterior uniform glass facade. The appearance of the building is created through the use of a unifying secondary facade. Its exterior envelope is formed by two layers: the inner structure of the building with windows delimiting the interior space, and the exterior wrapper formed by opaque shaded glass of various degrees of transparency and translucency, surrounding the building s entire perimeter, as a kind of curtain between the structure and the square (the surroundings) defining the level, possibility and method of communication between the building and its environment. (At the same time, this curtain can be viewed as a boundary the layer between two rooms where even the square is seen as a kind of ceiling-less room, i.e. a space of equal value.)

10 I don t have to go there, walk through it, touch it. I can throw it out, erase it. And that really is somewhat dangerous, for it is easy. The cinema is safe, I don t put anything into it, don t risk anything, don t touch, don t put myself out on the open market. Everything else is a kind of risk, I have to put a bit of myself into it. This is the basic difference. MC: But even a film can have an effect on you, a psychological film can take you apart and leave you nothing of yourself. Architecture has its impact on people in its presence, whether through climate or appearance. It seems to me that the virtual film world and the solid world of architecture are rivals; even our clients are influenced by film and its digital scenes, and want the material world to be the image of the virtual one, even though it never has to be built, never is confronted with structural realities. There is also one further danger. Digital technologies and telecommunication allow for rapid and massive distribution of certain design instruments, technologies, or even actual structural components. This could prove harmful for architecture in the long run, wouldn t you agree? PM: I remember how once I saw an entire development of single-family houses that must not have been done by an architect, but rather a builder intending a kind of wholesale deal. I had the impression that the creator was not a person but a program: that the person creating the design never once thought about how something should look, but simply selected from the things that were offered ready-made by the specific design program, and completely threw out all ideas that the program couldn t model. In several of the houses it was incredibly clear, so much so that if you knew the design program saw exactly the round curves, roof pitch, shape of bay windows, railings precisely as the program created them. MC: For large office buildings, they select the actual structural elements from which the building will be constructed, which is much more sophisticated. If I am selecting real elements that are part of construction systems, then it s all right, but what I am speaking about is the state and limitations of the program that cannot sketch a more complex form, or conversely cannot sketch a simpler form because it s not been included in its range. And the architect or designer accepts it, because he doesn t have the energy or the skills to re-program it. In your texts you talk about structure as an abstract model which is physically visible in the built environment. Can you explain this further? MC: Structure is a certain thickness of information: the quantity of information that is held within the surface or volume of different character within a different scale. Structure is either an information bearer, or is informationally poor. For example, in the cityscape it is not a question of whether it is filled up with information of all sorts, but whether it gives me inspiration to behave in a human manner, for me to find everything that a person needs. If I come closer, then I see the structures of surfaces and materials, which contain a certain information, tell me that something has happened, somewhere information has been set aside for us that we can discover if we have the key. So structure for you is something, that is greater than the atoms and the bytes, something that using matter and its configurations connects people and events from two hundred years ago with those today? MC: The Germans talk of this as substance, Bausubstanz. If I use the word substance in Czech, then everyone starts to think of Master Kelly and occultish alchemists... PM: It is identification with the surroundings, and through the surroundings back to yourself and your own past. I see structure as a kind of construction, or better a network that keeps certain elements of the environment together. As architects, we are continually within a context with the structure of this built environment, wherever we make our designs, and we have to fit into it. What is important is to comprehend the principles of this structure, not simply to assume its superficial signs but to understand what created it from within. MC: But this is true for the local environment. Then there is also the subglobal environment, where these things do not work. PM: Do you mean that a bad structure is in fact no structure at all, that in such an instance you cannot speak of structure, if it s been so disrupted? MC: What we mean here is an ideal state when the structure has already been grasped, and everyone is trying to idealise, to rework, to undo mistakes in this environment. PM: And with a degree of humility, to become part of it and not crush it. MC: This is a problem, humility or arrogance. Every builder tries not to be humble, tries to put himself forward and be seen. This can be seen even on buildings in an urban environment. But it is part of every new action that it will be surmounted by yet another new action. That they will be permanently effaced and become illegible, and this illegibility of actions is what in fact forms the urban environment. Excessive legibility of actions creates a sprawl, because what is lacking here is the long timeframe that would smooth the edges of the individual actions. PM: And precisely this illegibility allows for fitting in. But it is illegibility only at the very first glance. In the moment when something becomes part of its environment, it is at first glance illegible. The ordinary builder has the ambition of being seen immediately, but we think that what is more important is the second glance. At the first glance, the object is part of its environment, no one notices it, but at the second glance you do, because it is legible and thus communicable. Communicability is important for people to be able to identify with the built environment, for them to be able to live their lives within it. Could you try to clarify what this identification should be? PM: Experiencing life in a building is a series of simple tasks. When you think about how a building is used, then you find out that there are only a few areas of life that you need. You need somewhere to sit with your family and talk, a place to sit and read a book, but these places are few. I can identify, say, with the view from the window, because I am sitting there for the hundred and fiftieth time and doing the same thing, and having the same thoughts. And when I sit down by the window, I am brought back to the thoughts that I had earlier. MC: I believe that now we live our lives in two worlds. One is the permanent one, the one that we have to touch, just as we have to touch our own bodies. And then there is the non-existence that takes the form of rapid transitions and shifts, like in a music video. People start to save this confusion within themselves and either classify it or they don t. And if there is a sorting of all of these impressions and their evaluation then you start once again to understand your material existence and to search for that material world, wherever it has gone. The interview was conducted by Jana Tichá and Irena Fialová Translated by Martin Tharp As architects, you have undertaken excursions into many different fields: temporary installations, working with solid materials like sand as well as non-solid ones like light. You have participated in the creation of a copy of a highly complex sculpture by the Austrian artist Bruno Gironcoli with the aid of a digital 3D scanner. What have these experiences given you? MC: What was most interesting was the number of different worlds in which we found ourselves during work on that statue. First of all, there was the world in which we went groping around the statue with the scanner, creating a cloud of several billion points in which it was then possible to move around. In it, the statue lost its dimensions; I could imagine that I was passing through an endless nebula in outer space. And then, from out of this cloud, the tangible world started to form itself, once again it acquired scale; from the cloud of points a kind of crust was generated, from them appeared curves and from those curves plans of the entire sculpture, layered over ten centimetres, so that once again it was possible to orient ourselves with a scale. This was one process. Another process was the observation of the statue s own internal structural ordering, so that it could resist bending and its own weight. For this, we needed views of the inner structuring of the sculpture; first of all we were in the endless virtual world, then we photographed the sculpture from within, then came the experience of touch, when we compared the original with the copy, checking the lines of the curves and edges all over the sculpture, and in fact we touched it in much the same way as the artist when he was creating it, when he smoothed and formed the original, and we actually wanted to find the form in the copy in the same way. And in the end, he was full of praise. So you were able to take this sculpture, the work of a human hand, digitalise it and reproduce it on a scale of 1:1... MC: It s a similar approach to the one used by Gehry when he makes actual models in 1:50 or 1:25 scale, which he then scans and reworks into manufacturing instructions. But in essence, you have to stroke the building with your own hands, since only this way can you find perfect control over the lines of the curves. If you spend time only in the virtual world, all that you have is a sense of how to move in it, you lack any tactile control. A work of sculpture has always been controlled through touch, and now there is supposed to be a sculptural work without tactile control? In what way do you keep an eye on the realisation of your designs? Is it important for you to have the design precisely defined in advance and to insist on it, or do you re-define things while building is going on? MC: Understandably, we try to draw the building as precisely as we can, and then free our hands for the realisation of the plan. This is the ideal situation, but as of now, our practice is to correct things on the building site and even model certain elements during construction. We pay a lot of attention to making sure our buildings are not too material. That your buildings aren t too material? MC: Yes, this isn t really my own idea. In Vienna, we met with Professor Hagmüller, who told me that he always does a calculation of how much a building weighs and how much weight people carry on their shoulders in this building, and then he adjusts the structure to make sure that it feels light but not overly delicate when people are inside. Just like the human body, a building has a definite proportion and you can see if someone is thin, naturally muscular, obese, and if his internal construction can bear up under the excess weight; for a building as well you can feel that money has been spent on a certain mass that absolutely isn t necessary. This is very hard to manage in the virtual world, it is so easy for it to slip out, there is always something unnecessary that you overlook, since in the virtual world there is no possibility of checking things out in a realistic scale. PM: It is a question what architecture really is in the virtual world. Is it the imitation of real architecture, or is it already its own profession? What relation do visualisations have to architecture; are they a kind of prefiguring or an imitation? Or do they no longer have anything in common and are they independent creation of a separate world? In architecture today, there are in fact two visualities, and I see a huge difference in them. One thing is real architecture, which appears to our vision like a solid mass in the retina, the second is visual information about architecture, i.e. that I ve never seen the building, never touched it, but I have received 2D virtual information about it. There s a lot of criticism of the visual orientation of today s architecture and culture in general, but I wouldn t be bothered by this if it were actually conveying something. I think that the main thing is for architecture to have content, that it have something to communicate. And it s not quite as important what means are used. Whether the main one is the kinaesthetic, physical and material side, the auditory, or the visual. Most important is that is has something to say. And how it says it this doesn t seem that important to me. Isn t it really a question of the relation between information and the experience? Isn t it about how information is experienced? PM. Precisely. Because I can have physical contact in physical space with architecture, or mediated contact, and then once again contact with the ideas in my head. Not something that I see either physically or as abstract information, but something that is only in the head. I wouldn t be so afraid of the virtual visual world, I'd see it as one of many ways of communicating something. Of course, it has its own dangers: for example, if students become used to working only on the computer, then what bridge they will find out of the virtual world that they know into this real one. That is, if they will ever want to cross over. MC: A certain type of personality today is likely wavering between whether to do film or architecture, since the two are becoming blurred. In processing the digital models of sculptures, we worked with the film studio UPP, whom we d already worked with before. From 1995 to 1998 we were working on the design of a building in Opletalova street, preparing a virtual model, editing a film from it in the studio, completing the cross- -cutting and the different shots. Around five years later, we arrived with our spatial scans of the original Gironcoli sculpture in this same studio, did the final modelling of a bit of animation using the computer, and all at once it was in cinematic motion. Just a bit before the flight through our point-cloud of the sculpture, they were using the same computer to create similar cloud formations that were then used in the film Dark Blue World. We used these data clouds to make architecture or sculpture, and they turned such clouds into a film. In short, whenever there appears any spatial formation, you can on the one hand have a physical output and it s a sculpture or a building, or else it doesn t have to have a physical output, it remains in virtual form and you win an Oscar for it! PM: If there is something dangerous in virtuality, it s speed. People are taught a quick and painless form of seeing, they don t have to put any energy into discovering things imagistic, visual information is quick. Architecture for all the senses I The interview Miroslav Cikán and Pavla Melková Zlatý řez 30/ 2008 rozebrat tak, že z tebe nic nezbyde. Architektura člověka také napadá tím, jak na něj působí, ať už klimatem nebo vzhledem. Mně se zdá, že tyhle dva světy, virtuální filmový svět a hmotný svět architektury, spolu soupeří; i klienti jsou ovlivnění filmem s jeho digitálními scénami a požadují, aby hmotný svět byl obrazem toho virtuálního, který se ale nikdy nemusí stavět, nikdy není konfrontovaný se statickou realitou. Je tu ještě jedno nebezpečí. Digitální technologie a telekomunikace umožňují neobyčejně rychlé a masové šíření určitých nástrojů navrhování, technologií nebo přímo stavebních komponent. To může být v konečném důsledku pro architekturu zhoubné, nemyslíte? PM: Vzpomínám si, jak jsem viděla nějaké sídliště rodinných domků, které asi nedělal architekt, ale spíš stavitel na prodej ve velkém. Měla jsem dojem, že tvůrcem nebyl architekt, ale program: že ten, kdo to kreslil, vůbec nepřemýšlel, jak by mělo co vypadat, pouze vybíral z toho, co se mu nabízelo hotového v příslušném modelovacím programu a představy, které program neumí vymodelovat, rovnou vyřadil. Na některých domech je to strašně poznat, dokonce natolik, že ten, kdo ty programy zná, tak přesně vidí zaoblení, sklon střechy, tvar vikýřku, zábradlí přesně tak, jak ho tvoří program. MC: Na velkých administrativních budovách se vybírají skutečné konstrukční prvky, ze kterých se budova skládá, což je mnohem sofistikovanější. Když vybírám reálné prvky, které jsou v konstrukčních systémech, tak je to v pořádku, ale to, o čem mluvíme, je stav a omezení programu, který neumí nakreslit složitější tvar anebo naopak neumí nakreslit tvar jednodušší, protože ho ve své škále nemá. A architekt nebo projektant to akceptuje, protože nemá sílu nebo dovednost to přeprogramovat. Mirku, ve svých textech nebo přednáškách používáš pojem struktura jako jakýsi abstraktní model, který je v zastavěném prostředí fyzicky viditelný. Můžeš ho blíže vysvětlit? MC: Struktura je určitá hustota informací: množství informací, které drží na ploše nebo v objemu různého charakteru v různém měřítku. Struktura je buď nositelem informace, nebo je informačně chudá. Například u městského prostoru nejde o to, jestli je přeplácaný informacemi všeho druhu, ale jestli mi dává podněty k tomu, abych se choval lidsky, abych tam nacházel všechno, co člověk potřebuje. Když jdu blíž, tak vidím struktury povrchů a materiálů, které v sobě nesou určitou informaci, někdo mi sděluje, že se tam něco událo, někde tam pro nás byla zasuta informace, kterou můžeme objevit, máme k ní klíč. Takže struktura je pro tebe něco, co jde napříč atomy a bity, co prostřednictvím hmoty a jejích konfigurací propojuje lidi a události před dvěma sty lety s těmi dnešními? MC: Němci tomu říkají substance, Bausubstanz. Když řeknu substance, tak všichni tady vidí magistra Kellyho a nějaké okultní alchymisty... PM: Je to identifikace s prostředím a přes prostředí zpátky sám se sebou a svojí minulostí. Vnímám strukturu jako jakousi konstrukci, nebo lépe síť, která drží určité prvky prostředí pohromadě. Jako architekti jsme pořád v kontextu se strukturou toho prostředí, kam navrhujeme, a musíme do ní zapadnout. Důležité je pochopit princip té struktury, nejenom přebírat povrchní znaky, ale pochopit, co jí tvoří zevnitř. MC: To ale platí pro lokální prostředí. Pak je tady ještě subglobální prostředí, kde tyhle věci nefungují. PM: Máš na mysli to, že špatná struktura není vlastně žádná struktura, že se v takovém případě nedá mluvit o struktuře, substanci, jak to je potrhané? MC: My tady mluvíme o ideálním stavu, kdy už je struktura uchopená a všichni se snaží to prostředí idealizovat, obrábět, vypouštět chyby. PM: A s určitou pokorou se stávat jeho součástí a neválcovat ho. MC: To je problém, pokora nebo nepokora. Každý stavebník se snaží být nepokorný, snaží se prosadit a být vidět. To je vidět i na strukturách v urbánním prostředí. Ale každý nový počin má zaděláno na to, že ho překryje další nový počin. Že bude permanentně rozmývaný a stane se nečitelným, a ta nečitelnost počinů vlastně vytváří urbánní prostředí. Přílišná čitelnost počinů vytváří sprawl, protože tam chybí ta doba, která by jednotlivému počinu zahladila hrany. PM: A právě ta nečitelnost umožňuje zapadnutí. Je to ale nečitelnost jenom na první pohled. Ve chvíli, kdy věc se stane součástí prostředí, je na první pohled nečitelná. Běžný stavitel má ambici být hned vidět, ale my si myslíme, že je důležitý druhý pohled. Na první pohled je věc součástí prostředí, nikdo si jí nevšimne, ale na druhý pohled ano, protože je čitelná, a tudíž sdělná. Sdělnost je důležitá proto, aby se lidé dokázali s prostředím ztotožnit, aby byli schopni tam prožívat svůj život. Můžete zkusit upřesnit, v čem to ztotožnění spočívá? PM: Prožívání života v budově, to jsou vlastně jednoduché úkony. Když se člověk zamyslí, jak dům užívá, tak zjistí, že je tam jen několik oblastí, které člověk potřebuje. Potřebuje si sednout někde s rodinou a povídat si. Potřebuju místo, kde se posadím a čtu si knížku, těch míst není moc. Identifikuji se třeba s pohledem z okna, protože tam už sedím po stopadesáté a dělám tam totéž, napadají mě tam pořád ty samé myšlenky, a když si k tomu oknu sednu, tak mi to naváže nit na myšlenky, který mě napadly dříve. MC: Myslím, že teď žijeme naše životy vlastně ve dvou světech. Jeden je stálý, toho se musíme dotýkat, jako se sami sebe musíme dotýkat. A na druhé straně je ta neexistence, která má formu rychlých přechodů a změn, jako v hudebním klipu. Člověk začíná v sobě ukládat tenhle zmatek a nějakým způsobem si ho buď třídí, nebo netřídí. Buď v něm ten zmatek zůstává, nebo dochází k utřídění. A dojde-li k utřídění všech těchto vjemů a jejich vyhodnocení, potom člověk začne chápat znovu svou hmotnou existenci a začne pátrat po tom hmotném světě, kam se vlastně poděl. S Pavlou Melkovou a Miroslavem Cikánem hovořily Jana Tichá a Irena Fialová bruno gironcoli, grosse skulptur, projekt a realizace kopie / copy project and realization, mca 2004 I don t have to go there, walk through it, touch it. I can throw it out, erase it. And that really is somewhat dangerous, for it is easy. The cinema is safe, I don t put anything into it, don t risk anything, don t touch, don t put myself out on the open market. Everything else is a kind of risk, I have to put a bit of myself into it. This is the basic difference. MC: But even a film can have an effect on you, a psychological film can take you apart and leave you nothing of yourself. Architecture has its impact on people in its presence, whether through climate or appearance. It seems to me that the virtual film world and the solid world of architecture are rivals; even our clients are influenced by film and its digital scenes, and want the material world to be the image of the virtual one, even though it never has to be built, never is confronted with structural realities. There is also one further danger. Digital technologies and telecommunication allow for rapid and massive distribution of certain design instruments, technologies, or even actual structural components. This could prove harmful for architecture in the long run, wouldn t you agree? PM: I remember how once I saw an entire development of single-family houses that must not have been done by an architect, but rather a builder intending a kind of wholesale deal. I had the impression that the creator was not a person but a program: that the person creating the design never once thought about how something should look, but simply selected from the things that were offered ready-made by the specific design program, and completely threw out all ideas that the program couldn t model. In several of the houses it was incredibly clear, so much so that if you knew the design program saw exactly the round curves, roof pitch, shape of bay windows, railings precisely as the program created them. MC: For large office buildings, they select the actual structural elements from which the building will be constructed, which is much more sophisticated. If I am selecting real elements that are part of construction systems, then it s all right, but what I am speaking about is the state and limitations of the program that cannot sketch a more complex form, or conversely cannot sketch a simpler form because it s not been included in its range. And the architect or designer accepts it, because he doesn t have the energy or the skills to re-program it. In your texts you talk about structure as an abstract model which is physically visible in the built environment. Can you explain this further? MC: Structure is a certain thickness of information: the quantity of information that is held within the surface or volume of different character within a different scale. Structure is either an information bearer, or is informationally poor. For example, in the cityscape it is not a question of whether it is filled up with information of all sorts, but whether it gives me inspiration to behave in a human manner, for me to find everything that a person needs. If I come closer, then I see the structures of surfaces and materials, which contain a certain information, tell me that something has happened, somewhere information has been set aside for us that we can discover if we have the key. So structure for you is something, that is greater than the atoms and the bytes, something that using matter and its configurations connects people and events from two hundred years ago with those today? MC: The Germans talk of this as substance, Bausubstanz. If I use the word substance in Czech, then everyone starts to think of Master Kelly and occultish alchemists... PM: It is identification with the surroundings, and through the surroundings back to yourself and your own past. I see structure as a kind of construction, or better a network that keeps certain elements of the environment together. As architects, we are continually within a context with the structure of this built environment, wherever we make our designs, and we have to fit into it. What is important is to comprehend the principles of this structure, not simply to assume its superficial signs but to understand what created it from within. MC: But this is true for the local environment. Then there is also the subglobal environment, where these things do not work. PM: Do you mean that a bad structure is in fact no structure at all, that in such an instance you cannot speak of structure, if it s been so disrupted? MC: What we mean here is an ideal state when the structure has already been grasped, and everyone is trying to idealise, to rework, to undo mistakes in this environment. PM: And with a degree of humility, to become part of it and not crush it. MC: This is a problem, humility or arrogance. Every builder tries not to be humble, tries to put himself forward and be seen. This can be seen even on buildings in an urban environment. But it is part of every new action that it will be surmounted by yet another new action. That they will be permanently effaced and become illegible, and this illegibility of actions is what in fact forms the urban environment. Excessive legibility of actions creates a sprawl, because what is lacking here is the long timeframe that would smooth the edges of the individual actions. PM: And precisely this illegibility allows for fitting in. But it is illegibility only at the very first glance. In the moment when something becomes part of its environment, it is at first glance illegible. The ordinary builder has the ambition of being seen immediately, but we think that what is more important is the second glance. At the first glance, the object is part of its environment, no one notices it, but at the second glance you do, because it is legible and thus communicable. Communicability is important for people to be able to identify with the built environment, for them to be able to live their lives within it. Could you try to clarify what this identification should be? PM: Experiencing life in a building is a series of simple tasks. When you think about how a building is used, then you find out that there are only a few areas of life that you need. You need somewhere to sit with your family and talk, a place to sit and read a book, but these places are few. I can identify, say, with the view from the window, because I am sitting there for the hundred and fiftieth time and doing the same thing, and having the same thoughts. And when I sit down by the window, I am brought back to the thoughts that I had earlier. MC: I believe that now we live our lives in two worlds. One is the permanent one, the one that we have to touch, just as we have to touch our own bodies. And then there is the non-existence that takes the form of rapid transitions and shifts, like in a music video. People start to save this confusion within themselves and either classify it or they don t. And if there is a sorting of all of these impressions and their evaluation then you start once again to understand your material existence and to search for that material world, wherever it has gone. The interview was conducted by Jana Tichá and Irena Fialová Translated by Martin Tharp As architects, you have undertaken excursions into many different fields: temporary installations, working with solid materials like sand as well as non-solid ones like light. You have participated in the creation of a copy of a highly complex sculpture by the Austrian artist Bruno Gironcoli with the aid of a digital 3D scanner. What have these experiences given you? MC: What was most interesting was the number of different worlds in which we found ourselves during work on that statue. First of all, there was the world in which we went groping around the statue with the scanner, creating a cloud of several billion points in which it was then possible to move around. In it, the statue lost its dimensions; I could imagine that I was passing through an endless nebula in outer space. And then, from out of this cloud, the tangible world started to form itself, once again it acquired scale; from the cloud of points a kind of crust was generated, from them appeared curves and from those curves plans of the entire sculpture, layered over ten centimetres, so that once again it was possible to orient ourselves with a scale. This was one process. Another process was the observation of the statue s own internal structural ordering, so that it could resist bending and its own weight. For this, we needed views of the inner structuring of the sculpture; first of all we were in the endless virtual world, then we photographed the sculpture from within, then came the experience of touch, when we compared the original with the copy, checking the lines of the curves and edges all over the sculpture, and in fact we touched it in much the same way as the artist when he was creating it, when he smoothed and formed the original, and we actually wanted to find the form in the copy in the same way. And in the end, he was full of praise. So you were able to take this sculpture, the work of a human hand, digitalise it and reproduce it on a scale of 1:1... MC: It s a similar approach to the one used by Gehry when he makes actual models in 1:50 or 1:25 scale, which he then scans and reworks into manufacturing instructions. But in essence, you have to stroke the building with your own hands, since only this way can you find perfect control over the lines of the curves. If you spend time only in the virtual world, all that you have is a sense of how to move in it, you lack any tactile control. A work of sculpture has always been controlled through touch, and now there is supposed to be a sculptural work without tactile control? In what way do you keep an eye on the realisation of your designs? Is it important for you to have the design precisely defined in advance and to insist on it, or do you re-define things while building is going on? MC: Understandably, we try to draw the building as precisely as we can, and then free our hands for the realisation of the plan. This is the ideal situation, but as of now, our practice is to correct things on the building site and even model certain elements during construction. We pay a lot of attention to making sure our buildings are not too material. That your buildings aren t too material? MC: Yes, this isn t really my own idea. In Vienna, we met with Professor Hagmüller, who told me that he always does a calculation of how much a building weighs and how much weight people carry on their shoulders in this building, and then he adjusts the structure to make sure that it feels light but not overly delicate when people are inside. Just like the human body, a building has a definite proportion and you can see if someone is thin, naturally muscular, obese, and if his internal construction can bear up under the excess weight; for a building as well you can feel that money has been spent on a certain mass that absolutely isn t necessary. This is very hard to manage in the virtual world, it is so easy for it to slip out, there is always something unnecessary that you overlook, since in the virtual world there is no possibility of checking things out in a realistic scale. PM: It is a question what architecture really is in the virtual world. Is it the imitation of real architecture, or is it already its own profession? What relation do visualisations have to architecture; are they a kind of prefiguring or an imitation? Or do they no longer have anything in common and are they independent creation of a separate world? In architecture today, there are in fact two visualities, and I see a huge difference in them. One thing is real architecture, which appears to our vision like a solid mass in the retina, the second is visual information about architecture, i.e. that I ve never seen the building, never touched it, but I have received 2D virtual information about it. There s a lot of criticism of the visual orientation of today s architecture and culture in general, but I wouldn t be bothered by this if it were actually conveying something. I think that the main thing is for architecture to have content, that it have something to communicate. And it s not quite as important what means are used. Whether the main one is the kinaesthetic, physical and material side, the auditory, or the visual. Most important is that is has something to say. And how it says it this doesn t seem that important to me. Isn t it really a question of the relation between information and the experience? Isn t it about how information is experienced? PM. Precisely. Because I can have physical contact in physical space with architecture, or mediated contact, and then once again contact with the ideas in my head. Not something that I see either physically or as abstract information, but something that is only in the head. I wouldn t be so afraid of the virtual visual world, I'd see it as one of many ways of communicating something. Of course, it has its own dangers: for example, if students become used to working only on the computer, then what bridge they will find out of the virtual world that they know into this real one. That is, if they will ever want to cross over. MC: A certain type of personality today is likely wavering between whether to do film or architecture, since the two are becoming blurred. In processing the digital models of sculptures, we worked with the film studio UPP, whom we d already worked with before. From 1995 to 1998 we were working on the design of a building in Opletalova street, preparing a virtual model, editing a film from it in the studio, completing the cross- -cutting and the different shots. Around five years later, we arrived with our spatial scans of the original Gironcoli sculpture in this same studio, did the final modelling of a bit of animation using the computer, and all at once it was in cinematic motion. Just a bit before the flight through our point-cloud of the sculpture, they were using the same computer to create similar cloud formations that were then used in the film Dark Blue World. We used these data clouds to make architecture or sculpture, and they turned such clouds into a film. In short, whenever there appears any spatial formation, you can on the one hand have a physical output and it s a sculpture or a building, or else it doesn t have to have a physical output, it remains in virtual form and you win an Oscar for it! PM: If there is something dangerous in virtuality, it s speed. People are taught a quick and painless form of seeing, they don t have to put any energy into discovering things imagistic, visual information is quick. Rodinný dům Jinonice / House in Jinonice Architekt / Architect: Miroslav Cikán, Pavla Melková / MCA Místo / Location: Praha 5 Jinonice Klient / Client: soukromá osoba / withheld Projekt / Project: 2004 Realizace / Construction: 2005 Fotografie / Photography: Miroslav Cikán Vzhledem k malé parcele (455m 2 ) bylo nutné navrhnout dům objemově úsporný, ale vnitřním uspořádáním prostorově velkorysý (užitná plocha 197m 2 ) a navíc reprezentativní. Cílem bylo ponechat maximálně ucelenou obytnou plochu stávající zahrady s ovocnými stromy, provázanou s terasou nad podzemní částí domu. Zároveň bylo třeba zasadit novostavbu do struktury původní zástavby rodinných domů. Na prvním místě byl variabilní obytný prostor, ekologické a úsporné topení, optimální jednoduchá a levná konstrukce, splňující požadavky konstrukční, tepelně-akumulační a izolační. Výsledkem je nízkoenergetický, pocitově lehký, prostorný a dobře obyvatelný dům s jemnými původními povrchy jako možná alternativa pokorné vyváženosti kvality a absence designového luxusu. Je pokornou investicí do technologicky vyváženého systému budoucnosti a trvalých hodnot šetrnosti k životnímu prostředí. Bearing in mind the small dimensions of the land (455m 2 ), it was necessary to design a house of economical volume but with an internal arrangement allowing for generous space (total living area of 197m 2 ) of a luxurious appearance. The goal was to leave as much as possible of the unified space of the earlier garden with fruit trees, continuing into the terrace above the underground part of the house. At the same time, it was necessary visually to integrate the new building into the original structure of the surrounding private homes. Most important were a variable living space, environmentally friendly and economical heating, an optimally simple and cheap construction plan that met all requirements for load bearing, heat accumulation and insulation. The result is a house that uses little energy, appears light and spacious, and is good for inhabiting, with delicate original surfaces as a possible alternative to the modest balancing of quality and the absence of designer luxury. Instead, it is a humble investment into a technologically balanced system for the future, and the permanent values of respect for the natural environment. vstupní patro / ground floor 1. patro / 1st floor 2. patro / 2nd floor Zenová zahrada / Zen garden Architekt / Architect: Miroslav Cikán, Pavla Melková / MCA Spolupráce / Collaboration: Pavel Šťastný, Plechárna Místo / Location: tovární hala Praga Vysočany, Praha / Praga Factory, Prague Klient / Client: Designblok / Profil Media Projekt / Project: 2006 Realizace / Construction: 2006 Fotografie / Photography: Miroslav Cikán Opuštěná tovární hala, dříve symbol ohlušujícího, všepohlcujícího ruchu se ve svém definitivním zastavení stala meditačním místem. Zbylé nepracující stroje, mrtvé schránky jako symboly původních dějů. Suché zahrady jako výsledek zenového tříbení mysli dlouhými hodinami meditace, cest bez cíle, putování ve sférách ticha a uvolnění ducha. Nesměřují k navození inspirující atmosféry prostřednictvím bohatého objemu barev a tvarů, ale prostředky zcela opačnými: náznakem a vytříbenou prostotou. Zenová zahrada, instalovaná v opuštěné tovární hale: zvuk, obraz a pohyb při překonávání suchého koryta řeky. Návštěvník se stal součástí současnosti vstupem do zahrady, jejíž podobu mohl krátkodobě ovlivnit čeřením suché hladiny speciálními hrably. V blízkosti zahrady se nacházely oblasti přenosu obrazu návštěvníka do virtuálního světa promítáním do bílého písku na podlaze. Tak byla realizována vnitřní skrytá touha mnohých současníků být medializován, být zobrazen jako nová konzumní forma pokleslého svatořečení, které jediné kdysi opravňovalo k tomu, být zobrazen a tudíž zvěčněn. Obraz byl posléze vysílán do éteru, aby se stal součástí nekonečna, ve kterém se jako světlo šíří a dle intenzity mediální prezentace víceméně slavného jedince zaniká: objekt tak zůstává pro budoucnost v prostoru přítomen, ale nezobrazen. Nebo také nikým nepřijímán, protože není zrovna naladěn na správnou www adresu nebo vysílací pásmo. V případě zmizení návštěvníka z objektivu kamery byl snímán detail ze zjizvené podlahy tovární haly jako otisk bývalého provozu továrny, který byl do zničení skutečně věčný v prostoru mimo zahradu Once all production has finally ceased, the deserted factory hall formerly the symbol of deafening noise and all-surrounding movement has become a place of meditation. All that remains of the past are scraps of disused machinery, the dead carapaces recalling the original activity. The art of the dry garden is the result of the Zen refinement of thought through long hours of meditation, travelling without a goal, pilgrimages in the spheres of silence and liberation of the soul. It makes no plans to create an inspiring atmosphere through a rich volume of colour and form, but through means entirely the opposite: the subtle indication and refined simplicity. A Zen garden installed in a deserted factory hall: sound, image and motion in crossing the dry bed of a river. The visitor becomes part of the present through entering the garden, whose form can briefly be shifted through combing the dry surface with special rakes. Close to the garden was an area for transferring the image of the visitor into the virtual world, through projection onto the white sand on the floor. Here came the realisation of the hidden inner desire of many people now alive to become medialised, to be depicted as a new consumerist form of profaned sanctification, the only medium that once allowed the human to be depicted and thus immortalised. The image was eventually broadcast into the ether, to become part of the infinite, where it expands like light and according to the intensity of the media presentation of the more or less famous individual it disappears: the object remains present for the future within the space, yet not depicted. Or alternatively, received by no one, because it is not presently tuned to the correct www address or broadcasting frequency. In the event that the visitor disappeared from the range of the camera lens, a detail was taken from the scarred floor of the factory hall, as an imprint of the former production activities of the factory, which until destruction was truly eternal in the space outside the garden Jako architekti podnikáte výlety do jiných oborů, zabýváte se dočasnými instalacemi, pracujete v nich s hmotnými materiály, jako je písek, i nehmotnými, jako je barevné světlo. Podíleli jste se na vytvoření kopie tvarově komplikované plastiky rakouského umělce Bruna Gironcoliho pomocí digitálního 3D skeneru. Co vám přinesla tahle zkušenost? MC: Zajímavé bylo, v kolika různých světech jsme se při práci na té soše pohybovali. Nejdřív tam byl svět, v němž jsme sochu osahávali skenerem, vzniklo mračno několika miliard bodů, ve kterých potom bylo možné se pohybovat. Socha v něm ztratila rozměr, mohl jsem si představovat, že se pohybuji nějakou nekonečnou kosmickou mlhou. A potom se z toho mračna začal zpětně modelovat hmotný svět, zase to dostalo měřítko: z mračna bodů se vygenerovala krusta, z ní se vygenerovaly křivky a z těch křivek pak plány celé sochy, navrstvené po deseti centimetrech, takže byla zase možná orientace v měřítku. To byl jeden proces. Další proces spočíval ve sledování vlastního vnitřního konstrukčního řádu sochy, aby mohla vzdorovat ohybům a vlastní hmotnosti. K tomu jsme potřebovali pohledy do konstrukce sochy zevnitř: nejdřív jsme se tedy pohybovali v nekonečném virtuálním světě, pak jsme sochu fotili zevnitř, poté přišel prožitek hmatový, když jsme porovnávali originál s kopií, kontrolovali průběh křivek a ostření. Sochu jsme osahávali a vlastně se jí dotýkali podobně, jako se jí dotýkal pan profesor Gironcoli, když jí tvořil, když ten originál hnětl, a my se vlastně stejným způsobem chtěli dopátrat tvaru i v kopii. No a nakonec nás pochválil. Takže jste sochu, která je dílem lidské ruky, digitalizovali a znovu reprodukovali 1:1... MC: Je to podobný postup, jako používá Gehry, když dělá skutečné modely jedna ku padesáti, nebo pětadvaceti, které se potom naskenují a vytvoří se z nich plány nebo pokyny pro výrobu. Ale v podstatě tu budovu hněte vlastníma rukama, protože tím získá opravdu dokonalou kontrolu průběhu křivek. Když se člověk pohybuje jen ve virtuálním světě, prožívá pouze představu toho, jak by se v něm asi měl pohybovat, chybí kontrola hmatem. Kontrola sochařského díla vždycky probíhala hmatem a teď najednou by mělo vznikat sochařské dílo bez hmatové kontroly? Jakým způsobem kontrolujete realizaci svých návrhů? Je pro vás důležité, aby byl návrh precizně definovaný předem a vyžadujete jeho dodržení, nebo dodefinováváte věci v průběhu stavby? MC: Pochopitelně se snažíme nakreslit barák co nejprecizněji a pak si uvolnit ruce k realizaci toho plánu. To je ideální stav, ale zatím máme praxi takovou, že na stavbě korigujeme a domodelováváme určité věci na místě. Dost si dávám pozor na to, aby věc nebyla příliš hmotná. Aby nebyla příliš hmotná? MC: Ano, to tedy nemám ze sebe, potkal jsme se ve Vídni s profesorem Hagmüllerem, který mi říkal, že si vždycky nechá spočítat, kolik dům váží a kolik váhy tedy má člověk na ramenou v tom domě, a podle toho koriguje konstrukce, aby stavba byla i pocitově lehká ale zas ne filigránská -, když se v ní člověk bude pohybovat. Podobně jako lidské tělo má určité proporce a pozná se, jestli je člověk hubený, přirozeně rostlý, nebo obézní, a jestli jeho vnitřní konstrukce zvládá tu nadváhu, tak i na domě je cítit, že se tam utrácí peníze za určité materiály, za určitou hmotu, která tam vůbec nemusí být. To je velmi těžce kontrolovatelné ve virtuálním světě, hrozně snadno to ulítne, objeví se nějaká zbytečnost, kterou člověk přehlédne, protože ve virtuálním světě nemá možnost kontroly v reálném měřítku. PM: Je otázka, co je vlastně architektura ve virtuálním světě. Je to imitace reálné architektury, anebo už je to samostatný obor? Jaký má vizualizace vztah k architektuře, je nějakým jejím předstupněm, nebo je její imitací? Nebo s ní nemá už nic společného a je to samostatná tvorba v prostoru, tvorba samostatného světa? V architektuře teď existují vlastně dvě vizuálna a já tam cítím velký rozdíl. Jedna věc je reálná architektura, která působí na náš zrak jako vjem na sítnici, druhá věc je vizuální informace o architektuře, tzn. nikdy jsem ten dům neviděla, nesáhla si na něj, ale dostávám o něm 2D virtuální informaci. Hodně se kritizuje vizuální zaměření dnešní architektury a kultury vůbec, ale mně by ani nevadilo, kdyby byla hodně vizuální, pokud by něco sdělovala. Myslím, že je hlavní, aby architektura měla obsah, aby měla co sdělit. A není tak důležité, jakými prostředky to sděluje. Zda převažuje hmatová, fyzická a materiálová stránka, zvuková nebo ta vizuální. Nejpodstatnější je, jestli má co říct. A jak to říká, to mi nepřipadá tak zásadní. Nejde vlastně o vztah informace a prožitku? Nejde o to, jak je informace zažitá? PM. Přesně. Protože můžu mít s architekturou fyzický kontakt ve fyzickém prostoru, nebo zprostředkovaný kontakt, a pak ještě kontakt s představami v hlavě. Nevidím ji ani fyzicky, ani jako abstraktní informaci, ale mám to jenom v hlavě. Já bych se toho virtuálního vizuálního světa tolik nebála, vnímala bych to jako jeden z mnoha prostředků, jak něco sdělit. Samozřejmě má svá úskalí: například zvyknou-li si studenti pracovat nejdřív pouze v počítači, pak je otázka, přes jaký most přejdou z virtuálního světa, na který si zvykli, do toho reálného. Pokud vůbec budou chtít přecházet. MC: Určitý druh lidí dnes nejspíš váhá mezi tím, jestli má jít dělat film nebo architekturu, protože se to slévá. Při zpracování digitálních modelů sochy jsme spolupracovali s filmovým studiem UPP, se kterým jsme pracovali už dříve. V letech 1995 až 1998 jsme spolupracovali na návrhu domu v Opletalově ulici, zpracovávali jsme virtuální model, ve filmovém studiu se z toho sestříhal film, dodělaly se smyčky a záběry. Zhruba po pěti letech jsme přišli s prostorovými skeny originálu hotové Gironcoliho sochy do téhož studia, domodelovali určité animace prostřednictvím počítače, a bylo to najednou ve filmovém pohybu. Chvilku před průletem naším bodovým mračnem sochy zpracovávali ve stejném počítači podobná mračna, která potom byla vidět ve filmu Tmavomodrý svět. My jsme podle těch bodových mračen udělali architekturu nebo sochu, a oni z podobného mračna udělali film. Když zkrátka vzniká nějaký prostorový útvar, může mít jednou hmotný výstup a je to socha nebo dům, jindy nemusí mít hmotný výstup, zůstává ve virtuální podobě, a dostane za to Oskara! PM: Jestli je na virtualitě něco nebezpečného, je to rychlost. Lidé jsou naučení na hrozně rychlé a bezbolestné vnímání, nemusí vynaložit žádné úsilí na to, aby věci objevili pohledová, vizuální informace je rychlá. Nemusím tam dojít, projít tím, sáhnout si na to. Můžu to odfouknout, vymazat to. A je skutečně trochu nebezpečné, že ta cesta je tak snadná. Kino je bezpečné, protože se do něj nijak nevkládám, nic neriskuju, nesahám, nejím, nedotýkám se, nenesu kůži na trh. Všechno ostatní už nějak riskuju, už do toho vkládám kousek sebe. To je zásadní rozdíl. MC: Ale i film může člověka napadnout, psychologický film tě může Pavla Melková a Miroslav Cikán MCA Rozhovor Interview Gironcoli.jpg 82