This week Gianpiero Venturini interviews the architect Atxu Amann with the aim of learning what it means to be an architect in the 21st century through an understanding of his work methods, themes and approach. In addition, it sends a message to the new generations of architects and students.
PAST tells us how his beginnings were and what reasons led him to study this profession. He also questions the conditions that allowed him to take his company to be among the most recognized in the world of architecture.
PAST tells us how his beginnings were and what reasons led him to study this profession. He also questions the conditions that allowed him to take his company to be among the most recognized in the world of architecture.
GIANPIERO VENTURINI: When you finished your studies till today, can your career be described through phases or very important moments that defined your career?
ATXU AMANN: “Nicolás, Andrés and I founded the studio for love, for the need to innovate, for the need to get our ideas out, and for the need to combine different things. It was thirty years ago, but it is still the same now. We are three friends with a very affectionate connection, which means that we can fight with each other in a project one day and do a competition together the next one. We were amateurs, we didn’t know anything about the future. Perhaps, this was the most important moment to remember. The second was my PhD research, I studied first the industrial design of the 60s and then it changed, from the kitchen to a gender subject. It was the first work here in the projects department with a gender focus and, ever since then, I have been linked to gender approach in everything - in our competitions, in our teaching, in the Biennale, everywhere. So, perhaps, these were the most important points in the trajectory of our architecture career.”
ATXU AMANN: “Nicolás, Andrés and I founded the studio for love, for the need to innovate, for the need to get our ideas out, and for the need to combine different things. It was thirty years ago, but it is still the same now. We are three friends with a very affectionate connection, which means that we can fight with each other in a project one day and do a competition together the next one. We were amateurs, we didn’t know anything about the future. Perhaps, this was the most important moment to remember. The second was my PhD research, I studied first the industrial design of the 60s and then it changed, from the kitchen to a gender subject. It was the first work here in the projects department with a gender focus and, ever since then, I have been linked to gender approach in everything - in our competitions, in our teaching, in the Biennale, everywhere. So, perhaps, these were the most important points in the trajectory of our architecture career.”
PRESENT talks about the characteristics of his study and how it has grown over time. With this research we have an overview of their practice and so we can get to understand the reasons for their success.
GV: What do you think about the role of the architect today?
AA: “An architect is no longer the professional that decides when he is separated from the reality or the society. He or she needs to work with other professionals in a work that is synergically produced. In this sense, I also want to say that there is a gender approach to this answer. The architects here in the university used to say, “To become an architect, you have to work 24 hours a day. You cannot sleep, you cannot eat, you cannot fall in love. Nothing.” So, it was clear, women couldn’t become architects or top architects, because they had to get pregnant, give milk, take care of the children. Really? Architects are not so important, an architect also has to go to the cinema, to the theatre, to look serious, to write, to read. And you can be an architect two hours a day, just like any other profession.”
AA: “An architect is no longer the professional that decides when he is separated from the reality or the society. He or she needs to work with other professionals in a work that is synergically produced. In this sense, I also want to say that there is a gender approach to this answer. The architects here in the university used to say, “To become an architect, you have to work 24 hours a day. You cannot sleep, you cannot eat, you cannot fall in love. Nothing.” So, it was clear, women couldn’t become architects or top architects, because they had to get pregnant, give milk, take care of the children. Really? Architects are not so important, an architect also has to go to the cinema, to the theatre, to look serious, to write, to read. And you can be an architect two hours a day, just like any other profession.”
FUTURE seeks to discuss issues of today and tomorrow. Each architect deals with a series of key concepts that represent their approach and seek to inspire new generations.
GV: Similar to what you have done in the Spanish Pavilion for the Biennale di Venezia - choosing terms and defining them - are there any urgent themes or interests that for you are very important to talk about for the future of architecture?
AA: “The first word that appears there when you enter the pavilion is “critical”, joined to “social” and to “political” and in the corner, you see “affirmative”. These are the four words that summarise the spirit of the pavilion because architecture has always had criticisms about others but has never been too critical of ourselves. When this “critical” is joined to “social” and “political”, it means that architecture and ideology work together and is something that neither architects nor our teachers taught us, it’s like architecture is a neutral activity. There is no neutrality in our world. You do a home that is 20 square metres for black people to dwell in and at the same time you build dwellings that are 1000 square metres, there is ideology there”
AA: “The first word that appears there when you enter the pavilion is “critical”, joined to “social” and to “political” and in the corner, you see “affirmative”. These are the four words that summarise the spirit of the pavilion because architecture has always had criticisms about others but has never been too critical of ourselves. When this “critical” is joined to “social” and “political”, it means that architecture and ideology work together and is something that neither architects nor our teachers taught us, it’s like architecture is a neutral activity. There is no neutrality in our world. You do a home that is 20 square metres for black people to dwell in and at the same time you build dwellings that are 1000 square metres, there is ideology there”
