"What The Fuck Is A Glass Box?" Frank Gehry & Charles Arnoldi in Conversation

 
 

photography by Magnus Unnar

For legendary architect Frank Gehry and artist Charles “Chuck” Arnoldi, the environs of Venice Beach is a tabula rasa. Natural forms and industrial mechanisms, the flotsam and jetsam of a metropolis spilling out westward into the fog, into the sea, and back again are materials and tools for examining art-making and architecture from a completely new perspective. Arnoldi uses a chainsaw to slach and sculpt blocks of wood to create his chainsaw paintings. Gehry’s twisted towers are sinuous, bulbous, and cicumvoluted, mirroring the world around them; ancient, futuristic, and unclassifiable all at the same time.

CHUCK ARNOLDI: I think what drives all artists and creative people is a sense of feeling unsatisfied.

FRANK GEHRY: When 1 graduated architecture school, there were some architects who were practicing in LA, and they came around, sniffing at what I was doing, and they were very negative about me. In fact, after I did the Danziger Studio, they were very negative about that. And while it was being built, Ed Moses was on the construction site. I knew who he was because I used to go to the Monday night gallery openings on La Brea. I knew Ed Moses's work, and I knew Billy Al Bengston's work, and I knew all those artists because I was into their work. Ed was friendly, and he was an artist I liked. And the architects were unfriendly and complained that I wasn't good. So, I thought, well, what do I need them for?

CA: You were thinking more like an artist than an architect. You weren't trying to fit in with those guys, you were trying to make a personal statement.

FG: Well, I didn't know that I was trying to make a personal statement.

СА: No, you didn't know that, but I think part of hanging out with the Venice guys, the aesthetic and that attitude, you liked that because there was a kind of freedom to that creativity and that experimentation. You felt validated.

FG: Well, experimentation and freedom, yes. But the images were staggeringly beautiful. I mean, look at Billy's paintings. They are beautiful. And Larry Bell, messing with glass. That hit close to home because I was doing the Joseph Magnin department store and I had to use a lot of glass. So, I called Larry and asked him for his help on how to hang the glass.

CA: I remember when Larry redid his bathroom. He put in a new shower and a toilet, and he did all this plumbing, and he loved the way the pipes and everything looked. Instead of putting Sheetrock down, he installed glass so you could look at the plumbing! All of us guys would rent storefronts or lofts, and we'd need a white wall, but we couldn't afford to put Sheetrock on, so we'd leave the two-by-fours visible. And I think you could see that there was something nice about leaving the structure visible. It had a beautiful integ-rity. Plus, it was an aesthetic move that all those other architects hated. They couldn't do that if their lives depended on it. (laughs)

FG: Well, it had a relationship to Russian constructivism too. It resonated with me, the whole vibe of Billy and you, Larry and Moses. I especially gravitated to Moses. I don't know why. He tried to hire me to remodel his house, and then when I told him it was $300 in fees, he said forget it. (laughs) But he liked the Danziger Studio, so he copied it on the beach right next to Gold's Gym.

 
 

OLIVER KUPPER: What do you think it was about Los Angeles? All of you guys come from these middle-class backgrounds and gravitated to this city, not for the glamor, but for the blank slate quality of it.

FG: I was brought here by my family. I didn't have a choice.

CA: I came from a dysfunctional family in Dayton, Ohio. I thought Dayton was the center of the universe. I'd only left twice, once to go to Kentucky, once to New York City when my father's father died. My father escaped Little Italy because they referred to Italians as wops, and he was trying to avoid that. He was a womanizer, an alcoholic, and a gambler, and he left us when i was in the fourth grade. Then, I got in some trouble in high school and they were going to put me in a foster home, so I called him. He lived in Thousand Oaks and he let me stay with him to avoid foster living. When I got to California, I'd never seen a freeway, never been on a jet airplane, never seen the ocean. It looked pretty damn good. All of a sudden, Dayton didn't seem like the center of the universe. I got in trouble and they sent me back, but a couple of days after I graduated from high school, I got in my car, got three of my nastiest buddies, and headed back to California.

FG: I never heard that story.

CA: The details are kind of interesting, actually. (laughs) It's a complete accident, and one of the things that amazes me, I barely got through high school. I spent about eight or nine months at Ventura Junior College, I spent about a week and a half at Arts Center-I got a scholarship, they never gave one before-I spent about eight days there and realized it was bullshit, quit, went to Chouinard for six to eight months, quit there. So, despite all that, no education, no degree, I've had this wonderful life-mostly because of meeting people like Frank, Larry Bell, Ed Moses, Kenny Price, and Billy Bengston. It was like this dream came true. But the great thing about these guys was the materials they were using. Bengston was working with lacquer on Masonite. Then Frank Stella and all these guys in New York thought, "God, that's a good idea." All these people with resin and glass, and doing shit that is not on the list. And that's what you have done for architecture. I think, inadvertently, you realized, shit, any material's good: corrugated fucking iron, chain link fence, what's wrong with that? It's great! Two by fours, all that had to do with these Venice artists going, "I'll make paintings out of fucking tree branches or I'll make glass boxes." I mean, if you thought of that out of the context of the art world, what the fuck is a glass box? (laughs)

FG: (laughs) Well, my choice of materials always had to do with the projects being small and not having budgets. So, I had to use whatever I could, and that's what got me into corrugated metal. I liked it aesthetically, this galvanized stuff, and then the chain-link was fascinating to me because it was produced in quantities that are bizarre. I went to a chain link factory Downtown and spent an hour there one day, and they had four people running a 200,000-square-foot warehouse with only one machine making chain link. And in one hour the guy told me they made enough chain-link to cover one lane of the freeway from Downtown to Santa Monica. And I thought, if my artist friends can make art out of anything, and architecture is art, I can make architecture out of anything. It was powerful stuff. I was also inspired by Gordon Matta-Clark who was slicing buildings in half. Or Robert Smithson who did Spiral Jetty [1970]. I was doing the Concord Pavilion and I did the space with earth. It was starting to be a spiral, so I called Smithson, sent him some pictures of it, and said, "I invite you to make this exterior. It's just starting, and you can do whatever you want." He said, "I'll call you next week." In between that time, he got killed in a plane crash.

CA: One thing that was kind of interesting-a lot of it has to do with Gemini G.E.L. Gemini brought all those New York artists out to LA. Frank Stella, Jasper Johns, [Robert] Rauschen-berg. I never thought of them as famous, great artists, they were just these great guys from New York, and they would actually communicate with you. I remember Rauschenberg once said "You know what's really interesting? You and I both make art out of junk." (laughs)

FG: I remember they loved you. And they were nice to me, so they must have liked me too. Slowly, for me, over time, the LA and New York thing started to mix. I remember ending up at the Factory up in Warholville with [John] Chamberlain, and Ultra Violet was his girlfriend.

CA: Well, Christophe de Menil was great too. She'd have a dinner party and there'd be ten of us there. Then, there'd be three, four limousines, then four, five, six other people would come in, and there'd be a couple more limousines. As soon as the dinner was over, all the limousines would be like a train out to Studio 54, and they'd just part the ropes and we'd all go straight in. Jasper Johns or Rauschenberg would say, "Hey man, come to New York, stay at my place." And it was weird because they kind of had this reputation of being these assholes, but Chamberlain just loved hanging out with us Venice guys.

FG: I took him sailing one day. Do you remember Michael Asher, the artist? He was also a great sailor. I had a Cal 25 sailboat. Michael and I decided to go sailing on the windiest fucking day-storm warnings and everything. So, we got geared up, and we're driving down Main Street or Pacific, we get to the corner where Larry Bell's studio was, and Chamberlain was standing there dressed in a suit. It was raining. I stopped and said, "Well, what are you standing out there for?" And he said, "I'm ready to do something. Where are you guys going?" I said "We're going sailing. Want to come?" So, he got in the car and we got to the boat. It was the wildest ride in the ocean I've ever been on. I mean, it was dangerous. Chamberlain loved it.

CA: He was in the Navy, I think. He showed me his feet one time, and he had roosters tattooed on them because supposedly if you have roosters on your feet you won't drown.

FG: Well, there was something there. A year after we took him sailing, I was in New York, and he called me up saying he had his new boat at 95th Street and whatever. He'd been sailing since he went with us. He went down the coast to Florida and sailed back and forth. He became a great sailor.

CA: I really loved New York. When you're young, it's great. As you get older, you want to escape, but the problem with New York, is if you want a fucking quart of milk, it takes half a day and you're always in somebody's face-confrontations with strang-ers. The thing about California, is you're with friends or people you know, or you're alone in your car, you have time to think, so you don't have to deal with all this crap. There's something super attractive about California. I mean, just the weather.

FG: Chuck, we used to share a studio. In the morning I'd have a coffee, and you would show me a painting by 9:30, 10 o'clock. And I used to go, "It's great," and you'd say, "Yeah, I gotta think about it." And then, I'd come back at 4:00 and you would change it. I always thought it was better, of course, without you changing it. So, I used to try to get you to stop, but that's not in your DNA. You can't do that.

CA: (laughs) Look around this place. When you get a client, they're just excited. They'll have a problem for you, and you'll work out a scheme that takes you six months or something. The client comes in and they always go, "Oh my god, that's great," and you go, "No, it's not ready yet. You have to come back in six months." So, you do what you accuse me of on a huge scale, but I understand you're doing a $300-million-dollar building. Whereas, I've got the cost of materials and a little bit of time.

FG: It's different because I have to go to the building department, I have to go through engineers, and I have a budget, which you don't have.

CA: At a certain point, you were having a hard time with the technology aspect of what you were building. Architecture used to be pencils and T-squares and stuff, and you were doing interesting enough architecture that you got approached by a company and thought, hey, we should computerize architecture. And you were smart enough to go along with this thing. So, if you want to do a building with a million curves in it, it's figured out.

FG: What happened was I was working in Boston and I had a lawyer doing our contract. He was a big guy in the AIA [Americans in Architecture] at the time and I had made a building in Switzerland–The Vitra Design Museum–where there's a curve in the plaster. I was taught to draw those curves using a geometry system that everybody used at that time to make forms. So, I used that system that I was taught, but they built the curve and it had a kink in it. They swore they built it exactly as the drawing. So, we scoured the thing and sure enough there it was: our two-dimensional drawings of three-dimensional stuff had a failure in the system. I discovered that the hard way. So, I called IBM and asked them if they had any software, because they had CAD at the time, which was two-dimensional. We were using that, but it was unwieldy and tough to do, and it still didn't deliver the exact curve. The reason I was interested in curves is that I wasn't happy with modernism or postmodernism. Modernism was rigid, geometric, ninety degrees. Once MoMA's architecture curator, Arthur Drexler, had a show with some really beautiful, seductive premodern buildings, it jump-started the postmodern architecture movement. Within a month or two, Phillip Johnson] did the little building for AT&T, Robert A.M. Stern started doing his stuff, and Charles Moore and Robert Venturi went into postmodernism. They were all going down the rabbit hole and it was very upsetting to me when they did that. I was at a conference somewhere and everybody had twenty minutes to speak, and it was my turn. I got up, I looked at them, all and said "Why the fuck do we have to go backward? Isn't there anybody going ahead? There are cars and boats and airplanes and a lot of movement out there, and you guys are happy doing this? It doesn't fit our time." I don't know where this came from. Then, I said, "Well, if you have to go back, why not go back 300 million years before man, when we were fish? Fish look architectural. If you look at them, they express movement, and we are in a time of movement." That's all I said, then I sat down and shut up. From then on, I started drawing those fish. It did inspire form and I looked at all these Japanese Hiroshige prints. There was so much architecture to be inspired by.

OK: Can we talk about how and where you two met originally?

CA: We met so long ago. The thing is that everybody used to party and hang out together. It was a very small art scene, and the Venice scene was even tighter than any place, so when we had any reason to have people over, we'd always be there. And Frank was always part of the group.

FG: Well, I remember you were declared the youngest, the new guy. You and Laddie John Dill hung out and I was interested in what you were doing. I was always interested in your work, and always couldn't figure out why you'd change it in the afternoon, but I learned to live with that. But when you did the chainsaw paintings, that expression of anger was just visceral. And then, you painted it and took away the anger. Richard Serra's pieces are about anger. They're beautifully composed and fabricated and all that, but there's a lot of anger. He builds the piece and finishes it, and they're beautiful, but they're still fucking angry. Whereas Chuck, you diffused it. And that's your personality. You're a nice guy.

CA: I had a studio in Venice. It was a fluke, I ended up with this big building and Frank needed a place to move his office. One of the guys moved out, so Frank moved his office into the building, and we saw each other every day. We collaborated more than just talking and arguing and stuff. (laughs) But the thing is, we all really suggested things to friends. Like I had a friend, Bill Norton, who was our partner in the building. He directed a movie and wanted to build a house, so Frank got to build a house for him on the boardwalk. He used to be a lifeguard, so Frank built what looked like a lifeguard tower in front of the house.

 
 

OK: I think both of your work is uncategorizable, and that's why LA is so interesting. It's an uncategorizable, make-believe city that came from nothing, and both of your work has come out of this milieu. Can you guys talk a little bit about being in that realm? I was reading an essay that Reyner Banham wrote about your architecture Frank, and this was before the Pritzker Prize, but he said, "If people understood your work, maybe you'd be the biggest architect in the world." It's funny to read that now.

FG: Reyner Banham called me after I had finished the Danziger Studio. Esther McCoy was the architectural writer in Los Angeles at the time and she was confused by my work because I did that apartment building that looks like a Monterey Span-ish. This was a time when I was fitting into the neighborhood. That was my trying to make a building that was a good neigh-bor. I was into that. I'm not going to shake up the neighbor-hood, I'm going to make a building that is great and show them how you can keep going. I got whooped for that one. That was postmodernism before anybody heard of postmodernism. After I did the Danziger Studio, they all came running. So, Reyner Banham called me—he came to LA from Berkeley, and he told me he was writing a book, and he wanted to interview me, and I said, "I'm not ready for that."

OK: Maybe we can close things out by talking about the world right now. How do you see yourself as an artist in the world right now? How do you see yourself as an architect in the world that we're in now?

CA: When I got to the art world, I never thought of fame and fortune at all. In fact, when I met all those artists, they weren't famous people. I consider the Rolling Stones and the Beatles famous. But the world today is so driven by the commercial, and I think it's immoral. It's like real estate. When they can sell paintings for $50 to $100 million, maybe 8 to 15 million for a young artist who's, say, in their forties, something is wrong. Because in the old days, you had to earn the position you got to. The great thing about Frank is you can spot a Frank Gehry from a mile away-not that they re all the same-but they're like sculpture, they're a statement unto themselves. It's a form, it's something where you go, "That must be a Frank Gehry." Other buildings might be tasty and everything, but they just don't stand out. Frank, I don't know what you think about contemporary architecture, is it the same as the art world?

FG: I haven't been paying much attention to the new, younger architects. LA is not as blank as it was. I did the commercial project across from Disney, which came out really great for a commercial project. I'm really proud of that. I had no idea it was going to come out that good. The feeling and the scale and the humanity of it is what I was trying to do and it does work. As an art piece, it's a different story. It's a different connection to humanity. I think that architecture takes itself too seriously, and so does art.

Pippa Garner interviewed by Hans Ulrich Obrist

interview by Hans Ulrich Obrist


From the auto body to the human body, artist Pippa garner is one of the most pioneering artists of our time. Serving first as a combat artist during the Vietnam War, Garner’s radical practice took on the form of absurdist automotive sculptures and utopian inventions. A backwards car, an umbrella with real palm fronds, a half suit, satirized our lust for objects and teetered on the edge of fine art and commercialism. Even Garner’s own sex change, transitioning from man to woman, become a materialistic invention, her sexual organs equal to the raw material sent down the factory assembly line; body and thing becoming one and the same part of capitalism’s bioindustrial complex.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: I wanted to ask you how it all began. How did you come to art or how did art come to you? Was it an epiphany or a gradual process?

PIPPA GARNER: Well, I was a misfit to begin with. It seems like the growth process can be enhanced by the situation you're in. I was a war baby. I was born in ‘42, and I still have a few memories of what life was like during that time. Everybody knew somebody that was in the Army. Even a small child can get a sense of what it feels like to have the world be at war. I didn't pick the time I came to life on Earth. The war years were a time of deprivation. And this is a country of extravagance—it was based on independence and outlaw thinking. And all of a sudden, the whole thing was thrown away because of the war. But living was good for me then because I went through adolescence just as consumerism was really born. The assembly line technology that had preceded World War II was advanced by war needs, so there were all these companies suddenly producing the fastest, best things they possibly could, from airplanes to shoes. Advertising was born out of that because they had to convince people they needed things they didn't realize they needed. Suddenly all these stores were flooded with consumer goods. Things that nobody could imagine: chrome blenders, waffle irons, ovens, and lawnmowers. And I was fascinated with that, particularly automobiles, because the cars that I grew up with all had very distinct faces—the eyes, the mouth, the nose. You could recognize whether it was a Studebaker or a Ford. They had a certain character and I felt like there was life there. It goes back to another childhood thing of wanting to bring things to life. I think all children go through that with their stuffed animals. They get off of it pretty quickly, but I never quite overcame that. Clear into my puberty and beyond, I still felt that cars were living. If I’d see a bad crash where the face of the car was all smashed, I’d burst into tears. I found that it was a useful tool as an artist because a lot of the stuff that I was making was a kind of consumerism.  

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: You were in the Vietnam War with the US Army as a combat artist. Can you tell us a little bit about that experience? It also brought you to photography because you got these state-of-the-art cameras from Japan and started to take personal photographs, which became important for your later magazine work.

PIPPA GARNER: I was drafted in college. I used up several student deferments. Finally, they sent me the notice. So, I was sent to train as an unassigned infantryman in Vietnam, having no idea what I was going to be doing. I went over on a big plane full of people who were going to be assigned to different units. Once I got there, I thought, gee, I wonder if there's something that might have to do with my art background. I did some research and sure enough, one of the divisions, the 25th Infantry, is the only division with a Combat Art Team (CAT). A group of people who had some art background were given an itinerary to go out with different units and document with drawings, pictures, and writing. The camera thing was interesting because the military store on the base had all this expensive Japanese camera equipment, very cheap. And I got a really nice Nikon camera for nothing and trained myself to use it. A lot of times things were going so fast that you couldn't really hold the image long enough to document it, so that's when photography became very much a part of my life.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: Then you studied transportation design at the ArtCenter College of Design in Los Angeles, an extremely well known institute. You had one of the first major epiphanies in 1969. You presented your student project, which was a half car, half human. Can you tell me and our readers about the epiphany that led to Kar-Mann (Half Human Half Car). And also how people reacted to it?

PIPPA GARNER: There was a Volkswagen sports car in the '60s called the Karmann Ghia. It was considered a very sophisticated sports car during that time and that’s why I modified the spelling and called the sculpture Kar-Mann. I started going to art school fairly early. I went to the ArtCenter College of Design, which at that time was called Art Center School and it was in Hollywood. My father, who was in charge of things, saw that my interests were leaning toward art. To him, that was bohemian and something he didn't like. He was a businessman and wanted me to go into business. And so he tried to direct my art to car design because I was so interested in cars. He did a lot of research and found out that the school where all the car designers were trained was this Art Center School in Los Angeles. So I went out there in 1961 and found myself alienated because all the other students there wore suits and loved cars in a much different way than I did. I cherished [cars] in a way that was sort of comical. I thought some of them were really funny and stupid looking, so I felt pushed into a satirical corner. So, I quit that school and went to the Cleveland Institute of Art in Ohio, which is a wonderful fine art school, and I started doing a lot of life drawings. I fell in love with life drawing. To study the form, you have to understand it from the inside out or else it doesn't look lifelike. But I got quite good at it. So, eventually I went back to the Art Center. I still had the design classes, but they had life drawing work. And so, I began doing tons of life drawing and sculpting the human form. It just fascinated me. But the idea of making this half car, half man, was something that I did as a sketch. There was a wonderful teacher that encouraged out-of-the-box thinking a bit more, and when I showed him the sketches he said, “Why don't you make that?” So, I figured out the proportions—I wanted the human part to be about the size of a small male figure, and then I found a toy car and was able to integrate that using styrofoam to make the basic sculpture. And then, I covered it with resin to make the surface hard and did all the detailing. I was making fun of cars.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: I've just written the book Ever Gaia [Isolarii, 2023] with James Lovelock, who invented the Gaia Hypothesis with Lynn Margulis. He was a serial inventor. In a similar way, you are a serial inventor. You created all these objects between design and non-design, and then images of these objects were published in magazines, like Esquire, Rolling Stone, and Playboy. It's interesting that you then decided to go beyond the art world. I've always been very interested in that. Can you talk a little bit about how you bring these objects to a bigger audience, through magazines, but also appearances on talk shows?

PIPPA GARNER: When I was doing all that work in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, there was a real barrier between fine art and commercial art. If your work occurred in magazines, it was low grade. No matter what it was. It was degraded by the fact that it was published. And I reversed that in my mind. I thought, well, gee, that's not right. Here's an opportunity to have things out there reaching thousands of thousands of people as opposed to an art gallery. I love the idea of having as much exposure as possible. Even though I've had close friends that were recognized fine artists, and in a bunch of the galleries—I never really cared much about it. I did have a couple of gallery shows here and there, but mainly the thing that fascinated me was the fact that I could reach people clear across the country, and sometimes beyond, with these images. I didn't have much money during those years, but I always got enough out of the magazines.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: And of course, one of your key inventions, which is so famous today, is the backwards car from 1973. It’s also interesting because it was a different time in magazines—when they paid for these extraordinary realities to happen. Can you talk a little bit about the epiphany of the backwards car and how it then drove on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco?

PIPPA GARNER: There was a period in all the major American car companies after World War II when they started having these really huge design departments. They used a lot of references to jet planes. The Cadillacs in the ’50s were huge, and they looked like they were moving even when they were standing still, which is called directional design. After my half car, half man, I started seeing cars in a context that had nothing to do with their purpose. The Cadillac particularly fascinated me because of the huge fins. And I had a good friend that was a designer who worked for Charles Eames in the early ’70s. He and I would go roaming around sometimes on our bicycles. One time, we went by this used car lot and there was a ‘59 Cadillac, and it just popped into my head, what if that thing was going backwards? It was just devastatingly funny and that convinced me that in some form it had to happen. So, I started sketching and figuring out how to do it, and I made a nice presentation. Esquire Magazine in New York responded and said, “Oh my God, we have to do this. How much do you want? How long will it take? We’re going to send a photographer to take pictures of the process.” But it couldn't be a Cadillac, because you couldn't see over the fins. So, I started looking in the papers until I found the car I wanted: a 1959 Chevy, two door sedan, six cylinder, no power steering or power brakes. I wanted a drive train as simple as possible so it would be easier to reconnect. It had fins, but the fins were flat, so they didn't obstruct your vision. And so I did the whole thing myself in a little garage space. Now, it was a matter of, how do I lift this thing up, turn it around, and set it back down on the frame? I didn't have access to any sophisticated technology to do it, so I got everybody I knew and we had a little party when I finally got everything cut away. Once everyone got a little bit high from the alcohol, I said, “Okay, folks, everybody around this car, shoulder to shoulder. When I give the command, I want you to lift the car up, and then walk it back, turn it around, bring it forward, and set it down again.” I thought it was going to be too heavy, but fortunately they didn't have any trouble. Once it was set back down, there was the backwards car. One day it was ready to try out and that was it, we went out and drove it around the San Francisco coast.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: The other day, I visited Judy Chicago, and of course she worked with car elements. There was also John Chamberlain. And during the same era, there was also Ant Farm, the architecture collective with whom you actually collaborated. And Nancy Reese was a big influence on you, because she made you realize that you can identify yourself as an artist. Can you talk a little bit about this?

PIPPA GARNER: Well, that was an interesting evolution, especially when you think back on it from the Information Age. Now, everything is shrunk down to nothing. There's no presence. Even cars look almost identical. You can't tell one from the other. The only way you can tell the difference between a Mercedes and a Kia is by getting close enough to look at the logo. Other than that, they're identical. They all get the same input. They use CAD design. So, that whole era really stands out. Everything was so unique. There was such an emphasis on trying to make things attract attention and to design things that make people say, gee, I gotta have that.

 
 

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: In 1995, you did this great project where you tried to get a custom license plate that said “sex change”—spelled SXCHNGE. But the authorities at the Department of Motor Vehicles turned it down, so you resubmitted with HE2SHE and it was accepted.

PIPPA GARNER: For me, the sex change thing was a material act. I never had a sense of being born in the wrong body as one of the expressions that they use goes, or had the trauma of being treated badly because of my sexual feelings. I never thought of any of this until I had already lived in my thirties as a male. And then suddenly, I ran out of interest in the assembly line products that I was so fascinated with. Even with cars, I felt like I had done as much as I could do. So I thought, there's gotta be something new, something else. And that was just about the time that changing your gender worked its way into the culture. The first example was, of course, Christine Jorgensen, way back in the ‘50s. But it wasn’t until the ‘80s when terms like transsexual started to be used. Leading up to that was the whole gay revolution. When I was growing up, you couldn't be gay. It was the most horrible, evil thing that could happen to a person. Gay culture was completely concealed. So coming out of these cultural biases became a real issue. And the human body—flesh and blood—fascinated me because I could still be using existing objects and juxtaposing them, but at the same time, making it fresh again. So, I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, you know, I'm just at an appliance, like that radio over there, or the car sitting outside. The body that I was assigned to, I didn't pick it. I didn't say I want to be white, middle class, and heterosexual. So, if I am nothing more than another appliance, why not have some fun with it? Why not play with it and alter it in a comical way? Finally, that escalated into my deciding to go through with the surgery, which I went to Brussels for in 1993. I had what they call a vaginoplasty. Now, part of me is European [laughs]. I came back from that and thought, this is great, Im in my forties, I've had a penis for all these years, and now I have a vagina. What an amazing thing—I live in an age when you can do that. You could go and pay somebody some money and say, “Here, I want to have my genitals turned the other way around.” And they said, “Fine, here's the bed.” (laughs) I was fascinated with the fact that I could do that with my body. It gave me a sense of control and a sense of a whole new area that I could explore. Meanwhile, the culture was changing and becoming more open. It's still not good, but it's much better than it was. I was kind of a pioneer with that perhaps.  

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: There's this amazing conversation, which you did with Hayden Dunham, about the struggle of being inside bodies. You say that because the advertisements and consumerism in the background in your life were always very gender oriented, you were forcing yourself to become more masculine. And at a certain moment, you decided not to conform anymore. It’s so pioneering. Can you talk a little bit about that?

PIPPA GARNER: Everything is structured in the culture to try and keep people in a comfort zone. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit everyone. But how do you deal with that? How do you let people be what they want to be and still have a sense of the culture being unified and functional? Again, all these things are just a point of evolution. Things keep changing and moving forward, and they always will. I think about my life being one frame of an endless film—just my little thing, and then it goes to the next frame. And that goes on into the distance forever. I think that my perceptions of gender were very materialistic. I’m a consumer and this is what I do with my body. It was no different than someone putting on makeup, or somebody going to a gym, taking steroids, and building this huge body that doesn't have any purpose at all except for looks. I didn’t have anyone that was going to suffer for it. If I had a family, it might've been different, but probably not. At this point, I was single. I had nobody to be responsible for, except to keep things moving forward. I don't want my life to ever get stagnant, to start losing its rhythm. And that's what I'm fighting now, because at this age, how do I maintain that? It's very hard for seniors to keep one of the things that I think is essential for life and that is sexuality. Everything for me represents the lifespan—from baby to aged person. Whether it's called puberty, adolescence, middle age, old age, I feel the need to incorporate that thinking in my work to keep that sense of life going, and the most obvious way is by maintaining sexuality. If I don't have any sex drives, all of it goes flat. I take estrogen and testosterone so that I can keep an endocrine system that's young and still is attractive and wants to be attracted, even at 81. That’s one of the real essential parts of my inspiration. If I lose that, I don't have any ideas. It's funny because hospitals are all divided into these clinics. Because I’m a veteran, I've got this ten-story VA hospital building at my disposal and there are clinics for everything but sensuality.  So, they’re really missing the point of trying to make people want to stay alive.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: In this conversation with Dunham, you say that you see the body as a toy or a pet that you can play with. You can change the shape of it. You're an inside and an outside.

PIPPA GARNER: Well, that's it right there. That keeps things interesting and keeps a sort of question mark floating in the air over everything. So, you're not quite sure what will happen, you know, maybe it will be a drastic failure, or maybe a revelation.

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: We know a great deal about architects' unrealized projects because they publish them. But we know very little about artists' unrealized projects. I wanted to ask you if you have any unrealized projects, dream projects, which are either censored or too big to be realized, or too expensive to be realized?

PIPPA GARNER: Well, it's funny, because I always do. The problem is—and this is fairly recent—I was diagnosed with leukemia that was ostensibly from my time in Vietnam. I was there for thirteen months in the mid-60s. They were spraying Agent Orange, a defoliant, which turned out to be extremely toxic. I actually went on several of the missions with one of the planes that was spraying it, and there were no masks or anything. It stayed dormant until only a couple years ago, when all of a sudden, it caused pneumonia, which put me on life support for over six days. I was unconscious and I was in the hospital for a month in intensive care. Life support is terrible because it causes you to melt basically, mentally and physically. I've never gone through anything like that. All of a sudden, I found myself like a baby. I was able to go back home, but I still haven't fully recovered from that. I don't think I have the will. So, that's one of the problems. Now, I have this obstacle in my thought process because I'm constantly thinking, am I going to have some more time or not? You can be very isolated in Long Beach. Most of my friends are in Hollywood. So, I spend a lot of time alone, and I'm not good at that. I need to have back and forth. But I'm on the rules of the hospital. They did a five-hour infusion, which was a good thing. I'm lucky to have somehow survived to this point. I did something today with this young woman from the gallery who helped me take some pictures. It was a little thing I do for every April Fool's Day, which is my holy day. And so that was something that represents my thought process. I didn't have that two weeks ago. Then, all of a sudden, there it was. The same little mechanism back there was working. One thing that will be interesting is when we get autonomous cars. I want to live long enough to see that—something tangible. Something that affects my life that I feel stimulation from. Maybe I’ll just have one final burst left and then I drop dead. Or maybe not. I might be able to spread it out.

Superstudio: Italian Radical Design

An image of a multiple objects  in a pinkish room with silver pillars

Archizoom Associati, No-Stop City, 1970. Internal Landscape. Courtesy Studio Branzi

interview by Oliver Kupper

In 1966, a flood washed over Florence, Italy. Over one hundred people died. Millions of Renaissance masterpieces, artifacts, rare books, and monuments were destroyed when the Arno overflowed and consumed the capital of Tuscany. But this was not the first time the city was overtaken by chaos and destruction. Twenty years earlier, the Nazis began a year-long occupation of the ancient Roman citadel. Allied and Axisforces shared a brutal exchange of fireand shelling that destroyed many of the buildings surrounding the famous Ponte Vecchio bridge, which was miraculously spared by Hitler himself (all the other bridges were destroyed). Out of the rubble and loam of this violent miasma came a group of radical young architects who formed avant-garde collectives and declared a philosophical war against architecture itself. Against the violence of the past. Against the barbarity of fascism. Against formality. Against history. Against rigidity and conservatism. These groups had names like Superstudio, Archizoom, Gruppo 9999, and UFO. They were more concerned with ideas than structures—building conceptual visions of new worlds rather than erecting edifices in the present. Although they only existed for a brief period, burning wild and bright and visionary, their output would leave a lasting architectural impression—later inspiring architects like Rem Koolhaas and the late Zaha Hadid. But while Florence might have been the epicenter of this new psychedelic activity, these ’superarchitettura’ groups spread across Italy—from Milan to Turin, to Naples, and Padua as highlighted in the landmark 1972 exhibitionItaly: The New Domestic Landscape at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, curated by Emilio Ambasz. The new landscapes of these radical utopians explored speculative visions of domesticity that included themes of anti-design and protests against objects as status symbols—anchors of materiality that exemplified the hubris of a hyper-consumerist, post-war society.

 
An image of a girl holding yellow flowers sitting on an outside bed

Superstudio, "Misura series" for Zanotta, 1970. plastic laminate with silkscreen print. Photographed in Panzano nel Chianti, Italy. Superstudio, Archive Cristiano Toraldo di Francia

 

Founded in 1966 in Florence, Italy by Adolfo Natalini and Cristiano Toraldo di Francia, and shortly thereafter joined by Roberto and Alessandro Magris, Gian Piero Frassinelli and Alessandro Poli, Superstudio’s psychedelic universe was an attack on modernism’s inherent failures. Utilizing photo collages, films and exhibitions, their vision was utopian at its core, but also examined the anti-utopia’s of urban planning pomposity with works like The Continuous Monument(1969), which was a singular gridded monolithic structure that spanned the globe. It cuts through meadows, cities, deserts and beyond. For Superstudio, the Cartesian grid, a system of x-, y-, and z-axes to control space, became their signature. Tables, benches and storage units are sold today with this pattern. In the following pages, the only surviving member of the group, Gian Piero Frassinelli discusses the group’s ambitions and his unique input, which was deeply steeped in his fascination and studies in anthropology. This translated to a vision of humanity returning to its nomadic roots, free from the slavery of labor and consumerist desires.

OLIVER KUPPER: Why did you gravitate towards architecture and were your architectural dreams before Superstudio always so radical and utopian?

GIAN PIERO FRASSINELLI: At first, I didn't have this utopic idea when I studied architecture. It took me a bit longer than usual to finish my architectural studies—about eight years. The word ‘radical’ wasn't used until after the creation of Superstudio, Archizoom, and all the utopian groups that were born during those years. The Superstudio group was formed during some of the toughest years for the university because classes were often interrupted. First, because of the flood in 1966. And later, in 1968, because of the student strikes. Those strikes were to fight the educational system in Italy and also to support peace all around the world. We were against the Vietnam War. Also, there was a huge gap between the ideas of the students and the teachers. So, we started to search for new ways of imagining what architecture could be.

KUPPER: You got your degree in 1968 and joined Superstudio the same year. How did you join forces with Adolfo Natalini and Cristiano Toraldo di Francia who founded the group only two years before?

FRASSINELLI: I met Cristiano a few weeks before, on the street, casually. I hadn’t seen him since before the flood because I was preparing for my graduation project, and so I was spending a lot of time at home. Christiano told me about his studio that he founded with Adolfo and he told me to visit them when I graduated. After a few days, I finished my studies. When I arrived at their studio, they told me what their ideas of architecture were. At first, I didn't understand because my ideas were very different from the academic approach, but also from their point of view. But my architectural ambitions were very similar, so I decided to put my ideas aside and follow them.

KUPPER: You had an early interest in anthropology—why was that field of study important in the context of architecture?  

FRASSINELLI: To be honest, my interest in anthropology came before my interest in architecture. I found myself in the architectural world because my dad used to sell building materials. His studio was packed with architectural magazines and books. My interest in anthropology started when I was a child. I got sick in a bunker during World War II, so I stopped attending elementary school for a few years. But I was lucky because I had an aunt who was a retired teacher. She taught me a lot to make up for the years that I had lost due to my illness. She was one of the first teachers to use the Montessori method. [Maria] Montessori was an Italian professor who changed the way of teaching. And she was a very religious person, so she did a lot of missions in Africa and other places. That’s how I learned about people who were very different from me, that had a very different culture and lifestyle than mine. I was around eight years old at this time. And from my dad’s architectural magazines, I got a passion for architecture. So, after high school, I enrolled in the University of Architecture in Florence. Over the years, I kept learning more and more about anthropology. My graduation project was a study about an anthropology museum.

KUPPER: Speaking of the war years. How did the ghosts of fascism in Italy, but also Europe at-large, in post-war Florence—a city steeped in the classicism of the Renaissance—inspire you as an architect and Superstudio?

FRASSINELLI: I was born in 1939, the exact day that Hitler invaded Poland. The next year, the bombing started in Italy. The bombing first started in La Spezia, which was the city where I used to live. Every night, we heard the sirens. We had to spend most of our life in the bunkers there. We actually moved from La Spezia because our house was destroyed in the bombing. So, we moved east and arrived in an area close to the Apennine Mountains, which was the location for a lot of Nazi killings. You’ve probably heard about Marzabato, which was the location of one of the biggest Nazi massacres. We were lucky to survive. It was a miracle. So, when we arrived in Florence, it was almost the end of World War II, but a big part of the city was destroyed, and there were land mines everywhere. Seeing the destroyed architecture was really influential for me and for my architectural point of view.

KUPPER: In connection to these totalitarian regimes and architecture, most people associate the Cartesian grid with rigid structures, conservatism, staying within the lines, but Superstudio’s imagination existed way outside these lines, what did the grid represent and why was it so important?

FRASSINELLI: The grid was actually developed casually. I was working with Superstudio for a year, and I was more like a draftsman than a researcher. At one point, Adolfo and Cristiano had the idea of building the Continuous Monument. They needed someone very good at drawing perspective. I was actually hired for drawing perspective and also photo collages. Also, during my studies in high school and university, to draw perspective, I always used the Leon Battista Alberti method. Leon Battista Alberti was one of the most important architects and artists in Florence. And that method consists of dividing each volume into squares using a grid. This is also how the grid made its way into the photo collages.

KUPPER: And the grid sort of took over everything—even tables and chairs. It became a main symbol of what Superstudio did.

FRASSINELLI: With architecture, we later moved forward from the grid. For the design aspect, the grid became iconic. A lot of people requested it. And Zanotta still produces Superstudio furniture with the grid. As for the drawing, the grid was just a way to emphasize the bi-dimensional volume.

KUPPER: This Cartesian order of the natural world through dominating monuments of architecture, like The Continuous Monument, which could soon be a terrifying reality in the Saudi desert, was described by Adolfo Natalini as an “anti-utopia.” Where did Superstudio’s intuition about the terrors of architecture’s future anti-utopias come from?

FRASSINELLI: The Continuous Monument was first an idea that Adolfo and Cristiano had to connect architecture from all around the world—to connect all the architectural methods. And the grid helped to put this in order and to be more rigid. But the problem for me, because of my anthropology studies, was that it led me to think that the interior of the Continuous Monument would be terrible to live in. So, the Continuous Monument was born as a utopia but died after my talks with Adolfo and Christiano, and became an anti-utopia.

KUPPER: One of your major contributions is “The Twelve Cautionary Tales [12 Ideal Cities],” which was extremely anti-utopian. Can you talk about this?

FRASSINELLI: “The Twelve Cautionary Tales” happened during a period when Adolfo was teaching at a university in the United States, so it was just me and Christiano here in Florence, and we didn't have that much work to do. It was a better way for me to explain to Adolf and Cristiano what life would actually be like inside The Continuous Monument. I took the ideas of the other eleven cities by focusing on crowded urban places all around the world that somehow don't work. Each city, each cautionary tale, is a different thing that doesn't work in those cities. I chose the number twelve because twelve is a very important number for Western culture and literature.

Supersuperficie for 'The New Italian Land-scape' exhibition, MoMA, New York, 1972. Migrazione, screen printed plastic laminate for Abet Print, 1969. Superstudio, Archive Cristiano Toraldo di Francia

Amore. La macchina innamoratrice Collages et crayon blanc sur tirage, 60 × 80 cm © Superstudio, Archive Cristiano Toraldo di Francia

KUPPER: Film was a powerful medium for Superstudio. I'm thinking about the short thesis film made for the exhibition at MoMA, Supersurface [1972]. Can you talk about that film and the power of moving images? 

FRASSINELLI: To be honest, me and Cristiano started to make a movie during the university years with a few friends who didn't study architecture. It was about the Christian Gospels, but we had to interrupt it because we discovered that Italian director and writer, Pier Paolo Pasolini was actually preparing a movie that was about that. So, we decided not to compete with him (laughs). So then, there was another movie, which was less known. It was called Interplanetary Architecture [1972], and it was before Fundamental Acts [1972].  

KUPPER: Where did the love of film come from?

FRASSINELLI: At the time, there was no TV at home. So, the cinema was very important for all of us because it influenced our life a lot, and gave us a lot of poetic ideas. We watched the movies of Fellini, Pasolini, and Antonioni.

KUPPER: You mentioned Fundamental Acts, which explored the five fundamental acts of a person's life. It was a very poetic project. Can you talk about this series and why architecture doesn't consider the human body or experience?  

FRASSINELLI: My awareness of architecture began when I was very young, basically when I was born. I remember our first apartment in Florence after World War II. It was my first architectural experience and I was around seven years old. My family decided to visit another family that lived in the same building. When we entered this apartment, I actually saw my own apartment, but with different furniture and organized in a different way. This was a really visceral experience that was actually painful. This memory popped when I started my architectural studies. From that experience, I decided not to design a single apartment that was the same as another. Going back to my anthropological interests—in Western society, we have this concept of apartments and buildings that are very homogeneous, but in other societies and cultures, all the buildings are different from each other. 

KUPPER: So, it's important to consider a person's life and bring humanity back into architecture.

FRASSINELLI: It's probably because of the humanity in architecture that I was always inspired and interested in anthropology. A lot of architects actually ask me what anthropology has in common with architecture and why it is necessary to architecture. And my answer is always: all the architecture is lived in by humans.

 KUPPER: Nomadism and nomadic society is an important part of Superstudio’s architecture ambitions and it is also related to anthropology. Humans used to be nomads and there are still a few nomadic societies out there.

FRASSINELLI: Nomadism is the other face of architecture because it's actually life without architecture. In Western society, we have this obsession with work. In nomadic society, they would work just five or six hours a day to find food, and the rest of the time is just to enjoy their own life, which is talking to each other, learning different things or spending free time with each other.

KUPPER: On the other side of it, now with global warming and war, we have people who are forced to enter a nomadic lifestyle. Climate refugees they are called. How do you think architecture could rectify that, or build a better future for people forced to become nomads?

FRASSINELLI: There are a few people trying to do that, but it's very difficult right now because the architectural world operates on a purely economic basis. There has always been a war between those who are richer and those who are poorer. Right now, there are more than a billion people not living properly all around the world, and the hope that I have is that we will try to help the people who are forced to be nomadic. This is separate to nomadic societies, because these societies can actually offer us a closer look at how humans can live in better harmony with nature.

KUPPER: What is your advice to young architects today with utopian visions of the future?  

FRASSINELLI: Young architects are the first to be in a prison of their own culture. My advice is to really change the structure of the society where you live, because otherwise, there's no chance to survive.

 

Supersuperficie for 'The New Italian Land-scape' exhibition, MoMA, New York, 1972. Migrazione, screen printed plastic laminate for Abet Print, 1969. Superstudio, Archive Cristiano Toraldo di Francia

 
Four people sitting on a large pink couch, drinking and playing the flute

Amore. La macchina innamoratrice Collages et crayon blanc sur tirage, 60 × 80 cm © Superstudio, Archive Cristiano Toraldo di Francia

Archizoom: Italian Radical Design

members of archizoom posing

Archizoom Associates, Florence, 1968. Members of the Archizoom group in front of the original headquarters in Via Ricorboli 5 in Florence. In order: Paolo Deganello, Lucia Bartolini, Gilnerto Corretti, [Natalino], Massimo Morozzi, Dario Bartolini and Andrea Branzi. Courtesy Studio Branzi

interview by Francesca Balena Arista

Archizoom Associati was founded in 1966 by Andrea Branzi, Gilberto Corretti, Paolo Deganello, and Massimo Morozzi. They would later be joined by designers Dario Bartolini and Lucia Bartolini. Deeply philosophical and metaphysical in their architectural investigations, Archizoom's major contribution was No-Stop City, an imaginary, always evolving, never-ending future city that utilized the power of technology for a non-hermetic, decentralized metropolis that met all its citizens' needs. In the following interview, architect and design scholar Francesca Balena Arista asks founder Andrea Branzi about his visions of these new urban environments.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: Within the general concept of utopia, you have maintained that your work was about a realistic utopia.

ANDREA BRANZI: Yes, I have always attached great importance to the intellectual history of transformations, being a philosophical, non-political process in history. That is, I have always considered the transformation of land as a philosophical concept, a slow transformation derived from theoretical thought. “Non-Stop City,” for example, is the presentation, the vision, of a territory that is altered over time, but lacks the unity of utopia.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: How do you define the project of “Non-Stop City?” What was its value at the time it was conceived and what is, even today, its importance and influence on the design world?

ANDREA BRANZI: This type of transformation from a real project to a philosophical adaptation regarding the absence of real history, where the city no longer has a traditional sense of history, but rather a slow continuous evolution, was derived from the work of other radical Florentine architects. It is the idea of a continuous, never-ending story that has no limit, a city without architecture where everything flows without ever stopping. This is the concept of “Non-Stop City.” The name anticipates the thought behind the project, yet it never ends. This is an integral condition of contemporary culture where there is never a final closure to the project.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: Let's take a step back to the birth of the name Archizoom. Is there anyone in particular among the group who thought of this name and what is its origin? What is the meaning?

ANDREA BRANZI: Before us, there was an English group called Archigram that was very important and very pop, but devoid of any political components—a very different position from ours at that time. Our political formations dates back to 1962, when we participated in student movements, especially the one led by Claudio Greppi, “Lega Studenti Architetti” [student architects league]. This experience was crucial to us, as it was through them that we obtained information about the emerging political philosophers. This allowed the birth of the Radical Movement in Florence. A large number of avant-garde groups were born: there were Superstudio, Ziggurat, Gruppo 9999, UFO, and more. It was a generation of Florentine architects who surprised the avant-garde magazines and publications. It was a pivotal moment. That was when the first Japanese groups arrived, trying to find out what was happening in Florence, Milan, and so on. Arata Isozaki came to Florence. There was a whole international movement around these avant-garde groups.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: The Florentine climate, when radical architecture was created and the first groups, Archizoom and Superstudio, were born, was deeply political, even if there were differences within the various groups. I am reminded of the Superarchitettura exhibition. You have always talked about this installation as a seminal moment. What is the meaning of Superarchitettura?

ANDREA BRANZI: Superarchitettura took place in Pistoia in 1966, in a sort of city center that actually sold fish, not art, but the first avant-garde works came out from there, that’s where we first discovered The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. It was a breeding ground for movements, something very different from the past generations. Florence has always been a historic city where the avant-garde did not exist. So, the idea of realizing a new modernity there allowed the birth of a phenomenon that was completely unexpected.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: And the flooding in Florence, in 1966? Did it have any repercussions on your view of the historic city?

ANDREA BRANZI: Certainly, the Florence flood was a striking phenomenon. The whole city was submerged in water and the monuments were devastated. However, it was like the end of an era, and the beginning of something new. It was like Pompeii; after its destruction a new civilization was born. The flood marked the beginning of a culturally different era.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: Let's talk about another vital moment that was recognized by the entire Italian design world, namely Emilio Ambasz's exhibition at MOMA, Italy the new domestic landscape (1972), which saw the presence of both avant-garde groups and what we can consider representatives of a more traditional thinking. What did it mean for you?

ANDREA BRANZI: It allowed us to bring together at least three avant-garde groups and some great professional designers, there were Ettore Sottsass, Gae Aulenti, Vico Magistretti, and many others. Italy presented itself through this exhibition as a land in which new things and new ideas were being born. After that exhibition, it had to be seen that the mass production industries, which were very powerful at the time, were going into crisis. Therefore, they began to experiment with craft movements, new languages and colors, new functions. The new Italian design movement was born, groups that were moving with very different logic, the Memphis Group for example. There was no longer the idea of mass production, but rather, the production of small series, of great expressiveness. It was a very important historical period that had a major influence throughout Europe and in Japan. It was a seemingly unpredictable, radical change that responded to new questions of industrial and craft production aimed at small experimental territories.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: Years later, in response to the exhibition, Emilio Ambasz said, "Design is not only the product of creative intelligence, but an exercise in critical imagination."

associati miles chair by archizoom

Archizoom Associati Mies chair, Poltronova Italy, 1969 chrome-plated steel, rubber, upholstery 30 h × 29 w × 51½ d in (76 × 74 × 131 cm)Courtesy Studio Branzi

ANDREA BRANZI: Yes absolutely, design is not exclusively related to the market. Behind these vanguards was a new philosophy. Just remember the early examples of "Domestic Animals,” the idea of using natural materials that change over time, like tree branches that somehow become a part of a perennially diverse series. It's a philosophy whereby objects are no longer reproduced serially but change over time. It's a totally different conceptual view that changed the course of design history.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: In Florence, in the radical design years, how did you envision the future? What came true, and what didn't? An important component of radical design was prediction and the will to propose something new for the future.

ANDREA BRANZI: All this happened following unforeseen conditions. When we came together, we were looking for our own name. I called the art critic Germano Celant and asked him what might be a suitable name for these Florentine movements. The next day, he called me and told me that the appropriate name was ‘radical,' which is different from the Italian ‘radicale.' It is a much broader concept, like ‘liberal’ to ‘liberale.’ We were not exactly aware of what was going on, at least the four of us—me, Paolo Deganello, Gilberto Corretti, and Massimo Morozzi. We constituted ourselves as a "leading" group and it came naturally. We managed to get four “30 e lode” [A’s] on the same day at the university. This surprised the whole town and spread to the others. We initiated a kind of autonomy within the university and schools in philosophical and creative thinking. This is the Radical legacy.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: What would you recommend to young people today who want to think and dream of a radical future?

ANDREA BRANZI: I see that young Italian designers these days are making overtly hostile objects. They adopt new, unpredictable languages, which are not easily marketable. They sure have a vitality that surprises me greatly, and I think can change the rules of Italian design. There is always a kind of leading position in Italian design...I don't really know what German designers, American designers, or French designers are doing, I'm very curious to see what will happen there, and in other countries, though.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: In this sense, you said that you have your own vision of utopia. What is the value of utopia for you, the value of critical thinking, and the value of going beyond what society offers us? When I think of the objects designed by Archizoom, I see them as "breaking" objects in the history of design. What did you want to convey to others?

ANDREA BRANZI: Not everything was clear in what we were doing. Things were happening that were "typical" and inherent to the concept of the new generation, and to work that follows non-traditional logic. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, like other bands of the time, were not born in music schools, but in contexts where everything was happening in unplanned ways. There was no definite agenda or policy. The same goes for fashion: its future envisions something different from what the public expects. Fashion is now saturated with languages and quotations, so it has to turn to new and unpredictable figures.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: It seems like you are describing what you did after graduating from architecture school. It was clear that your Superarchitettura had different references than the traditional ones as you were inspired by pop art and those rock groups you mentioned.

ANDREA BRANZI: Certainly, and that still applies. Nothing is accomplished; everything is open to be revised in radical and profoundly different ways. I used the term ‘radical' in a book in which I describe the history of the movement, "Una generazione esagerata” [An exaggerated generation]. Our creativity was not controllable, and it is the same today. There is still so much empty space to invent new languages, colors, and forms.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: I am reminded of the first article in Domus in which Ettore Sottsass introduces the radical groups by describing the objects being made as "Trojan Horses" in our homes, as if they have the power to influence people's behavior.

ANDREA BRANZI: Yes, the idea was to make unpredictable objects, which can betray the classic expectation, surprising those who have them.

(Francesco shows Andrea some new drawings of naked women wearing what looks like thin strips of cloth)

You see, there is so much empty space to invent new images, and new thoughts. It is nothing gross. In fact, we could almost say it is sacred and ancient. Nudity is not something to be afraid of, but rather a place to imagine new elegance and new sacredness. Yesterday, I made these drawings … they surprised and fascinated me. They make me think of a new sacred fashion, not a vulgar one.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: Right now, you have an exhibition in New York, Contemporary DNA, at Friedman Benda Gallery. What is it about? What was the thinking behind this new exhibition?

ANDREA BRANZI: In this exhibition I show decorated bamboo canes, chairs, and maritime woods. The combination of these elements creates a completely unpredictable situation, which has nothing in common with serial production.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: It reminds me of one of your first works in the ‘80s, Animali Domestici.

ANDREA BRANZI: Animali Domestici was also done because Memphis and Studio Alchimia were at the end. They no longer had communication power. The idea of making objects, composed of tree trunks that joined together in ever changing ways, the idea of the diversified series, interested me a lot. I understood and interpreted what was previously just an idea. At first, I didn't really understand what I was doing. This was quite typical of my way of working, but also how other group members worked. We moved forward and then asked ourselves what we had done, and what it meant. I often create images that only then make sense. “Non-Stop City,” for example, was born by chance with my friends. We had no guiding idea. It was, rather, a philosophical thought about the continuous and unlimited extension of the urban territory.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: In the ‘70s you imagined the city as a flow of goods and information. It was a strongly anticipatory thought.

ANDREA BRANZI: Yes. When we started drawing, we didn't know what we were doing, yet all four of us knew we were doing something absolutely indispensable. We discussed, trying to interpret our drawings, and only then the idea of this city without architecture emerged, a city that never ends, without perimeter, which extends in thought, like a philosophical discovery. It is always very difficult to explain. This often happens to artists and painters though, doing things that you are not fully aware of.

FRANCESCA BALENA ARISTA: What importance do you attach to nature? You often include natural elements in your projects, following the idea of the diversified series, which seems to be for you an enrichment of the design world.

ANDREA BRANZI: Surely it is. I am not an environmentalist; I do not belong to the school of ecology. Of course, it must be noted that the industries continue to produce cars relentlessly. Perhaps we should do as in Japan and let them pass through the tunnels. There are many things to understand and I don't always understand what I do.

 
the four beds by archizoom

Archizoom Associati, The Four Beds,Institut d’art Contemporain Villeurbanne/Rhône Alpes in Lyon, 1967Courtesy Studio Branzi

 

Not Casa Orgánica: Javier Senosiain & Dakin Hart in Conversation

interview by Oliver Kupper
photographs by Olivia Lopez

Casa Orgánica is a romantic elegy to living in harmony with the natural world and natural forms. Built by Mexican architect Javier Senosiain Aguilar in 1985, the house is located in Naucalpan de Juarez, a stone’s throw from Mexico City. Senosiain’s architectural philosophy was to build a home that more closely resembled the habitats of animals and prehistoric humans: a cave, a womb, a snail’s shell, an igloo. Sinuous earth-tone tunnels lead to different living chambers, giving the feeling of entering the earth. From the exterior, the domicile is barely visible through layers of grass, trees, shrubs and flowers, which, by evopotranspiration, produce oxygen, reject pollution and filter dust and carbon dioxide creating a unique microclimate. The house and workof Senosiain was recently featured in a landmark exhibition at The Noguchi Museum, entitledIn Praise of Caves, which was organized by Ricardo Suárez Haro and curated by Dakin Hart. Alongside projects by Mexican architect Carlos Lazo, Mathias Goeritz, Juan O’Gorman, the exhibition was a metaphor for reexamining how we live on planet Earth.

OLIVER KUPPER: We should start with the connection between utopia and organicarchitecture.

DAKIN HART: One of the interesting things about organic architecture for me, is that tosome extent, it offers a path back to Eden. It suggests an entirely alternative family treeof development—of the idea of how we live on the planet—that could have departedfrom the one that we’ve ended up on very early in human history. So,it’s nice to thinkabout following it backwards the way that Javier does in his scholarship, and if you thinkabout utopia as an umbrella category for a way of living that we might recapture, onethat has different characteristics and a different value set, that seems really interestingto me.

JAVIER SENOSIAIN: In the case of organic architecture, I believe that utopia could be a reality.

OK: The exhibition catalog goes back to the original cave dwellings, which is the prehistoric idea of organic architecture.

DH: Every time modern architecture has tried to address the idea of utopia, it runs into such trouble because the version of abstraction that it leans on is mathematical. And that doesn’t really have to do with life, it has to do with a kind of purenotion of what lifecould be or should be. Maybe it’s fundamentally religious or spiritual too, which is also highly problematic, because it gives it this messianic quality. Organic architecture potentially offers a salve to that.

NATALIA SENOSIAIN: Modern architecture involves a lot of technology. When you think of sci-fi movies, it’s all about technology and not really about humans.

DH: Right. The closer we can get to stainless steel, the better everything will be is sort of the premise of modern, International Style, architecture. Javier, what kind of utopia do you think organic architecture could build in contrast to something like the Corbusian notion of utopia, which is total uniformity, total cleanliness, total purity.

JS: We are in a very difficult world situation now, mostly because of climate change, and to solve really big issues, we need big solutions. Corbusier used to say that the house is a “machine for living.” That statement doesn’t really apply anymore, it would be better if we thought of the house as the nature of living. Maybe going back to our origins can take us closer to utopia, even if it sounds weird.

OK: I’m curious about how the exhibition came to be, how it was curated based on Javier’s work, and why the Noguchi Museum?

DH: Ricardo Haro was thinking about this lineage of organic architecture that Javier has invested so much of his life and career in, in terms of scholarship and practice. And I think he just intuitively recognized that this group of artists could work really well at theNoguchi Museum. So, Ricardo just sent us an email out of the blue in 2018, and part of what we do with these exhibitions at the Noguchi Museum is we try to treat the museum like nature. We treat it like a park or a natural environment. So, we started trying to put together a structure that could work at the museum, and this was a perfect opportunityto show a different side of it. We're always trying to split the Noguchi beam into different aspects, or peel the onion. I had never even heard of the term ‘organic architecture’ before Ricardo wrote, and while it’s not an ‘ism’ that’s currently in art history textbooks, it may well be in the near future because there’s obviously a strong seedbed of interest, which our exhibition proved. I think it maybe the most popular show that we've done in the last ten years. The response to it was just extraordinary, and really worldwide too. It was exciting to have hundreds of young architects and architecture students coming to see the show. We don't know how exactly it's going to ripple out, but young architects want different solutions. They’re not satisfied with the status quo, and here is a serious body of work that's well rooted in history, and cultural traditions, and a landscape, andbuilding traditions, and it's still current. It's being taught and practiced by somebody incredibly inspiring. I think it has a real chance to offer an important counterpoint to what most people are learning in architecture school, and when they come out into their own practices or go to a big firm, they're still expected to do whatever it is they choose to do.

OK: Javier, when did you first start developing your scholarship around organic architecture?

JS: When I give a lecture, I start by showing the students a couple of projects I did whenI was at the university, which already had some resemblance to organic architecture. I was very lucky because I had Matías Goeritz as my teacher. At a school where all of the other teachers were very rigid, he was very abstract and he would let us do very free work. When I went to do my social service in a small village, I proposed a sports and cultural center with square shapes and then realized that I could start working with more freedom. That was when I started thinking about curves and realizing that curved spaces are far more human. I started doing research on the natural shape of a human being. This is one of the features of my architecture—the continuity and the space.When you walk through the space, you can see the continuity and the flow. So, organic architecture has a lot of that.

DH: The difference between that and someone like Frank Gehry, who's a contemporary of Javier’s, or Zaha Hadid, a generation behind, is that Javier’s architecture is organic from the inside out. It's based on organic models, and it's developed in a craft methodology that emphasizes the connection between the eyes, the hands and the brain. From the outside, those other structures look organic in that they’re not strictly quadratic anymore, but that's just an expression of technology. They demonstrate what modeling programs were gradually able to accomplish over time as they pushed the technology, but that form of abstraction isn’t anymore inherently organic than square buildings. Javier is starting from a completely different premise that isn't CAD models, or what a manufacturer can do. He’s using thousand-year-old technology to approach building as an expression of our innate, human instinct, as opposed to just putting the latest processor through its paces in coordination with modern manufacturing. I just read that article about the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, and all of its delays in LA. A lot of them have to do with the complexity of fabricating those fiber panels that cover the whole thing because every one of them is unique throughout the entire structure. It's one of those examples of trying to push beyond what modern manufacturing can do. It looks like a spaceship, or a fish, but it’s not really organic, even though it's not rectilinear.

OK: Casa Orgánica truly is a masterpiece example of contemporary organic architecture. Can we talk about that?

RICARDO SUÁREZ HARO: Natalia grew up in it, and it seems utopian when you visit it. I can only imagine the type of brain connections it forms to grow up in that house, as opposed to the one that I grew up in, which was a California tract house.

NS: It was my normalcy. But, when my friends used to come visit, I could see their reactions—the way they loved the house and instantly wanted to play and everything. Now that I'm grown up, I can see the impact that it has. My father always says that he wanted to create a more humane architecture, and now I believe that he accomplished it because all types of people want to go visit the house. You can be an engineer or a mathematician and still find it remarkable. But, I believe that I did grow up with a different mindset, just because of living in that house. Once, when my sister was in kindergarten, the assignment was to draw your house. So, she (laughs) just painted grass and round windows, and the teacher was confused. She called the school psychologist, and then the psychologist decided to talk to my mother, and my mother was like “Oh no, it's just that my husband is an architect and he does this really different type of architecture.” And the psychologist said, “Oh, maybe I should be speaking to your husband.” (laughs)

OK: So, where did the idea for the house come from? I've read so many different things about where the ideas came from around its shape.

JS: The idea was to take into account the physical aspects, environmental aspects, cultural aspects, and the necessities of the human being. It was part of an investigation in which I took all these aspects into account, while putting aside the very rigid aspects that are taught in university. The idea is sort of like a peanut, but in some interviews it has been misunderstood. I had the concept and the philosophy of the spaces that were needed to live, and there are two spaces: one is the day space, which is much more social, and then the night space, which is more intimate. The zoning was like a peanut because there were two spaces, but it was sort of shapeless. We adapted that peanut into the shape of the house, taking into account the topography of the land, and there was a big eucalyptus tree that was in the middle, so the house surrounded the tree.There was a lot of stone on that land, so originally the idea was that the walls were made out of stone, and the roof was made out of wood, but I didn’t like it because there was no continuity in the material. That’s when I came up with this constructive method of ferrocement. It’s a very noble constructive system that can allow you to buildpractically any shape and respect that continuity.

DH: Javier gave this beautiful talk at the opening of the exhibition about the CasaOrgánica and the way that once we leave the womb, we end up living and dying in aseries of boxes. If you think about it, it's a form of torture, to go from the womb into a shipping container. And that’s essentially what modern architecture is; just a series of hard, square spaces. The whole philosophy of organic architecture offers an alternative to that regime, and that's where the humanity comes from. The Casa Orgánica is a nest.It's the most enveloping and natural form. When I walked through, I couldn’t help thinking about what it would have been like to grow up in those bedrooms, the way that using the faucet is like starting and stopping a stream. It really is like living in a forest glen. It's the ultimate fort. All kids try to achieve that by building forts out of pillows and blankets, but at seven you don't have the resources to do what Javier accomplished with the Casa Orgánica. It’s the most sophisticated version of what we all want as children.

OK: So, how do we protect organic architecture, especially when we're so obsessedwith putting people in these boxes? Of course, the Casa Cueva [built by JuanO’Gorman] was tragically ruined, but also, how do we cement its importance in thehistory books and in scholarship?

JS: I believe they're very isolated examples of organic architecture. O’Gorman's house and Carlos Lazo's house were made in the ‘50s. Now, with the climate crisis and with people being much more conscious about the planet, these houses could be more affordable than regular housing. They're also much more resilient in certain climates, and in response to natural disasters, like earthquakes. So, they could possibly become more commercial in the way that they're built.

NS: When I lived in the Casa Orgánica, I remember my friends really enjoying the house and telling their parents, “Can we live in a house like this, please!” And the parents would be like “Okay, yeah, it's interesting, but I would never live in a place like this.” I believe that the generations are changing, so people will look more for these types of experiences.

RH: What’s interesting about exhibiting organic architecture in museums is that inatypical painting exhibition, the audience is passive, and they only contemplate whateverthey're looking at. But when you see these kinds of shows, you realize that we can all be active players in our own homes. Just moving the furniture from one side toanother,you can see if you feel better, if you gain more natural light, if it makes more sense. Wecan start interacting and see how we feel, and that's something very organic as well.

DH: That's really what Noguchi's work is about—empirical intelligence—trying to train us to think better through our bodies, to think better physically. We've all been taught that the use of language is the highest expression of intelligence, but it's just one expression of intelligence. There are many others, and we would all be better served if we had more empirical literacy. The neat thing about organic architecture is that it's one discipline for doing that, and if you live with it, it formats your brain differently. You have different expectations, which leaves you open to different solutions. The NoguchiMuseum is trying to do just that; to open up a universe of other solutions. And organic architecture is an extraordinary example of that, one that's incredibly important to society.

Casa Orgánica: Javier Senosiain & Dakin Hart in Conversation


in conversation with curator Dakin Hart
interview by Oliver Kupper
photography by Olivia Lopez

Casa Orgánica is a romantic elegy to living in harmony with the natural world and natural forms. Built by Mexican architect Javier Senosiain Aguilar in 1985, the house is located in Naucalpan de Juarez, a stone’s throw from Mexico City. Senosiain’s architectural philosophy was to build a home that more closely resembled the habitats of animals and prehistoric humans: a cave, a womb, a snail’s shell, an igloo. Sinuous earth-tone tunnels lead to different living chambers, giving the feeling of entering the earth. From the exterior, the domicile is barely visible through layers of grass, trees, shrubs and flowers, which, by evopotranspiration, produce oxygen, reject pollution and filter dust and carbon dioxide creating a unique microclimate. The house and work of Senosiain was recently featured in a landmark exhibition at The Noguchi Museum, entitled In Praise of Caves, which was organized by Ricardo Suárez Haro and curated by Dakin Hart. Alongside projects by Mexican architect Carlos Lazo, Mathias Goeritz, Juan O’Gorman, the exhibition was a metaphor for reexamining how we live on planet Earth.  

OLIVER KUPPER: We should start with the connection between utopia and organic architecture.  

DAKIN HART: One of the interesting things about organic architecture for me, is that to some extent, it offers a path back to Eden. It suggests an entirely alternative family tree of development—of the idea of how we live on the planet—that could have departed from the one that we’ve ended up on very early in human history. So, it’s nice to think about following it backwards the way that Javier does in his scholarship, and if you think about utopia as an umbrella category for a way of living that we might recapture, one that has different characteristics and a different value set, that seems really interesting to me. 

JAVIER SENOSIAIN: In the case of organic architecture, I believe that utopia could be a reality. 

OK: The exhibition catalog goes back to the original cave dwellings, which is the prehistoric idea of organic architecture. 

DH: Every time modern architecture has tried to address the idea of utopia, it runs into such trouble because the version of abstraction that it leans on is mathematical. And that doesn’t really have to do with life, it has to do with a kind of pure notion of what life could be or should be. Maybe it’s fundamentally religious or spiritual too, which is also highly problematic, because it gives it this messianic quality. Organic architecture potentially offers a salve to that. 

NATALIA SENOSIAIN: Modern architecture involves a lot of technology. When you think of sci-fi movies, it’s all about technology and not really about humans. 

DH: Right. The closer we can get to stainless steel, the better everything will be is sort of the premise of modern, International Style, architecture. Javier, what kind of utopia do you think organic architecture could build in contrast to something like the Corbusian notion of utopia, which is total uniformity, total cleanliness, total purity. 

JS: We are in a very difficult world situation now, mostly because of climate change, and to solve really big issues, we need big solutions. Corbusier used to say that the house is a “machine for living.” That statement doesn’t really apply anymore, it would be better if we thought of the house as the nature of living. Maybe going back to our origins can take us closer to utopia, even if it sounds weird.  

OK: I’m curious about how the exhibition came to be, how it was curated based on Javier’s work, and why the Noguchi Museum? 

DH: Ricardo Haro was thinking about this lineage of organic architecture that Javier has invested so much of his life and career in, in terms of scholarship and practice. And I think he just intuitively recognized that this group of artists could work really well at the Noguchi Museum. So, Ricardo just sent us an email out of the blue in 2018, and part of what we do with these exhibitions at the Noguchi Museum is we try to treat the museum like nature. We treat it like a park or a natural environment. So, we started trying to put together a structure that could work at the museum, and this was a perfect opportunity to show a different side of it. We're always trying to split the Noguchi beam into different aspects, or peel the onion. I had never even heard of the term ‘organic architecture’ before Ricardo wrote, and while it’s not an ‘ism’ that’s currently in art history textbooks, it may well be in the near future because there’s obviously a strong seedbed of interest, which our exhibition proved. I think it may be the most popular show that we've done in the last ten years. The response to it was just extraordinary, and really worldwide too. It was exciting to have hundreds of young architects and architecture students coming to see the show. We don't know how exactly it's going to ripple out, but young architects want different solutions. They’re not satisfied with the status quo, and here is a serious body of work that's well rooted in history, and cultural traditions, and a landscape, and building traditions, and it's still current. It's being taught and practiced by somebody incredibly inspiring. I think it has a real chance to offer an important counterpoint to what most people are learning in architecture school, and when they come out into their own practices or go to a big firm, they're still expected to do whatever it is they choose to do. 

OK: Javier, when did you first start developing your scholarship around organic architecture? 

JS: When I give a lecture, I start by showing the students a couple of projects I did when I was at the university, which already had some resemblance to organic architecture. I was very lucky because I had Matías Goeritz as my teacher. At a school where all of the other teachers were very rigid, he was very abstract and he would let us do very free work. When I went to do my social service in a small village, I proposed a sports and cultural center with square shapes and then realized that I could start working with more freedom. That was when I started thinking about curves and realizing that curved spaces are far more human. I started doing research on the natural shape of a human being. This is one of the features of my architecture—the continuity and the space. When you walk through the space, you can see the continuity and the flow. So, organic architecture has a lot of that. 

DH: The difference between that and someone like Frank Gehry, who's a contemporary of Javier’s, or Zaha Hadid, a generation behind, is that Javier’s architecture is organic from the inside out. It's based on organic models, and it's developed in a craft methodology that emphasizes the connection between the eyes, the hands and the brain. From the outside, those other structures look organic in that they’re not strictly quadratic anymore, but that's just an expression of technology. They demonstrate what modeling programs were gradually able to accomplish over time as they pushed the technology, but that form of abstraction isn’t any more inherently organic than square buildings. Javier is starting from a completely different premise that isn't CAD models, or what a manufacturer can do. He’s using thousand-year-old technology to approach building as an expression of our innate, human instinct, as opposed to just putting the latest processor through its paces in coordination with modern manufacturing. I just read that article about the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, and all of its delays in LA. A lot of them have to do with the complexity of fabricating those fiber panels that cover the whole thing because every one of them is unique throughout the entire structure. It's one of those examples of trying to push beyond what modern manufacturing can do. It looks like a spaceship, or a fish, but it’s not really organic, even though it's not rectilinear.  

 
 

OK: Casa Orgánica truly is a masterpiece example of contemporary organic architecture. Can we talk about that? 

RICARDO SUÁREZ HARO: Natalia grew up in it, and it seems utopian when you visit it. I can only imagine the type of brain connections it forms to grow up in that house, as opposed to the one that I grew up in, which was a California tract house. 

NS: It was my normalcy. But, when my friends used to come visit, I could see their reactions—the way they loved the house and instantly wanted to play and everything. Now that I'm grown up, I can see the impact that it has. My father always says that he wanted to create a more humane architecture, and now I believe that he accomplished it because all types of people want to go visit the house. You can be an engineer or a mathematician and still find it remarkable. But, I believe that I did grow up with a different mindset, just because of living in that house. Once, when my sister was in kindergarten, the assignment was to draw your house. So, she (laughs) just painted grass and round windows, and the teacher was confused. She called the school psychologist, and then the psychologist decided to talk to my mother, and my mother was like “Oh no, it's just that my husband is an architect and he does this really different type of architecture.” And the psychologist said, “Oh, maybe I should be speaking to your husband.” (laughs) 

OK: So, where did the idea for the house come from? I've read so many different things about where the ideas came from around its shape. 

JS: The idea was to take into account the physical aspects, environmental aspects, cultural aspects, and the necessities of the human being. It was part of an investigation in which I took all these aspects into account, while putting aside the very rigid aspects that are taught in university. The idea is sort of like a peanut, but in some interviews it has been misunderstood. I had the concept and the philosophy of the spaces that were needed to live, and there are two spaces: one is the day space, which is much more social, and then the night space, which is more intimate. The zoning was like a peanut because there were two spaces, but it was sort of shapeless. We adapted that peanut into the shape of the house, taking into account the topography of the land, and there was a big eucalyptus tree that was in the middle, so the house surrounded the tree. There was a lot of stone on that land, so originally the idea was that the walls were made out of stone, and the roof was made out of wood, but I didn’t like it because there was no continuity in the material. That’s when I came up with this constructive method of ferrocement. It’s a very noble constructive system that can allow you to build practically any shape and respect that continuity. 

DH: Javier gave this beautiful talk at the opening of the exhibition about the Casa Orgánica and the way that once we leave the womb, we end up living and dying in a series of boxes. If you think about it, it's a form of torture, to go from the womb into a shipping container. And that’s essentially what modern architecture is; just a series of hard, square spaces. The whole philosophy of organic architecture offers an alternative to that regime, and that's where the humanity comes from. The Casa Orgánica is a nest. It's the most enveloping and natural form. When I walked through, I couldn’t help thinking about what it would have been like to grow up in those bedrooms, the way that using the faucet is like starting and stopping a stream. It really is like living in a forest glen. It's the ultimate fort. All kids try to achieve that by building forts out of pillows and blankets, but at seven you don't have the resources to do what Javier accomplished with the Casa Orgánica. It’s the most sophisticated version of what we all want as children. 

OK: So, how do we protect organic architecture, especially when we're so obsessed with putting people in these boxes? Of course, the Casa Cueva [built by Juan O’Gorman] was tragically ruined, but also, how do we cement its importance in the history books and in scholarship? 

JS: I believe they're very isolated examples of organic architecture. O’Gorman's house and Carlos Lazo's house were made in the ‘50s. Now, with the climate crisis and with people being much more conscious about the planet, these houses could be more affordable than regular housing. They're also much more resilient in certain climates, and in response to natural disasters, like earthquakes. So, they could possibly become more commercial in the way that they're built. 

NS: When I lived in the Casa Orgánica, I remember my friends really enjoying the house and telling their parents, “Can we live in a house like this, please!” And the parents would be like “Okay, yeah, it's interesting, but I would never live in a place like this.” I believe that the generations are changing, so people will look more for these types of experiences. 

RH: What’s interesting about exhibiting organic architecture in museums is that in a typical painting exhibition, the audience is passive, and they only contemplate whatever they're looking at. But when you see these kinds of shows, you realize that we can all be active players in our own homes. Just moving the furniture from one side to another, you can see if you feel better, if you gain more natural light, if it makes more sense. We can start interacting and see how we feel, and that's something very organic as well. 

DH: That's really what Noguchi's work is about—empirical intelligence—trying to train us to think better through our bodies, to think better physically. We've all been taught that the use of language is the highest expression of intelligence, but it's just one expression of intelligence. There are many others, and we would all be better served if we had more empirical literacy. The neat thing about organic architecture is that it's one discipline for doing that, and if you live with it, it formats your brain differently. You have different expectations, which leaves you open to different solutions. The Noguchi Museum is trying to do just that; to open up a universe of other solutions. And organic architecture is an extraordinary example of that, one that's incredibly important to society.