This is the first part of the documentary in English: "What I love is the opportunity to testify. A city, in effect is that which is born from the aggregation and formidable architecture and appreciated as the previous generation. A historic town is remarkable because in it there is a layering of architecture that are expressions of techniques and culture of that specific time and all, this has created buildings that do not resemble for nothing, that evolve. The twentieth century has been a real explosion in some ways a bit dangerous, it can be easily recognized. But every time it is important to draw conclusions by showing what remains of the culture, desires, will, which have driven the men of a certain historical moment. One of the main problems of an architect today is to learn about the way a building can acquire an environment that often has been sabotaged. Why sabotaged? Because nowadays most of the big cities on the planet are governed by the same rules that are to respond to constraints previous technical related to streets, highways, roads, power grids, infrastructure. And everything that is part of an order is not sensitive longer exists. Then this is completed through a zoning imposes models of density equal for all sectors, a kind of geographic paper. For this reason, each architectural element becomes unreadable and does not have a positive context. I think you should totally change this trend, I think we should get to create - and an antinomy in terms - sensitive rules. Youshould begin to take an interest in the place where you are located in, its topography, its flora, to all geographic and climatic parameters. You should first become interested in architecture and, from these, give a number of provisions related to taxation or colors, materials, green. Examples are the Salle des Gabares, I study forms of custom made, such as those of a hull, which return a different kind of a priority search. The day you arrive in this approach, perhaps you will come to transform all the matter that was built during the twentieth century and, it must be said, often catastrophic. Because there is no more distinction, there is no more quality of detail, there's the ability to read in the sand. There is no longer a strategy. The only strategy was economic-technical. We need to return to the humanistic principles. We must get to live properly, with very more pleasure and hedonism in the different places that are created. If my architecture is unleashing a certain sensuality, I would be very much satisfied. It's true, I always try to keep a relationship between the size of seduction, and the mystery. All architecture should try to do this, because if you undersrtand it in all 15 seconds, then you would lose interest. Every place of ambulation, every detail must be the occasion for a little surprise and every discovery must be kept a bit of a secret. I often say that the projects are like car racing, such as the 24 Hours of Les Mans. There will square the same way if you had a 3 litre or 12cm. Depending on the number of horse-power. Every time you try to do everything possible in a given situation, we try to do our best. Context and that, too, will consist namely in trying to bring out the most of every situation."
The part about "jean nouvel": "It is often said of me that I am an idealist. Ideally maybe there, but I escape. I simply want to witness an era through each of my architectural work. Witnessing an attitude in a precise historical moment. And in a well-defined place. This is an attitude that I inherited from an old phobia of the School of Fine Arts where you were in projects that were not even in context, did not know their location. we remained in an ecstatic international style. Today nothing has changed because we are faced with global architecture in which buildings are manufactured to the exact same fees as if they were cloned. And what I try, every time, is the missing piece. A site exists, and built isnatural environment. I wonder what could be built in that place to give direction to the whole? If you came up with something to construct with meaning and at the same time with sensitivity. It turns out so, more and more, that there is only one form of intelligence. The intelligence quotient that has recently been corrected through Q.E., the emotional quotient. Not only because you are intelligent and understand things but also because of the feels. I believe that everything that is included in the order of affections is as important as what part the order of the intellect. It is absolutely essential for an architect to relate the two. You could not create architecture based solely on the sensitivity perception, forgetting the meaning of construction, the situation of the economy. I believe that the architecture we require to take account of the two sides of the coin: the two dimensions involved in the act of design and at the same time an intellectual and emotional act. I personally believe in emotional architecture. I believe in architecture that takes into account the pleasure of those who will live in, those who visit the ache only a time and those who see it in their city. I'm not the type of person who is interested in intuition. I rather need to find my plans to reality, for what is around me to look good and to analyze well then begin to imagine through a series of data also very practical. Because the architecture is completely pragmatic art. If you ask what is the social function behind something and the first thing that you request is to respond to this entity, I always start with asking myself a question: What could I give in more through my work? Sometimes even if you don't make it account. Maybe a small gift, some small feeling that at the beginning I am not that interested or some aesthete of passage. To end, I believe that the architecture exists in these conditions, i.e. in the case in which we have the opportunity to exclusively reply to their pragmatism and at the same time make them feel different. What is clear, I am a hedonist. I'm not going to hide it. I love pleasures of life and the pleasures of palatom, which are actually very important for me. And this comes from a root culture. I come from south-west where all the important things are born around the table. I can usually eliminate a large portion of the weight of things and the stress, working conditions being hedonistic. I often work with my team around a table and the meetings last ... you can eat, drink and discuss. I also believe a lot in meetings and reflection of the group, often surrounded by people that I recommend and that work with me: everyone can speak. At the end I try to pull the sums. I do not have a general opinion on humanity. You can not love the specificity and at the same time say 'I love men or do not love, I am a philanthropist or are a misanthrope.' I'drather have a clear opinion about each person or at least try to create one. This view is linked to the encounter and knowledge of the attitude of people. For me, all the people I meet are, before, a chance, an opportunity to discover something new. The palaces and cities are like people. I encounter, complex personalites and what we must love are the differences that each person contains, without trying to classify them. "
This is the first part of the documentary in English:
"What I love is the opportunity to testify. A city, in effect
is that which is born from the aggregation and formidable architecture
and appreciated as the previous generation. A historic town is
remarkable because in it there is a layering of architecture that are
expressions of techniques and culture of that specific
time and all, this has created buildings that do not resemble
for nothing, that evolve.
The twentieth century has been a real explosion in some ways a bit
dangerous, it can be easily recognized. But every time it is important to
draw conclusions by showing what remains of the culture, desires, will,
which have driven the men of a certain historical moment. One of the
main problems of an architect today is to learn about the way a building
can acquire an environment that often has been sabotaged. Why
sabotaged? Because nowadays most of the big cities on the planet are
governed by the same rules that are to respond to constraints
previous technical related to streets, highways, roads, power grids,
infrastructure.
And everything that is part of an order is not sensitive longer exists.
Then this is completed through a zoning imposes models of density
equal for all sectors, a kind of geographic paper. For this reason, each
architectural element becomes unreadable and does not have a
positive context. I think you should totally change this trend, I think we
should get to create - and an antinomy in terms - sensitive rules.
Youshould begin to take an interest in the place where you are located
in, its topography, its flora, to all geographic and climatic parameters.
You should first become interested in architecture and, from
these, give a number of provisions related to taxation or
colors, materials, green.
Examples are the Salle des Gabares, I study forms of custom made, such
as those of a hull, which return a different kind of a priority search. The
day you arrive in this approach, perhaps you will come to transform all
the matter that was built during the twentieth century and, it must be
said, often catastrophic. Because there is no more distinction, there is
no more quality of detail, there's the ability to read in the sand. There is
no longer a strategy. The only strategy was economic-technical. We
need to return to the humanistic principles. We must get to live
properly, with very more pleasure and hedonism in the different places
that are created. If my architecture is unleashing a certain sensuality, I
would be very much satisfied. It's true, I always try to keep a
relationship between the size of seduction, and the mystery.
All architecture should try to do this, because if you undersrtand it in all
15 seconds, then you would lose interest. Every place of ambulation,
every detail must be the occasion for a little surprise and every
discovery must be kept a bit of a secret. I often say that the
projects are like car racing, such as the 24 Hours of Les
Mans. There will square the same way if you had a 3 litre or 12cm.
Depending on the number of horse-power. Every time you try to do
everything possible in a given situation, we try to do our best. Context
and that, too, will consist namely in trying to bring out the most of
every situation."
The part about "jean nouvel":
"It is often said of me that I am an idealist. Ideally maybe there, but I
escape. I simply want to witness an era through each of my
architectural work. Witnessing an attitude in a precise historical
moment. And in a well-defined place. This is an attitude that I inherited
from an old phobia of the School of Fine Arts where you were in
projects that were not even in context, did not know their location. we
remained in an ecstatic international style. Today nothing has changed
because we are faced with global architecture in which buildings are
manufactured to the exact same fees as if they were cloned. And
what I try, every time, is the missing piece. A site exists, and built
isnatural environment.
I wonder what could be built in that place to give direction to the
whole? If you came up with something to construct with meaning and
at the same time with sensitivity. It turns out so, more and more, that
there is only one form of intelligence. The intelligence quotient that has
recently been corrected through Q.E., the emotional quotient. Not only
because you are intelligent and understand things but also because of
the feels. I believe that everything that is included in the order of
affections is as important as what part the order of the intellect. It is
absolutely essential for an architect to relate the two. You could not
create architecture based solely on the sensitivity perception, forgetting
the meaning of construction, the situation of the economy. I believe
that the architecture we require to take account of the two sides of the
coin: the two dimensions involved in the act of design and at the same
time an intellectual and emotional act. I personally believe in emotional
architecture.
I believe in architecture that takes into account the pleasure of those
who will live in, those who visit the ache only a time and those who see
it in their city. I'm not the type of person who is interested in intuition. I
rather need to find my plans to reality, for what is around me to look
good and to analyze well then begin to imagine through a series of data
also very practical. Because the architecture is completely pragmatic art.
If you ask what is the social function behind something and the first
thing that you request is to respond to this entity, I always start with
asking myself a question: What could I give in more through my work?
Sometimes even if you don't make it account. Maybe a small gift, some
small feeling that at the beginning I am not that interested or some
aesthete of passage. To end, I believe that the architecture exists in
these conditions, i.e. in the case in which we have the opportunity to
exclusively reply to their pragmatism and at the same time make them
feel different. What is clear, I am a hedonist. I'm not going to hide it. I
love pleasures of life and the pleasures of palatom, which are actually
very important for me. And this comes from a root culture. I come from
south-west where all the important things are born around the table. I
can usually eliminate a large portion of the weight of things and the
stress, working conditions being hedonistic. I often work with my team
around a table and the meetings last ... you can eat, drink and discuss. I
also believe a lot in meetings and reflection of the group, often
surrounded by people that I recommend and that work with me:
everyone can speak.
At the end I try to pull the sums. I do not have a general opinion on
humanity. You can not love the specificity and at the same time say 'I
love men or do not love, I am a philanthropist or are a misanthrope.'
I'drather have a clear opinion about each person or at least try to create
one. This view is linked to the encounter and knowledge of the attitude
of people. For me, all the people I meet are, before, a chance, an
opportunity to discover something new. The palaces and cities are like
people. I encounter, complex personalites and what we must love are
the differences that each person contains, without trying to classify
them. "
I'm sorry, but I dont have the eng subtitles and no time to write it. :(
Link to English?
Please... English......
english please?