I'll start with my favorite muse, Emily Dickinson, who said that wonder is not knowledge, neither is it ignorance. It's something which is suspended between what we believe we can be, and a tradition we may have forgotten. And I think, when I listen to these incredible people here, I've been so inspired -- so many incredible ideas, so many visions. And yet, when I look at the environment outside, you see how resistant architecture is to change. You see how resistant it is to those very ideas. We can think them out. We can create incredible things. And yet, at the end, it's so hard to change a wall. We applaud the well-mannered box. But to create a space that never existed is what interests me; to create something that has never been, a space that we have never entered except in our minds and our spirits. And I think that's really what architecture is based on.
Počeću sa svojom omiljenom muzom, Emili Dikinson, koja je rekla da čudo nije znanje, niti je to neznanje. To je nešto što visi između onog što verujemo da možemo da budemo i tradicije koju smo možda zaboravili. I mislim, kad slušam ove neverovatne ljude ovde, toliko sam inspirisan - tako mnogo neverovatnih ideja, tako mnogo vizija. A ipak, kad pogledate okolinu napolju, vidite koliko je arhitektura otporna na promenu. Vidite kako je otporna na baš te ideje. Možemo da ih smislimo. Možemo da kreiramo neverovatne stvari. A ipak, na kraju je tako teško promeniti zid. Mi podržavamo finu kutiju. Ali mene zanima da stvorim prostor koji nikad nije postojao, da napravim nešto što nikad nije bilo, prostor u koji nikad nismo ušli osim u našoj mašti i duhu. I mislim da je to ono na čemu se zasniva arhitektura.
Architecture is not based on concrete and steel and the elements of the soil. It's based on wonder. And that wonder is really what has created the greatest cities, the greatest spaces that we have had. And I think that is indeed what architecture is. It is a story. By the way, it is a story that is told through its hard materials. But it is a story of effort and struggle against improbabilities. If you think of the great buildings, of the cathedrals, of the temples, of the pyramids, of pagodas, of cities in India and beyond, you think of how incredible this is that that was realized not by some abstract idea, but by people.
Arhitektura nije zasnovana na betonu i čeliku i elementima iz zemlje. Ona se zasniva na čudu. I to čudo je ono što je stvorilo najveće gradove, najveće prostore koje imamo. I mislim da je to u stvari ono što je arhitektura. To je priča. Priča koja je ispričana kroz njene materijale. Ali to je priča o trudu i borbi protiv nepredviđenih stvari. Ako razmišljate o velikim građevinama, katedralama, hramovima, piramidama, pagodama, o gradovima u Indiji i tako dalje, razmišljate kako je neverovatno da ovo nije ostvarila neka apstraktna ideja, već ljudi.
So, anything that has been made can be unmade. Anything that has been made can be made better. There it is: the things that I really believe are of important architecture. These are the dimensions that I like to work with. It's something very personal. It's not, perhaps, the dimensions appreciated by art critics or architecture critics or city planners. But I think these are the necessary oxygen for us to live in buildings, to live in cities, to connect ourselves in a social space.
Sve što je napravljeno može da se sruši. Sve što je napravljeno može da se poboljša. Eto ga: stvari u koje stvarno verujem se tiču važne arhitekture. Ovo su dimenzije sa kojima bih želeo da radim. To je nešto vrlo lično. To nisu možda dimenzije prihvaćene od kritičara umetnosti ili arhitektonskih kritičara ili onih koji planiraju grad. Ali ja mislim da su one onaj neophodan kiseonik za nas, da bismo živeli u zgradama, u gradovima, da nas poveže sa društvenim prostorom.
And I therefore believe that optimism is what drives architecture forward. It's the only profession where you have to believe in the future. You can be a general, a politician, an economist who is depressed, a musician in a minor key, a painter in dark colors. But architecture is that complete ecstasy that the future can be better. And it is that belief that I think drives society.
I zato verujem da je optimizam ono što gura arhitekturu napred. To je jedina profesija gde morate da verujete u budućnost. Možete biti general, političar, ekonomista koji je depresivan, muzičar u molu, slikar u tamnim bojama. Ali arhitektura je potpuna ekstaza u vezi sa mogućnošću da budućnost bude bolja. I mislim da je to ta vera koja gura društvo napred.
And today we have a kind of evangelical pessimism all around us. And yet it is in times like this that I think architecture can thrive with big ideas, ideas that are not small. Think of the great cities. Think of the Empire State Building, the Rockefeller Center. They were built in times that were not really the best of times in a certain way. And yet that energy and power of architecture has driven an entire social and political space that these buildings occupy.
A danas imamo jevanđeljski pesimizam svuda oko nas. Pa ipak u vremenu kao što je ovo, mislim da arhitektura može da napreduje se velikim idejama, idejama koje nisu male. Pomislite na velike gradove. Pomislite na Empajer stejt bilding, Rokfeler centar. One su izgrađene u vremenima koja nisu bila baš najbolja na neki način. Pa ipak ta energija i moć arhitekture je pokrenula čitav socijalni i politički prostor koje ove zgrade zauzimaju.
So again, I am a believer in the expressive. I have never been a fan of the neutral. I don't like neutrality in life, in anything. I think expression. And it's like espresso coffee, you know, you take the essence of the coffee. That's what expression is. It's been missing in much of the architecture, because we think architecture is the realm of the neutered, the realm of the kind of a state that has no opinion, that has no value. And yet, I believe it is the expression -- expression of the city, expression of our own space -- that gives meaning to architecture.
Ja verujem u ekspresivno. Nisam nikad bio ljubitelj neutralnog. Ne volim neutralnost u životu, u bilo čemu. Razmišljam ekspresivno. I to je kao espreso kafa - uzimate suštinu kafe. To je ono što je ekspresija. Ona nedostaje u većini arhitekture jer mislimo da je arhitektura kraljevstvo kastriranih, kraljevstvo one vrste države koja nema mišljenje, koja nema vrednost. I ipak, verujem da je ekspresija - ekspresija grada, ekspresija našeg ličnog prostora ono što daje smisao arhitekturi.
And, of course, expressive spaces are not mute. Expressive spaces are not spaces that simply confirm what we already know. Expressive spaces may disturb us. And I think that's also part of life. Life is not just an anesthetic to make us smile, but to reach out across the abyss of history, to places we have never been, and would have perhaps been, had we not been so lucky.
i naravno, ekspresivni prostori nisu nemi. Ekspresivni prostori nisu prostori koji jednostavno potvrđuju ono što već znamo. Ekspresivni prostori mogu da nas uznemire. I mislim da je to takođe deo života. Život nije samo anestetik da bi učinio da budemo nasmejani, nego da posegnemo preko ambisa istorije, do mesta gde nikad nismo bili i gde možda ne bismo bili da nismo imali toliko sreće.
So again, radical versus conservative. Radical, what does it mean? It's something which is rooted, and something which is rooted deep in a tradition. And I think that is what architecture is, it's radical. It's not just a conservation in formaldehyde of dead forms. It is actually a living connection to the cosmic event that we are part of, and a story that is certainly ongoing. It's not something that has a good ending or a bad ending. It's actually a story in which our acts themselves are pushing the story in a particular way.
Dakle, radikalno protiv konzervativnog. Radikalno, šta to znači? To je nešto što je ukorenjeno i nešto što je ukorenjeno duboko u tradiciji. I mislim da je to ono što je arhitektura, radikalna. To nije samo čuvanje mrtvih formi u formaldehidu. To je u stvari živa veza sa kosmičkim događajem čiji smo deo i priča koja je sigurno u toku. Nije nešto što ima dobar kraj ili loš kraj. To je u stvari priča u kojoj naša dela guraju priču u određenom pravcu.
So again I am a believer in the radical architecture. You know the Soviet architecture of that building is the conservation. It's like the old Las Vegas used to be. It's about conserving emotions, conserving the traditions that have obstructed the mind in moving forward and of course what is radical is to confront them. And I think our architecture is a confrontation with our own senses. Therefore I believe it should not be cool.
I ja verujem u radikalnu arhitekturu. Znate da je sovjetska arhitektura ove zgrade konzervacija. Kao što je bio stari Las Vegas. Želi da konzervira emocije, konzervira tradicije koje su smetale umu da ide napred i naravno ono što je radikalno je da im se suprotstavi. I ja mislim da je naša arhitektura sukob sa našim sopstvenim čulima. Zbog toga mislim da ne bi trebalo da bude "kul".
There is a lot of appreciation for the kind of cool architecture. I've always been an opponent of it. I think emotion is needed. Life without emotion would really not be life. Even the mind is emotional. There is no reason which does not take a position in the ethical sphere, in the philosophical mystery of what we are. So I think emotion is a dimension that is important to introduce into city space, into city life.
Mnogo se ceni "kul" arhitektura. Oduvek sam bio protivnik toga. Mislim da je emocija potrebna. Život bez emocije ne bi bio život. Čak je i um osećajan. Ne postoji razlog koji se ne nalazi u moralnom području, u filozofskoj misteriji o tome ko smo. Mislim da je emocija dimenzija koju je važno uvesti u gradski prostor, u gradski život.
And of course, we are all about the struggle of emotions. And I think that is what makes the world a wondrous place. And of course, the confrontation of the cool, the unemotional with emotion, is a conversation that I think cities themselves have fostered. I think that is the progress of cities. It's not only the forms of cities, but the fact that they incarnate emotions, not just of those who build them, but of those who live there as well.
I naravno, mi smo stalno u borbi sa osećanjima. I mislim da je to ono što čini svet čudesnim mestom. I naravno, sukob kul, neosećajnog sa osećajem je konverzacija koju su, ja mislim, sami gradovi podstakli. Mislim da je to napredak gradova. Nije samo oblik gradova nego činjenica da oni oličavaju osećanja ne samo onih koji ih grade, nego i onih koji tamo žive.
Inexplicable versus understood. You know, too often we want to understand everything. But architecture is not the language of words. It's a language. But it is not a language that can be reduced to a series of programmatic notes that we can verbally write. Too many buildings that you see outside that are so banal tell you a story, but the story is very short, which says, "We have no story to tell you." (Laughter)
Neobjašnjivo protiv razumljivog. Često hoćemo sve da razumemo. Ali arhitektura nije jezik reči. To je jezik. Ali nije jezik koji može da se svede na nizove programskih beleški koje možemo verbalno da napišemo. Previše zgrada koje vidite su tako banalne, pričaju vam priču ali je ona veoma kratka i kaže: "Mi nemamo nikakvu priču." (Smeh)
So the important thing actually, is to introduce the actual architectural dimensions, which might be totally inexplicable in words, because they operate in proportions, in materials, in light. They connect themselves into various sources, into a kind of complex vector matrix that isn't really frontal but is really embedded in the lives, and in the history of a city, and of a people. So again, the notion that a building should just be explicit I think is a false notion, which has reduced architecture into banality.
Važno je u stvari da uvedemo aktuelne arhitektonske dimenzije, koje su možda potpuno neobjašnjive rečima, jer barataju proporcijama, materijalima, svetlom. Uključuju sebe u različite izvore, u neku vrstu složene vektorske matrice koja nije spolja nego je u stvari umetnuta u živote i u istoriju grada i ljudi. Mišljenje da zgrada treba da bude samo jasna, mislim da je pogrešno mišljenje koje je svelo arhitekturu na banalnost.
Hand versus the computer. Of course, what would we be without computers? Our whole practice depends on computing. But the computer should not just be the glove of the hand; the hand should really be the driver of the computing power. Because I believe that the hand in all its primitive, in all its physiological obscurity, has a source, though the source is unknown, though we don't have to be mystical about it. We realize that the hand has been given us by forces that are beyond our own autonomy. And I think when I draw drawings which may imitate the computer, but are not computer drawings -- drawings that can come from sources that are completely not known, not normal, not seen, yet the hand -- and that's what I really, to all of you who are working -- how can we make the computer respond to our hand rather than the hand responding to the computer.
Ruka protiv kompjutera. Naravno, šta bi bilo bez kompjutera? Naša čitava praksa zavisi od kompjutera. Ali kompjuter ne treba da bude rukavica na ruci; ruka treba da bude pokretač kompjuterske moći. Jer verujem da ruka, u celoj svojoj primitivnoj, fiziološkoj tami, ima izvor, iako je izvor nepoznat, iako ne treba da budemo mistični u vezi sa tim. Shvatamo da su nam ruku dale sile koje su izvan naše autonomije. I ja mislim kad crtam crteže koji mogu da imitiraju kompjuter ali nisu kompjuterski crteži - crteži koji dolaze iz izvora koji su kompletno nepoznati, nenormalni, neviđeni, a ipak ručni - i zbog toga ja stvarno, svima vama koji radite - kako možemo da napravimo da kompjuter reaguje na našu ruku umesto da ruka reaguje na kompjuter.
I think that's part of what the complexity of architecture is. Because certainly we have gotten used to the propaganda that the simple is the good. But I don't believe it. Listening to all of you, the complexity of thought, the complexity of layers of meaning is overwhelming. And I think we shouldn't shy away in architecture, You know, brain surgery, atomic theory, genetics, economics are complex complex fields. There is no reason that architecture should shy away and present this illusory world of the simple. It is complex. Space is complex. Space is something that folds out of itself into completely new worlds. And as wondrous as it is, it cannot be reduced to a kind of simplification that we have often come to be admired. And yet, our lives are complex. Our emotions are complex. Our intellectual desires are complex. So I do believe that architecture as I see it needs to mirror that complexity in every single space that we have, in every intimacy that we possess.
Mislim da je to deo onoga što je složenost arhitekture. Jer smo se svakako navikli na propagandu da je jednostavno ono što je dobro. Ali ja ne verujem u to. Slušajući sve vas, kompleksnost razmišljanja, kompleksnost slojeva značenja je ogromna. I mislim da ne treba da budemo stidljivi u arhitekturi, Hirurgija mozga, teorija atoma, genetika, ekonomija su kompleksne oblasti. Nema razloga da se arhitektura stidi i predstavlja ovaj varljiv svet jednostavnosti. Kompleksno je. Svemir je kompleksan. Svemir je nešto što savija sebe u potpuno nove svetove. I tako čudesan kao što jeste, ne može biti sveden na pojednostavljenost kojoj se često divimo. I naši životi su složeni. Naša osećanja su složena. Naše intelektualne želje su složene. Verujem da arhitektura kako je ja vidim treba da ogleda složenost u svakom prostoru koji imamo, u svakoj intimnosti koju posedujemo.
Of course that means that architecture is political. The political is not an enemy of architecture. The politeama is the city. It's all of us together. And I've always believed that the act of architecture, even a private house, when somebody else will see it, is a political act, because it will be visible to others. And we live in a world which is connecting us more and more. So again, the evasion of that sphere, which has been so endemic to that sort of pure architecture, the autonomous architecture that is just an abstract object has never appealed to me. And I do believe that this interaction with the history, with history that is often very difficult, to grapple with it, to create a position that is beyond our normal expectations and to create a critique.
Naravno, to znači da je arhitektura politička. Političko nije neprijatelj arhitekture. Politeama je grad. To smo svi mi. Oduvek sam verovao da je čin arhitekture, čak i privatna kuća, kada je vidi neko drugi, to je politički čin, jer će biti vidljiva drugima. A živimo u svetu koji nas sve više povezuje. Još jednom, izbegavanje tog domena, koje je bilo tako često za tu čistu arhitekturu, nezavisnu arhitekturu koja je samo apstraktni objekat, to me nikada nije privlačilo. Verujem da je ova interakcija sa istorijom često veoma teška, da se uhvati u koštac s njom, da se stvori pozicija iznad naših normalnih očekivanja i nastane kritika.
Because architecture is also the asking of questions. It's not only the giving of answers. It's also, just like life, the asking of questions. Therefore it is important that it be real. You know we can simulate almost anything. But the one thing that can be ever simulated is the human heart, the human soul. And architecture is so closely intertwined with it because we are born somewhere and we die somewhere. So the reality of architecture is visceral. It's not intellectual. It's not something that comes to us from books and theories. It's the real that we touch -- the door, the window, the threshold, the bed -- such prosaic objects. And yet, I try, in every building, to take that virtual world, which is so enigmatic and so rich, and create something in the real world. Create a space for an office, a space of sustainability that really works between that virtuality and yet can be realized as something real.
Arhitektura je takođe i postavljanje pitanja. Nije samo davanje odgovora. Slično životu, takođe je i postavljanje pitanja. Stoga je bitno da bude stvarna. Možemo da simuliramo bilo šta. Ali jedino što nikada nećemo moći da simuliramo je ljudsko srca, duša čoveka. A arhitektura je toliko bliska tome jer smo rođeni negde i negde umiremo. Stvarnost arhitekture je visceralna. Nije intelektualna. Nije nešto što nam dolazi iz knjiga i teorija. To je stvarnost koju dodirujemo - vrata, prozor, prag, krevet - takvi prozaični predmeti. A ipak, u svakoj zgradi pokušavam da uzmem taj virtualni svet koji je tako zagonetan i bogat, i da stvorim nešto u stvarnom svetu. Da stvorim prostor za kancelariju, prostor održivosti koji zaista funkcioniše između tog virutalnog i koji se može realizovati kao nešto stvarno.
Unexpected versus habitual. What is a habit? It's just a shackle for ourselves. It's a self-induced poison. So the unexpected is always unexpected. You know, it's true, the cathedrals, as unexpected, will always be unexpected. You know Frank Gehry's buildings, they will continue to be unexpected in the future. So not the habitual architecture that instills in us the false sort of stability, but an architecture that is full of tension, an architecture that goes beyond itself to reach a human soul and a human heart, and that breaks out of the shackles of habits.
Neočekivano naspram uobičajenog. Šta je uobičajeno? To su samo naši lanci. Otrov koji sami sebi dajemo. Neočekivano je tako uvek neočekivano. Istina je, katedrale će kao neočekivane uvek biti neočekivane. Zgrade Frenka Gerija, nastaviće da budu neočekivane u budućnosti. Dakle, ne arhitektura koja nam uliva lažni osećaj stabilnosti, već arhitektura puna napetosti, arhitektura koja ide iznad sebe kako bi dotakla ljudsku dušu i srce, i koja baca sa sebe lance navika.
And of course habits are enforced by architecture. When we see the same kind of architecture we become immured in that world of those angles, of those lights, of those materials. We think the world really looks like our buildings. And yet our buildings are pretty much limited by the techniques and wonders that have been part of them.
Naravno da arhitektura utvrđuje navike. Kada vidimo istu arhitekturu, opkoljeni smo tim svetom uglova, tih svetala, tih materijala. Mislimo da svet zaista izgleda kao naše zgrade. A naše zgrade su prilično ograničene tehnikama i čudima koja su deo njih.
So again, the unexpected which is also the raw. And I often think of the raw and the refined. What is raw? The raw, I would say is the naked experience, untouched by luxury, untouched by expensive materials, untouched by the kind of refinement that we associate with high culture. So the rawness, I think, in space, the fact that sustainability can actually, in the future translate into a raw space, a space that isn't decorated, a space that is not mannered in any source, but a space that might be cool in terms of its temperature, might be refractive to our desires. A space that doesn't always follow us like a dog that has been trained to follow us, but moves ahead into directions of demonstrating other possibilities, other experiences, that have never been part of the vocabulary of architecture.
Opet, neočekivano koje je i sirovo. Često mislim o sirovom i prefinjenom. Šta je sirovo? Rekao bih da je sirovo golo iskustvo, bez luksuza, bez skupih materijala, bez one prefinjenosti koju vezujemo za visoku kulturu. Mislim da je sirovost u prostoru, činjenica da održivost zaista u budućnosti može da se prevede u sirov prostor, prostor koji nije ukrašen, prostor koji nije usiljen u bilo kakvom izvoru, ali i prostor koji može biti hladan što se tiče temperature, koji se prelama po našim željama. Prostor koji nas ne prati uvek poput psa koji je obučen da ide za nama, već se kreće napred u pravcima pokazivanja drugih mogućnosti, drugih iskustava, koja nikad nisu bila deo rečnika arhitekture.
And of course that juxtaposition is of great interest to me because it creates a kind of a spark of new energy. And so I do like something which is pointed, not blunt, something which is focused on reality, something that has the power, through its leverage, to transform even a very small space.
Naravno, veoma me interesuje taj kontrast jer stvara varnicu nove energije. Volim i nešto što je šiljato, nije tupo, nešto što je fokusirano na stvarnost, nešto što ima moć, kroz svoju snagu, da preobrazi čak i veoma mali prostor.
So architecture maybe is not so big, like science, but through its focal point it can leverage in an Archimedian way what we think the world is really about. And often it takes just a building to change our experience of what could be done, what has been done, how the world has remained both in between stability and instability. And of course buildings have their shapes. Those shapes are difficult to change. And yet, I do believe that in every social space, in every public space, there is a desire to communicate more than just that blunt thought, that blunt technique, but something that pinpoints, and can point in various directions forward, backward, sideways and around. So that is indeed what is memory. So I believe that my main interest is to memory. Without memory we would be amnesiacs. We would not know which way we were going, and why we are going where we're going.
Arhitektura možda nije velika kao nauka, ali kroz svoju fokusnu tačku može na način sličan Arhimedovom da pokrene ono za šta mi mislimo da svet zaista jeste. Često vam je potrebna samo zgrada da bi se promenilo naše iskustvo toga šta može da se uradi, šta je urađeno, kako je svet ostao između stabilnosti i nestabilnosti. Naravno, zgrade imaju svoje oblike. Ove oblike je teško izmeniti. Ipak, verujem da na svakom društvenom mestu, na svakom javnom mestu, postoji želja da se više komunicira, osim same tupe misli, te tupe tehnike, da postoji nešto što upire i pokazuje ka raznim pravcima, napred, nazad, sa strane i svuda okolo. To je zapravo pamćenje. Verujem da je moje glavno polje interesovanja pamćenje. Bez pamćenja bismo imali amneziju. Ne bismo znali kuda idemo i zašto idemo tamo kuda idemo.
So I've been never interested in the forgettable reuse, rehashing of the same things over and over again, which, of course, get accolades of critics. Critics like the performance to be repeated again and again the same way. But I rather play something completely unheard of, and even with flaws, than repeat the same thing over and over which has been hollowed by its meaninglessness. So again, memory is the city, memory is the world. Without the memory there would be no story to tell. There would be nowhere to turn.
Nikada me nije interesovalo beznačajno ponovno korišćenje, stalno recikliranje istih stvari, koje kritičari naravno hvale. Kritičari vole da se nastup ponavlja iznova i iznova na isti način. Ali ja radije sviram nešto što niko nije do tada čuo, čak i sa greškama, nego da ponavljam istu stvar iznova i iznova, koja je ispražnjena svojom besmislenošću. Još jednom, pamćenje je grad, pamćenje je svet. Bez pamćenja ne bi bilo priča za ispričati. Ne bismo se mogli nigde okrenuti.
The memorable, I think, is really our world, what we think the world is. And it's not only our memory, but those who remember us, which means that architecture is not mute. It's an art of communication. It tells a story. The story can reach into obscure desires. It can reach into sources that are not explicitly available. It can reach into millennia that have been buried, and return them in a just and unexpected equity.
Mislim da nezaboravno zapravo čini naš svet, ono što mi mislimo da je svet. Nije to samo naše pamćenje, već onih koji se nas sećaju, što znači da arhitektura nije nema. To je umetnost komunikacije. Priča priču. Priča može dosegnuti do sakrivenih želja. Može dopreti do izvora koji nisu eksplicitno dostupni. Može dopreti do milienijuma koji su zakopani, i da ih vrati u pravednu i neočekivanu ravnopravnosti.
So again, I think the notion that the best architecture is silent has never appealed to me. Silence maybe is good for a cemetery but not for a city. Cities should be full of vibrations, full of sound, full of music. And that indeed is the architectural mission that I believe is important, is to create spaces that are vibrant, that are pluralistic, that can transform the most prosaic activities, and raise them to a completely different expectation. Create a shopping center, a swimming place that is more like a museum than like entertainment. And these are our dreams.
Opet, misao da je najbolja arhitektura tiha mi se nikada nije dopadala. Tišina je možda dobra za groblje, ali ne i za grad. Gradovi treba da budu prepuni vibracija, zvuka i muzike. To je zaista misija arhitekture za koju verujem da je bitna, da stvori živahna, pluralistička mesta, koja mogu da preobraze i najprozaičnije aktivnosti i uzdignu ih do potpuno drugačijih očekivanja. Da stvore šoping centar, mesto za plivanje koje je više poput muzeja nego zabave. Ovo su naši snovi.
And of course risk. I think architecture should be risky. You know it costs a lot of money and so on, but yes, it should not play it safe. It should not play it safe, because if it plays it safe it's not moving us in a direction that we want to be. And I think, of course, risk is what underlies the world. World without risk would not be worth living. So yes, I do believe that the risk we take in every building. Risks to create spaces that have never been cantilevered to that extent. Risks of spaces that have never been so dizzying, as they should be, for a pioneering city. Risks that really move architecture even with all its flaws, into a space which is much better that the ever again repeated hollowness of a ready-made thing.
Naravno i rizik. Mislim da arhitektura treba da bude riskantna. Znate da košta puno novca i sve to, ali da, ne treba da igra na sigurno. Ne treba da igra na sigurno, jer ukoliko radi to, ne pomera nas u pravcu gde želimo da idemo. Naravno, mislim da je rizik ono što pokreće svet. Svet bez rizika nije vredan življenja. Tako da verujem u rizik koji preuzimamo sa svakom zgradom. Rizik da se stvore prostori koji nikada nisu bili poduprti do te mere. Rizik za prostore koji nikada nisu bili tako vrtoglavi, kao što bi trebalo, za grad koji nastaje. Rizici koji zaista pomeraju arhitekturu, čak i sa svim njenim manama, u prostor koji je mnogo bolji od stalnog ispraznog ponavljanja nečeg već napravljenog.
And of course that is finally what I believe architecture to be. It's about space. It's not about fashion. It's not about decoration. It's about creating with minimal means something which can not be repeated, cannot be simulated in any other sphere. And there of course is the space that we need to breathe, is the space we need to dream. These are the spaces that are not just luxurious spaces for some of us, but are important for everybody in this world.
Naravno, verujem da je na kraju arhitektura baš to. Radi se o prostoru, ne o modi. Ne o dekoraciji. Radi se o stvaranju nečega što ne može da se ponovi, sa minimalnim sredstvima, što ne može da se simulira ni u jednoj drugoj sferi. Naravno, tu je i prostor koji nam je potreban za disanje, prostor koji nam je potreban za snove. Ovo su prostori koji su ne samo luksuzni za neke od nas, već i bitni za sve na svetu.
So again, it's not about the changing fashions, changing theories. It's about carving out a space for trees. It's carving out a space where nature can enter the domestic world of a city. A space where something which has never seen a light of day can enter into the inner workings of a density. And I think that is really the nature of architecture.
Još jednom, ne radi se o menjanju mode ili teorija. Iznalazi se prostor za drveće. Iznalazi se prostor gde priroda može da uđe u domaći svet grada. Prostor gde nešto što nikada nije videlo svetlo dana može da uđe u samu srž gustine. Mislim da je zapravo to suština arhitekture.
Now I am a believer in democracy. I don't like beautiful buildings built for totalitarian regimes. Where people cannot speak, cannot vote, cannot do anything. We too often admire those buildings. We think they are beautiful. And yet when I think of the poverty of society which doesn't give freedom to its people, I don't admire those buildings. So democracy, as difficult as it is, I believe in it.
Ja verujem u demokratiju. Ne volim prelepe zgrade koje su napravljene za totalitarne režime. Gde ljudi ne mogu da pričaju, glasaju, ne mogu ništa. Prečesto se divimo tim zgradama. Mislimo da su prelepe. Ipak, kada pomislim na siromaštvo društva koje ne daje slobodu svojim ljudima, ne divim se tim zgradama. Koliko god da je demokratija teška, ja verujem u nju.
And of course, at Ground Zero what else? It's such a complex project. It's emotional. There is so many interests. It's political. There is so many parties to this project. There is so many interests. There's money. There's political power. There are emotions of the victims. And yet, in all its messiness, in all its difficulties, I would not have liked somebody to say, "This is the tabula rasa, mister architect -- do whatever you want." I think nothing good will come out of that.
Naravno, na mestu Kula bliznakinja, šta bismo drugo? To je tako kompleksan projekat. Emocionalan je. Ima toliko interesa. Politički je. Toliko je strana u ovom projektu. Puno je interesa. Tu je novac, politička moć. Tu su emocije žrtava. Ipak, u svoj zbrci i poteškoćama, ne bih voleo da je neko rekao: "Gospodine arhitekto, ovo je tabula rasa - radite šta god želite". Iz toga ne može da proiziđe ništa dobro.
I think architecture is about consensus. And it is about the dirty word "compromise." Compromise is not bad. Compromise, if it's artistic, if it is able to cope with its strategies -- and there is my first sketch and the last rendering -- it's not that far away. And yet, compromise, consensus, that is what I believe in. And Ground Zero, despite all its difficulties, it's moving forward. It's difficult. 2011, 2013. Freedom Tower, the memorial. And that is where I end.
Mislim da je u arhitekturi bitan konsenzus. Kao i pogana reč "kompromis". Kompromisi nisu loši. Ukoliko je kompromis umetnički, ako može da se snađe sa svojim strategijama - tu je moj prvi nacrt i poslednja verzija - to nije tako daleko. Ipak verujem u to, u kompromis, konsenzus. Kule bliznakinje, uprkos svim poteškoćama, predstavljaju napredak. Teško je. 2011, 2013. Kula slobode, spomenik. Ovde završavam.
I was inspired when I came here as an immigrant on a ship like millions of others, looking at America from that point of view. This is America. This is liberty. This is what we dream about. Its individuality, demonstrated in the skyline. It's resilience. And finally, it's the freedom that America represents, not just to me, as an immigrant, but to everyone in the world. Thank you.
Bio sam nadahnut kada sam došao ovde kao imigrant na brodu, poput miliona drugih. gledajući Ameriku iz tog ugla. Ovo je Amerika. Ovo je sloboda. O ovome sanjamo. To je individualnost koja se vidi u horizontu. To je otpornost. Konačno, to je sloboda koju predstavlja Amerika, ne samo meni kao imigrantu, već svima u svetu. Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Chris Anderson: I've got a question. So have you come to peace with the process that happened at Ground Zero and the loss of the original, incredible design that you came up with?
Kris Anderson: Imam pitanje. Dakle, pomirio si se sa procesom koji se desio kod Kula bliznakinja i s gubitkom originalnog, neverovatnog dizajna koji si smislio?
Daniel Libeskind: Look. We have to cure ourselves of the notion that we are authoritarian, that we can determine everything that happens. We have to rely on others, and shape the process in the best way possible. I came from the Bronx. I was taught not to be a loser, not to be somebody who just gives up in a fight. You have to fight for what you believe. You don't always win everything you want to win. But you can steer the process. And I believe that what will be built at Ground Zero will be meaningful, will be inspiring, will tell other generations of the sacrifices, of the meaning of this event. Not just for New York, but for the world.
Daniel Libeskind: Gledajte, moramo se izlečiti od shvatanja da smo mi autoritet, da možemo da odredimo sve što se događa. Moramo se oslanjati na druge i voditi proces na najbolji mogući način. Ja sam iz Bronksa. Učili su me da ne budem gubitnik, da ne budem neko ko u borbi samo odustane. Morate se boriti za ono u šta verujete. Ne pobedite uvek kada to želite. Ali možete voditi taj proces. Verujem da će ono što će tamo biti izgrađeno imati smisao, biti nadahnjujuće, generacijama će pričati o žrtvama, o značenju ovog događaja. Ne samo za Njujork već i za svet.
Chris Anderson: Thank you so much, Daniel Libeskind.
Kris Anderson: Daniele Libeskinde, mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)