Play | Topics | Authors | Random

Danh ngôn của David Chipperfield (Sứ mệnh: 7)

I don't think architecture is radical. How can something that takes years and costs millions be radical?
Architecture has curled up in a ball and it's about itself. It has found itself either as a freakshow, where you're not sure if it's good or bad but at least it's interesting, or at the behest of forces of commerce.
The difference between good and bad architecture is the time you spend on it.
Britain loves a bargain, but you don't get good, lasting architecture on the cheap.
If you look at a building by Mies van der Rohe, it might look very simple, but up close, the sheer quality of construction, materials and thought are inspirational.
I like to be surrounded by books. My wife Evelyn has a Ph.D. in comparative literature, so we have a lot of her Spanish and German literature books which are wasted on me, plus a lot of novels and books on art and architecture shared by us both. Evelyn used to edit an art magazine called 'FMR,' so we have a common interest in design.
I do quite like Gehry's Guggenheim. But where in Bilbao it's seen as an outgrowth of years of investment in urban design and engineering, in Britain it's seen as the catalyst for urban regeneration rather than the icing on the cake.
I suppose I'm trying to build an architecture that's as timeless as possible, although we're all creatures of our age.
I do very little industrial design. I'm asked a lot, but I certainly don't see myself as an industrial designer.
It is difficult to separate oneself from one's design moralities.
A building is no good if someone's got to explain to you why it's good. You can't say you don't know enough about architecture - that's ridiculous. It's got to work on many levels.
Seeing architecture differently from the way you see the rest of life is a bit weird. I believe one should be consistent in all that one does, from the books you read to the way you bring up your children. Everything you do is connected.