Hernin D/az ,4lonto

anl Thom Malnc

Generation(s) and The Generative

in [anta Monira, Ca/ifornia, jnt . Tla,n Mat,p aud H.t,t. lan Diaz,4lanfi net at Mryne'.r hourc to lircasr arcltitccture\ angoi ffiirwith drawing. Tbe cantercation iaolyel a bit oJ tlan-a*l te//, thtcb ftrther dernontratel tLe arclitecr' urc of,lraoing at
On a hot Seynnber at'iernaan

lro

b/oclr

rhc edje ot tA- pdriJi

In the l980s, I was never driven ro be an architect in rhe conwentional sense, I *-as jusr doing rvhat seemed to be appropriate er rhe rime. Then, it seemed rhat I was more in rouch with ideas, and the ideas rhar r could re: izc I could idealize only in maquenes or drawings. Drawings are a way ofrhinking. I am nor a verbal person I am wired wisually and concepcually, whici I rhinJr you can
THo,',a I1,1}.NE:

ifyon look ar these notebooks lilla.rtrated Lerel.I tm not sure rhar they are directly conlecred to the projects, because alwals chink that dra.rvings and object-making are parallel to the work and not necessarily connected ro rhe u.ork.
see

Sometimes ir's connected more directll sometimes less. Nonetheless, drawing is al*'ays autonomous. Early on, I understood that the drawings and models were themselves the work. They are auronomous in that rhey have rhcir own life and rre inves-eo q i-h m1 o*n in,rinrr Those norebooks show ro some degree my research.

It,s:

very simple research, perhaps; depending on what drawings you .lre looking r r. rhe,e are e o.r rar r th in6.. J t orr loo k. I ho*.ever, at my orher drawings, like rhe Sixrh Srreet Horse h986-871, then th9- are vcry specific represenrations. Atso, at thar cime those &ewings h:Ld the implication of materiaiity they are marerial in char they lead to consrruction. Different drawings have different tralectories; and again, the more yor drarv, the more you realize the differences in those trajecto ries. Of course, ifyou look at the worh of Lebbeus woods, Wolf Prix, or Peter Eisenman, you see very differcnt draw ings; for example, if Perer rvere r-irh us right now, this would be a very di{Ierenr conversarion in regard to rhese drawings - and in terms ofr.hat drawing is to hirn. HpaN,irl Diez Ar-oNso: If *-e ralk abour rhe relationshin

between drawings and books, your ,,green" book comes to mind, Morphorir: Buildinp and Projectr 1989 1992.i think rhat book rvas a touchsrone for many of us. It was published just as I was becoming an archnecr; I was lascinared by rhe work's intersection r.vith the models and the drawings, the kind of three dimensional drawings and tvvo-dimensional models. Anorher thing I always liked about your books wrs rhat there were nor many free hand sketches. In Artenrina, where I was educated, rhere is a cuh around the fiee-hand sLetch. I think hend drawings are more personal, more pri vatel I believe that whcn the work goes out, it has ro be 6l tered. I can understand lvhy you have not published these notebooks, because they beiong to rhat privare realm. I don\ sketch rnuch, I never did, not even before compurers I alwa).s look I;r a certain precision in represenration that I

make buildings. Insread, we think in terms of conceprual problems, how to figure our merhodolo6ies, ro rranslalc
sornebody else

u.ill build ir, and

so

we are nor buiiders.

TM: You put a lot on rhe rable. With regard to Stirling, lvas obsessed with his work. For example, rhe Leices.er

Engineering Building. I remember I kepr finding different drawings in differenr publicarions for the same project. I wstartled thar the represenrarions of a sintle building could b so multifarious. Whar inrrigued me mosr rvas rhe mechanic precision of the axonomecric, its literalness.

Drawing is a way of invesriEarint

ber
EERN1N

problem. I remem

working on a project where we wanred the drau.ing to

Diu ALoNso.

think sketches don't have. I am interested in drawings when rhey are almost like images - almost li)re photographs instead ofthe traditional sense ofthe sketch. tr4y inrerest lies in the idea of the image
for the production of form and architecrure. When people say those are only renderings, for me they are drawings; my animarions are dynamic drawings, I think of them as drawings. TheI are not presenrerion tools, they are design tools. For me, the issue is not only about technique but also horv you develop a characer an or.nership ofthis technique- For exemple, the axonometric can bc seen as a generic technique for architecture, but when you find a way ro appropriate it and make it inro your own, it becomes a very parricular way of drawing, a parricular u.ay ofproducing drawings. In the case of computers and compurarioral work, again rhe issue is how you develop a unique characrer, whereas, by definitioo, rhe compu!er produces generic resulrs. How can you find ways to operare wirh greater specificityl In my own worJ<, I look for a cinemaric expression ofthe image - one that would embrace the horrific and the trotesque as a new sensibiliry, as a variarion to the dogma of the beautiful and the propotional. Going back to your work, if I am not wrong, it doeln,t advocere for perspecrive, and in this respe* ir is similar to how Enric Miralles worhed - everything was in plan, and the section was a by producr of the plan. So perspective was a by-product ofrhe relationship ofplanimetric systems. Also, your rvork is wery connected to rhe r.r'ork ofJames Stirlirrg, particulerly to his unique use of axonomerric draw'ing. I beliewe rhat drawings and buildings are two sepa-rare entities.Jeff Kipnis always says that architects don't reaily
as rh vehicle
128

of course a drAwing cannot cast a shador but when yorL narerialize drawinEs, rhel can. I have ah-ays been interesred in archirecrure as a collec tive enterprise, but as to rhe question of character thar you mention, I rhink rhar I linger between my o*"n aurhorship and the coilective. Most of rhe dra*.ings are created by my studio, they are a collective effort, bur ifyoLr look at my notebook drawings, these are not a collectivc effort. I keep them to mysel{ !he)r are m}'own research; rhey a.e more like incubators - earll tene.ative work. You also said somerhing abour Enric N4iralles?
HDA: Yes, I r-as sayint rhat I think your work and my rvorl have in common somethi% thar I nnd in Enric,s rvork: non of thesc rypes of drawings put space up fronr, space is a by producr of the precision of the drawings. For my part, I believe that there is conrrol in drawing because you know whar you are doing; ar the same rime it's a bu like the ide: c a film you're shooring, shooting, and shootinB, rhen you have ro go to the edjting room and make two hours out ol ll and then rhe movie surprises ).ou, or nor, dependint on hou you edir ir. This is how I rhink rhar you end Eoric have a similar approach.

cast a shadow, and

At rhe end of the day, I think chat for all grear archirect there is a correlation berrveen their drawings and their worl Your buildings cannor be dralvn in any wa)r orher than how they are. It is almost as if they rvere aurononous, bur also es if they were a perfect marriage. ln thar sense, your work an Enric's illusrrate that, that there h a perfect correlation between the language thai emcrges fiom the drawings and
rhe language that emerges from rhe architecture. Noq Frank Gehry works in a differenr way. In his work, sketche: are very importanr; but *-hen you look ar the plans and sec
179

DRAgINcs BY THoM MTYNE (TO})

,rND

HsrNiN Diaz ALoNso

BY

AL! PBoros

FLoENCIA ?Ira.

rions, they are not generative his design process is base models. I always pay atrention to rhe wa). an archirecr w because when you first begin to develop your own vocab lary, you Iook ar others. I rhink that it is very problemarr when you fbcus more on what the iinal product will be, the fabrication, or other aspecrs that have come up in thr 15 years. Maybe I am more ofan old-school kind ofguy; even rhough I use all the computers, all the fabrication t niques, and such, I still believe in rhe complere auronom. the representation as a vehicle to think archirecrure.

ma)lcability, a 0exibiliry and an openness rhar takes lou different places. They have their own life, r,r,hich is both autonomous end absolutell connected ro rhe object he is

you very few clues abour rhe generarive nature of che wr Ifyou look at the plan, ir does not take you any place, ir r nor reveal anything of interest but, ofcourse, you find somerhint in rhe models instead. The models are rhe veb fbr the generarion ofthe work. And then you talked about Enric. you can iook at hi drawings and they transporr lou someplace - they have

TM: That's interesting what you say about Frank, becau think Frank's work is highly private and personal - he g

making. These rhings are whar make Erric's drawings usf or evn insrructive; there is an openness and a transparer in them, which makes his process knolvrble, if not natur HDA: I disringuish the work of men). architecrs based on plan or section - however, I think that is a mechanism

which is in complere crisis and needs to be reshaped. In t last few years, two quslions rhat have occupied much of rhinLing have been: Whar is a plan? and, What is a sectior wonder what their roles are in this three dimensional wr in which everything becomes an tr4RI scan, where you pi section insread of making a one. In regard to the topic oftechnique, to rhe digiral inte section in rhe work, I think that you made an interesting rrensition ber$.een analogue design and digital productio I wouldn't say ir was completely seamless, bur already yo analotue work was operaring rhrough reperition, muhipl ty, and the like. In thar sense, rhis is where your work anr
Peter Eisenman's

work rouch,

because pecer also hes rhat

guality in his worh - I would aver rhat peter was rhe firs digiral architect, before digital computers exisred. He has very melhodicai wal ofworLing; he uses multipliciries ar
varietions. Your worJ<, rhough, shows a somewhat differr
111

merhod, more two dimensional. Given the current state of things, have you significantly changed rhe wey you conceive
a

x
{
{

ofprojecs? Are drawings still drawings? Is the mediumjusr diffcrenr mediuml or if rhis is a new paredigm, do you

t
l

instead belicve chat an ideological

imperative

value
rools?

ma)be even en

cornes

with our new

In some conversatioqs I had wirh Eric Moss end \ryolf Prix, for example, I got rhe feelint thar they look ar the computer from the perspective of, Whar can rhis thing do for me? Now, though, I think that rhis paradigm is shifting, starting wirh Greg Lynn - who is, of course, the pioneer of all current parame!ric work. He reversed rhe guesrion to, What cen

i
1

way of operaring - rhat is appropriare ro the ,ools rhar we noq. have at hand. I'm not sure yet whar rhis rvill be, r-ha qualiries ir.rvill have. I am going ro be one oI the firsr tesr cass. I'm part of rhe older generation _ I u,as crained befc any ofthese tools existed but I'm interested in seeing wl diffi:rences these tools will have.

It is important, I rhink, ro assess these new tools, deter mine rheir assets, their potentiels, their problems, because
there are problems wirh rhe tools their problems have to r wrrh rh.ir r e11..pecifi , merhoos ol sy nrhesizing. Moreorer. they pre\enr, ver) diflerenr norion ofownerrhip rnd methodology. A problem I find with roday's stujents is tha
t

I do for you?, creating

e rransfer

of power in the relationship

with

rhe rechniques arrd toois.

TI{: Let me give you

an example. In rhe competition we did for rhe Convention Center in Nara in 1991, we were not able

ro easily operare on an important pice of rhe design, rhe theater. We had lirerally cast it and cut it; but once ir was fabricated, we had no.,vay offirrrher developing its form with the tools at hend in 1991. Ifyou 6o lO years forward, in the compedrion for the Rensselaer ?oly!echnic Insriture in 2001, we had the same problem; yer all of a sudden, in seconds,

with rhe compurer we were able ro distort the form, shape ir, cut it, and intersect it with other things at will. The draw_
ings were incredibly complicafed. Ho.wever, th work was initiated and modeled irr I,D. These q.pes ofmanipuletions ;re inherent and narurel ro.he rool! rb In regard to rhe peopt. I the first thing I norice is rhat I am working in a radically more collective lva)'. For example, we just did an all-day review session a[ my srudio and the presenration was really srarrling I realized for rhe firsr rime rhat I no lontr have ownership of my own studio. If).ou asked me 10 years ago, it was 99 percen! me; now I look down and go, damn, r.r,hat is it, 50, +5 percenc? I am interested in parriciparing, and I am going ro participate at a totally different level than you and Iour generation. We will find out llhat happens. There has been a radical shift in technique following this very quick rransition from the conventions ofplan, section, and elevation drawings to tools that can very quickly synthesize.ICs like the shifr in film from 16mm to rhe hand held digital camera; ilr digital film rhere,s a dynamism, rLe qudity end rhe rexrure give it an immense immediacy that you could nor have in 16mm film.

.hey rhcmselve' use ro produce r heir worh. I come lrom a ..hool where )ou druw J smrt .rne, rhen 1ou dlw a brzee lrne you learn in an inrremenrrr ",y,,a y"" f""" "llf. on whether you are goint ro proceed or nor. I rhinkyour generation has struggled to find authorshll _ I would go back ro the 16mm film, since you are talking about appropriating the qualiries ofyour rools. When a 16mm film camera caprures reality, ir brings into existence nw texrures, shadows, transparencies, colorations, and sat urations - ir imparts ro rhe film new qualities, bur rl.rese qua
ties are always particular ro the tool.

hey har e 1er ro

r la

im re<pon.ibility tor rhe

re, h o igues rha

TEoM ManE, DR^wNcs,

"-

*".kii;;:,fH:;lt:?

HDA: Those are nor questions with simple or easy ans\r-ers. 1O or 117ears olworking with rhese techniques, therr are a couple of things rhar pr;bably can figure our. ir )rou has to do with growing up end being more marure, bur ar

After

rhe end ofthe day, you discover rhat techniques, rechnolo6ie and tools can only carry you so rhey can enhance oi dimilish what you have to say - but rhey cannot speak for you.I have aJimi Hendrix analogy that I ofr.n ..peat,

far

Hendrix only had a Sp entsh gtirar, rraodoo Cbitd (Stight Retun would nor sound so inreresrint you need an eleciric guira
and a Wah Wah pedal to produce rhat kind of music. That said, I have a lor of friends who have an electric guirar and

if

wah wah pedal, and rhey do not sound likeJimi Hendrix. So, I think you have to have a marriage berween rhe mediur
and the rechnology you are working with, but also the ambirior sensibiliry and intuition for it, in order to be like Hendrix.

*n","

., trrr., t rhink,

is finding

way of speaking

The fundamental problem with computational work is a dilemm- ot re, hniques or rool., ir is a con. Lprualone - it s rre rd.a ol rhe replacemenr ot "omerhing like a religioLrs do6ma, which ror me is rn, rcdibi) drntero:. lnde"o. I rhin k rhe , omD rcr ca n tiv" yo,. , te,t i.r. k io

not necessarrly

,,,

1ll

-o-...-..!

,nd!

r, ,rw! , (4!/

5u(r,.

Another problem is rhe immediacl ofasenseofcompjere ness.rhet rhese rools provide. bur ir comes to inrentionaliry, and how you can navigare rhat rerritory. one of rhe most' fundamenlal issues when you want ro develop:n inreresring body ofraork is che modei and mcchanisms of resistance how you produce friction rvithin che work.

TM: Interesring that lou

sa)r rhar, because for myself and for my generation (I don,r likt co use rhe word teneration), architeccure was onll seen as resistance ro the normarive.

1 rhis norion ofrhe euronoious di.co,r.r. r, ".", ance. For me, thar ryas one ofhis major conrriburionr i&: rh:r rhe auronomy ofrhe discrpiine is rhe ulLimar ol resr\rencc. Tn many regards. parr of today.s disc-rss orrecr b). producr ol some ofperer,s discussions. lt is coincidence rhar ma_ny of rhe architects in the

oro

rhLnk be pur roEerher somer hing rhar nor rhrr ma ny

HDA: Thar is why I rhink the notion of resistance is s essary. In that sense, I think Eisenman,s intellectual l has betn incredibly imponanl ro erchi[ecture, becau;

HERNiN DiAz ^LoNso,

DR1,.${c.

HDA: There is an illusion in conremporary culture rha! rhe knowledge that produces this enhancement mekes resistence impossible - I rhinh this is bullshit. I rhink the resistance is differenr, and 7ou need to frgure out what it is. Technology moves incredibly fast, but architecture does not, B)'definirion, architecture is slow, and in many ways like a conscince - it is the lasr thin6 rhat moves. Archicecture, for me, is fundamentally a bridge bet\r'een wha! is permanent and what is impermanenr - it is a consrant reexamin*ion of how you ne8o(iare berween tho"e Lwo terrjrories.

dory are

current

peopJe

who, in one

u:y

wrrh Peter's wori<_

or anorher. were inr

TI4: I a6ree, h had a huge influence oa all of us; he v through an operarional strategy and there a.. ""iy " n archirects who work lihe rhat _ ir had a huge irrflu.rrce HDA: The exhibirion thatJeffKipnis put rogerher at tl

TM: But the currenc generarion is so used to changing operarions at such a rapid pace. Let me ask you, whcn would you date the beginning of compurarion in archirecrure?

Wexner Center, ,,perfect Acts ofArchirecture" (ZOOf), maybe a clue ro rhis kind ofresistance. At first glance, rhese six archjrecrs. you have a 916;p 16*L nobiy *oL thin h r"er e so close in sensrbility. Each was usin6 differ

HDA: I would say mid 90s, maybe the early 90s; probably ir started with earlier irvesritations, so to be fair, I would say it has been around for 15 years.

TM:

Do

say there is

you rhinL rhat. given today's environmenrs 1ou can orthodot/ in computarioal

drawing merhods a. an apparatus of eutono-o,rs .ogic produce rn incredibly rich vanery ofwork, UItimarJy rhough, the work shared rn obse<sjon wjrn absrracrion everyone, in one way or another, used the drawirrg as a autonomous instrument, one rhar functions as an indel ent organism where irs architectural potcnrial is nor plt our in the roie of a represenrarionai rool toward design irnizacion or construcrion, but insread as a dynamic lor tion; here is where, I think, rhe work of the group ofar tects feerured in rhe exhibicion overiaps. Thereforc one izes, for examp.le, rhar actuallT your work end Beroerd ?schumi,s work arc noc so far apan. To an exreat, rhis I us bacJ< to thc bcginning ofour conversarion, whcn you
HERNTh Did,{LoNso rs .RrNdra! PouNbeR oF XEFrRorrRcaj a
B^SED rN

HDA: Yes, but it is elso danterous to se it as orthodor.-)i.

TM: I agree, it is dangerous to see it as dogma. I rcmcmbcr sitting on ajurT where a srudent preseqced a project that was Franh cehry on steroids. Half-wey through, I realized that there was no kind of resistance, his projecr had nothirig to do

dD
HE

PMca'cE

Los,{Noe!Es.

with a critique of

some normative architecture: ir was just howyou make buildings, it was just a metter-of-fact copy occurred co me that this was amazing; here rvas this kid

lt
a

whose idea of architecture was normative behavior way to groduce a buildin6.

jusr

SCI-Anc, CoLuMBh UMvEesrr rEE UNrvERsrr;r ^ND FuR INGEVTNDTE KuNsr, vJENNr. TsoM M!fre, root PerrzKE& PIEE
FessoR

ErcHEs

rr

rnenlioned rher drawings and buildiags wcrc auronomoi rhings. I would ar6uc, rhat was rhc case for all of rhc arc recrs in the show. The exhibition was acrual proofofthir argument. Indeed, ifTou look ac rheir drawings, lhey arr more 'rn8tuous wich each orhr, rhan rhe same archicecr buildirL qich are, conversely, more divcrgenr.

^r

UCLA,

ts

rsr

FoirNDtR

MoRPHos's AncHrrEcas.
11+