The Question of Tadao Ando

We all have seen various works of Tadao Ando in architectural journals, or have visited some of them directly. We have made a voyage through his created spaces virtually or in reality. We have been attracted to his strong and clear drawings and sketches. We have found that there is something hidden in his approach to architecture which makes his architecture unique. Beyond the clear geometry of the forms and volumes, we have perceived a dormant sense imbued with emotion and sensation. What is the latent nature of his works? Why is he so mysterious? What is the benefit of studying him? In other words, why should he be read?

Tadao Ando should be read, because his careful reading might prepare us some key points and solutions in different fields and contexts for us. This fact lies in his broad and comprehensive approach to architecture and his multidimensional attitude to it. He states that the creation of space is a sophisticated process of presenting all the various aspects of architecture in the created space. In this way, space becomes not a production of a mere form or structure, but a bearer of concepts and meanings as well as requirements.

He explains his comprehensive approach as “A historical perspective on a project, an understanding of nature, climate and ethnic traditions, an understanding of the times, a vision of the future, and most of all, a will to bring all these things to bear on the problem to hand - the absence of any of these things weakens the work of architecture, yet none of these things ought to be apparent in the final work” (Ando, 1994c, p.472).

This statement implies Ando’s comprehensive and multidimensional attitude towards architecture. If he contemplates on all the themes mentioned above and tries to think on them and present them in his buildings, then the question of Ando is a multidimensional question. That is to say, when we read Ando, we confront numerous questions. In fact, Ando is not ‘a’ question, but ‘questions’ on architecture. Let’s review some of them.

Ando employs a unique and independent attitude towards modernism and postmodernism. He believes in modernism and appreciates its heritage (Ando, 1982, 1989c, 1994a). At the same time, he condemns modernism for its inhumane aspects (Ando, 1986a, 1993a, 1994a, 1994c). In addition, he rejects postmodernism because of its formal and superficial approach to architecture (Ando, 1978, 1986b, 1988a, 1991c, 2002e). He wants to go beyond the current tendencies and construct a new view point by means of recovering modernism and treating its failings and blind spots (Ando, 1989b).

In this sense, his thought appears very close to the thought of Habermas (1993) and his idea of ‘modernity as an incomplete project’. Therefore, the question of Ando appears as the question of modernism and postmodernism.

On the other hand, Ando stands against standardization and globalization (Ando, 1986a, 1989b, 1990b, 1994a). He believes that unification diminishes varieties and reduces everything to physical entities. Moreover, he believes that different bodies and spirits have different experiences depending on their related culture and tradition, and tries to reflect them in his designs (Ando, 1990d, 1994a, 2000a, 2002e). In this regard, the question of Ando rings the question of universalization, standardization, particularity and individuality.

In addition, Ando believes deeply in tradition and historicity. For him, architecture is a one-time thing (Ando, 1977a) and is essentially rooted in a context of history, culture, and tradition. However, he does not want to copy traditional elements in his buildings, but to re-evaluate them and give them a new meaning (Ando, 1984b, 1990d). In this way, the question of Ando is the question of tradition, identity, culture, and history. It is the question of past, present, and future. It is the question of time.

These are just some examples that show how reading Ando actually means dealing with numerous deep questions fundamentally related to ‘architectural discourse’. In fact, it is impossible to deal with all the questions that arise when reading Ando. Among these are two key questions so that examining them leads us to two deep questions in the architectural discourse on one side, and necessities considering other questions on the other. Moreover, these questions are strongly related to our former discussions on phenomenology.

1-1 The question of theory and practice

Ando is an architect. It is said that the most important task of an architect is building, that is designing projects and finally realizing them. In other words, it is ‘building’ that makes an architect an ‘architect’. Architects who do not build are mostly accused of being just ‘drawers’, or ‘theoreticians’, or ‘paper architects’. These are attributes that intend to devaluate ‘mere designing’ and give priority to ‘building’. In this regard, Ando is a ‘builder’ as Taki puts it (Taki. 1984, p.11), because he has realized a huge body of projects all over the world. In fact, he is one of the hard-working architects with brilliant

professional experience. As Curtis puts it, “Ando is an architect not a philosopher and it is this special talent that guarantees his thought a certain longevity in the life of forms for he has the special capacity to translate his intentions into evocative spaces, materials and proportions that touch the observer on many levels. It is uncertain how later generations will read or interpret his work, but it seems likely that his architecture – including the body of myths and ideas behind it – will go on stirring imaginations for a long time to come” (Curtis, 2000, pp.17-18).

However, he not only designs and builds ‘buildings’, but also thinks and writes in

‘words’. This statement does not mean that he is a writer, nor intends to give priority to his ‘words’. Moreover, we are not here to concentrate on the ‘need’ of architects for

‘words’ to write, and questioning this basic problem why architects write.

To be sure, Ando is an architect, but an architect who writes. He has produced a considerable amount of texts including books, essays, explanations, conversations, speeches, etc. He has tried to elaborate his ideas, works, and knowledge on architecture – in his broad sense – in ‘words’ and texts. Therefore, he is strongly related to ‘theory’. It seems that there is something in ‘words’ that he cannot ignore or overlook it, and

‘words’ serve him in a different way than lines, sketches, and drawings.

Thus, Ando may appear to be a thinker, not as a philosopher, or even theoretician. He does not intend to establish a kind of ‘theory’ on architecture in its academic or scientific sense, but it is safe to say that he ‘thinks’ about architecture theoretically. He considers

‘architecture’ multidimensionally, and this attitude necessitates contemplating architecture multidimensionally, that is, thinking on its matters and themes from micro to macro. The variety of themes that are thought of by him, such as culture, civilization, universalization, modernism, postmodernism, tradition, culture, time, eternity, place, space, emptiness, memory, body, nature, wall, post, water, light, etc. imply his comprehensive view of architecture. He questions fundamental issues of the discipline, explains their complexity, and draws his opinion on it. In general, he writes and talks about the variety of issues in architecture, and has produced a considerable body of theoretical texts on architecture.

Therefore, it can be said that the question of Ando is the question of theory and practice.

To put it in another way, the case of Ando gives us some key points concerning the mutual relationships between theory and practice.

1-2 The question of interpretation

Ando has realized numerous buildings all over the world, and his architecture has been considered by different persons, including critics, journalists, theoreticians, scholars… In this regard, his buildings have been observed from different view points. Some of them have tried to give a general explanation or an introduction to his works, like introducing new projects in magazines and journals (journalists); some of them have criticized his architecture and have discussed on its problems and shortcomings (Norberg-Schulz, 2000; Co, 1995); some of them have found his architecture as an example for their ideas and theories (Frampton, 1984, 1989b, 1991a, 2002e), and some of them have tried to go beyond his architecture and investigate its cultural, historical and traditional backgrounds (Nitschke, 1993; Rudolf, 1995). What is common to all of them is the matter of

‘reading’, that is, observing and understanding the work. To put in another way, his architecture has been studied and read differently, from different views. This reading includes either reading the drawings of a project, or experiencing directly the concretized spaces. To explain a real work of architecture, to read its characteristics and specialties, and to perceive it means interpretation. Interpretation implies establishing direct contact to the work and explaining the immediate experience of the space.

Thus, the question of Ando can be also the question of interpretation. To read/interpret his architecture necessitates employing a method of interpretation which is more compatible with his way of making architecture. But, the matter is that which way of

‘reading’ or ‘interpretation’ is more proper for his architecture? Which method of

‘seeing’ catches the basic, essential characteristics of his architecture? Which approach is more valid in his case? How can we grasp his ideas presented in the buildings?

As I will explain in ‘Phenomenological concerns in Ando’s theory and reflections’ later (part III, section 2), Ando thinks and designs phenomenologically, and thus, the most careful and effective way to perceive his architecture is interpreting it phenomenologically. A phenomenology of his works, including his reflections and buildings, will aware us to the core of his theory and practice, and will reveal both their abilities and shortcomings. Therefore, it is safe to say that, the question of Ando might be the question of ‘phenomenology’.