Architecture moves between two parameters: from theory to praxis, from the conceptualization and the world of ideas to the realization and the world of matter. Also from intuitive or preconscious processes to the logical or deductive.

When the form anticipates the technique. When the technique anticipates the form. When the purpose is to realize an ideal espace-form world or when the purpose is culturally constructing a space and a form given by other factors. Building can be a language not only a technical requirements substantive, but an architectural work qualifier and cultural raison d ‘ être.

To understand the construction as an inexorable servitude in the world of ideas or projecting only for the language are limited and reductionist positions. Ideation supports the constructive language and this language reports, again, the world of ideas.

In the same way that architecture ranges between understanding the project as a space representation problem or a construction of space problem, the constructive language can be used directly or rhetoricaly. The ideation territory is the creative’s work “it”, constructive language is the “how”.


1. To what extent can we say that a building can be adapted to the collection held    inside? For example, if you mix painting, sculpture and other arts, needs are       diverse and difficult to reconcile, I suppose.

From the theorical-críticism debate I would answer that coexistence between content and container obeys to such a breadth and complexity of situations, so that giving an answer is irrelevant. That is to say we would have as many responses as situations. The own content cultural mobility is a transformation parameter for the container’s quality. And the container space and form circumstances will never be outside the resulting scene, whatever the neutrality or activation gradient may be when architecture is pronounced. The “adaptation” concept from which the question is asked has, in fact, countless versions and meanings… or what is a container in functional and environmental conflict with a content, if not an intense dialectical state and culturally very fruitful, though not necessarily pleasant?


2. Do you think one of the museums opened in the last 5 or 10 years steals ownership or “exceeded its function” by being so spectacular that is more famous than the collection itself? Do you think this is good?

A sensible theory-critic would precisely argue if the quality of a conventional Museum ritual does not exceed the contemporary conditions, social, economic and political context, and if the own Museum paradigm marginalizes itself from our present time culture course and its production processes. The “Fame” concept inherent to this question involve circumstances of the information society which, that because thier temporary and dimensional immateriality would be adjectives in this debate. Most respond to an exchange value more than to a use value, and should be evaluated, above all, by a dealer or art fair director.


3. Which museum (of any type) is your favorite as for its reconciliation of     aesthetics and functionality?

Which is my favorite Museum as for its reconciliation of aesthetics and functionality? I should answer all of them (as far as they produce this dialectic between container and content); aesthetics and functionality concepts are labile concepts as for the own parameters of both flow incessantly; the aesthetic because their own perceptive field expands, fortunately, continually; and the functional because function as a concept (activity, use, profitability, accessibility, comfort, etc) is immeasurable. This does not mean a reality chaotic state, but an uncertain and diffuse landscape of our contemporaneity which should refered to from the micro scale and local context conditions.

I would say, for example, that the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which has masterfully solved the residual urban surroundings, both in the close scale and the broad fabric which contains it. I would also say that the result exceeds the social meaning, political, etc values of an urban museum to build an environmental and historical city landmark and finally the direct and collateral economic profitability has been excellent. Is this a good museum or desirable and necessary project?

These reflections from a theoretical-critical position would have a very different statement from the design debate, from the action, decisions and the production of the architecture, but from that position I have another reply than my work (built or not), and from them, I can only conclude that each job is so different from others that they not only respond to different space-form concepts for the container and its relationship with content , they even seem to (perhaps have been) designed by different architects.


Bruno Latour says “truth evolves, truth is what circulates”

Andrés Perea