ABCD Lars & Roemer

Roemer
van
Toorn
in
conversation
with
Lars
Lerup
The architect, however, is only in charge of the setting, not the plot.
Buildings need to serve diverging and different narratives. And
unfortunately, as Martin Pawley once wrote, “Architecture is not a
radio.” Architecture cannot create (broadcast) meaning, emotion, or
awareness without a willing subject who is able to engage it. The
peculiar muteness of a building works in at least two ways. First, it is
true that architects ignore the importance of the program and ignore
meaning, but when the experience of a building is good, none of those
concerns matter: the goodness comes from the interaction between
architecture and subject. As is often said (with a slight twist), “a
building is only as good as its client” – the client here being the user.
Second, the muteness allows for interpretation – action, desire, and
determination. Thus, any building can be good provided the subject is
inventive enough. A scary thought for the architect who believes he or
she determines behavior.
In the end, I don’t like to confuse different practices. Architecture is
strong enough to survive by itself. This certainty probably stems from
my affection for, and belief in, its autonomy (as suggested by its
muteness), but also from my long struggles with the various
professions that are trying to highjack architecture: social scientists,
do-gooders, bankers, psychologists, and artists. The only
practitioners I like to share architecture with are philosophers,
economists, engineers, and those in the building trades.
Since life flows on and memory lapses are one of my devices to stay
young, my favorite films are both forgotten and probably ever
changing. My first love must have been Robin Hood with Alan Ladd,
and a bit later Zbigniew Cybulski in Polanski’s Knife in the Water, but
I have forgotten the plot (remembering only the cool glasses that Zbig
wore). Then Ingmar Bergman, over and over again. But my loves,
8