Tadao Ando
Architect, Japan
Tadao Ando, one of the most important contemporary Japanese architects, has pursued
what he calls an architecture that moves people with its poetic and creative power. His
numerous buildings yield intensely meaningful and didactic experiences. In so doing,
Ando has engaged the discipline in the core philosophical questions on humanistic
values, such as the end and purpose of creativity, or what architecture can contribute to
improve the quality of human existence. To study his architecture is to examine how
architecture can conceivably enhance the world as a humanistic discipline.
On the tangible level, Ando’s works may be characterized by their primary walls,
constructed out of limited materials and composed of purely geometric forms. Raw,
unfinished reinforced concrete has been Ando’s material of choice since his earliest
years; later he added a shorter list of wooden buildings. These rather reductive methods,
however, should never be taken to demonstrate a lack of intention, nor do they result in
poor spatial qualities; instead, they are the consequence of Ando’s willful determination
to stage, though intangible they may be, rich architectural experiences. Ando’s simple
materials and forms engage a viewer in an appreciation of architecture, making the piece
significant to that person. Ando is therefore in no respect a formalist—his interest in the
tangible stems solely from his much deeper concern for their ontological relation to the
intangible aspects of architecture.
Ando’s decision to limit his materials and forms comes from the belief that their
intrinsic natures heighten the viewer’s experience of buildings, especially when they
reveal their utmost state of existence. Therefore, Ando compares himself to the poet who
Entries A–F 93
chooses words carefully and gives them the most appropriate forms of expression. Ando
is keenly interested in and highly knowledgeable about building materials. Once, in the
early 1980s, Ando joined other sculptors, industrial designers, and architects in an
exhibition, held in Tokyo, of objects made out of glass. Ando’s entry, nothing but
numerous sheets of glass laid horizontally on top of one another, brought to the viewer’s
attention the intrinsic nature of float glass. Produced by pouring liquid glass on a flat bed,
ordinary float glass inevitably has minute irregularities on the upper-side surface.
Compiling such sheets magnifies the irregularities, eventually causing them to shatter.
Ando’s project celebrated almost perfect sheets that withstood the challenge and quietly
acknowledged the great care the manufacturer took in producing them.
It is also in building projects that Ando reveals the material’s properties to the physical
extreme with a high degree of care. The intention is to present the materials in their
utmost essence. In fact, Ando believes that the more austere his wall, the more it speaks
to mankind. Ando’s specification of hard concrete mixture stirred up the Japanese
building industry in 1970s, when both contractors and architects were used to the norm of
much softer mixes for the sake of its easy distribution into the forms. The specification
demanded Ando’s attentive supervision, apt instruction, and even some on-site
demonstration—he is said to have tapped the wooden panels incessantly while concrete
was being poured. Once constructed, however, the walls were worthy of a critical gaze
and required no finishing materials that would ordinarily hide the faults of construction.
Ando’s efforts to provide an intense architectural experience rest not only with
materials but also with building form and open space. As one becomes familiar with
Ando’s floor plans, one recognizes in them the persistent recurrence of pure geometry.
However, once inside his building, a visitor is confronted with an enriched sequence of
spatial experiences rather than a mere confirmation of simple forms. The ultimate goal is
to draw attention to the space’s architectural qualities. Ando once commented that an
unexpected experience generates a stronger impression and elevates man’s spirit. In such
an experience, geometry is no longer an abstract factor but instead serves to generate the
real human existence.
Ando’s interests in the spatial sequence led him to explore the potential significance of
vertical circulation. A staircase is, in the utilitarian sense, nothing but the means to
traverse between different floor levels. With Ando, ascending and descending become
almost a spiritual opportunity of preparation before entering a place of religion, as in the
Water Temple (1991) on Awaji Island. Or, as in the Oyamazaki Villa Museum (1996) in
Kyoto, ascension is an awakening experience of one’s body while discovering the
daylight reflected delicately on each step’s rounded nose, which in turn draws attention to
the cascading waterfall just outside, which shines similarly under the sun.
The simplicity and purity of form and materials also support what Ando has called the
nature—in particular, light, air, and water—of his architecture. Ando once commented
that architecture should not be loud but rather that it should let nature, in the guise of
sunlight and wind, speak. His concrete wall captures on its surface an ever-changing
pattern of light and shadow. In return, the austere surface of the wall is enlivened, made
rich with character. When his concrete walls, taller than eye level, bound a space, as in
the Vitra Seminar House (1993) in Weilam-Rhein, Germany, the observer’s attention is
naturally drawn to the sky, both visually and spatially. When an opening is made in a
wall at floor level, as in a number of residential buildings, the sight is directed
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 94
specifically to the pebbled or grassed ground outside. A vertical sheet of water, as in the
Forest of Tombs Museum (1992) in Kumamoto, or a serene horizontal surface of water,
as in the Church on the Water (1998) in Hokkaido, could be waiting to fill the viewer’s
hearing or vision. In these settings, man is in an immediate confrontation with nature,
with only Ando’s architecture serving as a mediator.
Ando has acknowledged that the way he brings nature into architecture could require
some severe living conditions. For example, in Row House Sumiyoshi (1976) in Osaka,
the residents are faced with every element of weather each time they pass the courtyard
on the way from one room to another. Ando’s rather forceful mediation between man and
nature is not always without criticism. Some critics have commented that it leads to a
spatial impoverishment. On the contrary, however, Ando believes that a close
confrontation with nature is crucial for the enrichment of man’s life, which makes man
keenly aware of the season and which nurtures within man a finer sensitivity. This
insistence on austerity and severity reflects his critical stance against modern society’s
materialistic way of life. In this regard, Ando has taken a critical stance against the
modern ways of living that may be materialistically rich and yet spiritually impoverished.
He has made incessant inquiries as to what enriches an individual’s life in the
contemporary age. He considers it critical to discover through his architectural works
what is essential to human life. Ando believes that abundance does not necessarily enrich
one’s life and instead thinks that an architectural space stripped of all excess and
composed simply from bare necessities is true and convincing because it is appropriate
and satisfying. In this understanding of the human conditions, Ando’s architecture
constitutes a challenge to contemporary civilization.
Just as Ando is suspicious of the materialistic view of life, he is equally doubtful about
what many modern and contemporary architects have taken to be an unquestionable goal:
timeliness of design. Rather, Ando’s is a quest for the essence that allows architecture to
endure the test of time. In the same regard, Ando is in a constant search for the kind of
architectural heritages that have withstood various conditions of both time and place.
Ando’s attitude toward architectural heritage should, however, be distinguished from the
Postmodern regionalism in which traditional forms are replicated by modern, universally
available industrial materials and technology, to which Ando is not at all sympathetic. A
pseudo-authentic application is for him not a pursuit of the material’s intrinsic potential
and therefore not essentially architectural.
Ando’s desire to scrutinize the time-earned architectural heritage and to appropriate it
in his projects makes his practice critically cross-cultural. On the one hand, Ando is not
hesitant to draw both from his native Japanese and from other, especially Western,
traditions. On the other hand, his reference to the heritage is always based on the critical
and creative appropriation that often brings the heritage one step beyond its traditional
boundaries. For example, it is not at all difficult to discern a Vitruvian ideal with four
equilateral triangles in his temporary theater, Kara-za in Tokyo (1988). Ando chose the
dodecagon because of a certain order and perfection that the human mind tends to find in
the number 12. This also referred to the 12-year cycle of the Eastern calendar and the 12
months of the Western year. Then Vitruvius’s recommendation is, for Ando, not
restricted to the West but rather is cross-culturally human. For Ando, the dodecagon is
the most appropriate form to give to the project in which theatrical events represent a
construction of a temporary microcosm.
Entries A–F 95
With Ando’s Church of the Light (1989), a cross becomes more than a Christian
symbol. Instead, a vertical and horizontal linear opening in the otherwise solid concrete
wall is a void at the end of the space. It embodies the sense of time and space beyond
reach, so appropriate for religious contemplation.
It encourages a respect for the past, a
commitment to the future, and a trust in the universal applicability and effectiveness of
one’s particular religious activity, which in turn is limited by its place and time.
Ando has an extraordinary background as an architect. He did not receive any formal
architectural education, nor did he apprentice in an office. As for career preparation,
Ando often refers to the study tours he made on his own and the books he read, including
Le Corbusier’s oeuvre, during the period between 1962 and 1969, before he opened his
architectural office in Osaka. This specific location was also somewhat out of ordinary,
for many well-known, well-established architects are in Tokyo, by far Japan’s largest
center of economic activity. Because of this and because of the strong regional accent in
his Japanese, Ando had often compared himself to a stray warrier, half mockingly and
half proudly. His is the proof that still, in the economically driven contemporary
societies, architecture can provide a spiritual and even sacred dimension of the human
existence.
Although his early practice was limited primarily to residences and small commercial
building in the nearby regions of his office, Ando gradually gained domestic and
international acclaim and extended his practice to cultural and religious institutions. Ando
has received virtually every award there is for an architect, including the Annual Prize
from the Architectural Institute of Japan (1979), the Alvar Aalto Medal from the Finnish
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 96
Association of Architects (1985), the Gold Medal of Architecture from the French
Academy of Architecture (1989), the Arnold W.Brunner Memorial Prize from the
American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters (1991), the Carlsberg Architectural
Prize of Denmark (1992), the Asahi Prize (1995), the 18th Pritzker Architecture Prize
(1995), the eighth Premium Imperiale (1996), and the Royal Gold Medal from the Royal
Institute of British Architects (1997). His vigorous influence is manifest in the range of
exhibitions of his work, including the Museum of Modern Art, New York (1991); the
Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (1993); the Royal Institute of British Architects, London
(1993); the Basilica Palladiana, Vicenza (1995); the Sixth Venice Biennale (1996); the
National Museum of Contemporary Art, Seoul (1998); and the Royal Academy of Arts,
London (1998). His winning competition entries include the Modern Art Museum of Fort
Worth, Texas (1997); the Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Modern Art (1997); and the
Manchester City Centre Piccadilly Gardens Regeneration (1999).
AMUSEMENT PARK
Amusement parks are controlled environments that entertain visitors through the
simulation of space, place, and experience. It is the element of control that is initially
most important in defining the building type because the amusement park presents itself
as a safe, and indeed sanitized, environment wherein conventionally dangerous or
arduous activities can be undertaken without fear of their consequences. The desire for
control leads to the necessity of simulating or fictionalizing each and every space and
event that the visitor to the park will experience. For this reason, amusement park
designers often treat their buildings and settings simply as film sets, facades that are
divorced from the function of their interiors and that are dismantled and changed at will.
In the early years of the 20th century, this transience was exacerbated by the fact that a
single designer was rarely responsible for more than one part of any park. In
combination, these factors render the task of determining who has designed the park, and
even its date of completion, difficult. This situation has changed in recent years, with
many respected architects, including Michael Graves, Robert Stern, Antoine Predock,
Frank Gehry, Robert Venturi, and Denise Scott Brown, accepting commissions for the
design of amusement parks and associated facilities (hotels and training centers). Major
20th-century amusement parks include Disneyland (1955) in Anaheim, Florida; Six Flags
over Texas (1961) near Fort Worth, Texas; Walt Disney World (1965) in Orlando,
Florida; Universal Studios (1970–80) in Los Angeles, California; Tokyo Disneyland
(1983) in Tokyo; and Fox Studios (1996–99) in Sydney.
One particular type of amusement park, the theme park, also rose to prominence in the
last half of the 20th century. The theme park is characterized by a limited set of welldefined
thematic boundaries. Typical theme parks include the Old Westflavored Knotts
Berry Farm (1940, 1970) in Anaheim, California; the theologically focused Bible World
(1975) in Orlando, Florida; the evolutionary-themed Darwin Centre (1995) in Edinburgh;
and the piratical Mundomar (1996) by Estudio Nombela on Spain’s Costa Blanca.
Despite these differences, the terms “theme park” and “amusement park” are often used
interchangeably to refer to any space that promotes enjoyment through simulation.
The origins of the amusement park are frequently traced to the 17th-century pleasure
gardens of England and France. One of the most famous of these parks was Vauxhall
Gardens in London, which first opened in 1661 and by 1728 contained mechanical rides,
parachute jumps, and balloon ascensions. Perhaps the most popular of these early
amusement parks was the Prater in Vienna, which became the site of the 1873 Vienna
World’s Fair and which featured both a primitive wooden Ferris wheel and one of the
first large carousels. However, although amusement parks first came to prominence in
Europe, it was in North America that they enjoyed their greatest success. One of the first
large American amusement parks was Jones’s Wood, which opened in New York in the
early years of the 19th century. Jones’s Wood comprised a loose collection of beer halls,
music houses, viewing platforms, dioramas, and shooting galleries. Rapid development of the
surrounding areas forced Jones’s Wood to close in the late 1860s just as a new era in
amusement park design was beginning on nearby Coney Island.
In 1897 George Tilyou erected a walled enclosure around his Steeplechase ride on
Coney Island. This act of enclosing the site and controlling entry to his rides is regarded
as a defining moment in 20th-century amusement park design. Of similar significance is
Tilyou’s claim that if “Paris is France, Coney Island, between June and September, is the
World” (McCullough, 1957, 291). With this statement, Tilyou set in motion the 20thcentury
amusement park obsession with spatial and cultural simulation. Tilyou believed
that by constructing replicas of famous building types from different parts of the world,
he could simulate the entire planet in such a way that it could be quickly, efficiently, and
safely experienced by large numbers of paying customers. Such was the success of
Steeplechase Park (1897) that two new Coney Island amusement parks, Luna Park (1903)
and Dreamland (1904), soon followed. Luna Park simulated a trip to the moon, and
Dreamland featured a number of attractions, including a partial reconstruction of Pompeii
(complete with simulated eruptions on the hour) and a six-story building where customers
could experience an office fire firsthand. Such was the success of this building type that
by 1919 there were more than 1,500 amusement parks in North America, although the
Depression saw this figure drop to barely 200 financially viable parks in the 1940s. It was
not until the 1950s that Walt Disney revitalized the industry with his themed zones
(Fantasyland, Adventureland, Frontierland, and Tomorrowland) and his focus on the
traditional values of middle America. The success of Disneyland at Anaheim saw a string
of similar Disney parks opened around the world, including EPCOT (1982) in Florida
and the more controversial EuroDisney (1992) near Paris. This friction between the
“real” and the “simulated” or “virtual” is evident in many recent amusement park
designs. At one extreme, amusement parks are increasingly producing more complex and
realistic electronic simulations. Virtual World (1981–92) in San Diego, California;
Acurinto (1996) in Nagasaki; and SegaWorld (1996–98) in Sydney each feature
extensive electronic, or video game, environments. In sharp contrast to this trend is the
rise in amusement parks that promote ecotourism as a “real” experience. Mitsuru Man
Senda’s Asahikawa Shunkodai Park (1994) and his Urawa Living Museum (1995) in
Urawa are examples of parks that advocate a “genuine” appreciation of the environment
or history of the “real world.” Ironically, in many respects each of these extremes is as
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 92
artificial as the other. The only difference is that in one environment the simulation is
glorified, whereas in the other it is repressed or hidden.
simulation of space, place, and experience. It is the element of control that is initially
most important in defining the building type because the amusement park presents itself
as a safe, and indeed sanitized, environment wherein conventionally dangerous or
arduous activities can be undertaken without fear of their consequences. The desire for
control leads to the necessity of simulating or fictionalizing each and every space and
event that the visitor to the park will experience. For this reason, amusement park
designers often treat their buildings and settings simply as film sets, facades that are
divorced from the function of their interiors and that are dismantled and changed at will.
In the early years of the 20th century, this transience was exacerbated by the fact that a
single designer was rarely responsible for more than one part of any park. In
combination, these factors render the task of determining who has designed the park, and
even its date of completion, difficult. This situation has changed in recent years, with
many respected architects, including Michael Graves, Robert Stern, Antoine Predock,
Frank Gehry, Robert Venturi, and Denise Scott Brown, accepting commissions for the
design of amusement parks and associated facilities (hotels and training centers). Major
20th-century amusement parks include Disneyland (1955) in Anaheim, Florida; Six Flags
over Texas (1961) near Fort Worth, Texas; Walt Disney World (1965) in Orlando,
Florida; Universal Studios (1970–80) in Los Angeles, California; Tokyo Disneyland
(1983) in Tokyo; and Fox Studios (1996–99) in Sydney.
One particular type of amusement park, the theme park, also rose to prominence in the
last half of the 20th century. The theme park is characterized by a limited set of welldefined
thematic boundaries. Typical theme parks include the Old Westflavored Knotts
Berry Farm (1940, 1970) in Anaheim, California; the theologically focused Bible World
(1975) in Orlando, Florida; the evolutionary-themed Darwin Centre (1995) in Edinburgh;
and the piratical Mundomar (1996) by Estudio Nombela on Spain’s Costa Blanca.
Despite these differences, the terms “theme park” and “amusement park” are often used
interchangeably to refer to any space that promotes enjoyment through simulation.
The origins of the amusement park are frequently traced to the 17th-century pleasure
gardens of England and France. One of the most famous of these parks was Vauxhall
Gardens in London, which first opened in 1661 and by 1728 contained mechanical rides,
parachute jumps, and balloon ascensions. Perhaps the most popular of these early
amusement parks was the Prater in Vienna, which became the site of the 1873 Vienna
World’s Fair and which featured both a primitive wooden Ferris wheel and one of the
first large carousels. However, although amusement parks first came to prominence in
Europe, it was in North America that they enjoyed their greatest success. One of the first
large American amusement parks was Jones’s Wood, which opened in New York in the
early years of the 19th century. Jones’s Wood comprised a loose collection of beer halls,
music houses, viewing platforms, dioramas, and shooting galleries. Rapid development of the
surrounding areas forced Jones’s Wood to close in the late 1860s just as a new era in
amusement park design was beginning on nearby Coney Island.
In 1897 George Tilyou erected a walled enclosure around his Steeplechase ride on
Coney Island. This act of enclosing the site and controlling entry to his rides is regarded
as a defining moment in 20th-century amusement park design. Of similar significance is
Tilyou’s claim that if “Paris is France, Coney Island, between June and September, is the
World” (McCullough, 1957, 291). With this statement, Tilyou set in motion the 20thcentury
amusement park obsession with spatial and cultural simulation. Tilyou believed
that by constructing replicas of famous building types from different parts of the world,
he could simulate the entire planet in such a way that it could be quickly, efficiently, and
safely experienced by large numbers of paying customers. Such was the success of
Steeplechase Park (1897) that two new Coney Island amusement parks, Luna Park (1903)
and Dreamland (1904), soon followed. Luna Park simulated a trip to the moon, and
Dreamland featured a number of attractions, including a partial reconstruction of Pompeii
(complete with simulated eruptions on the hour) and a six-story building where customers
could experience an office fire firsthand. Such was the success of this building type that
by 1919 there were more than 1,500 amusement parks in North America, although the
Depression saw this figure drop to barely 200 financially viable parks in the 1940s. It was
not until the 1950s that Walt Disney revitalized the industry with his themed zones
(Fantasyland, Adventureland, Frontierland, and Tomorrowland) and his focus on the
traditional values of middle America. The success of Disneyland at Anaheim saw a string
of similar Disney parks opened around the world, including EPCOT (1982) in Florida
and the more controversial EuroDisney (1992) near Paris. This friction between the
“real” and the “simulated” or “virtual” is evident in many recent amusement park
designs. At one extreme, amusement parks are increasingly producing more complex and
realistic electronic simulations. Virtual World (1981–92) in San Diego, California;
Acurinto (1996) in Nagasaki; and SegaWorld (1996–98) in Sydney each feature
extensive electronic, or video game, environments. In sharp contrast to this trend is the
rise in amusement parks that promote ecotourism as a “real” experience. Mitsuru Man
Senda’s Asahikawa Shunkodai Park (1994) and his Urawa Living Museum (1995) in
Urawa are examples of parks that advocate a “genuine” appreciation of the environment
or history of the “real world.” Ironically, in many respects each of these extremes is as
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 92
artificial as the other. The only difference is that in one environment the simulation is
glorified, whereas in the other it is repressed or hidden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)