“The principle of individuality (or that of `uniqueness´) states that every event, observed or imagined is unique, cannot be repeated nor substituted without diminishing its `truth´, its validity. This principle resists to mathematisation.”

“9. Computers can decode complex texts. They cannot decode complicated texts. Computers, eventually, can construct complex texts, or even erratic texts, for example, using the technique of random construction (this is imaginable, even if not really explred). But, for constructing really complicated order, computers are not the appropriate tool. The only tool, for building complicated order is the human brain (as far as we know). Possibly, all living beings can do: life itself is complicated order. Complicated order is arbitrary. Any observer can improve onto the observed set any order he wants, replacing the observed disorder with his own unique complicated order.”

“As for the principles of divisibility: I view society as a whole, but which is composed of individuals.”

“The public image of a museum is a more or less classic building wherein objects of interest, art, etc, are exhibited. Museum buildings are often considered great architecture, becoming symbols of culture.

We live in a civilisation of `packaging´. Products are more associated with a box, to a car, etc (think about Andy Warhol), and not at all to what these `packagings´contain.

As for me, a museum starts with the exhibits: showcases, panels, etc., or rather with what they contain. One could remark that a showcase is nothing else than a `package´, but at least it does not wear a `logo´: it´s transparent and as neutral as possible.

Let us accept a compromise: a museum is an assembly of supports for exhibits: an installation of panels, showcases, etc. There is no necessity to house them within a building.”

BUDAPEST PREFACE

“The main thesis that I champion in architecture is that the central figure is not the architect but the user of the building, the inhabitant.

This inhabitant is not the `average man´ -that imaginary entity dreamed up by statisticians- but a physical person, an individual who is different from everyone else. What is more, he is different today from who he was yesterday or will be tomorrow.

An so he has his own perception of the living space available to him: he must be able to arrange it as the moment dictates and be able to rearrange it again differently tomorrow.

To make this continuous adaptation of his habitat possible, it is necessary to choose appropriate techniques. These techniques are banal as regards one category of elements in the dwelling: the `furniture´ that he can push from one position to another without any technical assistance. But, as for the other elements of the dwelling, the walls, floors, doors and windows, they cannot be changed without costly and complicated interventions.

This is the challenge for a new architecture: how can all these components be made `mobile´, like furniture?

This challenge can have a number of consequences, apart from microsociological ones. Such architecture would also introduce the `changeability´ of the city, the possibility of continually rearranging the urban plan of the quarter without recourse to demolition. The mobility of the urban plan should, as far as possible, be that like that of furniture.

This is important, for even the fundamental concept of the city is being transformed. New technologies and the new mentality no longer make `proximity´, urban condensation, a necessity.

The megacity can be replaced by a `network of cities´, facilitating public movement while reducing the necessity for it. The new architecture and the new concept of the city will necessarily change the aesthetic appearance of the human habitat too. A new art of `sculpting space´may emerge from this.

A lot of young architects are aware of these questions. It is premonitory to judge their projects and it is important to bring them to the attention of the public.

Every project is an indication of the future.”

ABOUT THE MUSEUM

3. A museum is an installation for leisure, for people to walk around, to stare at the exposed objects at the same time as eating a sandwich.

4. Architecture is the least-important factor for a museum: very often it only has a confusing effect.

2. The public visiting a museum is supposed to visit in order to get some information. As the objects put on show are selected by a group, mentioned above, the information is inevitably deformed. It is deformed at both ends: the group selecting the collection has the intention to deliver a particular information, the visitors see another one. Museums, as information tools, are ambiguous.

3. Me, personally, I would prefer to consider an exhibition of a collection as a place of leisure, where you can walk, sit, talk, eat. The objects are then not the only reason that you are there, you simply enjoy their presence in you own way. …

We have to re-invent the street as a museum.

A MUSEUM IS NOT A BUILDING

The public image of a museum is a more or less classic building wherein objects of interest, art, etc, are exhibited. Museum buildings are often considered great architecture, becoming symbols of culture. We live in a civilisation of `packaging´.Products are more associated with a box, to a car, etc (think about Andy Warhol), and not at all to what these `packagings´ contain.

As for me, a museum starts with the exhibits: showcases, panels, etc., or rather with what they contain. One could remark that a showcase is nothing else than a `package´, but at least it doe not wear a `logo´: it is transparent and as neutral as possible.

Let us accept a compromise: a museum is an assembly of supports for exhibits: an installation of panels, showcases, etc. There is no necessity to house them within a building.

SEEN FROM OUTSIDE

Author´s note

As for the principles of divisibility: I view society as a whole, bur which is composed of individuals.

Introduction

I simply `am´, like any other being or thing. I learned this attitude from my late dog, who never analysed the world, simply lived and adapted itself.

EVER YONA, YONA, EVER – II

That´s why I said that in architecture it´s impossible for the architect to do what the user wants. The only solution is to have a technique in which the user does what he wants and there are no middlemen.