-You distinguished between two architectures in our time: the architecture of form or gesture and the architecture of essence. Which aspect gains ground today?

-Well, this distinction that I made is about ten years old, and I might think differently now. My view of two architectures in that sense was a position against post-modernism, but now post-modernism, at least in architectural schools, is almost forgotten, and this kind of polemical tension does not exist any more. I would still say that there is an attitude in architecture which sees architecture primarily as a visual image and there is another view where architecture is seen more as a reconciliation, an attitude that calls for a multisensory approach to architecture. So I would rephrase it a little bit, but I would however say that a difference of aspirations still exists and I certainly myself support an architecture that is more deeply rooted in cultural and human issues than visual formalist architecture.

-How do you relate this to student work regarding that some students appreciate form more than other issues?

-A young mind tends to be formal and visual. By age the power of vision somehow gives away and you develop a more subtle relation to the world. A young mind is orthodox whereas by age you become more tolerant. So my reply contains a view that your philosophical attitudes depend on your age and certain issues are natural to a young mind and some other things are less natural. But what I want to say to students, like you, is that it is good to know already at the young age that architecture is a very complex matter and your understanding of the essence of architecture depends very much on your own self-identity and consequently your attitude to architecture changes through your life in the same way as your self-identity changes.

-Could you comment the notion that architecture has become popular among non-architects, it is strongly present in life-style magazines...

-In my view architecture has become too much a matter of images, photographed images, and it has also become too much a signature art. Architecture is an art form, but it is a special art form because it is very silent and its ethical task is to remain silent most of the time. Its power comes from its continuous presence. My attitude as an architect derives directly from that particular role of architecture, not to become a thing in itself. For me architecture always speaks of something else than itself. Yes, architecture has become too much a matter of visual image and it has become too much a matter of originality or uniqueness in a shallow manner. We could also say that architecture has become commodified. It has been turned into a temporary consumer product. But I think that architecture is too deeply related with our fundamental existential issues, fears and desires to be turned into an object of merchandise.

-What is the position of architecture today regarding the new technology, computer aided design and virtual reality?

-It is evident to me that today's technological evolution tends to strengthen the hegemony of the eyes over the other senses. But at the same time, I also think that there is a possibility that the overexposure to images can eventually liberate the traditional focus on images. You cannot follow a rock video purely visually. You have to experience it through your skin. Perhaps the technology also makes it possible that the multisensory attitude could invigorate culture. Certainly technology has so far favoured and strengthened the monopoly of the eye.

-We are increasingly dependent on technological devices. What impact does it have on people experiencing the environment?

-I find it very unpleasant. I have used the notion of "primary causality". For instance, a door that opens automatically is certainly convenient if you are carrying heavy things in your hands but it is a serious loss at the same time, because opening a door is a primordial act which has a great mythical power, and it is an essential physical confrontation between one´s body and the building. The development of technology eases certain practical aspects of life but it empoverishes the mythological contents of life. The technological environment all together weakens the causal understanding of the world and that is mentally harmful. It is one way of sensory alienation. The detachment from a primary causal relation to the world is alarming in many ways.

-Is the situation in architecture equally frightening regarding the technological development and its tectonic application?

-The real cancer of construction today is the detachment of architecture from its tectonic reality. This is particularly common in the USA. You can hardly find a tectonically real building nowadays. Everything you touch is just hollow, everything is a plaster shape. The development of construction towards a contractor-driven practice, where the architect simply specifies the form but not the tectonic conditions of execution; this development is parallel to the overemphasis on the conceptual image. It detaches architecture from the reality of experience.

-There are visual codes for material use, but in Steven Holl's Kiasma in Helsinki the plastered ceiling and walls of the galleries are read as built in concrete despite the fact that you hear and feel their warmth.

-Yes, your eyes read it that way, but your body and your ears do not. That is one of the few things where I somewhat disagree with Steven Holl. He often gives a non-structural surface the impression of a structural surface. I disagree with that both philosophically and experientially. When you compare, for instance, Alvar Aalto's Vuoksenniska Church and Kiasma there are spaces that have similar characteristics. Vuoksenniska Church speaks of tectonic authority whereas Kiasma does not. Critics have argued that Steven´s museum is perhaps an alien object in its urban setting. I must say that Steven has been very skillful in reinterpreting certain dynamic aspects of the site. On the level of how things are experienced while walking in the street, it probably has an alien effect simply through its use of materials and shapes. I will repeat, that it is a welcome counterpoint to Helsinki's grid system, but the consequence is that it is a discontinuity in terms of certain strands of urban tradition.

-You talked very shortly about the contradiction between fragile architecture and strong concepts in your lecture today. Would you comment that further?

-The entire Western culture is a culture of power and domination, whereas there is another tradition in Eastern cultures where power is not sought with the same obsession. This difference is revealed when comparing Western architecture and, let's say, Japanese traditional architecture, particularly Japanese gardens. For me Japanese gardens represent an attitude toward an architecture which does not have a singular shape, or singular concept in its reading. It is a narrative which does not have an overall shape or gestalt at all, it is a narrative which can be read or experienced in a number of ways. I feel that Alvar Aalto's Villa Mairea is a similar architectural narrative, and I categorize it as "fragile architecture" because it consists of separate architectural episodes; it does not have a singular image. I am simply suggesting that perhaps it is the time to begin to think of an architecture which creates an architectural narrative, or a network of possible narratives, rather than a singular image.

-Some students have it difficult to find strong concepts. Is it important to have a strong conceptual inclination in a project?

-You need proper attitudes, proper intentions. A concept can easily become merely a mode of defensive intellectualization, or a visual sales argument, an enticing image. Of course, every decent building needs an idea; it has to be based on clear thinking.

-One could say that by imposing conceptuality on a building one denies the building from its eternity, because strong conceptual inclination disappears after some time. But on the other hand a building which directly satisfies and reaches the needs of people, reaches eternity, too.

-Yes, I think the poetry of the Japanese garden proves the possibility of the eternity of fragile and temporary things. In a way it is also a game with strict rules, but yet it is so immensely relaxed and rich.

-On the other hand conceptuality suggests that it has to be understood among people meaning that only a group with a certain intellectual level can fully understand its essence, whereas the phenomenological inclination reaches us equally all together.

-I would not say that one does not need any conceptual idea or a strength in architecture, because it easily leads to a sentimental collage - a collage of pleasurable aspects that refers to nothing. It is a very difficult task to make an architectural piece which holds together even though it is not driven by a singular idea. I think Carlo Scarpa`s architecture is of that kind. I would also clarify that by architectural narrative I do not mean the kind of narrative that post-modernism tried to apply to architecture. Architectural narrative is the reading of architectural causalities, understanding how things come about, how they fight gravity, how they are made. The fact that certain things simply happen, take place, is an architectural narrative, not making a Corinthian column, for instance. There are essential causalities which assure us of the reality of the world and help us to define our place in it. That is why this enthusiasm of a virtual world and virtual reality today is shallow. We should not object these things but be critical about them, and to know what architecture is about and what it is not.

-Time has become equal to space and vice versa. The meaning of distance and time has rapidly changed. We consume greater spaces in shorter period of time.

It is very clear that our experience of the world is changing dramatically, but as human beings we are biological creatures and cultural creatures at the same time. A biological creature developes very slowly; our genetic constitution is millions of years old and achitecture has to respond also to that genetically derived behaviour, and not only to what today´s techological world and media can offer to us.

Increasing number of students of architecture ends up in designing the settings of computer games for different companies. What is the role of education in this development?

My attitude is that we should begin to see architecture as a field of humanistic education, rather than merely a professional education. Architecture can be a way of learning about the world and yourself as much as being a way of making one`s living. I do not know of any other field of education which still deals with the classical dilemma of the humanist and technological world view. In that sense training in architecture is an exceptionally valuable training which does not necessarily need to lead to professional design practice. In the post-industrial-society the one-to-one correlation between education and work is breaking up anyway. Perhaps we should see some inherent value in education in itself and not only as an instrument to professionalism. In my own case, I see architecture as a way of life. It happens to give me a satisfactory economic condition, but, primarily, it is a fantastic way of learning about yourself, and why you are here in this world.

-You ended your lecture by saying that it is an autumn for architects.

-The understanding of the cultural significance of architecture is clearly diminishing in Western culture and the obsessive drive towards capitalist competition is eroding the values of architecture. I am suggesting that the cultural situation around the phenomenon of architecture is becoming less favourable in the next two decades.

Any idea what we should do?

One must simply be even more determined of one´s mission. Yes, I see architecture as a mission, and a noble one at that.