LBN: Hoje em dia se nota um aumento no número de arquitetos emigrando para outras disciplinas…
ON: É comum. Eu tenho amigos meus, por exemplo, muito amigos, feito o Chico Buarque e o Tom Jobim. Eles cursaram Arquitetura até o terceiro ano, e depois largaram. Foi nesse sentido que eu fiz a Universidade de Constantine. A Universidade de Constantine é um dos trabalhos de que eu gosto mais. Quando eu fiz aquela universidade, o programa que eles tinham era para vinte prédios. Nós fizemos sete. Nós fizemos o edifício de classes, onde têm auditórios, essas coisas. Fiz um edifício de ciências, tem uma biblioteca, restaurante, o auditório. E qualquer faculdade nova não precisa de um edifício. Usa o prédio de ciência e o prédio de classes. (telefone toca).

LBN: Recentemente tem surgido um interesse no trabalho dos neo-vitalistas, como Kenzo Tange �?que eu sei que você conhece. Isto dentro do campo do desenho sustentável ou ecológico. O seu vernáculo tropical é sustentável?
ON: Eu quando tenho um projeto pra fazer, eu penso no projeto. Às vezes a solução vem de repente, até sem pegar no lápis. Eu, por exemplo, estava em Alger e tinha que fazer a mesquita. Fiquei de noite pensando na mesquita, levantei e desenhei. Outras vezes, me obrigo a pensar… O Museu de Niterói por exemplo, era simples, tinha um braço de terra, em volta era o mar. Tinha um apoio vertical e surgiu a arquitetura. Quando eu faço o projeto, e tenho uma ideia, eu faço o texto explicativo. Então eu escrevo como é que eu vejo o projeto. Se eu não tenho argumentos, eu volto à prancheta. Se tenho, aí eu começo a trabalhar.
O projeto varia muito. Primeiro, do espaço em volta, da ideia de criar uma coisa nova. Por exemplo, o Mondadori, que era o dono da editora Mondadori de Milão, veio me procurar. Ele tinha estado em Brasília, e ele queria fazer um prédio em Milão que tivesse as colunas de Brasília, a colunata. Eu disse: “está bem, eu faço.�?#8211; mas eu fiz diferente. Eu fiz as colunas sustentando as vigas do teto, que por sua vez sustentavam os andares. Então eram colunas muito mais fortes. Eu queria variar a colunata.
Num período da renascença italiana, se você examinar, você vai ver que eles se preocupavam, naquela época, eles ainda se preocupavam com as colunas gregas. Você vai ver os trabalhos daqueles arquitetos italianos, e os prédios estão cheios de coluninhas. Eles discutiam a parte de cima das colunas variando. Eles não tinha coragem de fazer coisa diferente. Na Mondadori, em que eu queria mexer nas colunatas, eu mexi no espaço. Porque o espaço faz parte da Arquitetura. Em vez de eu fazer colunas com espaços iguais eu fiz com quinze metros, três metros, cinco metros. Então eu mudei o tipo de colunata. Eu nunca vi antes uma colunata assim, com espaços diferentes. Então é uma novidade. Isso é que, a meu ver, é Arquitetura.
Agora, quando eu tenho um tema, eu procuro estudar. Tenho uma ideia, e às vezes a coisa é rápida, outras vezes é complicada. Por exemplo, eu fiz um prédio em São Paulo, uma cúpula. Ela ficou entregue aos militares a vida inteira. Agora recuperaram a cúpula, a cúpula é bonita. As grandes exposições em São Paulo agora são feitas nessa cúpula. Eu fiz essa cúpula há 40 anos atrás. Ela tem umas sobrelojas, que encostam assim na cúpula e deixam espaços vazios. Agora o Pompidou está fazendo uma exposição em São Paulo. Está fazendo nessa cúpula, que eu fiz há 40 anos atrás.
Agora eu fiz um museu, que eu tinha feito um projeto para o Paraná, que era uma escola. Era uma escola em pilotis. Ela tinha 200 metros de comprimento e 40 de largura. Mas quando eu vi a escola agora, 40 anos depois, eu fiquei surpreso. Porque é bonita. Ela é toda fechada, a iluminação é por cima, zenital. Então os espaços de colunas, tem espaço de 60 metros, feito há 40 anos atrás, entre uma coluna e outra. Então o diretor, com o prefeito, resolveu fazer um museu, e pensou que nesse prédio ele podia ter tudo que um museu precisa: cursos, auditórios, tudo que o museu mais moderno precisa chegava nesse prédio. Faltava então fazer um salão de exposições. E ele queria um salão de exposições que não escondesse o prédio, porque lá gostam muito desse prédio. Então eu fiz uma torre e fiz um salão no ar. De modo que a Arquitetura é isso, cada tema é diferente.
Agora me pediram um projeto pra São Paulo, não me lembro a cidade, e eu fiz o projeto. Então eles queriam um auditório pra 3000 pessoas e, além do auditório, uma arquibancada para 3000 pessoas também, para voleibol, basquetebol. Mas eu não queria fazer duas coisas isoladas. Eu queria fazer um prédio que tivesse o auditório, com todo o conforto que auditório deve ter –som, aquilo tudo– as salas necessárias para encontros, congressos, e, ao mesmo tempo, no mesmo prédio, a arquibancada. Duas coisas no mesmo prédio, mas independentes. E assim sobrava mais espaço. E eu fiz. Então é um prédio diferente que, eu imagino, você nunca viu. Tem um auditório moderno, pra 3000 pessoas, e uma arquibancada para voleibol e basquetebol, para jogos especiais. Então sai um prédio diferente. Porque o programa é que leva a gente a uma solução. Eu vou mostrar pra vocês uma maquete de trabalho, maquete muito simples, mas que já dá ideia do se vai fazer, e vou mostrar a outra maquete desse prédio lá do Paraná, que já começou. Porque o prefeito veio aqui e ficou tão espantado com o prédio que viu que era bom, pra ele, pra construir lá. Ele achava que o tal bloco ficava solto na cidade. Então já começou a obra. Mas o arquiteto não escolhe os assuntos. Os assuntos aparecem, e a gente faz.

LBN: Como o senhor se sente ao ser citado como o outro comunista que existe no mundo, sendo que Fidel Castro é o outro?
ON: Ah, Fidel Castro é uma figura fantástica. Está ali ao lado dos Estados Unidos desafiando o poder americano. O Bush está querendo invadir, mas não tem coragem. Seria ruim demais pra humanidade. Fidel transformou, ele vive lá de braços dados com o povo, é um país fantástico, não tem miséria, são todos amigos. Quando vem um cubano aqui eu fico espantado, não tem analfabeto lá, eles tem uma noção da vida, dos direitos. É um exemplo para a humanidade.

LBN: O que o senhor pensa que vai acontecer com a solidariedade e o comunismo?
ON: Acho que o que houve na União Soviética foi um acidente de percurso. A coisa vai mudar. Porque o comunismo é a ideia que está no ar. Pode ter outro nome, até. Mas a ideia é de que os homens possam ser iguais, vivam iguais, em meio às possibilidades, ninguém pode ser contra isso. Só tarado, não é?

LBN: Para um ateu, o senhor tem um imenso dom para condicionamento espiritual. Como o senhor se conecta com essas sensibilidades em sua obra eclesiástica?
ON: Eu era de família católica. Eu me lembro que, em casa…
Era uma família de fazendeiros. Meu avô veio para o Rio, era juiz de paz, depois foi ministro do Supremo Tribunal. Eu fui criado num ambiente assim: vinham uns políticos ficavam na casa, a casa era grande, e tinha uma sala de visitas, tinha umas seis janelas, minha avó abria, uma delas era o oratório, tinha missa em casa. Mas quando eu saí pra vida, a vida é injusta demais. De modo que o que se pode fazer é protestar. Eu tô [SIC] sempre ai protestando contra o que for preciso.

LBN: Alguns anos atrás, o senhor dividiu a sua vida em três partes: Pampulha, Brasília e a terceira, a Arquitetura mais perto da terra com vigas mais compridas. Você conseguiu nomear a terceira?
ON: Não, a arquitetura que eu faço é sempre a mesma. O que muda são os problemas, os assuntos que aparecem. Eu devia parar. Eu devia ter parado há muito tempo. Mas eu tenho gente que depende de mim, eu não posso nem morrer. Senão eu teria parado há muito mais tempo.

LBN: Qual o projeto que o senhor esta desenvolvendo atualmente?
ON: É esse projeto que eu estou dizendo. Eu tenho um projeto para a Noruega, uma casa e me interessa muito, porque é diferente de todas lá. Tem outro projeto na Itália…Aqui eu estou fazendo esse museu, em Niterói, estou fazendo o caminho Niemeyer que é lá em Niterói, e esse museu Paraná.
Tem o caminho Niemeyer que tem uma catedral, são diversos prédios. É um projeto que me interessa muito. Esses prédios são um conjunto na beira do mar, é um lugar que vai dar muito realce à arquitetura. No momento, eu tenho estudado os prédios, mas pensando que eles devem coincidir. Entre eles, deve ter um elemento plástico que liga e cria unidade do conjunto. É um trabalho que me interessa, mas que é difícil de andar porque é complicado…
Mas esses dois, esse museu e esse prédio, são os dois que estão me ocupando mais.

LBN: Há um interesse próprio de refletir ideias sociopolíticas através das liberdades plásticas e da estética gestual da sua obra?
ON: Não. A obra que eu faço é resolver o problema que vem às mãos. É convocar os artistas para trabalhar, tentar voltar àquela integridade das Artes, àquela ligação das Artes com a Arquitetura. Convoco os artistas. Esse projeto que eu estou fazendo em Niterói, por exemplo, não vai ter materiais caros, não. Eu não faço da minha Arquitetura propaganda de material, não. A parede lisa, branca. Agora, quando é possível, tem uma pintura, tem um desenho.

LBN: O autor marxista Hal Foster afirma: “A livre expressão de Gehry implica a falta de liberdade da nossa inibição. O que quer dizer que sua liberdade é na maioria uma franquia na qual ele representa a liberdade mais do que ele a concretiza. Em outros sentidos, e com grandes consequências, esta visão da expressão e liberdade é opressiva, porque Gehry projeta desde a lógica cultural do capitalismo avançado em termos da linguagem de correr riscos e efeitos espetaculares.�?Durante esta época onde o capitalismo e o comunismo parecem chegar em um ponto de saturação, o senhor poderia dar algumas palavras como sugestões para interpretar essas experiências, a fim de torná-las intuições?
ON: Não entendi bem. Eu faço Arquitetura que eu gosto. Eu procuro a forma diferente, mas sempre pensando na função. Por exemplo, fiz o projeto do Mondadori, que é um palácio.
Quando ele ficou pronto, e ele teve que fazer outro projeto, em outra cidade, ele me chamou. Então o projeto era funcional.
Eu fiz a sede do Partido Comunista em Paris. Quando eles quiseram fazer o jornal, anos depois, eles me chamaram. Quer dizer, o meu trabalho funcionava bem. De modo que eu acho que a arquitetura tem que atender à finalidade, mas deve ser bonita, deve ser diferente.
Agora, cada arquiteto escolhe o tipo de arquitetura, de forma plástica, que lhe agrada mais. De modo que eu não critico ninguém, eu acho que está tudo bem, cada um faz o que quer. Eu não leio nada sobre o meu trabalho. Tem muitos livros publicados, eu nunca li. Eu quero fazer o meu trabalho, modestamente, como eu gosto. Se me perguntam do arquiteto, o arquiteto é bom, mas eu não digo quem é melhor ou quem é pior. Eu estive lá na casa do Frank Lloyd Wright. Passei uma noite na casinha de Oak Park. Uma casa bonita, ótima. O que ele gostava de fazer. O principal é que o arquiteto esteja satisfeito com o que ele faz. O resto, os outros, não deve interessar. Quando eles começam a se interessar pelo que vão dizer da sua arquitetura, aí ela não está bem, acho que deve ser uma coisa espontânea. O trabalho desse arquiteto deve ser ótimo, se ele está contente de fazer, está ótimo.

LBN: Eu tenho uma pergunta pessoal. Eu li um artigo na revista Trip, recentemente, em que você fala que a sua droga é a mulher. E eu pergunto: qual a sua religião?
ON: Acho mulher importante, é o mais importante. Mais importante que Arquitetura. Acho que deve ser. A vida é isso: a gente rir e chorar o tempo todo, a gente viver os momentos bons e os maus e aguentar. É isso. Não tem mistério.

Luis Berríos-Negrón entrevista Oscar Niemeyer

English version by the author

Note by the author

This interview occurred while I was student of fine arts at the Parsons School of Design in New York City. It was made possible by way of Mariza and Veveco Hardy who were collaborating with Niemeyer at the time. It was scheduled before the events of 9.11 took place. And when 9.11 went down, the loss of life was horrific. I was also horrified about the kind of hatred a building as icon could generate. I became deeply confused about the role of architecture. I needed answers�?none came, only more confusion. One of the attributes to the confusion was that, already in October, there was an “exhibition” of Ground Zero proposals at the Max Protech Gallery in the art district of Chelsea in New York. Most starchitects sent a submission. I saw the show. I was not able to understand how fast this happened. As I was made aware by the Hardy’s that I will have a chance to meet and speak to arguably the most experienced living architect, I was already doing my best, not trying to make an interview, but just to look for personal answers, to see if Niemeyer’s wisdom would bleed into me. In the end, it was not his wisdom that bled into me, but surely his patience, humility, humour, and experience that undoubtedly changed my life forever by merely explaining, only as Dr. Oscar could, that it was too early to propose anything for Ground Zero.

Immediately upon my return to New York, I enrolled in a Ground Zero architectural design studio by Bill Sharples of SHoP architects. And it was during that semester where I practiced resistance for the first time, that despite the possibility of being failed for not producing “a building”, I heeded to Niemeyer’s advice. My effort resulted not in a building, but in an environmental and cultural analysis of the site, that informed a series of programmatic diagrams for a Geo and Bio Ethics University in Lower Manhattan. This program was strictly based on the idea of patience, of time, respect and consideration that was just not in the curriculum of my architectural education. It is an idea, especially in the context of climate change, of real estate bubbles, and the greed-driven neoliberal destabilization of the markets and of entire societies, that to this day still is the beating drum that gives rhythm to my work. For this, and his enormous built and social legacy, I will be forever grateful to Niemeyer, and to Veveco.

Interview Oscar Niemeyer

On December of 2001, there I sat in the new terminal 4 at the JFK airport in New York about to board a plane heading to Brazil. The stress of the current travel conditions is gracefully diminished by the enormously light Alexander Calder mobile�?grounding me, reminding me of the reason for this flight: Oscar Niemeyer. I focus on Calder’s mobile and feel the zero gravity, a timeless scale. Feelings Niemeyer has also given me upon navigating his oeuvre, a malleable license to dream he awarded us decades ago. And then it hits me, what am I to ask, to say to Niemeyer? How can I, a wet-behind-the-ears student-architect, connect with this 94 year old living legend, communist, reluctant associate of Le Corbusier, and contemporary of greats such as Lloyd Wright, Gropius, Tange, Van der Rohe, Sartre? There are light years of information in between us. How shall we wormhole the sense in this one?

Oscar Niemeyer is Brazilian, “carioca�?to be exact (from the state of Rio de Janeiro). He was born with modernism. At 33, he built his first mayor commission, several leisure buildings around the Pampulha Lake in Belo Horizonte, where his St. Francis of Assisi chapel is located. At 40 he submits a design competing against the most renowned architects in the world, Le Corbusier being one of the competitors, for the see of the United Nations in New York City. He is awarded with the commission, and despite disagreements with Le Corbusier, he accepts the award and goes forth with its construction, built in 1953. From 1955 through 1960, he, alongside his mentor/urbanist Lucio Costa, designs and builds the new capital city of Brazil, Brasilia. During the 60’s and 70’s Niemeyer is harassed and persecuted by the insurgent military dictatorship. The chief engineer of Brasilia and good friend of Niemeyer, Joaquim Cardozo, is judged and prosecuted for “incompetence�?for his role in the building of the new capital. Niemeyer is forced to seek political asylum in Europe for almost 2 decades. During those years, and still to this day, he continues to build in 5 continents with dozens of transcendental works credited to his oeuvre.

He is criticized, alleging that Brasilia did not work. Niemeyer wrote �?“I hope that Brasilia becomes a city of happy people, people that feel life in all its plenitude, in all its frailty; people who understand the value of the simple things �?a gesture, an expression of affection and solidarity.�?Perhaps Niemeyer depended on humanity…

Surrounded by the intoxicating spirit of Rio and with my vague Spanish version of Portuguese, I am welcomed with warmth and contagious sympathy by Mr. Niemeyer (or Dr. Oscar as he is referred to around these parts).

Luis Berríos-Negrón: So, you’re meeting today with Le Monde (newspaper of largest circulation in France), for the publishing of a brief biography. Why do you think you are, at 94, as requested as ever?
Oscar Niemeyer: I do not know the reason (smiles). I am a common man just as everyone else.

LBN: As described in my letter to you, I feel there’s a great desire to hear your opinions during this period of drastic change and conflict. 9.11 has instigated a vast reassessment of perceptions, from local to global standpoints. And for many of us who were meters away from the collapse, we have been left with a profound feeling of despondence. For us specifically, as new students of the profession, we are beginning to wonder what is to become of the world, little less of the profession… its seeming irrelevance due to inexplicit geopolitics causing the radical dismay of our fellow citizens across the globe. Considering this, do you envision a new role for architecture… for the student, for the professional, for the people?
ON: I have always told students that school is not enough to be a professional. I always say that one needs to be aware of the world and of life so to be able to participate with dignity in the events of actuality. When I designed the University of Algiers in Africa I also proposed a program for the school of architecture that, in addition to the traditional curriculum, it implemented parallel courses in science, philosophy, sociology, literature and politics. All so that the student can leave the academia to live in decency, able to manifest. That is my opinion. I go through life tied to my drawing table, but I find that life is much more important than architecture.

LBN: Do you feel that the skyscraper still has a place in these times of neoliberal sprawl?
ON: I believe that urbanism has options. It can be vertical, it can be horizontal. Any solution can be good. I believe that the architect must be sensitive, procuring the needs of the community. Urbanism must be a solution that provides for the well-being of humanity. I understand that architecture changed many things. For me, after reinforced concrete, I have not had any interest in other architectures. In the past, in Rome for example, they made a dome of thirty-five meters in diameter and one meter of thickness. Yesterday, we released a design for a dome of seventy meters in diameter with a twenty-centimetre thickness. So, the technique has evolved. Reinforced concrete is what prevails. The space that the architect designs must procure the function of society. Therefore, the architecture makes the architect make the architecture. I do not credit an architecture that serves all. It would be repetition, it would be monotony. I believe architects, within reason, must procure their own architecture. I believe in intuition. I do my work. I procure a lighter architecture.

LBN: Do you have any suggestions as to what should be done with the site where the World Trade Center used to be?
ON: No, I do not. I understand there will be an exhibition in New York (Max Protech Gallery) about these proposals. I was invited to participate in this exhibition, but I respectfully declined to submit any ideas. I feel that we are entering one of the darkest periods in human history, a period of violence. Many see that what happened to the Towers was an act of terrorism, but I believe that the invasions and the bombardments are also acts of terrorism. I find it horrible. The death and the horror caused by the collapse of the Towers were horrible, but the destruction of entire cities and nations in the Arab world is also horrible. Many innocent people are dying.

ON: I believe that life is a minute (smiles). I believe we should live better. We must live well. Why that misery, that hatred? I travelled the Arab world and it is an antiquated world. I was in Saudi Arabia and it is outside of civilization. I was in the United States and I liked it. During those years students were jumping on the streets saying – “up democracy, down fascism…�?It was a time of enthusiasm trying to make a better world. But that’s in the past, now it is all confused. I don’t like Bin Laden, but I don’t like Bush either.

LBN: Looking at Brasilia after half a century, and considering “the urban proliferation of confusion�?1) abetted by the Alphavilles (model of gated communities of Brazil, ironic considering Goddard), can architecture and urbanism still facilitate social mobility?
ON: I find that it is man who damages things. Look at Argentina. It is a moment of enthusiasm where the people come out to the streets. In Brazil, things are not well either. They have sold our country. It is very complex, don’t you think? I am not a political analyst, I am just a simple architect, but I am interested and I have my opinion. I lived my life protesting for a better, common life, for a more just world.

LBN: I read a recent article about you in Wall Paper magazine where you described La Casa do Baile in Pampulha, as you would describe many if not all of your public works, as a place for the people. Is the Sambadrome a satisfying project from a socio-political point of view?
ON: Carnaval is an event of the people. The people are those who are poor and live in the favela. When Carnaval comes, those who live in the favelas innocently spend the bit of money they saved during the year on their costumes to go and entertain those who have oppressed them all throughout the year. There goes the bourgeoisie to applaud, only to return the next day to the same oppression and rejection of the poor. The world is very perverse.

LBN: And the United Nations?
ON: Like I said, man damages everything.

LBN: Which project has given you the most satisfaction?
ON: I have made such diverse projects… if you look at my work, I have made few apartment and office buildings. I have made more theatres, museums… projects that require more imagination. Those are the commissions I enjoy. I like making residences but it is always a pain in the ass dealing with proprietors (smiles). I made a house in Brasilia. The house was good. When the house was ready, the owner called me to go see it. I did. When I arrived, the owners were waiting for me at the entrance, a nice couple. They say to me �?“Dr. Niemeyer, this house has changed our lives. We liked it so much we decorated it ourselves.�?I was frozen [laughs]. When I went in, the house had no architecture left. So, architecture is not only the outside, it is also the inside, the program. That is something that it is difficult for people to understand. The design is the space that envelops the architecture. Now, I will tell you that I do what I enjoy. When the theme allows it, I speculate a technique, I convene my engineers. I made a building in Brasilia. It is a government building, it is large. When one arrives under it one only sees one structural member, seemingly floating in the air. This building rises and all the floors are held by two beams that come down into the ground. This is a demonstration of technique. I try in helping architecture evolve. The President of Brazil passes by and says �?“why such a luxurious building?�?He does not comprehend. When I make a public building as such, I imagine the poor person that will never get anything out of it. That although it is the others that will benefit, that will make money from it, it is this poor person that can at least look at it and say with pleasure �?“this is different.�?Therefore, architecture is full of secrets. The people want to see the architectural spectacle.

LBN: You are probably tired of listening to people ask you about this quote by Le Corbusier – “Oscar, you do baroque in reinforced concrete, but you do it very well.�?
ON: The only influence I had from Le Corbusier was when he told me “Oscar, architecture is invention.�?Therefore I procure the making of an architecture that has something different, which creates surprise. But my architecture is very different from his. He made this heavy thing. He did not speculate much on the technique. When one arrives into his work there is a lot of columns. He used columns at less than a half the distance of what was needed, you know, like the Egyptians [smirks]. But, I do not criticize him. Everybody does what they please.

LBN: What are your most important interventions, politically or otherwise, as to protest a social or government action? Have you ever intervened in the misuse of one of your buildings?
ON: I joined the communist party. I was prohibited from visiting the United States for 20 years. I continued with my ideas. Communism is an idea that continues to be, in the air. It exists for the fellowship of humanity. What happened in the Soviet Union will one day be modified. What the Soviets wanted was government support for housing, food, health, science. I find that capitalism is in decadence. The United States is in a path of crisis. It took 300 years for the Roman Empire to crumble. They might remain in that climate of power and of excessive intervention in the lives of others for many years. But that will end. I believe that man should look to the sky and realize that he is a little thing, of little importance. People are living on appearances… what appearances? A journalist once asked me �?“Doctor, after you die, people will see your buildings and then they marvel at your genius.�?Marvel about what [laughs]?! People die too, you know. We all die. Everything ends.

LBN: What do you mean when you say �?“the architect should be born an architect, just as a painter should be born a painter?�?
ON: I believe that there should be intuition in the arts. The person learns architecture. The person goes to school. If the person has talent, a different architecture might emerge. If not, the person can be useful in making normal architecture, indispensable for life. Like a child, one must protect intuition. An eight year old child can make a fantastic design. The child goes to school, meets the teachers, learns the rules. I would like for schools of architecture to allow for more freedom. I know many graphic, furniture, and interior designers that are better architects than architects. Le Corbusier did not go to school. He had an idea of architecture. He worked in an architect’s studio and from there he went on to design the things that he liked. That is why I believe there should be intuition. If there is no intuition, there is mediocrity. Architects are making things that are uniform. If you go to Brasilia today, it is very sad. You see buildings on the streets that are methodical, mediocre, confusing. But what can I do? If you look here in Rio de Janeiro and you ask what is being built, you will be taken to Barra (beach-front area southwest of Rio). Barra is shit. It is another Miami. It is a suburb of Miami. In any modern city, to see good architecture, you have to have an address on hand, because there is no unity. But that’s how it is.

LBN: How does it feel to be referred as to the other communist left in the world… the other of course being Fidel?
ON: Ah… Fidel Castro is a fantastic figure. There he is, alongside the United Sates, defying American power. Fidel transformed the life of humanity, relating himself to others in a wonderful country. There is no misery, there is fraternity, they have an extraordinary public health system, there is no illiteracy. It is a great example for all humankind.

LBN: What is to become of solidarity and communism?
ON: I believe that what happened in the Soviet Union was an unforeseen accident. It will evolve, because, again, communism is something that is in the air, which will soon have another name. The idea is that we should live as equals, that we live well. Who can go against that? Only the insane [laughs].

LBN: For an atheist you have quite a gift for making space for spirituality. How do you connect with these sensibilities in your ecclesiastic work?
ON: I was from a Catholic family. My family were landowners. My father came to Rio and got involved in politics. Our house was big and they held gatherings. My mother would open the six windows in our living room, then she would open the “oratorio�?(enclosed altar) and there they would hold mass. But when I left on to live life, I realized that life is very unjust. Therefore, it is important to protest. I go through life protesting that which is unjust.

LBN: What is the project you are currently working on… that you are most enthusiastic about?
ON: In addition to the projects I have already mentioned to you, I am currently making a house in Norway. I have great interest in this house. I am also making a building in Italy. Here in Rio, I am making “El Camino Niemeyer�?in Niteroi that will be a complex of buildings that include a cathedral. That complex will be alongside the coast near the ocean. It is a site that interests me because it will enhance the architecture there. I need to closely analyze the conditions as I feel that the buildings must coincide, that there needs to be a soft, plastic element that connects them. But, the auditorium in Sao Paulo and the museum in Paraná are taking up most of my time.

LBN: Is there intent to project socio-political ideas through the “plastic freedoms�?and “gestural aesthetics�?of your work?
ON: My oeuvre is: the work that I make that comes to my hands, it is to convene my fellow artists to work, it is an attempt to return to the integrity of the arts, it is an attempt to return to the ligation between art and architecture. That project that I am making in Niteroi is not going to be done with expensive materials. I do not make my architecture propaganda of materials. My wall is smooth of white. Whenever possible I add a painting or a drawing.

LBN: American critic Hal Foster states �?“[Frank Gehry’s] free expression implies our unfree inhibition, which is also to say that his freedom is mostly a franchise in which he represents freedom more than he enacts it. Today, this exceptional license is extended to Gehry as much as to any artist, and certainly with greater consequences. In another sense this vision of expression and freedom is oppressive because Gehry does indeed design out of “the cultural logic�?of advanced capitalism, in terms of its language of risk-taking and spectacle effects.�?– So I ask you, at a time where capitalism and communism seem to be reaching points of saturation, could you give us a few more words that might help us adapt to these changes?
ON: I do the architecture that I like. I don’t criticize anyone, everyone do as they please. I don’t read anything about my work. There are a lot of books published about my work but the only thing I want is to do the work I like. If you ask me about an architect I will say the work is good. I will never tell you which architect is better, which one is worst. I visited Frank Lloyd Wright at one of his houses, a beautiful house that he liked. The principal element is that the architect is satisfied with the work. When the architect becomes preoccupied with what is being said about the work then the architecture is no good. I always feel that it should be more spontaneous. The best work is that which makes you feel well. Then it can be good.

LBN: Doctor, one last question: your dear friend Gabriel García Márquez titles one of his books “Del amor y otros demonios�?/em> (Of love and other demons). If women are “your drug�? what is your religion?
ON: Doctor, one last question: your dear friend Gabriel García Márquez titles one of his books “Del amor y otros demonios�?(Of love and other demons). If women are “your drug�? what is your religion?