C 2020 119
ment seem to count, and less attention is
paid to the details, to the elements of every-
day life. As you were saying, the Victorian
house is an example, and leaves traces ev-
erywhere of its daily activities. And that is
what modernity has eliminated completely.
I’d say the market has managed to make the
most of that trend, but this has happened in
complicity with the academy, culture, and
architects in the sense that we still think
about Ornament is Crime: we still deny that
those everyday aspects are relevant.
CP: Sometimes I ask myself why the
architectures I dislike deny their ties with
people and things: buildings that, not by
coincidence, are photographed without
people. That’s why I always say that I look
for a contaminated architecture, I want to
photograph architecture that is alive, which
reflects how people move, how they feel in-
side it. What’s sad is that these architectures
that exclude the human are incredibly suc-
cessful, also among everyday people, which
makes me think that perhaps people are in
need of that epic you are talking about.
IC: I have the feeling that precisely that
praise of the more epic aspects, that denial
of the importance of details and of everyday
life, is somehow the origin of that separa-
tion between civil society and architecture
as a profession. There is a temporary factor
– we’re in an economic crisis, a crisis of the
production model, an ecological crisis – and
maybe the way in which women have been
educated, their culture and their way of act-
ing is part of the solution. This is not a call
for protection, but a call for an opportunity
and a strategy. I always say there is a first
and a second feminism that advocate equal
rights for women and for men: the right to
vote, the right to take on public posts or
the right to have a political role in society.
And, next, the right to be part of an execu-
tive committee or of company management:
the possibility of being part of the decision-
making groups in society, but trying to make
sure that equal rights involve equal roles,
that is, making the woman perform like a
man. We are in a situation in which there
should be a revision of feminism associated
to the idea that the environment and nature
put us, as human species, in our place: a
more vulnerable place where we might not
want to be men. Perhaps I have no interest
in being president of a political party or of
a company if that means I won’t be able to
balance my private life and my public life, if
that means I’ll have to give up maternity…
CP: But society too, and not just men,
maintains the traditional gender roles.
Today we know what type of feminism we
need to defend, but I don’t want anything
given to me, so to speak. I don’t want to be
chosen for a post just because I’m a woman. I
consider myself a better architect than many
other architects. I have a vision of the world
that is complemented by other visions of the
world. History, culture, genetics, or biology
have led us to perceive things in different
ways. In this context, women must claim the
essential and active role of the female condi-
tion. I don’t want to be given half of some-
thing: I forgo charity and don’t want to be
labelled or pigeonholed. I see life as a whole,
and in life there are aspects that respond to
a male vision and others that come from a
female vision. So when you say you wouldn’t
want to be a company director because you
would have to give up many things in life, I
think no one who steps into that role should
be expected to give up certain things. That’s
why I say that, in the end, the market is the
winner in all this: the only thing that counts
is productivity, short-term benefits which
demand huge sacrifices… This is what we
should fight for: a fuller life with multiple
and complementary visions.
IC: Joining messages, I think that the
transition of women into the labor market
is a collective advantage, not for women,
but for society as a whole. It’s a matter
of vindicating, reasserting the value, and
placing at the service of society a series
of tools – which have been acquired and
naturalized – for work and for dialogue, as
well as a cultural heritage which up to now
haven’t been part of the conversations about
public life. Do we give immigrants permis-
sion just to live in our country or do we let
them change the rules? Because maybe the
right thing is not only letting them live like
we do, but letting them change some of our
rules so that society can evolve towards
greater cosmpolitanism.
CP: Every time there has been a rise in
knowledge, diversity, cross-cultural contam-
ination, it has brought moments of peace and
also of prosperity. But cultural exchange has
always needed mutual involvement, other-
wise the result is isolation, and, when you
close yourself to the world and to others,
prosperity ends. That’s why I think exclu-
sionary nationalisms only lead to conflict.
“The way in which women
have been educated, their
culture and their manner of
acting, is part of the solution“
