C 25 63
act of feeling the material, touching it, and
starting to connect parts, build a whole new
universe. It’s fascinating how play pulls
you out of a place and context, and trans-
ports you elsewhere. I think I came to this
point by coincidence, because I started to
win competitions to build schools. I was
interested in why schools were, and are,
still being built as products of a system that
gives plenty of importance to efficiency and
functionality. And that’s when I began to
understand teaching methods and the role of
play and architecture in education. I wanted
to transform the school, to understand it
more as the problem of an artifact than as
a tool for learning.
JB: We are both enamored of play, al-
though from different angles. But there is a
junction point: play’s capacity to generate
and conquer unexpected spaces. For me, as
the source of a new aesthetic, I understand
play from the prism of its ability to break
classical schemes of composition.
GM: Exactly, like small unfinished archi-
tectures that can grow, or transform over
time. Another beautiful thing about them,
in my view, is the death of their makers. In
truth, toys are designed by whoever plays
with them. The user thus takes on a funda-
mental role, not only in the toy as a mate-
rial object, but also in the play activity as
a question of how space is used. I believe
that my obsession with play is very archi-
tectural in nature.
JB: I have stretched it a bit more to cover
aesthetics and the concept of the plane. My
proposal is biased. It comes from a Baude-
lairean idea that called for more attention
on everyday life. And indeed, everyday life
was wonderful because children were taught
geometry with a book by Oliver Byrne that
explained Euclid’s theorems through the
primary colors. This was in 1838. You look
at it and see neoplasticism.
GM: Clearly we’re both keen on play be-
cause of what it yields, not only because of
the beauty of the plaything. With a game
or toy set, for example, I have a lot of fun
doing or making something different from
what the manufacturer proposes. I like not
following the instruction manual.
JB: Yes, the toy transforms the child,
and at the same time, the child transforms
the toy.
GM: Exactly! That’s my second obsession.
The toy not as plaything, but as play in and
of itself. In architecture, this activates other
ways of using spaces. When I mentioned
space being basically a hyperfunctional sys-
tem, exclusively intended to be efficient, I
was precisely referring to a way of doing
things. If in a project I bring in three condi-
tions – for example, a space for dancing,
another for cooking, and yet another for
keeping butterflies – I am adding elements
more aligned with the ludic and playful than
with efficiency and function. So it’s a way of
criticizing how we continue to design floor
plans which are merely functional diagrams.
JB: I totally agree. Especially the prac-
tice of composing on plan, which serves no
purpose because in the end, that’s what one
sees the least, and experiences the least. I
am very interested in the history of treatises,
and there’s one written by Ferdinando Galli
da Bibiena, from the 18th century, whose
title is absolutely programmatic: Architec-
ture produced with geometry and reduced
to perspective. Indeed, when the architect
works with flat geometry, he produces noth-
ing that can actually be lived in.
GM: We were taught to work from the
springboard of the floor plan, to think of
the functional diagram; that is, to figure
out the most efficient way of connecting
the dots. Well, my recommendation is quite
different: use games and toys, and put in el-
ements that are not just efficient. Only then
can architecture result in other, unforeseen
relationships. It’s evident that our obses-
sions intersect, but mine, unfortunately or
fortunately, are too tied to the field of ar-
chitecture.
JB: Well, the connection between toys
and architecture is fascinating too. It’s
curious that the history of the construc-
tion toy set begins in the mid-19th century.
With just four little boxes of architecture,
Friedrich Fröbel demonstrated the versatil-
ity of modules. He managed to make the
manufacturers realize it, and that was when
they started to produce these sets in large
quantities. I am also interested in the story
of the drawing teacher Johann Heinrich
Pestalozzi, a colleague of Fröbel, who as-
signed fascinating exercises to his pupils.
“I understand play from
the prism of its ability to
break classical schemes of
composition“
