No, I don’t consider myself an archistar because that is just a word coined by the press. What really counts is the quality of the work. The art of the architect is the most important thing. Archistar doesn’t necessarily mean great architect: the projects and the architecture make the difference. Not all the archistars are great architects, but still it’s not an offensive word. It’s just a common term used by people. It has a meaning for the audience.

No, it’s not offensive. It’s a positive word because it indicates a signature, an identification sign. There are pop-stars and movie stars, music stars, cinema stars and theatre stars and besides the architecture stars. Creating a piece of work means to make people hear your voice, expressing a style and speaking a certain language. With his architecture, the artist ceases to speak in general and creates a piece of work that is expression of his own signature and soul. It’s the artist’s way to express himself in front of a vast public, not only in front of those who belong to the architectural sector.

Yes, of course they are, like most people are jealous of stars.

Before, architecture was either beautiful or functional. Today, in the 21st century, things have changed: functionality and beauty must go together, one is just as important as the other. The architect must create something beautiful by creating a dialogue between idea, economy, creativity, aesthetics and functionality. He must create something beautiful: Stradivari violin is not only functional, it is also beautiful to look at. Or a Ferrari: functionality is accompanied by form.

It’s the art of architecture. Carrying out a project doesn’t mean only doing a technical job that necessarily has to respect the classic rules of architecture. To me, creating a project means finding a link between aesthetics and beauty to an analysis of the surrounding landscape and territory. This kind of analysis concerns the city planning, the condition of the place and its uniqueness, the population and its history and the light.

Have you seen my projects? Do they all look alike to you? How could they be similar to one another? I don’t have a magic formula that can be applied to any kind of context. I create a relationship between my idea and the analysis of the place. There is no contradiction. My architecture goes beyond a mere celebration of myself because my work is the result of the uniqueness of the place, of the project and the architect. This union gives strength to my work.

The architect shouldn’t either adapt to what is already there or reproduce an image of something that already exists. He should follow the change of the place, that isn’t dead or inert. Hence, the architect shouldn’t either react to the reading of the place or intervene on an image of the context: he should work on the the place as it is. He must never be passive, he must respect the place without standing still, but transforming it dinamically. The future architecture is not the one that imitates the past.

An architect must be responsible for his projects. I think about my projects constantly. At each step, the project changes and I make modifications in it. I think it’s positive that I call myself into question and reanalyze my ideas, depending on the changes of the city and the place. I don’t go straight towards my initial idea: I follow the nature of my idea, but I don’t build for me. I build for a client that must be satisfied with my work.

No, I am not, because I don’t draw my projects with criticism.

No, that is not true. It is very functional. Museums are changing, they are mutating. Those who criticize are clutched at the past, history and models of the past century. The aesthetic aspect emphasizes the functional aspect. The great architecture can be dramatic, but aesthetics can also be very functional for the interiors.

Renzo Piano is a great architect. I admire him. He is truly excellent. Provocation? No, his proposal is as interesting and excellent as he is.