Chief Juror Explains Why RCR Arquitectes Won the 2017 Pritzker
The chair of the Pritzker Prize jury tells us how and why the honor went to a trio of quiet Spanish architects
Why did the three architects of RCR Arquitectes, who have created works quietly in a rural town in the Catalonia region of Spain, win one of the highest distinctions in architecture? At the May 20 award ceremony in Japan, world-renowned architect Glenn Murcutt — a past recipient of the award and current chair of the jury — explains.
Q. Was the selection of this year’s winner a smooth process?
Murcutt: As chair of the jury, I am particularly interested in every member of the jury speaking. I want to discuss the work; talk about siting, section, light, wind, planning strategy and so on. I want every member of the panel to talk about these aspects. In the past, they didn’t discuss these things as much as I did.
Importantly, when the jury discusses issues thoroughly, a unity starts to develop because everybody listens to everybody else, thinking, ‘Ah, I agree with that!’ Or maybe, ‘I don’t agree entirely, so I want to discuss this more with other members.’ And I carry on that discussion. This year’s discussion lasted seven hours.
At the end, when we’d gone through the process of why a form is considered, or why there are others that are better, we held a voting process for each candidate, asking, ‘Do we keep this person; do we not?’
When a practice got more than 50 percent votes, we kept them. We did it to get to the winner. And let me say, the jury was unanimous about RCR. Every member voted for RCR. This is what a chair wants to happen. There is not a unanimous decision every year.
Murcutt: As chair of the jury, I am particularly interested in every member of the jury speaking. I want to discuss the work; talk about siting, section, light, wind, planning strategy and so on. I want every member of the panel to talk about these aspects. In the past, they didn’t discuss these things as much as I did.
Importantly, when the jury discusses issues thoroughly, a unity starts to develop because everybody listens to everybody else, thinking, ‘Ah, I agree with that!’ Or maybe, ‘I don’t agree entirely, so I want to discuss this more with other members.’ And I carry on that discussion. This year’s discussion lasted seven hours.
At the end, when we’d gone through the process of why a form is considered, or why there are others that are better, we held a voting process for each candidate, asking, ‘Do we keep this person; do we not?’
When a practice got more than 50 percent votes, we kept them. We did it to get to the winner. And let me say, the jury was unanimous about RCR. Every member voted for RCR. This is what a chair wants to happen. There is not a unanimous decision every year.
Q. When this year’s Pritzker Prize was announced, many media, including The New York Times, speculated that the announcement could signal the end of “starchitects.” Do you think it is true?
Murcutt: Speculation, speculation…. The world of architecture has changed. Dramatically. Everything has to be done more quickly. Costs have been cut, and the deadline the client wants is yesterday. The time spent on work is more meager than 20th-century architects such as Mies van der Rohe, Aalto, Frank Lloyd Wright, Gordon Drake, Breuer, Gropius and others. They all drew; they all experimented. There was great enthusiasm for the future.
I think that today people are more concerned about survival rather than the quality of an architect’s work. For architects to devote time to quality of the work is a gifting back. In my view, there is very, very little of that today compared to what was there in the 20th century.
When we think of great architects of the 20th century, we might call them “star architects.” However, it is the press that made them stars. They didn’t necessarily want to be stars. It wasn’t their choice that they wanted to be stars.
There are a few today who want to be stars. However, as Mies van der Rohe said, “I don’t want to be interesting. I just want to be good.” I think that is a very important thing. Just to be damn good is really important. It is not the Pritzker Prize but the press that said “the death of star architects.” Not us at all.
We can find somebody, in our jury, that is not known, that is working their own way. They work quietly over 30 years, get rooted into the ground, and then a beautiful flower blooms; they have never been rushed to success. The prize is given to them. Now, I ask them to handle it carefully. Because it is very important that they handle it carefully.
I think the other thing, which is very important, is that the jury is entirely independent of the Pritzkers and the Pritzker Foundation. They have no influence; the jury decides.
Murcutt: Speculation, speculation…. The world of architecture has changed. Dramatically. Everything has to be done more quickly. Costs have been cut, and the deadline the client wants is yesterday. The time spent on work is more meager than 20th-century architects such as Mies van der Rohe, Aalto, Frank Lloyd Wright, Gordon Drake, Breuer, Gropius and others. They all drew; they all experimented. There was great enthusiasm for the future.
I think that today people are more concerned about survival rather than the quality of an architect’s work. For architects to devote time to quality of the work is a gifting back. In my view, there is very, very little of that today compared to what was there in the 20th century.
When we think of great architects of the 20th century, we might call them “star architects.” However, it is the press that made them stars. They didn’t necessarily want to be stars. It wasn’t their choice that they wanted to be stars.
There are a few today who want to be stars. However, as Mies van der Rohe said, “I don’t want to be interesting. I just want to be good.” I think that is a very important thing. Just to be damn good is really important. It is not the Pritzker Prize but the press that said “the death of star architects.” Not us at all.
We can find somebody, in our jury, that is not known, that is working their own way. They work quietly over 30 years, get rooted into the ground, and then a beautiful flower blooms; they have never been rushed to success. The prize is given to them. Now, I ask them to handle it carefully. Because it is very important that they handle it carefully.
I think the other thing, which is very important, is that the jury is entirely independent of the Pritzkers and the Pritzker Foundation. They have no influence; the jury decides.
Q. What do you think architecture can do for ordinary people?
Murcutt: “Influence” is probably a greatest possibility. To design things that architects are now making without compromise; buildings that are structurally considered, materially considered, spatially considered, with light consideration, insulation consideration.… If they are done well and economically, then they can create influence by their buildings and environment.
But let me say, I can be reminded of my country: While I have been doing these things through all my career, the men and women who have the money to do the development, they look for the cheapest possible way of doing things, and then they throw it out.
While the public don’t have any opportunities, the developers make the most amount of money. You’ve got to change society’s monetary system to make all this change, and it cannot be achieved overnight.
It is important to show an example. Fortunately, I am now working with a Chinese developer and a wonderful Sydney firm called Candalepas. They are listening to me. We are in a competition, hoping that we can show an inexpensive, better and beautiful way through our architectural project.
Q. So you imply that RCR can be one of the examples of what architecture can do in a beautiful way?
Murcutt: There’s no question. They are. Their work is beautiful. It is strong. But you can walk past it unnoticed. When you notice that as you walk it, it becomes more beautiful and stronger. Really.
Murcutt: “Influence” is probably a greatest possibility. To design things that architects are now making without compromise; buildings that are structurally considered, materially considered, spatially considered, with light consideration, insulation consideration.… If they are done well and economically, then they can create influence by their buildings and environment.
But let me say, I can be reminded of my country: While I have been doing these things through all my career, the men and women who have the money to do the development, they look for the cheapest possible way of doing things, and then they throw it out.
While the public don’t have any opportunities, the developers make the most amount of money. You’ve got to change society’s monetary system to make all this change, and it cannot be achieved overnight.
It is important to show an example. Fortunately, I am now working with a Chinese developer and a wonderful Sydney firm called Candalepas. They are listening to me. We are in a competition, hoping that we can show an inexpensive, better and beautiful way through our architectural project.
Q. So you imply that RCR can be one of the examples of what architecture can do in a beautiful way?
Murcutt: There’s no question. They are. Their work is beautiful. It is strong. But you can walk past it unnoticed. When you notice that as you walk it, it becomes more beautiful and stronger. Really.
RCR architects, from left, Rafael Aranda, Carme Pigem and Ramon Vilalta. Photo by Javier Lorenzo Dominguez
More
The members of RCR tell us more about their collaborative process
Learn more about these designers and their projects
More
The members of RCR tell us more about their collaborative process
Learn more about these designers and their projects
Glenn Murcutt, shown here, is an influential Australia-based designer of site-appropriate, eco-friendly architecture worldwide. His designs for buildings that truly fit into the landscape have inspired a generation of architects. Earlier this year, three little-known Spanish architects who founded a firm called RCR won the Pritzker Prize, architecture’s highest honor. As Rafael Aranda, Carme Pigem and Ramon Vilalta received their awards, we asked him why.
Q. Which aspect of RCR’s architecture do you find most impressive?
Murcutt: I have practiced architecture that I wanted to be rational, poetic and be understanding of prospect and refuge, simplicity, unity of material, integration with landscape. I wanted to make them ours.
The architects at RCR do it differently; however, the principles they articulate are the same. They are interested in climate, materiality, unity of material, the junction of landscape and architecture — not the separation of them. They have created a beautiful fusion of the two, which is very important.
They are interested in the history, historical towns and scale-appropriateness in a way that is very quiet and good. It is not loud, but subtle as architecture. It is incredibly thoughtful; it weighs well. Their buildings achieve patina quickly and work with patina beautifully. This shows that they understand details because, although patina falls off onto the ground, the whole ground gets not dirty, but beautiful with it.
RCR understands prospect and refuge, public realm and private realm, scale, history. And the Venice Charter, which is the understanding we “should keep, untouched, we cannot change” as the guideline of our conservation practice relating to architecture and sites.