Jean Nouvel, a French engineer who planned his structures to “make a visual landscape” that fit their unique circumstance—here and thereby making them stand out from the encompassing region. Nouvel’s rundown of finished structures incorporates one of the three structures that comprise Seoul’s Leeum Museum (2004), Barcelona’s bullet-shaped Agbar Tower (2005), the Guthrie Theatre (2006) in Minneapolis, the peculiar Quai Branly Museum (2006) in Paris, and Copenhagen’s Concert Hall (2009), with its brilliant blue outside that capacities around evening time as a video screen.
Jean Nouvel, in this interview about his relationship with the Arab world, states that the architect is supposed to listen, rather than forcing its qualities and sensitivities on someplace.
“It’s a question of eroticism,” Nouvel says of his interest in ambiguity. “From the moment you understand and see everything, you’re not interested any longer; you understand everything at once. You need to experience something; you need to live something. Above all, you need to get inside something that you don’t know, something which promises depth. You need to believe that you’re never going to touch the end.”
In the Arab world, there is a fight about identity and modernity going on. Since the improvement is so quick, you get a great deal of lost design, without neighbourhood tone or personality, Jean Nouvel clarifies. As far as he might be concerned, it is significant that architecture reflects Arab character and religion. Middle Eastern architecture is regularly associated with Islamic architecture, which has a unique relationship with geometry, abstractions, adornments, light, and water. In this interview, he talks about the Arab World Institute. One of the fundamental purposes for the development of this institute was to make an objective dedicated to the relationship of the Arab culture with France. Situated at the limit of the verifiable peripheries of Paris along the River Seine, it reacts to its nearby setting both in arrangement and rise. In the arrangement, it follows the curvature of the street, whose structure is directed by the stream.
Jean Nouvel is known for his relevant way to deal with architecture, contradicting the norm or pre-manufactured structures being set all around the globe: “My job is to try and understand where the architecture will be situated, how it will be rooted, and what sense it will make where it is.” To Jean Nouvel, it is significant that a similar structure couldn’t be situated somewhere else.
A building takes part in history, Jean Nouvel clarifies: “A building always has links, roots. I’m a contextual architect, but for me, the context isn’t only the site. It’s above all a wider historical context — a cultural context.” Typical of Jean Nouvel’s work is his consideration regarding façade itemizing. A principle highlight and imaginative component of the AWI is the serious responsive metallic brise soleil on the south façade.
Nouvel’s proposition for this framework was generally welcomed for its creativity and its fortification of a prototype component of Arabic design – the mashrabiya. He drew motivation from the conventional grid work that has been utilized for quite a long time in the Middle East to shield the inhabitants from the sun and give security. Nouvel was able to synthesize conventional Arabic engineering components into a cutting-edge plan that is reminiscent of the design of the Middle East. His utilization of light as a building block and modifier of the space makes a more profound feeling of place and improves the general insight. Nouvel also talks about how he believes architecture builds bridges between societies.
“It’s like judo. Every time you have a constraint, you need to use it. You need to push it to its limits; you need to give it a sense other than the constraint, so that it will look as if you did it on purpose.” His affectability to light and the underlying capability of indeterminacy informed shimmering, at times dynamic façades that associate with their environmental factors.
Architects are today exceptionally relative since they’re done partaking in the principal metropolitan dynamic, from the second you’re not in the dynamic that considers the scene, the shadings, the relationship with different structures, the unique circumstance, you can’t generally go anyplace fascinating; on the grounds that then every individual is simply doing their own seemingly insignificant detail.
The inexorably worldwide nature of the design makes its relationship to setting – social, financial, political, verifiable – considerably more intricate. How much should an architect battle with the extended hugeness and effect of their work? When, and under what conditions, should a structure be viewed as sovereign?