Domus, home to architecture

The first issue of Domus was published by Gio Ponti in 1928. Since then it has followed and borne witness to the evolution in the field of architecture and design. Today, Stefano Boeri, an Italian, has taken over the magazine’s editorship from the Londoner, Deyan Sudjic. The change was more than enough to start pundits claiming that the Milan-based journal had reverted to its original Italian style. Of this turnover and more we discussed with the new editor Stefano Boeri.

Until a few years ago there were standard venues in which our day to day lives were played out, such as the home, the shop floor or office, the pub, and so on. What’s the current scenario like?
There’s always been a classification of spaces and uses for which they are intended, especially in Western civilisations. The requirements of living in society have not however always coincided with such classifications. It’s not only in the last ten years that people have been eating in public venues and delivering talks in private places.

Defining a space by what it contains is difficult then, is it?
In recent years, a bit behind other European countries, large containers with prevalently commercial functions have sprung up all over Italy as well. These omnivorous spaces are outlets for all sorts of products and full of attractions and amusements. With their controlled environments and artificial climates, entrances and exits they seem to function as a world apart. But when everyday life breaks into these worlds apart new ways of relating to and using them unexpectedly emerge. The shopping itch may combine with a desire for other leisure activities or for entertainment even so that the boundaries between these functions tend to shift in a process of continual reshuffling.

How would you define “nonplace”?
I feel the concept’s misplaced. There are really no such things as “non-places”. The nature of any place depends on the relationships among its occupants. A place is established as such wherever people interact with one another.
Its meaning changes according to how it is used by its occupants as well as by how their moods change.

Do you feel that the architectural features of these places and the designer objects with which they are fitted out affect the quality of these relationships?
What we’re attempting to do through Domus is to put all facets of everyday living firmly back into architecture. As we’re all well aware, there’s some architecture that manages to condition what occurs within its bounds, while there’s other architecture that works like a sort of a platform wholly detached from what goes on about it, a neutral setting open to any use or event.

What’s your definition of an “imitation”?
Making a replica of something is part of the designer’s task. Actually, all our work is based on imitating. We always start out from semi-processed items and work on them in a sort of hobby-work, do-ityourself- like way. It’s a very difficult job, because we have to be able to recognise the intrinsic originality of all the parts and components making up the final product. It’s not merely a miscellaneous concoction but a contrived combination of designermade products.

So, are you saying there’s no way to avoid ending up being glutted by more and more “copies”?
Conveying an image, a piece of information, or a style motif even entails such a vastly intricate process that any production project that aims to be original is necessarily the outcome of a work of assembly. After all, what’s not a copy of something else? What’s important is not to limit oneself to making a plain and straight copy of something that already exists but to give it added value by making a creative quantum leap.
What’s to be avoided is mere duplication without anything on top of what’s already there, or worse still a depreciation of meaning. That would be copying in a more superficial and less appreciative sense.

Interview by Fabio Pornaro