Page 41 - JCAU-5-1

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism The life and work of Arata Isozaki

are difficult to categorize – being neither modernist nor in models and values based on Western types of thinking
postmodernist, neither deconstructive nor Neoclassical, (including notions such as “style and period” or “typology
neither western nor eastern, but all of that and more. (…). and technique”), developing new approaches and research
Isozaki has taught us not to believe in architecture, or even models. Charitonidou (2021) explores this phenomenon,
in his architecture, but to continue the quest toward what noting: “First, an overwhelming majority of the buildings
makes architecture matter. He does not have an answer, but that have an important place in scholars’ collective memory,
he does have some pretty good buildings to show for his and in epistemology of architecture, are designed by
many decades of searching” (Betsky, 2019). architects whose approaches are based on Eurocentric or
I predict that Isozaki’s oeuvre and legacy are such a rich Western values; second, the majority of archival resources
resource that now, after his passing, they will become the contain materials that are either representative of Eurocentric
subject of intensive study, rediscovery, and reappraisal; and or Western values, or come from architects who were
they will be appreciated once again by future generations. legitimized according to Eurocentric or Western ideals. Due
The four phases of Isozaki’s work outlined in this article to these facts, the protocols that define what is evaluated and
allow us to better understand his conceptual themes and legitimized as scholarly research are based on Eurocentric or
evolution, appreciate his unique talent and influential Western criteria.”
position (and understand his refusal to be identified with However, Isozaki’s viewpoint started to shift over the
one specific architectural style). years (from around 1989) to become more self-reflective of
this position. Increasingly, he started to assume a narration
8. Conclusion: A career of restless of architectural history and theory based on synchronic
exploration structures rather than the diachronic structure that was
common since the 1950s. He became deeply interested in
8.1. Rethinking the Eurocentric epistemology Japanese influences, writing extensively about the paradox
of architecture and the formation of a Japanese in Japanese architecture. Thus, in the following years,
modern architectural theory
Isozaki significantly contributed to the formation of a
When compared to other Japanese architects that are his Japanese modern architectural theory, analyzing various
senior (Mayekawa, Tange) and junior (Ando, Ito), Isozaki’s traditional Japanese structures, including Katsura Villa
postmodern approach indicates his close affiliation with a (Isozaki, 2005), and integrating Japanese concepts and
Eurocentric epistemology of architecture, which points to a elements in his works at home. In 2005, he wrote Japan-
contradicting paradox and even antinomy with his Japanese ness in Architecture (published in 2006). As a former project
identity (Kive, 2022). Early in his career, by following partner during these years, I was able to gain insight into
a narrow Eurocentric epistemology and attachment to his evolving thinking. For example, I observed that his
European architectural history and theory (as seen in his approach to projects in Japan increasingly differentiated
work in Oita and Post-modern designs), he assumed a from his approach to projects outside Japan; moving away
universalistic, objective point of view that undervalued other from an earlier universal conception of space independent
influences such as Japanese and Asian histories. This also from its geographical location (as seen in the works
hints at the postcolonial condition of Japanese architecture in mentioned earlier in Phases III and IV).
the contemporary context of world architecture. An example
of the widespread Western narrative of architectural history 8.2. Remembering the significance of Arata Isozaki’s
and theory is Sir Banister Fletcher’s book entitled History of work
Architecture on the Comparative Method (1896), and Pevsner’s The article provides a thorough overview of Arata Isozaki’s
A History of Building Types (1976), where the protocols that career and works and divides his oeuvre into four distinct
define what is considered scientifically correct were still based sections with headings and subheadings.
on exclusively Western criteria. Both books were known to Isozaki left a significant body of work and his concepts
Isozaki and part of his own architectural library.
and theories over the last seven decades have been
Kostof’s A History of Architecture (1985) introduced immensely influential and are still highly relevant to
a different position: he started to question this common architectural design practice today. Within 20 -century
th
narrative, and his book constitutes a change of thinking; it is architecture, Isozaki’s work is unusual and highly original.
an early endeavor to include non-Western traditions in the The author believes that this work has a renewed relevance,
architectural survey and to rethink the Western canon. More and that it is now timely to revisit the concepts and
recently, since around 1995, architectural theorists Jean-Louis reappraise them in their full impact. One could argue that
Cohen, Andrew Leach, Dalibor Vesely, and Joseph Rykwert Isozaki created architecture so personal and sometimes
identified the most common categorizations encountered contradictory in its ideas and concepts of space that it

Volume 5 Issue 1 (2023) 16 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.353