1973
Vinko Torkar, 1969
Intervju z Vojtehom Ravnikarjem
Sprašuje Maruša Špitalar
povzet in nekoliko korigiran iz priloge diplomske naloge Maruše Špitalar (mentor doc. dr. Pavel Gantar) z naslovom Arhitektura in družbeni angažma (sociološka analiza arhitekturnih konceptov obdobja 1965-80).
Začniva na začetku, in sicer bi se nekako sprehodila nazaj v obdobje, ko ste študirali. Bilo je zelo zanimivo obdobje - polno študentskih gibanj in akcij tako pri nas kot tudi po svetu. Zanima me, če je to vplivalo na vas, vaše razmišljanje - mišljenje in študijsko pot?
Glej, vsaka stvar vpliva, to je jasno. Moram reči, da sem malo dlje časa študiral in verjetno se je ob tem nabralo veliko odzivov na stvari, ki so se takrat dogajale. Toliko bi ti lahko rekel, da bi ti pa konkretno rekel - to pa to je vplivalo, to pa težko.
Se pravi, ni bilo nič specifičnega, na primer, da bi se zgodila neka akcija in bi lahko rekli, da je to spremenilo vaš način mišljenja? Ne, nič tako drastičnega ni bilo. Edino, kar bi verjetno lahko rekel, je, da so vsi ti dogodki,imeli posledice na to, kar se je kasneje zgodilo.
Se pravi formiranje skupine okrog revije AB, ki se je takrat ukvarjala z arhitekturo na nek specifičen način. To so bili pravzaprav neki začetki, kako sploh k stvari pristopiti. Na vse to pa so verjetno vplivali takratni dogodki.
Kako pa bi ocenili svojo vlogo v družbenem
angažmaju študentov v tedanjem času - ste bili aktivni, angažirani ali ste stvari tako, bolj od daleč opazovali?
V akcijah aktivno nisem bil udeležen. To je bilo v zraku, dogajalo se je okoli mene. Nisem pa bil jaz eden od akterjev nekih takih študentskih akcij.
Če si zamislite sebe, svoje kolege v času študija in današnje študente - ali se vam zdi, da je mogoče potegniti kakšne vzporednice? Seveda je neka občutna, velika razlika. Takrat so ljudje, če se lahko tako izrazim, zelo 'zabluzili'. Danes se mi zdi, da zelo vedo, kaj hočejo. Oziroma dosti bolj kot takrat. So bolj konkretni v teh svojih inspiracijah, že zelo zgodaj vedo, kaj hočejo v življenju. To razliko vidim. Takrat je potekalo vse nekako dosti bolj počasi, bolj so bili ljudje angažirani v družbenem življenju, ne pa v smislu, da bi takoj, recimo, varčevali za hišo. Danes je to
bolj prisotno.
V času vašega študija so bili študentje angažirani v mnogih akcijah, danes se o tem ne sliši oziroma tega ne počnejo. Tega seveda ni. To so bila tista slavna 68. leta, pri nas tja do sedemdesetih. Tako nekako z zamikom se je to dogajalo. Na nek način so se seveda tudi študentje z arhitekture na to odzivali, dosti manj seveda kot sociologi itn., ampak vendarle so bili tudi oni med drugimi. Danes je pač svet drugačen. Danes ljudi to ne zanima toliko. Kot pravim, se spet vračam k temu, da jih zanima bolj ta praktični vidik življenja. In skozi to je potem mogoče vleči tudi neke paralele v arhitekturi. Da je nekoliko drugačna, kot je bila takrat. Takrat je bila bolj orientirana v akcije - kot je bila, na primer, podstrešna stanovanja. Sociologija je bila takrat zelo prisotna - danes je veliko manj, ker je dosti bolj pomembna
Ljubljana, Sibirija, 1972.
Grafični tečaj, 1971; Jovo Grobovšek
Interview with Vojteh Ravnikar
Interviewer: Maruša Špitalar
Summarized and slightly corrected. Taken from Maruša Špitaler's undergraduate thesis entitled Architecture and Social Engagement (Sociological Analysis of the Architectural Concepts of the Period 1965-80)
Let's start at the beginning and visit the period when you were a student. It was a very interesting period - student movements and actions, both foreign and domestic. I'd like to know, did it influence you, your way of think-
ing and studies in any way? It's obvious that everything leaves an impression. I have to say that I studied a bit longer and that's how I accumulated many responses to the things happening at the time. That much I can say, but to say that this or that influenced something or someone - it's hard to say.
So, there was nothing specific, for instance, an action which happened that you could say changed your way of thinking? No, nothing as drastic as that; the only thing I could say is that all these events had consequences and influenced that which happened later.
The forming of the group around AB magazine, which dealt with architecture in a specific way was actually some sort of beginning on how to approach matters. Events at
the time probably inspired all of this.
How would you assess your role in the social engagement of students at the time - were you active, engaged or merely an observer? I wasn't actively involved. It was in the air, it happened all around me, but I wasn't an active participant in these student actions.
If you compare yourself and your student colleagues with today's students - is it possible to draw some parallels? What do you think?
Of course there's a significant difference. Back then, people had no set goals, no chosen path in life. Today they know exactly what they want. It wasn't like that in the past. They are more focused in their aspirations, and set their goals early in life. I notice the difference. Everything was moving along
more slowly back then. People were more engaged in their social life, and did not, let's say, start saving for their house. This is more present nowadays.
At the time of your study, students were engaged in many actions. Today we don't hear much about it; students don't seem to be engaged.
Of course not, that was the famous year 1968; here it lasted until the early 70s. tt all happened with a slight delay. In a way, students of architecture responded to those events, sociologists and others not as much, but they were present as well. The world is different today. People are not as interested. Like I said before, they are more interested in the practical aspect of life. Through this, we can draw some parallels in architecture -it is different now than it was before.
Maruša Špitalar

"A hallucination Is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it."
Bert rand Russell
Vegova ulica, Ljubljana, 1972
forma, videz, hiter uspeh.
Znano je, da so študentje arhitekture uprizorili nekaj odmevnih akcij. Vam katera pride na misel?
Bila je neka akcija v zvezi s Fabianijevo ograjo, potem je bilo nekaj v zvezi z rezanjem nekih dreves. Tega se tako malo spomnim. To je bilo tam na Vegovi. Še se spomnim, da so nekoč posekali ali zelo obrezali neko drevje. Kot reakcija na to je bila akcija, ki se je imenovala pljuča na mrežah ali nekaj podobnega, ki je bila sicer spet po svoje smešna, infantilna, ampak je spet imela ta simbolični pomen. Naredili so nekaj takega kot krošnje iz plastičnega materiala in jih navezali na oskubljena debla dreves. In seveda potem še akcija na Filozofski fakulteti, ki je bila zaradi prekomernega prometnega hrupa. Rezultat te akcije je »kozmetični« poseg, nasadili so nekaj dreves - kot je razvidno še danes, saj je pred Filozofsko fakulteto polno dreves. Ta drevesa so takrat potolažila študente, ki so demonstrirali zaradi hrupa.
Sami pravite, da niste sodelovali v teh akcijah. Smem vprašati, zakaj? Lahko. Jaz sem od te generacije, ki se je neposredno udeležila raznih akcij, nekaj let starejši. Ni me bilo okrog te skupine. Mogoče pa tudi zaradi mojega bolj mirnega značaja .
Kako ste takrat dojemali/razumeli arhitek-
turo (urbanizem) in kako jo dojemate danes? Če, na primer, govorimo o urbanizmu, je bila takrat bistvena razlika v tem, da je bil v igri absolutno samo le družbeni denar. Ni bilo prisotnih zasebnih investitorjev. Danes se je to drastično spremenilo, posledično se je spremenil odziv v prostoru, ki je zelo drugačen. Takrat je bila glavna inspiracija dati ljudem nekakšno bivališče. Danes hoče zasebni investitor čim več na čim manjšem prostoru in s čim manj vložka iztržiti čim več. To je nekako to. Tega takrat ni bilo.
Kaj pa sam pomen arhitekture, ali sedaj pomeni nekaj več? Preko branja sem zasledila, da je bila bolj tretirana kot umetnost in ne kot ustvarjanje nečesa konkretnega - to je bila prej domena inženirstva. Recimo, da je bila takrat vsebina pomembnejša od forme in da je danes obratno. Arhitektura je šla skozi neke faze. V času socializma je bila zapostavljena, ker je imela prizvok buržoazne zadeve. So sicer nastajale sila pomembne hiše državnega pomena. A kar je zanimivo, je - mogoče se bo smešno slišalo - da je bilo nekako odmaknjeno stran - je šlo po arhitekturnih kanalih. To, kar je država naročala, neke klasicistične zgradbe, ni imelo zveze s tem, kar je bila arhitektura tistega časa. Arhitektom, ki tudi niso bili na ta način verni, je bilo to 'čisto mimo'. Pred vojno je arhitekt dejan-
sko imel simbolni status in ta se je po vojni popolnoma izgubil in se sedaj, zadnje čase, ponovno izpostavlja na neki drugi ravni. To je podobno kot v časopisih. Pred 10, 15 leti nisi nikoli zasledil imena direktorja nekega podjetja, danes so zvezde menedžerji, kar je bilo včasih popolnoma smešno. Zakaj? Ker je bilo vse skupno, naše, ker ni bil nekdo zaslužen za nekaj, ampak je bila pomembna tovarna, delavci. Na nek način je tudi z arhitektom tako. Arhitekt je bil delček nekega zelo širokega tima. In včasih je bil ta tim pomemben, ne arhitekt.
Študij je potekal v veliki meri organiziran po seminarjih in kakšen je vaš pogled/vidik, ocena Sobe 25.
To so bili nekaj let mlajši kolegi. No, v tej sobi so bili zbrani ljudje, za katere bi lahko rekli, da so reprezentirali študentska dogajanja na univerzi in fakulteti za arhitekturo. To so bili ljudje, ki so ... več bi zvedela, če bi se pogovarjala s samimi akterji v tej sobi.
Sama sem že imela intervju z intervjuvan-cem C.
No, to je primer takšnega intelektualca, ki se je kasneje umaknil na podeželje, žal. Ali pa ne. To so ljudje, ki so takrat hoteli dosti več, tudi dosti več obetali, kot so pa potem naredili. Ker jim je očitno ta paspartu vseh teh dogajanj pomagal, da so se na nek način
lahko izražali. Potem pa je to uplahnilo (to je sedaj moje osebno mnenje) in jim je nekako zmanjkal ta hrbet in so se raje umaknili, potopili v neko sivino 'suburbije' - podeželja. Tudi tam seveda delujejo na nek način, ampak so dosti manj vidni, kot so bili takrat tukaj.
Kakšen je vaš pogled/vidik na delovanje Sobe 25, ali je bila nekaj posebnega? Seveda je bila. Namreč ne prej in ne kasneje se nič kaj takega ni zgodilo. Arhitekti so vedno imeli neko avro in so se prizadevali, da so bili 'fensi' itn. To pa so bili ljudje, ki so se ukvarjali z nekimi akcijami, ki niso bile tako 'kozmetične', in so dejansko verjeli v nekaj, kar počnejo, in to je takrat veliko pomenilo. Na žalost so pač ..., no, saj mogoče niti ni toliko pomembno, da bi ti akterji naprej razvili to zadevo. Mogoče je s tem, ko so takrat bili, ko je ta pojav bil, bilo to že dovolj.
Ali so dejansko tudi kaj konkretnega naredili ali so le sledili svojim idejam, ki so jih imeli -se pravi, da je bilo vse bolj v 'zraku'? Ena zelo pomembna akcija, ki so jo takrat zelo daleč pripeljali, je bila akcija za preureditev podstrešij v stanovanja za mlade. No, danes bi bilo kaj takega popolnoma nemogoče, nesmiselno. Takrat namreč še ni bilo denacionalizacije in so bile tudi podstrehe državne in prazne ter so bile za uporabo. In v tej smeri so oni izdali nekaj
Vegova ulica, Ljubljana, 1972.
It was more action-oriented - like, for example, the attic apartments. Sociology was very much present back then - today, when form, outlook and fast success became the most important, sociology took a back seat.
It is well known that students of architecture performed some notable actions. Can you think of any?
There was an action that had something to do with Fabiani's fence, and another where they cut some trees. I don't remember it well. It happened on Vegova Street. I still remember that they cut or trimmed some trees. Reaction to this was an action called 'lungs on nets' or something, which was funny, infantile even, but again, it carried a symbolic meaning. They made something resembling a tree crown out of plastic and fastened it onto plucked tree-trunks. There was of course the action at the Faculty of Arts (against the excessive traffic noise). The result was a 'cosmetic' intervention; they planted some trees, which can still be seen today in front of the faculty. These trees appeased the students who protested against the noise.
You said that you weren't involved in these
actions. May I ask why?
Yes, you may. I'm a few years older than the
generation which was directly involved in the various actions. I wasn't hanging around this group. My somewhat calmer character might be responsible as well.
How did you perceive/understand the architecture (urbanism) then and how do you perceive it today?
If we talk about, for example, urbanism, then the biggest difference is that projects were governed by public money There were no private investors. This changed drastically through time, and as a consequence it changed the response to the space. Back then, the main inspiration was to give people some sort of abode.
Today the private investor wants to build as much as possible on as little space as possible, with minimal investment. That's about it. It wasn't like that in the past.
What about the actual importance of architecture, is it more important today? As I was reading about it, I noticed that it used to be treated as art and not as creating something - this used to be in the domain of engineering.
Let's say that content was more important than form, and today it's the other way around. Architecture goes through phases. It was neglected during socialism because
it had overtones of something bourgeois. Buildings of national importance were built nonetheless. What's interesting is - it might sound funny - that it was somewhat moved away and went through the architectural channels. What the state ordered, classi-cistic buildings, had nothing to do with the architecture of the time. Architects perceived this as something 'totally out of touch'. Before the war, an architect had important symbolic position which got lost afterwards and is only now slowly re-establishing on another level. Just like in the newspapers; 10, 15 years ago there were no mentions of company CEO's, it would have been totally ridiculous, yet today the managers have become the main stars. Why? Because everything was public - 'ours', individuals didn 't get credited for something, the factory and its workers were equally important. The same goes for the architect. He was a part of a large team, and the team was important, not the architect.
The study was organized mostly with seminars. What's your view/assessment of the Room 25?
They were younger colleagues of mine. The people gathered in this room represented these student happenings at the University and the Faculty of Architecture. They were people who ... you could learn more if
you talked to them instead.
I have already interviewed interviewee C. Well, this is an example of such an intellectual, who later moved to the countryside, unfortunately; or not. They promised more, and wanted more, than they actually achieved. It seems that the framework of those events helped them express themselves. Then it all diminished (in my personal opinion), they lost this 'support' and chose to retreat, submerge in the greyness of suburbia - the countryside. Even there, of course, they still operate in a way but they are much less visible than they were.
What's your view/assessment of the Room 25 was it special in any way? Of course it was, nothing like that had ever happened, either before or since. Architects always had a certain aura surrounding them and tried to appear 'fancy' etc. But these people started doing things, performed actions which weren't 'cosmetic', and they actually believed in what they were doing, and that meant a lot back then. Unfortunately they... Well, maybe the fact that those involved never developed the whole thing further is not really important. Maybe their presence at the time was enough.
Tomo Čakardič, Božo Podlogar: Monorail v Ljubljani, 1972
publikacij, veliko so naredili. Akcija je imela odmev tudi v takratnih medijih. Danes bi bila taka akcija nesmiselna. Sedaj so vse te podstrehe lastniške - imajo lastnika - in ne moreš reči, da bi tam naselil neke mlade družine. To je danes od nekoga, takrat pa je bilo skupno.
Ali menite, da bi se bili danes študentje 'zmožni' organizirati v tako skupino in izpeljati kaj podobnega?
Sedaj, če že poteka kaj takega, poteka vodeno od neke institucije, ki je za to postavljena. Ker drugače tudi ne more biti, ker je tudi pravna država toliko bolj urejena, da se enostavno ne moremo iti neke svoje akcije. Takrat je bilo - mogoče bi lahko rekel - malo romantično obdobje, ko se je to še dalo. Ali pa je obstajala vsaj iluzija, da se da, in s to iluzijo živeti je bilo dobro.
Ali ste bili tudi sami mogoče v kakšni skupini?
Ne, a sem bil zmeraj kar zraven. Tako malo. Nisem pa bil eden od nosilcev te ideje. Zraven v smislu, ker sem bil v tej »grupi«, ki je potlej prevzela AB, ampak tu sem pa zelo bil.
Če se sedaj ustaviva še pri AB-ju. Kot ste sami omenili, ste delovali pri njem. Zanima me, kako vidite vlogo AB-ja? To je bila velika zadeva, ker smo sami (arhitekti) sklenili nekaj narediti. Do takrat je bilo namreč tako, da je umetnostna stroka pisala o arhitekturi. S tem nismo bili zadovoljni, smatrali smo, da so oni premalo seznanjeni s tem, kaj je v resnici arhitektura in da bomo odslej to sami počeli. In to je bistvo AB-ja. V njegovem okviru je bila potlej zbrana skupina ljudi, ki so pisali, razmišljali o tem. 'Fajn' je bilo - namreč mi smo se enkrat na teden
dobivali in so potekale večurne debate o teh (arhitekturnih) zadevah. Skozi to je nastajal ta časopis, ki je, mislim, imel velik vpliv, ki je bil prisoten še kar nekaj let. Lahko bi še povedal, da ta skupina potem ni razpadla. Ampak je postopoma, kar tako, sproti pojenjala. Tako, kot bi rekel, da ni imela nič več povedati, pa ni čisto res, ampak je govorila na neki drugi način. Vsi mi smo nekoliko odrasli, začeli smo se ukvarjati z nekimi svojimi zgodbami, ki so bile bolj ali manj pomembne - sorazmerno še kar pomembne. Lahko bi rekel, da je bil domicil te revije tako močan, da so iz tega odrasli nekateri pomembni posamezniki. No, sedaj je ta lok že kar jasen. Od nekih akcij pridemo do revije, le-ta pa je že dovolj konkretna, teoretična podlaga, da se iz tega lahko razvijejo neke osebne zgodbe, in te so po moje dovolj relevantne za arhitekturni lok sodobne slovenske arhitekture.
Ali bi lahko mogoče izpostavili tudi katere konkretne stvari, ki jih je naredil oziroma so jih pisali v AB-ju?
Tu so bile tudi stvari, ki so bile rahlo naivne. Imeli smo neko rubriko, ko smo skušali objektivizirati arhitekturo, torej jo ocenjevati z nekimi točno določenimi, fiksnimi merili. To se je potem izkazalo kot utopija, nekaj nemogočega. Dajali smo 'pluse' in tako naprej. Celo do te mere, da smo se dobili v tej skupini in potem smo skupaj ocenjevali - se pravi, dajali smo te pluse, seštevali, skratka, gre za reč, ki se je v bistvu ne da tako konkretizirati, formatizirati. Ampak nič hudega, to se je potem pokazalo kot utopija, a tudi to je nekaj pomenilo. Ti si dejansko sam pri sebi prišel do tega, da so te zadeve nekoliko drugačne. Bolj neoprijemljive, 'hvala bogu', bolj sublimne. A vendarle pripadajo 'artu'. 'Art' se ne da tako strogo ločiti na
(oKp^t
|i5ihojriiili?iikj i»cr<iiivjn jn u mnii'Smisli
kuriU'RA
Did they manage to actually achieve something or were they only following the ideas they had - meaning, everything was ¡margined?
One very important action, brought very far at the time, was the action for turning attics into apartments for the young. Well, today something like that would be impossible and pointless. That was before the denationalization when attics belonged to the state and were empty and ready for use. So, along these lines, they issued some publications, they really did a lot of work. This action was also noticed by the press and other media. Today such action would be pointless. All these attics have owners and you can't just say you'd like to move a young family in. It belongs to someone today, back then they were public property.
What do you think, would the students nowadays be capable of organizing such a group and perform similar actions? Nowadays, every such action is lead by some institution. It's the only way, the rule of law is set more firmly, and there just isn't a way such actions could take place. That period was - one could say - slightly romantic, when such actions could be performed. Or there was at least an illusion that it can be done, and living with this illusion was good.
Were you involved in any group yourself? No, but I always happened to be around, in a way But I wasn't a protagonist of the idea. I was involved in a way just because I belonged to a 'group' which later took over the AB magazine. Here I became very much involved.
Talking of AB - as you yourself mentioned, you were involved, so how do you view the role of AB?
It was a big thing, because we (architects) decided to do something. Until then, it was all about art-historian's point of view about architecture. We weren't satisfied with that, we thought that they didn't have enough knowledge about what architecture really is, and so we decided to do it ourselves. This is the essence of AB. A group of people gathered, who wrote and contemplated on this. It was great - we met once a week and had long debates about diverse (architectural) matters. Through this, the magazine evolved and had great impact, present for quite some years later.
I could add that the group never dissolved. It gradually, waned. If I said it had nothing more to add I'd only be speaking half the
truth, it just spoke in a different way. We all kind of evolved and starting doing our own, more or less important, stories. Its domicile was so powerful it produced some important individuals. Well, now the progress is pretty clear. From some actions we came to a magazine, which was a concrete, theoretic base for some personal stories to evolve, and these are relevant for the architectural arc of modern Slovene architecture.
Could you perhaps highlight some things which were done or written about in AB? There were also things that were just naive. We had a section where we tried to objectify architecture, rate it with specific, fixed criteria. It turned out to be utopian, impossible. We gave 'pluses' etc. We took it so far that we gathered in this group and
Korčulanska šola, 1973
1972
minus/plus.
Kako bi ocenili odnos med vami oziroma tistimi, ki ste delovali/bili pri AB-ju, so bile med vami razlike?
Mislim, da ne gre za to, da bi hotel olepšati zadevo, da smo si bili kar enaki. No, recimo, tudi Pavle (Gantar), on je namreč sociolog -tudi on je bil popolnoma enak sogovornik kot mi, z enako kompetenco itn.
V AB-ju sem zasledila (se je pisalo) veliko različnih stvari. Kaj je tisto, kar se je vam utrnilo v spomin, da se je pisalo? Natančno ne bi znal povedati, kateri članki so to bili. Gre pa za to, da ko si prelistal revijo - AB, je bilo v njem večinoma besedilo. To, kar pa danes vidimo pri arhitekturnih revijah, so slike, le nekatere revije so, ki so bolj teoretične, a vendar. A če ostaneva pri tem našem AB-ju - bil je antipod takratne revije
Sinteza. Le-ta je bila tako imenovana likovna revija, nič slabega, dobra revija. No, ampak Sinteza je obravnavala arhitekturo z likovnega vidika, ki je nam šel takrat malo na živce oziroma se nam je zdel premalo sugestiven, na neki način premalo resničen - to bi bila prava beseda. No, in za to resničnost nam je šlo. In skozi to je tudi v njem veliko besedil, veliko razmišljanj. In lahko bi rekel, da je bilo to najpomembnejše za arhitekturo - in s tem moram tudi sebe omeniti. Jaz sem bil prvi iz te generacije, ki je potem začel delati arhitekturo, v tako imenovani skupini Kras. In tiste prve reči, ki so nastajale takrat, so bile skoraj dobesedno posledica udejstvovanja v tej reviji.
Ali je bilo pomembno, da če si hotel delati/ pisati za AB, si moral biti dober v pisanju? To se je nekako samo po sebi postavilo. Nekdo, ki je čutil v sebi neko pripadnost,
neko zanimanje, neko željo, da nekje nekaj pove, je lahko prišel zraven. In neki »tip«, ki ga to ni zanimalo, sploh ni prišel zraven. Ni bilo odvisno od nas, da bi izbirali.
Če se vrneva nazaj k arhitekturi, ali menite, da bi, povedano metaforično, arhitektura lahko prispevala k 'boljšemu svetu'? Ne. To je bilo vsake toliko tudi naša vizija takrat, da lahko arhitekti pripomorejo k boljšemu svetu. Ne, arhitekti so na koncu te lestvice. Mi lahko naredimo svet lepši, boljši pa skoraj nemogoče. Zakaj? Zato, ker smo odvisni od denarja. Le-ta je v rokah oblasti, moči itn. in oni pravzaprav odločajo o vseh nas. Nenazadnje danes vse kroji kapital. In ga mi, če uspemo, lahko samo kanaliziramo.
Bi lahko mogoče izpostavili ljudi - študente, mogoče profesorje ali koga izven fakultete,
s katerimi (če) ste se družili, sodelovali - so vplivali na vas, vaše mišljenje? Takrat je pravzaprav imel nek zelo oddaljen vpliv pokojni profesor Ravnikar. Sam sem malo hodil na faks, vendar je bil on prisoten tako, da je na tiho podpiral vse to. Diplome so bile takrat na faksu zelo smešne. Recimo, ljudje so diplomirali z besedili, kar je bilo popolnoma nepojmljivo.
Kaj pa, recimo, od samih študentov, sovrstnikov?
To bi ti težko rekel. Z nekaterimi v redakciji AB, in to je to. Drugače ni bilo nobenega takega posebnega, da bi ti ga lahko imenoval.
In še za konec, kaj je to, kar danes zapolnjuje vaš čas, s čim se ukvarjate? Kar veliko je stvari, ki se dogajajo. Iz tega AB-ja sem potem jaz 'izstopil' oziroma začeli
Maruša Špitalar
AJLAHJLJJUI J, A A/i J, A A J, i J,
AAfcJULAAUAA MiAiAA JUUA A A* r. /UAX-1 ( 1
M

Naslovnica AA No1
started rating - gave pluses and minuses; basically, tried to rate something which is abstract and cannot be done this way. Doesn't really matter; it turned out to be utopian, but it also had a certain meaning. You reached your own conclusion - these things are different. More intangible, 'thank god', more sublime. Yet they belong to art. Ait cannot be stripped down to plus/minus.
How would you assess the attitude among you, those who were involved in AB, were there any differences? I think, without trying to embellish matters, we were equal. Well, for instance, Pavle (Gantar), a sociologist - he was our equal, with equal competence etc.
I noticed that the topics covered in AB were
quite numerous and varied. Do you remember any specific ones? I can't say exactly which articles they were. The point is - when you read through the magazine AB you found mostly text. Today's architectural magazines are filled with photos, and there are only a handful of those that deal with theory. If we stick with AB - it was an antipode to the magazine Sinteza. This was an art magazine, not bad, a good magazine. Well, Sinteza covered architecture from the aspect of the fine arts, which annoyed us a bit at the time, it didn't seem suggestive enough, not realistic - that's the word - enough. So, reality is what we were about. That's why there was a lot of text, a lot of thinking. I could say that this was very important for architecture - by this, I have to mention myself. I was the first of this generation who started this architecture, in the so-called 'Group Kras'. The first projects
were literally the result of my involvement in this magazine.
Were writing skills required if you wanted to work/write for AB?
That goes without saying. Someone who felt a sort of belonging, an interest, a wish to say something, could contribute. Some random »blokes« without interest didn't even approach us. It wasn't up to us to choose.
Let's go back to architecture; do you think that architecture could, metaphorically speaking, contribute to a 'better world'? No. Back in the day it was our vision as well, we thought architects could make the world a better place. No, architects are at the bottom of this list. We can make the world a nicer place, but not better, that's impossible.
Why? Because we depend on money: which is in the hands of the government, the powers that be, etc. They make decisions for all of us. Everything is ruled by capital nowadays. We can, if we are successful, direct that money.
Can you perhaps tell us more about people - students, professors or those outside the faculty, you hung out with and who influenced you and your way of thinking? The late Professor Ravnikar had a very distant influence on me back then. I wasn't really present that much at the faculty. His presence was felt through his silent support of all these events. Diplomas were quite ridiculous at the time. Some graduated by writing a text, which was completely unimaginable.
Anglija, 1973
smo delati revijo Piranesi. To pa iz mojega prepričanja, da naj bi Slovenci izdajali neko bolj relevantno revijo, ki bi bila širše formirana - srednjeevropska. Iz tega ven je potem nastala neka cela kombinacija - so Piranski dnevi arhitekture, ki trajajo sedaj že 25 let. Se pravi, ukvarjam se z revijo, piranskimi dnevi in predavam. To je pa potem že dovolj. No, malo hodim še okoli. Precej sem prisoten v Benetkah.
Poleg tega pa se verjetno ukvarjate tudi s projekti, projektirate?
Seveda. Ravno sedaj se ukvarjam z idejo novega kampusa univerze v Novem mestu, delali bomo akademije v Ljubljani.
Kaj pa najrajši počnete? To je moj srečen koktajl, da bi težko bil brez enega ali drugega. Na primer tudi ves biro je sestavljen iz mojih bivših študentov. Imam
neko srečno okoliščino, kjer je vse tako zelo dobro prepleteno. To, kar počnem, in šola.
Diplomska naloga Maruše Špitalar je datirana leta 2009. To je verjetno Vojtehov zadnji intervju.
Za objavo ga je nekoiiko korigiral Vinko Torkar.

UV:. J H DJlrLcnc	£4 UtUlH M_"tll. L
CELLO tip topi ;ltnkn re j.* con t*	M^lll^t-jd
iLciio« J "i ;f Veitl	Vi i. V, Itn*» tiUgi
sine t □ c. L : r l itv ITT

Tee tdiit'tiOt mri-
1.
3*HSi(Hrii>t Ji pgcvtuji bu,
s i r * t j iti rv jtc/j-L* flfflr lil - -;l t r i qii i ■ i i ici l iji r^j jt^ ac >■
i rl vrjii:»jvr. . i i - cc j-rl d d i :yj "t-, pi. t« tdf lih* 5 ifidtz r- rrl:<ci.;r liplfJipi lata nI L L . trt-t/.
Hi ins	J t	iijl ii .	<.cr;ev/vlii-
: :	v i*e.' rr*v,rai -.ilu; Ji- .Jiidr?^,!
3/tr.^i :d ^dilcdj.i irj ifdjrk&.r.*o	i iii"tlckr
»tcilrlifllKlhT«,!	fr»V,m rn- DdkrL. U
l,ri!cica -i J* (h*»¡U-vi i-^ich.	. ..
/linr.i; EHclfcL, il Itti t li 1 Lc ; ......■.....,	■.-..::.■
«A «UKiii um fr>v,?i; i• ris P»j<il«ot.;stti»t»r «lc*x n-•m; ;fitHr;u.: tjtr «j; nr.t^r prsi t biiniti^b/. Liir i.. t -.a	;; tri c, .r t non», pi liic i sine ' , -^r ■ ■ ■
C Jfl
■	- liutti
fjp>llli Jo BI lllllcfi Lt	ufOTeTilve l»i»J-
¿n jt prL^iifa/ifiviiflJiiii/.s» lici »J.» V,t efci lic U ,=fl , ■' r a*	T3tc.e Cii-v^ i—+1. □Jlai-^Jci», . ,;l;j»u It idr J»
j-;aatcu iDTtri-: e E^rtMpib txrojalfe pr;;r-.i'. "JeLLi:. ttr-
arJ»v,j.r. :aL- ji'lvi fill!": j:li fcri»./Djif . r;	»» je nVl-
iTpff eiTii^a -	- ^anajpa
'■n>m:stili: rte nliiali
IkSiin*irnal L._.rii. ,„.;,, -i D1I -,.-., ltL;	u-
V CJ*DttDT E|;tlg|,
■	r.r^t letovati ATD0k±r	It.tatu In auiivw »tlscirrriini,
5. lot i. .,	^iioct. trlhteeti , r ■: i iiMini/
, iBHf.J» / iofon^iij, /| J» 11 dia rJffili" in l.;:. DjtDtaill:,
J« --.i iiij J, rvi-iju J-. ..... . /¡tat.IL**:. Idr____,.-;
l»a, oc	t., r •. ■■.:.	. ■
fflr.Ji .'TP.;-.', rat;;." Jllioo dTfl.H	n m j rt 11/,
-oji-1 r-:j..i= . r- ...nr.: ; irj ■ J L ■. ;
v K-rJ lr. cr*£mia iclV",fd Ji povpni:|n[:■„ ■■ ■ ! "i!l. ■ . ... - i: 1 . . .■ ■ ■.■ in	Ji ¡.^^llljie.rii Jo U piiTjii*A»t»il ¿1
l.-in ksfiM

Strani iz AA
What about the students, colleagues? Hard to say, some from the AB's editorial board, and that's about it. Otherwise I can't remember anyone really special.
And you probably still do various projects? Of course, just now I'm working on an idea for the new university campus in Novo mesto, and we'll work on the new academies in Ljubljana.
And lastly, what do you do these days? There are plenty of things happening. After I 'left' AB we started wo/king on a new magazine Piranesi, out of my belief that Slovenes need a more relevant and more open, Middle-European magazine. From this emerged a whole new combination - the Piran Days of Architecture, lasting for 25years now. One could say I'm involved in the magazine, the Piran Days of Architecture and I lecture. Well, and I travel around a bit. I spend quite a lot of time in Venice.
What do you like doing the most? This is my 'cocktail of happiness', so I could hardly do without one or the other. For example, my bureau consists of my former students. Everything is so intertwined, a lucky circumstance indeed. This, the things I do, and school.
Annex from Maruša Spltalar's undergraduate thesis from 2009, Vojteh's probably last Interview.
Slightly corrected for publishing by Vinko To/kar.