Wiel Arets, works and projects

An encounter with the architecture of Wiel Arets-with the diversity of language, scale, program and context that he tackles, and the different responses that he comes up with-can be baffling. It is not easy, in fact, to place the Dutch architect's work in a category, in a genre, in a single system capable of explaining the multiple lines of research that he pursues. Arets's architecture is difficult and cryptic. First of all, it is hard to understand and not immediately interpretable. It is difficult to observe: it does not rely on repe¬tition and can be considered from many points of view. These difficulties stem, in the first instance, from the complexity concealed behind the impression of clarity, conci¬sion and simplicity that is conveyed by his constructions. A superficial interpretation, moreover, cannot grasp the complicated cultural references and precedents on which the architect draws. The objective of his architecture is not complexity of form, but complexity of content. Yet the puzzlement stirred by Arets's architecture can help us to find the right approach to the interpretation of a body of work that is by its nature multiform, varied and eclectic. Arets's work does not make use of metaphorical allusions to the history of ar-chitecture. Rather, it incorporates this history and condenses it into figures that aspire to express their autonomy. His references go beyond the discipline of architecture: in his writings he often cites Paul Valéry, Jean-Luc Godard and Gilles Deleuze, ranging from poetry to cinema and philosophy and drawing from them the materials for his theoretical reflections, which precede any reasoning of a formal character. The true nature of his works of architecture derives from these intellectual interests, and it places the accent on content rather than image. Even the theoretical writings which have accompanied his projects over the years should not he interpreted as an enunci¬ation of principles that can be directly transposed into architectural solutions. There are no mechanical connections between his writings and his buildings, even though concepts such as the ones expressed by the words "fluctuare," "blending," and "live," for example, have evident repercussions on his works. Arets himself declares: "We think in words, so the first thing I have to do is formulate my ideas in words. This is important to get your bearings." Examining Arets's work, however, critics often emphasize these intellectual in-terests while neglecting a number of questions closely linked to the physical nature of