my first project was a little table, consisting of a triangular piece of steel, a rectangular piece of plywood and a circular glassplate: a small table, large enoug for a glass of wine or a mobile phone, too small for an old fashioned telephone. I designed the table, made it (with the help of others) and was even able to sell about 25 ot them to furnituredesign stores and furniture collectors.
I made more pieces of furniture, chairs, tables, shelves and some lamps and partcipated in a number of furniture design shows. for me the furniture, i made, is an important step in my work. it allowed me to train myseld to work as independent as possible from others. of coruse others were involved but in general i could make the final decisions, i could tell others what to do and why. most of all i could try out my thoughts, transform these in models this was enough to start a dialogue.
my furniture could have been the start of my career as a furniture designer, but after some years of designing, making and selling my pieces, i continued to fullfill my curiosity and started to participate in architectural competitions, danceprojects and installations. i or rather we, entered in a finnish competition for play-elements for children and even won; we entered in a competition for an object for itt and won again.
there is a part of me that is curious, that wants to know what happens when i do this or that, that wants to find out what is possible and what is not, that wants to enlarge his horizons and see what is at the other side of the fence. in that sense it was essential to start building, first with/in our own house and later as an architect/designer/builder for others, realizing custom built interiors with rich shapes, precise spatialarrangements and very pleased clients. the work was time consuming, did not pay very well and often did not pay at all by anyhow the results were pleasant.
the next step was rto start making models of dream-houses, houses that i might never be able to get realsied but that offered possibilities to test my ideas, to transform ideas into concepts and to show what could be possible when traditional architectural were forgotten, wre neglected working as if they did not exist. it was not easy to use this kind of work as an incentive for dialogues. architects considered my work as art and artists as architecture. the exchange of ideas between archtiects and artists was not easy and still is not easy. quite often during lectures the discussion grew rather intensive and sometimes became agressive, which was a little strange as i felt that discussions about architecture and architec tural thought could be or rather should be refreshing.
for a short period i worked as a normal architect. i had commissions for housingprojects, i worked with building teams and buildingauthorities and decided that this kind of work was not very stimulating. i did not like and dod not finish the jobs on purpose: i quit, taking full responsibility for my own situation, not wanting to get involved in situating where i had to do work i could not undertand. i had the jobs, i know what it is to run a normal architect' s office with full responsibility for the people that work for you. i feel responsible for the people i work with but architecture is one thing, being a company is something else.
for a hsort period i worked with a building firm and developped in close cooperation with them and others some very cost effectieve mass produced houses. it was fun to do. the plans drew a lot of attentions and would have fulfilled many needs of young people. bureaucracy however and traditional thinking patterns all over the country prevented the realisation of even only one model. the houses could have been fun, being competely massproduced, easy and fast to built, affordable and in that sense quite special.
from housing models i turned to archtiectural competitions: i did not want to be anymore the only one who decided what to do and whhat to forget. in changing teams of students, artists and others who passed by several competitions entrees were made, without much luck but with a lot of fun and lots of feedback. large scale models were built. all kinds of designmethods were tried. others were invited to react. again the work did noit bring in any money but at least it was fun to do
the changes to win in architectural competitions are limited, especially when your aim is to present non traditinoal designs. building installations is much more fun and allows much more freedom to buold, to work and to change. in a competition it is difficult to see full scale what you are doing. you can noit walk through the models and you cannot see what happens with changing lights conditions and different wheather types. most of all it is impossible to change your ideas after your plan has been realsied. with installations you get very quick results. you can easily adept your plans. others can easily join the building proces.
that step was important as building is a very active social proces. building togtehr has a very positive meaning. building as a proces became important for me, resulting in many new ideas, many new ways to work with others and projects like the fisherman.
most of the time i think. i let my self be influenced by others, by situations, by books, by films, by music. each project is unique, on a new location, with new challenges, new people and new ideas.
i do not like to repeat myself. a second fisherman, just as acopy of the first is of no interest.
a fisherman for istanbul, involving a long transport over water straight through europe is very different, simply because the fisherman is moving over water, creating new challenges, new views and new ideas. moving works fascinate me allready for many years, but now with the idea for the second fsiherman meant for istanbulk it is possible to try these ideas and see what is possible and what it will bring.