Does Pawson have to justify his architecture?

You buy a red car. Does a car dealer then have to try to justify why he has just sold a red car and not a blue one? Is it not the customer’s decision and right to choose the type of car and in which colour?

Like Sasha Vidakovic (Letters, DW 17 November), I went to the British Design & Art Direction John Pawson lecture, in which Pawson spoke passionately about his latest, most unusual clients, the monks of an east-European monastery.

Clearly, the Cistercian way of living is harmonious with Pawson’s uncluttered, clear and sober architecture.

Perhaps he represents only a small number of architects who are capable of truly reflecting the monastic way of life within the overcrowded society of the modern day.

Therefore, why is it that people feel that Pawson is imposing his architecture upon us? After all, the monks choose the car (Pawson) and the colour (minimalist architecture) themselves.

Vidakovic asked, “Is he a happy chap?” But does that really matter? And, more importantly, are the monks happy?

If Vidakovic feels so strongly about his point, he should have had the courage to ask Pawson those questions in person at the lecture.

Wybe Magermans

Senior designer

Lucid

wybe_magermans@lucid limited.co.uk