common theoretical stands. Nature, the environment/urbanity and tradition/technology are the three topics coming out of this issue. In the second presentation in 1992, the direction is more towards sorting and presenting the similarities between the individual approaches, resulting in two streams – “monumentalist” and “ephemeral.” The ephemeral/nomadic line was seen as the one that would continue leading the theoretical discourse in Japan. Knowing the outcome10 from today’s perspective this is true. So what is uniquely Japanese in the architecture presented in these issues? The diverse stylistic, formal and material language that all Japanese architects presented at that moment creates problems that prevent easy systematization, particularly for those who are very familiar with the Japanese architectural scene. The several common threads between all of them are: the influence of the Japanese urban environment, nature, and impermanence or a theatrical approach. The most important theme for each architect seems to be the relationship he establishes in the place where he builds. The formal language is as diverse and heterogeneous as Tokyo’s urbanity; there is no compositional, spatial or material rule. The awareness for place, nature and the spectacle of the city is what connects all of the architects presented in Bognar’s issues. And most importantly, in these issues they are all referenced to the unique Japanese setting. There is very little suggestion about how Japanese architecture is different than the Western or European work at the time, but that is far less dominant. In 1993 Maggie Toy took the position of chief editor from Andreas Papadakis, and was the editor of the third issue on Japanese architecture published in 1994. The editorial is a bit different than the previous issues. It includes: a transcript of the Academy International Forum organized on the topic “Learning from Tokyo”, an article from Yoshinobu Ashihara, text by Hajime Yatsuka presenting Kumamoto ArtPolis followed by a presentation of 16 projects from ArtPolis, and 6 presentations focusing on the work of Kisho Kurokawa, Shin Takamatsu, Tadao Ando, For example the work of Toyo Ito has had much bigger impact the work of Shin Takamatsu in the general Japanese discourse. The first has ephemeral approach and the second monumentalist.
10
119