Get Off of My Cloud
Get Off of My Cloud Wolf D. Prix COOPHIM MELB( L)AU
Texts 1968–2005 Edited by Martina Kandeler-Fritsch and Thomas Kramer
Editors: Martina Kandeler-Fritsch and Thomas Kramer Coordination/ Editing: Petra Königsegger-Dabrowski Publication Staff: Gudrun Hausegger, Petra Trefalt, Markus Pillhofer, Caroline Ecker, Timo Rieke, Doris Fritz, Edith Fritz Translation: Dream Coordination Office (Lisa Rosenblatt & Charlotte Eckler) Design and Typesetting: Paulus M. Dreibholz, London/ Vienna Typefaces: ITC Charter, Akzidenz Grotesk Paper: Munken Lynx 130 g/m 2 Binding: Druckverarbeitung IDUPA Schübelin GmbH, Owen/Teck Printed by: Offizin Chr. Scheufele, Stuttgart © 2005 Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern-Ruit, and authors Published by Hatje Cantz Verlag Senefelderstrasse 12 73760 Ostfildern-Ruit Germany Tel. + 49 711 4405 -0 Fax. + 49 711 4405 -220 www.hatjecantz.com Hatje Cantz books are available internationally at selected bookstores and from the following distribution partners: USA/North America—D.A.P., Distributed Art Publishers, New York, www.artbook.com UK—Art Books International, London, sales@art-bks.com Australia—Tower Books, Frenchs Forest (Sydney), towerbks@zipworld.com.au France—Interart, Paris, commercial@interart.fr Belgium—Exhibitions International, Leuven, www.exhibitionsinternational.be Switzerland—Scheidegger, Affoltern am Albis, scheidegger@ava.ch For Asia, Japan, South America, and Africa, as well as for general questions, please contact Hatje Cantz directly at sales@hatjecantz.de, or visit our homepage www.hatjecantz.com for further information. ISBN 3 -7757-1671- 8 (English) ISBN 3 -7757-1648 -3 (German) Printed in Germany
Table of Contents 14 Foreword Jeffrey Kipnis
84 Reiss Bar, 1977
20 Foreword Christian Reder
86 Hot Flat, 1978 88 Roter Engel (Red Angel), 1980
Programmatic Texts
90 The Temperature Wing, 1980
24 Coop Himmelblau Is Not a Color, 1968
92 Merz School, 1981
25 Our Architecture Has no Physical
94 Architecture Is Now, 1982
Ground Plan, 1968 26 In the Beginning Was the City, 1968 27 It Is Not That We Should Change, 1970 28 The Rift in the Mind of the City Dweller, 1977
96 Open House, 1983 98 Apartment Complex Vienna 2, 1983 100 Youth Center Berlin, 1983 102 Skyline, 1985 104 Form-mutation, 1986
35 Beautiful Living Makes Frozen Lives, 1978
106 The Heart of a City, Melun-Sénart, 1986
36 The Future of the Splendid Desolation,
108 Like Sugar. White on White, 1994
1978 38 City of Nature, 1978
Lectures
39 The Poetry of Desolation, 1979
112 Architecture Must Blaze, 1984
40 The Tougher Architecture, 1980
150 The City as a Field of Clouds, 1996
45 And This Is How It Works, 1980
166 More and Less, 1998
46 Architecture Must Blaze, 1980
184 Architecture at the End of the Twentieth
47 Sections through Open Architecture, 1980 48 The Drawing Is Important to Us, 1982 49 The Open System, 1982 50 Architecture Is Not Accommodating, 1983
Century, 1998 202 “Let’s Be Realists. Let’s Do the Impossible”, 1999 220 Space for a Change, 2000
55 Open Architecture, 1983 56 The Dissipation of Our Bodies in the City, 1988
Interviews 228 The Desire for Oblique Walls, 1986
58 On the Edge, 1989
232 We Were Young and Very Bored, 1988
59 For Us, a City Is . . . , 1990
250 Body—Space—Time, 1996
60 Our Architecture Has Four Cities
262 Understanding Deconstructivism
and Seven Lives, 1990 64 Desert Storm, 1993 69 The End of Space Is the Beginning
as a Strategy, 1996 266 Resisting Accommodation, 1996 276 Paradise Cage, 1996
of Architecture, 1993
280 The Psyche of Architecture, 2000
71 Planning Concepts, 1993
290 Against the Visual Devastation of
72 The Architecture of Clouds, 1995
Our Environment, 2001 300 The Box as a Burial Site for Art:
Selected Project Texts 76 Villa Rosa, 1968 78 Villa Rosa I I, 1968
We Think That’s Boring, 2001 308 Freeing Architecture from Material Constraints, 2001
80 The Cloud, 1968
314 The City in the Age of Globalization, 2002
82 Feedback Vibration City, 1971
326 Baroque Himmelb(l)au, 2002
330 We Build Spaces That Are as Fast as Cars, 2002
425 Rapid Eye Movement Schindler— R. M. Schindler, 2001
338 The Rigor of Art and the Foolish Pleasure Principle, 2002 366 An Architect Who Doesn’t Want to Improve the World Will Always Be a House Builder, 2002 376 On the Added Value of Form, 2003
426 The American Friend—Steven Holl, 2002 428 Wolf 4 Zaha—Zaha Hadid, 2003 430 Frog King and Butterfly Prince—Greg Lynn, 2003 433 Visionary in Exile—Raimund Abraham, 2005 438 Call Him Thom Mayne, 2005
380 Vienna Is Happy When We Build Abroad, . . . And Other Texts
2005
442 A Feeling in Glass, 1972 On Friends and Foes
443 A Museum Is Art, 1990
386 Art’s Great Wall of China—Christo, 1976
445 On Urbanized Landscapes, 1993
391 The Monastery—Günther Domenig, 1988
453 Ideas Always Have Something Dictatorial
392 Wd. Z., Structural Designer—Wolfdietrich Ziesel, 1989 393 The Prince—Wilhelm Holzbauer, 1990
About Them,1995 455 Against Rowing in the Architecture Galley, 1995
394 E M = C —Eric Owen Moss, 1991
463 Cultural Buildings Are Mirror Images, 1996
395 About the Reiss—Michael Satke, 1991
464 Gasometer in Vienna-Simmering, 1996
396 Otto Wagner, a Viennese Architect, 1991
468 Power to Fantasy, 1997
398 On Frank O. Gehry, 1995
470 Vienna Is Not Bilbao, 1997
2
399 Rolling the Sky—The Rolling Stones, 1995
477 The Opposite of Fortresses, 1999
405 Promote and Suppress: Architect,
478 The Future of Architecture I, 1999
Kingmaker, and Vampire—Philip Johnson,
479 The Future of Architecture I I, 2000
1996
482 Dynamite on Stage, 2000
409 Congratulations to Margarete SchütteLihotzky on Her One Hundredth Birthday, 1997 410 For Gerald Zugmann, 1997 411 Congratulations to Alvar Aalto on His One Hundredth Birthday, 1998 412 S 1-2, B KK-2, and the Poor Boys’ Brain-Surfer, 1998 414 The Proud King of Samarkand—Zvi Hecker, 1999 416 Poise Is Costly; Honor Requires Patience—Roland Rainer, 2000 418 A Flexible Modernity—Enrique Norten, 2000
486 Art Is Research, 2000 488 Acceptance Speech for the Großer Österreichischer Staatspreis, Coop Himmelb(l)au, 2000 495 MAK o Muerte, 2001 496 Architecture Is a Dog, 2001 497 The University Space Is a Free Space, 2002 499 Opening Speech of the steirischer herbst, 2002 509 Norms Are Regulative Borders, 2003 510 Architecture as a Comprehensive Thought Process, 2003 512 96° 13 W /16° 33 N, 2005
420 If That Isn’t Effectiveness!— Günther Feuerstein, 2000 423 Hitoshi Abe, Wanderer in His Spaces, 2000
520 Editor’s Note / Text Index 524 Picture Index
Against Two Gravities Jeffrey Kipnis “Get Off of My Cloud!” the first collection of lectures, interviews, and project discussions by Coop Himmelblau marks a decisive moment in the evolution of their architecture, a strategic swerve that should not go unnoticed. “Get Off of My Cloud!” does not systematically position the practice’s work in the historical/intellectual manner of such writing-architects as Rossi, Venturi, Eisenman, or Koolhaas. Though rife with scalpel-edged apercus on architecture and architects, these texts are for the most part polemic declarations—brash, brazen, even poetic, if I push the meaning of that word to ragged limits. Yet, as one reads, the turn taken by the book soon becomes abundantly obvious, in a sense the very subject of the book itself, though it is never mentioned. Time after time, Coop Himmelb(l)au expresses its absolute faith in the built—in building and city—as architecture’s supreme action instrument. After so many years of reticent struggle, the practice begins to have an opportunity to realize its architectural ambitions in important building commissions. Why, then, does it now decide to write? •• “The mayor of Vienna has said he can no longer pursue contemporary architecture projects . . . he would run the risk of losing votes. . . . In fact, nothing terrifies Vienna’s inhabitants more than the sight of modern buildings.” “A democracy of opinion polls and complacency thrives behind Biedermeier façades.” In these pages, readers will find not one single word that is not about architecture’s responsibility to confront the perils of political complacency. But perhaps because Coop Himmelb(l)au has not actively published its discourse, it is still often treated as an “art practice”: born of raw talent, driven by iconoclasm, sustained by bravado, and rescued by daring leaps of building technique, its incongruous architecture requiring no other intellectual justification beyond its intrinsic interest. Ridiculous, of course, even in the art world itself, at least since Duchamp, the links that join practice, politics, and writing have long since hardened fast. The outrages
14 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
of Vienna’s most seditious art practice, the Actionists, were in a mere thirty years all but forgotten until the publication of their writings in 1999 disseminated and opened to discussion their thoughts on the regenerative potential of an art that assaults taboos and indulges destruction. By 2001, their photographs were hanging in New York’s august Metropolitan Museum of Art. Architecture and art may each have special powers, but so does writing. But even if the Actionists and Coop Himmelb(l)au share the naiveté that real exploits in and on the world are, or should be, sufficient, the mind-set of the two are as far apart as art and architecture. And in any case, it was Gandhi who long before said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” Or more exactly, Gandhi, who long before wrote. Wolf Prix, most often the voice of Coop Himmelb(l)au, insists that two issues place architecture at the nucleus of that problem of complacency. First, Prix asserts Coop Himmelb(l)au’s critical position. Architecture is dangerous; it possesses a profound power to indoctrinate, because indoctrination occurs through incessant repetition and nothing else keeps pounding conservative rhythms to the brain as insidiously as the familiar comforts of saccharin buildings. The core premise might be summarized thusly: It is the defining responsibility of an architect to keep the power of architecture out of the hands of those who would use it to lull us into complacency. Anything else is just the building business. To frustrate power and business, then, an architect must pursue power and do business, a complicated, slippery tight-rope that cannot be avoided. “Our topic is urban life. That has nothing to do with urban development.” “In order to survive, a chick has to remember two images. The first is a goose . . . the second is a hawk. . . . Seeing one sign, it stays; seeing the other, it runs. That means, polemically, that if you simplify things too much you might have the point of view of a chick.” •• • “. . . because incongruous aesthetics are political aesthetics.” “. . . authoritarian systems can’t stand contradiction.” Second, Prix announces the fundamental conjecture that fuels Coop Himmelb(l)au’s mission. It is simple: architecture can stage other politics, other democracies, better futures. At that moment, Coop Himmelb(l)au aligns
15 FO R EWO R D
itself with the most disparaged idea in modern architecture since Le Corbusier’s declaration, “Architecture or Revolution” and does so nakedly, ingenuously, without appeal to sophisticated irony, to post-structural metaphysics or to any of the other intellectual devices that architects such as Koolhaas and Eisenman use to camouflage their covert allegiance to the very same idea. But Prix and Swiczinsky, are not naïve; they know in detail the foibles of Modernism’s first claims to install democracies and the damage that resulted. To them, a better political future means one and only one thing: a time when people lead lives liberated from the noxious weight of corrupt power and petty authority. Architecture’s revolutionary political influence, therefore, comes not from any power to induce mass democratic behavior with new images of order that Modernism hoped it to possess, but from a building’s actual ability to allow people and persons to feel unfettered, free to act, in good faith or bad, with all of the risks, uncertainties, and contradictions that freedom entails. To Coop Himmelb(l)au, the familiar authoritarian mantra that such architecture threatens order with anarchy is merely the chirping of baby chickens. Like all architects everywhere, Coop Himmelb(l)au loves to wrestle with Newton’s gravity, architecture’s best friend. But what compels Coop Himmelb(l)au is the struggle against another gravity, another force that pretends to be as natural, as inevitable as the first. But no yoke is natural, no oppression inevitable. “. . . an architecture with fantasy, as buoyant and variable as clouds” ••• • “Our architecture has no physical ground plan . . .” To act against gravity is well and good, but with architecture’s power to liberate vested solely in the particular feelings a building can engender, are we not further from an answer to our question of why Coop Himmelb(l)au now decides to write? Because of the exaggerated timbre of the polemics in “Get Off of My Cloud!” it is easy to mistake its specific theoretical propositions for one of its broad slogans. “Our architecture has no physical ground plan … ,” perhaps the
16 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
most important statement in the book from the standpoint of contemporary architectural discourse, is such an instance. Its speculative logic permeates every other word in the book. Understanding why it is said, what it means, and how Coop Himmelb(l)au attempts to make it a reality in its buildings is to understand not only the radical ambitions and originality of that architecture, but to grasp how Coop Himmelb(l)au’s architecture joins in an expert discussion with the architectures of Koolhaas and Eisenman, two others in quest of buildings without ground plans. What the statement means is neither obvious nor easy to grasp; indeed, to most in architecture and to virtually anyone not in the field, it verges on nonsense. After all, every building has a ground plan by definition not to mention legal requirement, does it not? “Ground plan” does not merely name a document, the horizontal sectional cut entitled to stand for the building, but an effect, perhaps the single most important political effect in architecture. With Le Corbusier’s piloti and free plan and Mies’s elevated platforms, Modern architecture began its assault on the dominion of the ground in the conviction that architecture’s traditional deference to the ground joined it to the feudal power mechanisms of land and land ownership as in homeland, our land, my land. Yet that deference permeated architecture, from the base of capitals, to rustication, to the promenade from façade to grand staircase to piano nobile. To disestablish the authority of the ground, then, was the essential first move toward constructing a space for democracy. More than a half-century after those first literal steps off the ground were taken by Modernism, the problem of disestablishing unwanted authority in a building has evolved into a far more complex issue, one that confronts not only the feudal regime of the ground, but the regulatory regime of the plan. Plans, after all, already have plans for us. Speculative architects today attempt to design buildings that detach not just the body, but the existential being of its subjects from the ground plan, transporting her or him elsewhere. Where “elsewhere” could or should be is a matter of discussion; it may be in the intellect (Eisenman) or on the streets of New York (Koolhaas) or in the clouds (Coop Himmelb(l)au) but in any case, the only hope of getting there is a building without a ground plan. Eisenman and Koolhaas, each in his own way, seek to transport by transforming the building into a diagram, a strategy intended to detach the subject from the regime of immediate experience, with its emphasis on
17 FO R EWO R D
satisfied expectations and phenomenological, haptic, aesthetic, and symbolic pleasures. Koolhaas turns the building into a metropolis where cars and subways become elevators and escalators, billboards and signs become graphics; Eisenman turns the building into a three dimensional notational field, so that every surface, floor, wall, ceiling, becomes a text to read. Coop Himmelb(l)au, on the other hand, attempts to accomplish the transport by using immediate experience, not by distracting from it. With Coop Himmelb(l)au, a building remains a building. None of these effects are easy to accomplish, but it is perhaps fair to say that Coop Himmelb(l)au’s aim is the most difficult. It is easier to erase experience or to replace one experience with another than it is to modulate a familiar experience from one key into another, even more so if that modulation must serve a different political end. Eisenman and Koolhaas argue that the regime of experiential pleasures associated with the building is so loaded with the mechanisms of conservatism and complacency that Coop Himmelb(l)au’s ambition is all but hopeless. You are about to read Coop Himmelb(l)au’s counter response. As I read the book, I recalled an exchange of letters between Leopold Mozart, Wolfgang’s teacher and most astute and ardent critic, and his son. Leopold complained that one passage in the manuscript of a late piano concerto must contain a mistake, since the resulting music was obviously too discordant to bear. Wolfgang replied that the manuscript was correct and went on to explain to his father why the passage was written as such and how to listen to it so as to hear its new music. Whether or not Leopold ever made the existential leap necessary to hear the erstwhile noise as music and to experience its new feelings I do not know. Today audiences around the world hear that same passage as if its poignancy was entirely self-evident, and an astute performer must work very hard to re-animate its harmonic extremities. I do know this, however. As a critic and teacher, I follow Coop Himmelb(l)au’s work closely enough to see sharp distinctions between one project and another and to distinguish their work from work by other architects that to many, seems to be similar. My visit to the UFA Cinema Center in Dresden left me filled with thoughts, impressions, and feelings that utterly confirmed my affection for their work. But it was not until I read the statement, “Our architecture has no physical ground plan … ,” that I actually understood the political depth of that building for the first time, to comprehend what it meant to walk up five flights of stairs as if there were none,
18 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
the same number of stairs whose drudgery Haussmann thought only suitable for servants. But it is not just that I finally understand it. Now, here, today, 3000 miles from Dresden, I feel it. •••• • Why? Because if architecture must blaze, only writing can light the match. Why, now? Because for Coop Himmelb(l)au, now more than ever, it matters.
Jeffrey Kipnis is professor of architectural design and theory at the Knowlton School of Architecture of The Ohio State University. His writings on art and architecture have appeared in such publications as El Croquis, Art Forum, Assemblage, and his books include Choral Works: The Eisenman-Derrida collaboration, Perfect Acts of Architecture, and The Glass House. As architecture/design curator for the Wexner Center for the Arts, he organized the design survey, “Mood River” with co-curator Annetta Massie, and “Suite Fantastique,” a compilation of four exhibitions: Perfect Acts of Architecture, The Furniture of Scott Burton, The Predator—a collaboration between Greg Lynn and Fabian Marcaccio, and Imaginary Forces—Motion Graphics. His film, A Constructive Madness, produced in collaboration with Tom Ball and Brian Neff, looks at the architect’s work on the unbuilt but seminal Peter Lewis house project.
19 FO R EWO R D
“Entwerfen (design) comes from ‘werfen.’ Planning has to do with ‘Ahnung’ (premonition)” Christian Reder
In view of this collection of texts on urbanism, architecture, and limitless conceptual worlds, it would be plausible to understand and acknowledge Wolf D. Prix primarily as an author, as someone who writes—and not as an architect—if he would have had to remain content with the formulation of claims, of visions, and of theories. If he had never been able to build with Coop Himmelb(l)au—with the resolution “to make architecture as variable as clouds,” to pointedly contribute to shaping “the three dimensional culture”—then he would have written provocative theses or mind-blowing lyrics as the poetic expression of what is conceivable, desirable, but unable to concretize. He was never held back by circumstances—which, despite superficial freedoms, prohibit so much—because he has a desire to build. He presents how greatly the material constraints, which constrict everything possible—including people, of course—into some type of bookkeeping, can be constructively confused and enriched. As Majakowski did in his day, Wolf D. Prix confronts an almost compulsively paralyzed public and its leading exponents with a staccato tempo of model-like solutions, only his are expanded by the freedom of no longer having to believe in a revolution: “The tougher the times, the tougher the architecture.” “. . . incongruous aesthetics are political aesthetics.” “The builders of the Tower of Babel lacked the material of reinforced concrete. We lack the material of language confusion, which we need to complete it.” “We are looking for the unknown, for uncertain grounds, and diversity.” “‘Making mistakes’ is the building material of architecture. The unconscious and coincidence can be the planning method.” “We break up the word ‘Entwurf’ (design) into the syllable ‘ent’ and
20 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
the word ‘wurf.’ Ent-wurf (de-sign). The prefix ent as in ent-äußern, to renounce, or ent-flammen, to stir up. Wurf like werfen, to throw.” “Planning clearly has something to do with premonition.” He constantly beguiled adverse conditions with images, with linguistic images, with highly experimental models, and with the insistent claim that far more is possible than is considered so. He is permanently involved in further developing dramatically expanded dimensions for the favorite buzzword of today’s conceivers of efficiency and designers of reality—feasibility: worlds of emotion, surprise spaces that open up vast realms. If he were a linguist or philosopher, already this alone would be considered a remarkable achievement. Who else is so successful in vividly cracking open cemented-in word use that the result of this process actually stands before our eyes in built examples? Grouchy, futile dissenting voices bemoaning Palladio—why is everything so crooked, why is there so little love of detail, all order is repealed, everything seems to fly away, it mocks harmonious symmetries, it can only generate an effect as media hype—sound that much more morose after the realization of the first major buildings, like an echo of a gloomy past that ricochets from the technical possibilities and livelier, hybrid urbanity. “Completely giving up the dream of a changed world,” Wolf D. Prix said to me recently in a published conversation on the theme of project worlds, “would fade out essential dimensions of our self understanding. All that is certain is that architecture can’t afford to do that. Architecture can actually block a lot. It is the architect’s responsibility to recognize this and as an offensive strategy, to always think of possibilities.” Also the great poet of our generation, Bob Dylan, has remained a realistic believer. “It was said,” he wrote in his Chronicles, “that World War II spelled the end of the Age of Enlightenment, but I wouldn’t have known it. I was still in it. Somehow I could still remember and feel the light of something about it.” When light and space play such a delimiting role as they do for Coop Himmelb(l)au, then questions of progress are posed differently; totally direct.
Christian Reder, born 1944 in Budapest. Project advisor, author, essayist, Professor for Art and Knowledge Transfer at the University of Applied Arts Vienna. Publications with/on Wolf D. Prix and Coop Himmelb(l)au: Forschende Denkweisen. Essays zu künstlerischem Arbeiten, Springer Verlag, Vienna and New York 2004; Lesebuch Projekte. Vorgriffe, Ausbrüche in die Ferne, Springer Verlag, Vienna and New York 2006. www.christianreder.net
21 FO R EWO R D
Programmatic Texts
u a l b l e m m i H r p o l o o C ot a Co Is N
ut lor b ith o c a n o t e c t u re w s s i u a it e l b l a n g a rc h a r i a b l e m m i v i t nd pH re a Coo ea, of c oyant a u an id sy, as b a t fa n s . d clou
19 68
24 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
cal hysi . no p has hic one c u re itect ut a psy a rc h b Our lan, nd p ons. g ro u xist. g ballo er e n long pulsati space; s s no re Wall es a b ecome spac t O u r e a r t b e a fa รง a d e . h e Our ce is th fa our
r u O e r u t c e t i o h n c s Ar a H cal i s y h P Plan 1968 d n u o r G
25
PROG RAM MATIC TEXTS
In t h e B e g Wa i n n s i n t g h e C i t y
In the b egin the a n t i - c i n i n g wa s ty, or t ra t h e h e c i t y : r, the d re a m ed
This u r has s ban poetr y omet imes b een c with u onfused topia .
19 68 26 G ET OFF OF MY CLOU D
-of ci ty.
But li k of the e all urban t o o , w s i x t i e s , o u p ro j e c t s r e p re s e re o n l y a c i t i e s , n had n timent (b e e ve r s c York, e e n i t a u s e we t ) m e t ro h e d i s s e c t o f N e w ed polis. The v N a ke e d re a lity. subte r tical city, r ra n e the a t ra f f i c n city , m o b i t ra n s fo r m b u n d l e d lit e t e c h n y o f l i fe , t r s , t h e he ology . wa s r eal in All that is a New York. nd To thi s d re a m we a d d e d o b eats of poetry: nly the The c l i ke a it flies l hear t ik —the y city expan e breath. A d f u l f i l l i n g fe e l i n n d a n s thes g fo r li e ima cities . g i n a r fe y
t o N s It I We e t g a n a Th h C d l u o h S
ge in y n a h ld c t societ u o h it. bu es at w society, n live in h t t a no in we c I t i s t o l i ve o s in r e ange , o rd e o c h a n g h c ld re t hou hitectu has s e c a t w t h i n a r re a c t t o , h t t s . i o t h a t I t i s n o l i ve w h a s t o s , m o o d s y e a e t ke s d e r h i t e c t u r , fe e l i n g n t t o l i v r h o c s t wa nts a rc i Du but e m e t h a t we v Rud o m our ions, so t emo n it. i with ay We s
that
.
1970 27 PROG RAM MATIC TEXTS
Wolf D. Prix COOP HIMMELB(L)AU Get OFF of MY Cloud Wolf d. Prix Texts 1968 - 2005
5252 pages 17 x 24 cm
order at Amazon.de