Kurokawa Kisho chose to study architecture at Kyoto University because he originally thought it would be beneficial to study at a distance from Tokyo. Deciding later that Tokyo's vitality and contradictions provided a better environment for thinking, he moved to Tokyo University for his graduate studies, where there were courses taught by Kenzo Tange. Tange at that time was a star in international architecture. It was a time when a big change was commencing around the world. Opinion leaders were deconstructing one of the roads to Modernism, the modern architecture of architecture textbooks. This change was led by people like Tange, and focused on a new movement led by the Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) think tank. Later, when some of CIAM's members formed Team X, which advocated yet another approach, Kurokawa started keeping regular contact with them. It was clear that Modernism would come to an end and that something else was going to take its place, but it was not at all clear what that something would be. Team X attempted to confront that issue and debate what would come next. What sort of world would emerge after the rejection of Le Corbusier? Despite having spent his time at college studying the question of “What is Modernism?” it was the rejection of Modernism that became the starting point for Kurokawa's life as an architect.

“It was clear that the age of Le Corbusier had finished,” Kurokawa explained. Le Corbusier's approach was an extension of a philosophy of universalism, which posited a single ideal form that surpassed cultural differences. The track that Le Corbusier took after Villa Savoye and Unité d'habitation, Marseille still embodied that philosophy, but it eventually took a horrible beating with projects such as Couvent St. Marie de La Tourette and Chapelle Notre-Dame-du-Haut, Ronchamp. Modernism ended up being passed on to the world's capitalists via the building industry, without achieving the industrialization or modernization that Le Corbusier and the other Modernists had envisaged. In Kurokawa's view, Ronchamp was created not so much as architecture, but as a means of escape when it became plain that universalism did not work as expected.

Kurokawa insisted that Tange Kenzo survived as an architect despite this change, and pointed out the Yoyogi National Gymnasium (1964) as a good example of how he survived. Tange would never have admitted this out loud, but at the same time as being an adventure in high-tech architecture, the building had a traditional Japanese roof. The question of what is Japanese tradition was always at the center of Tange's thoughts. The Yoyogi National Gymnasium was forward-looking architecture, with a perspective further into the future than Le Corbusier's Ronchamp. Sad to say, Tange's work after Yoyogi lost some of that strength and no longer caught the world’s interest.

Kurokawa started working as an architect in 1960, when times were changing and Modernism had just come to an end. “What would the next period of history be?” was the question being asked. Whenever people can't find a name for a new period, the 'post-' prefix comes into play. However, it's a word with no meaning other than to indicate something coming after what went before. What is actually happening now is a new Modernism. Kurokawa explains this as a change from the age of the machine to the age of life. Eisenstein saw film as a machine, Marinetti saw poetry as a machine, and Le Corbusier promoted the idea that a house is a machine for living. In contrast, the period that we live in now is the age of life. Japan has been doing away with regulations, encouraging competition, opening the doors to foreign capital, and bringing in market principles, with the result that making money is now the ultimate objective. “Japan is no longer the place for culture,” laments Kurokawa, pointing out that what we really need is symbiosis between the economy and culture. The economy is extremely important, but culture is important too.

How can we characterize the philosophy that lies behind the mainstream? At the fundamental level, it comes down to dualism. That's the approach of dividing things into two opposites―yes or no, natural or human, art or science, mental or physical, East or West―which of course produces very tidy solutions. In contrast, Kurokawa's approach advocates looking at what is intermediate between the two or is included in both. This idea of symbiosis transcends the concept of duality. Going beyond dualism surpasses Le Corbusier and achieves what Tange Kenzo was trying to do with the Yoyogi National Gymnasium. Tange simultaneously tapped Japanese localism in the form of traditions, and globalism in the form of Modernism. Architecture can succeed in being both global and having a local identity. “What was it about Le Corbusier that Tange Kenzo kept an eye on? What sort of architecture should architects be aiming for today? To discover the answers, we need once again to study Tange Kenzo and study Le Corbusier,” stressed Kurokawa.

For humans and nature to live in symbiosis, a number of issues are likely to need resolving. One of those issues is the need for a philosophy. Le Corbusier lived in a time of humanism, when humans were considered to be primary. In contrast, Kurokawa's way of thinking does not place humans at the top of a hierarchy. Instead, it considers that humans, forests, and the animals that live in them should all live together in symbiosis. Architects must collaborate with those working at the cutting edges of other fields. As we look back and reassess Le Corbusier, we need to think about how the period that we now live in differs from Le Corbusier's, he concluded.

Kurokawa's lecture had the audience rolling with laughter, but also pulled everyone up straight from time to time with frank opinions that hit the mark. All in all it was a dynamic lecture and an excellent performance.