I'd been to Stourhead and was inspired by the perfect parity between architecture and art; in fact, the architecture is the art. I wrote a piece called 'Not Sculpture Park,' because most of these things become car parks for bought-in sculpture. The artists should be working with the site, not just plonking pieces down.

But I do believe architecture, and all art, should be content-driven. It should have something to say beyond the sensational.

Beautiful people are always with us, as evolutionary psychologists and a trip to the news-stand confirm.

A sign to me is a one-liner, a symbol is very complex and my house is a series of symbols.

It's a mark of any icon that it should be open to iconoclasm.

Science is a victim of its own reductive metaphors: 'Big Bang,' 'selfish gene' and so on. Richard Dawkins' selfish gene fitted with the Thatcherite politics of the time. It should actually be the 'altruistic gene,' but he'd never have sold as many books with a title like that.

Cant you see, we are in a dialogue with the universe?