Yes. The question arose when the Board of Directors of the executive council (including Zanuso, Vigan., De Carlo, and Rosselli) decided I should work with Mangiarotti who had already submitted a model (which turned out to be expensive in the end as well as not fulfilling all the set-up requirements). Mangiarotti was a very kind man and often invited me to lunch. I was a great admirer of his Baranzate church, a real masterpiece expressing the tectonics of architecture to the maximum, the expressive power of beams modeled with real engineering skills that could ultimately be interpreted as sculptures. His proposal for the pavilion stemmed from an impulse that was the opposite of my solution: more architectural in a certain sense, focused on the configuration of the internal spaces and therefore more restrictive in terms of the display systems that would be required, which clashed with the requirements expressed by the Council. In my case, the organic forms were intrinsic to a process that I had explored step by step, while in his, they were possibly closer to the expressiveness of a gesture that came from his customary method. A method that I now recognize to be very much my own: it’s the method of composing “piece by piece,” architecture as assembly, the importance of the joint. Now, all these years later, what we have in common is more important than what divided us on that single occasion.