Peter Eisenman stands before The Piranesi Variations, his contribution to the main exhibition, gesturing energetically. “Architects cannot save the world. Architects cannot save anything. They should concentrate on what they can do, and that is building.” Does this mean it’s back to the drawing board? Enough already with the social, ecological, and political debates that have so engaged the world of architecture in recent times?
This reticent attitude certainly seems to apply to many of the contributions on view in David Chipperfield’s Common Ground exhibition. In Venice this year, architecture is presented foremost as the art of building – it deals, above all, with itself. References to architectural history are ubiquitous, from Palladio to Frei Otto, but the present moment and bold visions of the future are noticeably absent – unless Zaha Hadid’s spaceship-like explorations of form still count as futuristic. It has been quite a while since the Venice Biennale has focused
»In Venice this year, architecture is presented foremost as the art of building – it deals, above all, with itself.«
so intensively on forms and models. They fill hall after hall, most of them concentrated on the building as a singular object. Seldom are their contexts and inhabitants shown. Instead, attention is turned to quality of detail and material. “Form over context” applies to Hans Kollhoff ’s studies in style and façade as much as Zaha Hadid’s construction experiments, even though their positions are diametrically opposed.
Not that there aren’t positive moments. Luckily, Chipperfield has dared to present a range of architectural positions that is as broad as possible. Never before has there been an exhibition where Hadid and Moussavi were presented in one place together with Kollhoff and Lampugnani. “They all have important and very influential positions that should not be left out,” says Chipperfield, thereby confirming his liberal invitation policy. Indeed, these extreme differences are what make the exhibition a thoroughly entertaining tour that warrants a closer
look in many instances: Olgiati’s large-format Pictogram table, the Museum of Copying by FAT Architects, Norman Foster’s wild video installation Gateway, and Alvaro Siza’s wonderful pavilion sculpture – which demonstrates the poetry that can result from wall, space, color, and light by using only two angled walls, whose dark red color refers to the simple garden shed behind.
And yet, at some point disappointment sets in. Ultimately there is a lack of the radical – and there are no real surprises. Most contributions are harmless and/or predictable. Despite the presence of good and very good architecture, what is missing are themes that can be discussed with passion and conviction. This might be because Chipperfield’s Biennale is more Eurocentric than perhaps all others before it: of the 69 invited architects and artists, 52 (!) are from Europe, and many of them are from Switzerland and England. Asia, Africa, and Latin America are virtually unrepresented.
Without doubt, this is partly a result of the unacceptably brief amount of time that Chipperfield had, following the 2011 political turbulence in Italy, to prepare an exhibition of this scale. He was only officially confirmed as director in January – seven months before the opening – which is reason enough to allay much heavy-handed criticism of the occasional curatorial shortcoming. Nevertheless, since more than a few of the national pavilions specifically focus on buildings as such, one might begin to wonder if (European) architecture today finds itself in a moment of self-reflexivity and therefore of helplessness. Yet this could also be viewed positively: we might be on the brink of profound shifts in the architectural discourse. Something genuinely new might arise. But it seems this change will not be coming from Europe.
»Chipperfield’s Biennale is more Eurocentric than perhaps all others before it.«
Photo: Torsten Seidel
Andres Lepik (Professor for History of Architecture and Curatorial Studies, Director of the Architekturmuseum der TU München):
»The Biennale di Venezia has rapidly lost its relevance for architectural discourse over the last years. While Ricky Burdett succeeded in 2006 with setting up a general theme that was urgent and timely and at the same time found a convincing form of presentation, David Chipperfield just didn’t have enough time to work on a show that catches the important aspects of contemporary architecture. The title Common Ground is already too generic and there are too many starchitects invited who don’t care about the real needs of 99% of the world’s population. At least the Jury for the Golden Lion corrected the general tendency of this year’s biennale by honoring Toyo Ito’s and Urban-Think Tank’s contributions.«
Beatrice Galilee (London-based curator, writer, and critic, Chief Curator of the Lisbon Architecture Triennale 2013):
»While Common Ground is a curious and critical theme, offering refuge from the notion of the architect-author, the participants selected did not universally rise to this challenge. There were some warm, elegant, witty, and serious projects, but in my eyes they were the exception. The notion of the exhibition as a method of reflecting or proving architectural tropes feels dated – it should instead be challenging, useful, and productive.«
Photo: Torsten Seidel
Pedro Gadanho (New York-based architect and writer, Curator of Contemporary Architecture at the Department of Architecture and Design, Museum of Modern Art):
»Some years ago, I heard people around me at the Venice Biennale saying they couldn’t find any architecture on show. At the time, I disagreed. There were plenty of interesting propositions around. And those probably had a surprise effect because they hadn’t yet been massively distributed by the web-based media. Now the biennale is faced with precisely that problem: when you have already seen everything online, it is difficult to create an impact with new ideas. Unlike at the art biennale – in which lots of new work is revealed for the first time, if not kept in secret to be unveiled at that very moment – strategies and forms of architecture display have to be re-thought in terms of what new orientations these large cultural events should take to compete with the speed and lack of reflection of online media. This being said, it was revealing that, though the biennale director is also an architect, there were so few new architectural propositions and positions around. The theme Common Ground had the effect of leading everybody to focus on context – and to forget how architecture can actually respond with innovation and responsibility to a given, shared context. Visual exercises like that of Norman Foster’s installation thus seemed like emptied-out TV shows that said nothing about how architecture must respond to our current imbalances. Other situations – small oases of meaningful and playful intent, such as the Urban-Think Tank installation – seemed to only reiterate what, in certain circles, has already been stated over and over throughout the last years. In general, it looked like we were at a standstill – which would be precisely what the biennale should be attempting to overcome.«
Photo: Torsten Seidel
Peter Cachola Schmal (Frankfurt-based architect, writer and curator, and director of the Deutsches Architekturmuseum DAM):
»I was a little disappointed with Common Ground, as I was expecting David Chipperfield to adopt a broader view of the world. His firm is building and designing globally, so a more global list of invitees should have been possible. In the end, some of the participants really made up for any shortcomings though – and some of the highly criticized stars excelled: Zaha Hadid’s retro-argument (towards Heinz Isler and Felix Candela) was very professional and captivating, although for fans of structural engineering it may not have been entirely convincing. Both of Foster’s shows, the fast and furious film and the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, were excellently made. Grafton’s contribution and homage to Paulo Mendes da Rocha was just wonderful – I would have given it the Golden Lion. And finally, Rem Koolhaas showed all of us curators that he is still the ultimate benchmark in terms of conceptual contributions. No wonder, rumor has it, that he will be the next General Commissioner of the Biennale. In that case he would have more than two years to prepare – and I am sure it would be a seminal show.«
Louisa Hutton (Partner at Sauerbruch Hutton, Berlin):
»Of course the theme and the term Common Ground is rather elastic – which is fine given the size of the whole Biennale and the invariably brief time that is available to put it together. But what I find particularly inspirational are some of the collaborational, or let’s say mutually respective efforts. For example, the first room in the International Pavilion is where Grafton Architects from Ireland demonstrate their respect for Paulo Mendes da Rocha – what they are learning from his work and how this may translate when considering their own project in Peru. At the same time this particular contribution is also very beautifully installed – that is a positive way to begin the exhibition.«
Photo: Torsten Seidel
Steven Holl (Architect, New York):
»Our common ground should be the globe, our earth. To invite nine Swiss architects to this biennale and only one from China is kind of strange to me...«
PRODUCT GROUP
MANUFACTURER
New and existing Tumblr users can connect with uncube and share our visual diary.
Uncube is brandnew and wants to look good.
For best performance please update your browser.
Mozilla Firefox,
Internet Explorer 10 (or higher),
Safari,
Chrome,
Opera