The Biennale wants to report from the front line of architecture. This is only partially successful.
So, everyone’s back from Venice now. Me too. But what’s my conclusion of the Biennale? So, my Biennale conclusion? Well, my conclusion for the main part, the Arsenale. But of course also the Giardini. So, certain pavilions. But not forgetting the accompanying program…
As you can see, it’s not easy to reduce this jumble of different ideas that Venice presents us with every two years to a common denominator. And if you do, you quickly become radically subjective and unfair. Because it cannot be ruled out that you have overlooked something important.
Right from the start, I couldn’t get the term “from the front” from the title theme “Reporting from the Front” out of my head. Architecture as front-line work – a good approach for an industry that always imagines itself capable of creating all-encompassing happiness, a harmonious coexistence of all people through spatial intervention.
And curator Aravena shows us the front lines. For example, with Eyal Weizman’s “Forensic Architecture” approach, which we can see in the Italian (aka international) pavilion. Spatial research to solve war crimes. The political relevance of architectural thinking can hardly be demonstrated more directly.
Unfortunately, however, the show curated by Aravena at the Arsenale does not maintain the front-line perspective. A lot of socially well-meaning but uncontroversial things are presented. For example, Tadao Ando is allowed to show his “Punta della Dogana” museum project in large format at the Arsenale. This makes sense in itself, as it is not only spatially located on a front line (to the water). It also harbors potential for conflict, for example in the form of the columns that Ando had proposed, but which were sacrificed to the dominance of historic monuments in Venice. The depiction of one of the columns next to the rough supports in the Arsenale already hints at a conflict situation. One would only have wished for more content or further thought here.
Ultimately, the Biennale is as good as the discussions it triggers. This also applies to the German Pavilion. It is certainly the subject of controversial discussion in the media. Which doesn’t matter. Lion or not – the debate on Arrival Country Germany is being held and must be held. So: mission accomplished; open the doors, Germany.
Incidentally, it’s nice to see that the German Architecture Museum’s “open doors, perforate pavilions” approach is also being adopted in the neighboring French and British pavilions. The French obviously appreciate the line of sight all the way to the canal. And the British pavilion has removed its own door and placed it two meters in front of the entrance. Criticism of barriers everywhere – a good impression at a time when politics is proving to be rather creative in erecting ever new barriers (not only in the refugee issue, by the way).
And then there is the discursive battlefield of Venice itself. In previous years, a kind of architectural map of the world of power could be drawn on the basis of the city’s topography. Once again this year, major offices such as Zaha Hadid and gmp are presenting individual shows outside the Biennale grounds that are well worth seeing. gmp is launching the next round of workshops at its own academy in Venice. The focus is on case study houses for another frontline city – for Berlin.
These exhibitions in the architectural self-assurance laboratory of Venice also raise the question: who is actually in charge in the global building circus? I may have seen an answer at the “Next Generation China” forum. Not only was a simply ingenious glass kitchen presented by MVRDV boss Winy Maas. In the afternoon, the architecture stars Maas, Patrik Schumacher (Zaha Hadid) and Kengo Kuma also sat together in considerable heat to discuss China’s urbanism beyond the well-known megacities. It is probably not a bold thesis that a similar round of talks on the future of Hanover, Bremen and Passau would have been difficult to organize.
