The land is our

Building design

Ana Mendieta

The works of Cuban artist Ana Mendieta are about identity, home and nature. From April 20 to July 22, 2018, the Gropius Bau in Berlin is showing a selection of her works.

In 1973, I created my first work on an Aztec tomb overgrown with weeds and grasses – this overgrowth reminded me of that time. I bought white flowers at the market, lay down on the grave and let them cover me. It was as if time and history were spreading over me. – Ana Mendieta

The Martin-Gropius-Bau in Berlin, in cooperation with the Katherine E. Nash Gallery at the University of Minnesota, is showing the exhibition Covered in Time and History: The Films of Ana Mendieta from April 20 to July 22, 2018. The exhibition includes a selection of 23 films from the artist’s multifaceted oeuvre, which was recently processed and digitized in a multi-year research project. We spoke to Stephanie Rosenthal, art historian and director of the Martin-Gropius-Bau, about the work of the Cuban-American artist.

Why did you and the Gropius Bau decide to exhibit Ana Mendieta’s art?
Ana Mendieta is a very important artist for me – and always has been. In 2014, I was already responsible for a Mendieta show at the Hayward Gallery in London and learned at the time that the process of digitizing her films had begun. I was already toying with the idea of bringing her art to Germany.
Ana Mendieta works with the body, but also with nature and land. For us at the Gropius Bau, these are themes that are also relevant for upcoming exhibitions: Land in the sense of landscape and nature, border in the sense of separation, division and wall. This is particularly exciting in relation to the location of the Gropius Bau. During the division of the city, the building was located on the West Berlin side directly next to the Berlin Wall. In a place so steeped in history, questions of belonging and identity always arise. Mendieta addresses such questions in her work.

What are the main characteristics of her art?
There is something very contemporary and contemporary about her works. She documented her performances – and sees documentation as the real art and the central work. This is also very important for today’s artists. In general, Ana Mendieta has a certain timelessness. Timeless in the sense that she does not stand for herself, but for humanity. She manages to make us look at her naked female body objectively in her performances. Through a kind of neutralization, she succeeds in making her work and body universally valid. Her works from the 1970s and 80s are therefore still relevant today, 40 years later. They offer very decisive poetic and political, very strong statements – especially in times of refugee movements and migration, which are all about home and belonging.

What background does Mendieta have that is evident in her work?
Ana Mendieta came from Cuba and emigrated to America as a teenager. Her father was politically active and opposed Fidel Castro’s policies. When Castro came to power, the USA carried out a campaign called “Peter Pan”: Children from Cuba were brought to America because it was believed that they would have a hard time in Havana for political reasons. So young Ana Mendieta came to Iowa, left her Cuban family and grew up as a foster child, together with her sister, in homes and foster families.

“Wherever you are, you can connect with the land and soil”

Certainly a tough time for her, which left a lasting impression on her …
Yes, she was suddenly a foreigner with a different skin color and hardly spoke any English. That’s why her works read like a kind of reconnection: she reconnects herself with nature by lying on the ground and working with elements such as fire, smoke and pigments. It is always about reconnecting with nature, but not necessarily with Cuban nature, but with the nature in which she finds herself. As a result, she offers a very positive view: Wherever you are, you can connect with the land and soil.

It combines different disciplines such as body art, performance art and land art. The connecting element is the dialog with nature. What does this dialog look like?
Dialogue means exposing yourself to nature. In one of her works from Mexico, she covered her body with medium-sized STEIN. The viewer sees a visually strong breathing movement under these stones. It almost feels as if nature is breathing through the artist. Only the head and the stones can be seen moving up and down. Nature seems to have come to life. In another work, Mendieta adorns herself with feathers and goes swimming in the sea, causing her feathered garment to slowly dissolve. In the work “Greec”, she stands in a river and smears herself with red paint, thereby thematizing the life cycle and the goddess of fertility. She does all this in and with nature. Ana Mendieta was an artist who played a lot with spiritual-ritual elements.

What does that mean?
She dealt intensively with Santería, a syncretic, main Afro-American religion in Cuba. She certainly took some elements from it. There are works in which she uses blood. That had something powerful and magical for her. In “Chicken Piece”, she shows a chicken being decapitated and sacrificed. In other works, she applies a liquid to her own silhouette and lets it burn. However, she would certainly not say that the works relate only to Santería rituals, but rather that they are a mixture of different interests and influences from books – and from these she developed her own rituals.

What role do nature and the body play in Mendieta’s work?
For her, the connection between the two is certainly crucial. The preoccupation with nature, soil and ground is connected to identity and the search for identity, to the question “Where do I belong?”. The (female) body, both then and now, is always under the scrutiny of society and subject to its role expectations. This goes hand in hand with different forms of discrimination. Ana Mendieta wants to express otherness and the body – what we are in, our shell – is the most suitable means of doing so.

Through her work, she crosses many borders, including geographical and political spaces. Can you explain this in more detail?
In a metaphorical sense, she connects with her own country, Cuba, through her work and by reconnecting with nature. Her statement is: even from afar, at a distance from home, you can connect with it. This implies a clear political statement and the associated question “Who owns what?”. It makes it clear: No matter where you are, it belongs to you, just as it belongs to everyone else. In doing so, it also undermines the question of nationality and says instead: Nature belongs to all of us. Wherever I am, I occupy the land. This is a very reduced, calm way of making a strong statement.

“The work disappears and at the same time remains inscribed forever”

Your works in nature change involuntarily with the passage of time …
That’s how it is. In the mid-1970s, Mendieta’s own body disappears from the works; she is no longer part of them, but works with her own silhouette. She recreates structural forms that correspond to the size of her own body. She creates forms in and out of sand, which she places on the edge of the sea, for example, so that the silhouette is washed out and washed away by the water over the course of the day. The work disappears and at the same time remains inscribed forever – through memory and ultimately through the medium of film.

Did she want her work to make viewers appreciate nature?
I don’t think so. Something like environmental campaigns weren’t widespread back then. She was more concerned with the question of ownership, which is a big issue in capitalism today. Why and who ever decided that you have the right to own land? In Australia, for example, the theory circulates that the land belongs to everyone and therefore there is nothing to distribute. The land belongs to the land, i.e. to itself. This refers to the quote “the land owns the people, and not the people the land”. Ana Mendieta therefore definitely wanted to make a political statement in the discourse – and this continues to this day. She has always been a role model for different generations, because in this simplicity, she is also a model for so many things that people want to demand again and again.

Ana Mendieta used a Super 8 camera to document her performances. The length of the film depended on the roll of film. What does that mean for the exhibition?
Each film lasts no longer than three minutes and the entire exhibition is almost feature-length. It is not structured chronologically, but thematically. The exhibition is structured according to the different themes that Mendieta dealt with: Earth, Fire, Water. It is a very poetic, very reduced and therefore very intense exhibition – which also speaks for her works, which are minimalist and yet radiate an incredible intensity. For me, it’s an exhibition from which you come out completely changed. As a viewer, you swim through a world of images.

Covered in Time and History: The Films of Ana Mendieta – April 20 to July 22, 2018 at the Martin-Gropius-Bau Berlin.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Robot autonomy in complex construction processes

Building design
remote-controlled-toy-car-on-the-highway-5Bo6OfopSi0
Remote-controlled LEGO MINDSTORM EV3 car on a green race track, photographed by Hung Nguyen Phi

Robots on the construction site – for many this sounds like a wet engineering dream, for others like a vision of the end of time. But the autonomy of machines in complex construction processes has long been more than just a PR stunt for smart start-ups. It is fundamentally changing architecture, the construction industry and the urban future. Anyone who still believes that humans are the only ones swinging the crane is underestimating the speed of technological change. Welcome to construction site 4.0 – where bits and bytes make the concrete dance.

  • Robot autonomy in construction processes is still in its infancy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but developments are picking up speed rapidly.
  • Innovations range from autonomous construction machinery and drones to AI-controlled production robots and modular assembly processes.
  • Digitalization and artificial intelligence are setting the pace for autonomous construction sites and creating the basis for data-driven process optimization.
  • Sustainability is not an optional extra, but an obligation: autonomous systems are rethinking resource consumption, emissions and recycling potential.
  • Architects, engineers and construction managers need to build up technical expertise in robotics, IT interfaces and machine learning.
  • The debate about loss of control, workplace change and ethical responsibility has begun – and it affects the entire industry.
  • Global pioneers in Asia and North America are setting the benchmarks, while Europe is still looking for the right balance between innovation and regulation.
  • Robot autonomy is forcing the construction industry to reinvent itself – and poses the question of who will really be building in the future.

Robots on the construction site – status quo and pressure to innovate

Anyone taking a look at today’s construction sites in Germany, Austria and Switzerland will still be greeted by classic images: Excavators, cranes, formworkers with helmets and coffee cups. But this image is deceptive. Behind the scenes – and increasingly in the field – autonomous machines are pushing forward. What is already commonplace in the automotive and logistics industries is now beginning to revolutionize the construction industry. Pilot projects are testing autonomous crawlers in Munich, drones are mapping entire districts in Zurich and construction site robots are optimizing the flow of materials in Vienna. Nevertheless, the industry is acting hesitantly, driven by regulatory, technical and cultural hurdles. However, the pressure to innovate cannot be overlooked, as the challenges are enormous: a shortage of skilled workers, cost pressure, deadline stress and sustainability requirements are colliding head-on with the traditional processes of the construction industry.

The biggest innovations are currently emerging in the areas of earthmoving, logistics and assembly. Autonomous excavators can already carry out excavation work independently and orient themselves with centimeter precision using GPS and laser scanners. Drones are taking over as-built surveys, providing real-time data for construction progress checks and eliminating the need for expensive surveying teams. In the assembly of prefabricated components, companies are experimenting with collaborative robots that position heavy elements with millimetre precision. All of this is not a dream of the future, but has long since been tested in pilot projects – only widespread use is still a long way off.

However, the road to genuine robot autonomy is a rocky one. Technical hurdles such as reliable navigation in unstructured environments, integration into existing construction site logistics and adaptation to changing weather conditions require enormous development resources. There are also legal uncertainties: Who is liable if the robot makes a mistake? Who controls the data streams that are constantly generated by sensors, cameras and AI systems? The answers to these questions are anything but trivial.

Another problem area: the construction industry is traditionally fragmented. The introduction of autonomous systems requires close cooperation between general contractors, subcontractors, planners and IT service providers. This is where worlds collide – and it is not uncommon for attempts to integrate robots to end in coordination chaos or resistance from the workforce. The willingness to innovate is often greater in Switzerland and Austria than in Germany, but even here there is skepticism about total automation in many places.

Despite all the obstacles, the trend is irreversible. The global players – above all companies from Japan, the USA and South Korea – are setting new benchmarks. Anyone in the DACH region who doesn’t jump on board will not only be left behind in terms of productivity, but also culturally in just a few years. The question is therefore no longer whether robot autonomy in construction will come, but rather how quickly and with what signs it will dominate the construction site.

Digital infrastructure and AI – the backbone of autonomous construction processes

Without digitalization and artificial intelligence, the autonomy of robots on the construction site is a nice dream, but not a reality. The real drivers are digital planning processes, networked sensor technology and learning algorithms. Building Information Modeling (BIM) is more than just a buzzword – it provides the database on which robots navigate, construction progress is analyzed and material flows are controlled. Without BIM, there is no precision, no real-time control, no simulation of alternative scenarios. So anyone still carrying plans on paper around the construction site should be prepared for a rude awakening.

Artificial intelligence takes autonomy to a new level. It enables robots to learn from mistakes, master unforeseen situations and adapt to changing conditions. This flexibility is crucial, especially in highly complex construction processes where weather, ground conditions and human activity are constantly changing. The combination of machine learning, real-time analysis and cloud-based control turns excavators, cranes and assembly arms into intelligent actors that are far more than just remote-controlled machines.

However, the digital infrastructure in Germany, Austria and Switzerland is anything but comprehensive. Many construction sites struggle with dead spots, incompatible IT systems and a lack of data access. The integration of robots requires reliable, secure and fast data transmission – otherwise autonomy will get stuck halfway. It is therefore not only the robots themselves that need to be innovative, but also the entire digital environment in which they operate.

Another key element is the interoperability of systems. Robots from manufacturer A must harmonize with the planning software from supplier B and the sensors from company C. Open interfaces, standardized protocols and common data models are therefore essential. The construction industry is lagging far behind mechanical engineering and logistics in this respect – and this is slowing down the development of autonomous processes considerably.

However, the role of AI and digitalization goes even further. They not only enable the control of individual machines, but also the coordination of entire process chains. From 3D-printed building parts to the just-in-time delivery of building materials – everything can be optimized and automated based on data. The goal: a construction site that organizes itself, anticipates bottlenecks and minimizes sources of error. This is still a vision, but the foundations are being laid today.

Sustainability and resource efficiency – robots as game changers or greenwashing?

The sustainability debate has the construction industry firmly in its grip. Energy consumption, waste of resources and CO₂ emissions are being pilloried – and the industry is desperately looking for solutions. Robot autonomy promises to be a game changer here. Precise machine control reduces material losses, optimized logistics lower energy requirements and data-based planning enables the reuse of components. Sounds like a perfect world – but what is the truth behind this promise?

In practice, the first projects show that autonomous construction machines actually work more efficiently than their human colleagues. They don’t get tired, don’t make mistakes due to carelessness and can carry out complex tasks around the clock. This saves resources and saves time. In the prefabrication of components, robots ensure exact cuts, less waste and precise documentation of all materials. This opens up new potential for the circular economy and recycling.

However, the ecological footprint of autonomous systems is not automatically green. The energy requirements of sensors, data centers and data transmissions are considerable. The production and maintenance of robots devours resources, and the service life of many systems has so far been limited. What’s more, most construction site robots rely on conventional energy sources and truly emission-free solutions are rare.

However, the real sustainability challenge lies in systems thinking. Autonomous robots can only realize their potential if they are embedded in holistic, circular construction processes. This means that planning, execution and dismantling must be networked, data must be used across the entire life cycle and optimization potential must be consistently exploited. The industry is still in its infancy here – and the vision of the sustainable robot construction site remains a construction site in itself.

The question remains: is robot autonomy a tool for greater sustainability or is it ultimately just greenwashing? The answer depends on how boldly and consistently the industry integrates the new technologies into systemic sustainability strategies. Anyone who believes that a few autonomous excavators will save the world has not understood the problem. A cultural change is needed that brings together technology, planning and a sense of responsibility.

Competence boost and loss of control – what architects and engineers need to know

The autonomy of robots is not only transforming construction sites, but also the job profiles in the construction industry. Architects, engineers and site managers have to adapt to a new reality: Digital skills, IT know-how and basic knowledge of robotics are becoming mandatory. Anyone who does not understand how autonomous systems work will quickly lose touch – and in case of doubt, control over the construction process.

The requirements are high. Planning teams must be able to work with data models, understand interfaces to machine systems and comprehend the logic of AI algorithms. This means further training, interdisciplinary collaboration and the courage to try out new tools and methods. Those who fall back on the classic understanding of roles will be overrun by reality. The profession of architect is becoming a process manager that combines technical, digital and design skills.

However, this boost in skills also brings with it fears. Concerns about losing control are omnipresent: what if the robot builds differently than planned? Who is responsible if the machine makes mistakes? And how transparent are the decisions made by AI systems? The industry has to deal with questions of data sovereignty, liability and ethical responsibility. This calls for clear rules, but also for a new error culture that draws on machine learning.

The role of humans on the construction site is changing from executing to monitoring and controlling. This opens up scope for creativity, strategic planning and quality control – but can also lead to alienation if the human is degraded to the machine’s sidekick. The debate about the right degree of automation is open and will keep the industry busy for a long time to come.

Internationally, it is clear that in countries with a high willingness to innovate and a pronounced technology culture – such as Japan, South Korea and the USA – qualification profiles are already much more digital. Germany, Austria and Switzerland need to catch up if they want to remain globally competitive. The construction site of the future is a learning field – for people, machines and organizations alike.

Debates, visions and stumbling blocks – robot autonomy in the global architecture context

The introduction of autonomous robots in complex construction processes is not a purely technical issue. It triggers social, economic and ethical debates that extend far beyond the construction site. Who decides how much automation is right? Who owns the data that is collected on the construction site? And how can we prevent technological solutions from becoming an end in themselves without addressing the actual problems of construction?

In the global architectural debate, autonomous systems are often stylized as a saviour. They are not only supposed to build faster, cheaper and more efficiently, but also enable new forms of design and construction. Parametric design, robot-assisted production and modular construction methods are seen as models for the future. But the reality is more complex: the use of robots can lead to monocultures, standardization and loss of control if it is not accompanied by critical reflection.

Critics warn of a technocratic transformation of building culture. If algorithms and machines take over, the architectural language threatens to become impoverished – and social, cultural or ecological aspects could fall by the wayside. The danger of a new “machine building” is real if the industry does not learn to understand technology as a tool and not as an end in itself.

Visionaries, on the other hand, see enormous opportunities: autonomous robots could democratize construction, improve working conditions and open up new scope for design. They enable radical individualization of building components, flexible adaptation to usage requirements and seamless integration of sustainability requirements. The prerequisites: openness, transparency and a clear ethical orientation.

An international comparison shows that while Asian and North American markets focus on speed and scaling, Europe is looking for a third way – between innovation and regulation, between technical excellence and cultural responsibility. The debate is open, the outcome unclear. But one thing is certain: robot autonomy will change construction worldwide – and the question of how we want to build is more political than ever.

Conclusion: Who will build tomorrow – man, machine or a new team?

Robot autonomy in complex construction processes is far more than just a technological update. It is a paradigm shift that is redefining the construction industry, architecture and the role of humans. Germany, Austria and Switzerland are at the beginning of a development that is driven by global trends, digital infrastructures and sustainability requirements. The biggest challenges lie not in the technology, but in the system: who controls the change, who benefits – and who falls by the wayside?

The construction site of the future is not a place for machine stormers, but neither is it a paradise for techno-utopians. It requires clever minds that combine digital, technical and social skills. Robots will not make everything better – but they will make many things different. Those who understand this will actively shape the future of construction. Those who wait and see will be overtaken by the competition’s algorithms. Welcome to the time when concrete and bytes write architecture together.

Discover Nuremberg: the Super Home Collective

Building design

Baumeister Academy winner Annette Strack actually wanted to report on an architectural eye-catcher in Nuremberg every month. Actually – because now she is sitting in her shared room instead of the Super Future Collective office. The internship has become a home office internship. An update on how the architecture collective is dealing with the situation and why the young architects are hoping for a super […]

Baumeister Academy winner Annette Strack actually wanted to report on an architectural eye-catcher in Nuremberg every month. Actually – because now she’s sitting in her shared room instead of the Super Future Collective office. The internship has become a home office internship. An update on how the architecture collective is dealing with the situation and why the young architects are not giving up hope of a super future.

I’ve been at super future collective in Nuremberg for almost three weeks now. I’m starting to feel like I’ve arrived – in the office and in my new shared flat.
You could also call it everyday life. That sounds uncool and rather bland at first.
But everyday office life has a lot going for it: Work and private life are physically separated, the week is clearly structured and leaving the office at the end of the day makes it easier to put projects to one side and devote yourself to your own leisure activities.

However, like so many others, I haven’t been going into the office here in Nuremberg for a few days now. Last week, everyone grabbed their computers and moved into their home offices. So now I have plenty of time to really settle into my new flat share… The situation is a new experience for the whole office. In order to communicate and organize ourselves, we have to find new structures at short notice. We have realized that working from home is basically a learning-by-doing process. There is no ultimate solution as to how an architecture firm works best when working from home.

Just like in the office, everyone has their own tasks. In between, people “zoom in” to discuss things. These virtual meetings also work quite well at short notice. And above all, not everyone always has to attend. Only those colleagues who are affected by the topic are invited.
In between, you can also discuss things via WhatsApp or clarify brief questions.
Of course, this has nothing in common with the working atmosphere in the office. Anything is possible when working from home: it may or may not be conducive to concentration and effectiveness at work.
Fortunately, I don’t have any small children jumping around in the background. My flatmates have also set up their own home office. We meet up for lunch in the kitchen or on the balcony.

And the super future?

I’m excited to see what we’ll all learn in the process. In any case, we can go to work in our jogging bottoms for the first time with a clear conscience. And we won’t lose hope of a super future after the crisis any time soon.

The Baumeister Academy is an internship project of the architecture magazine Baumeister and is supported by GRAPHISOFT and BAU 2019.