BUT NOT THIS WAY!

 

© Lynton Pepper

Fredy Massad

This text was originally published in Spanish in ABC’s architecture blog «La viga en el ojo»

Lisbon Architecture Triennale, Sept.12th – Dec. 15th 2013

The current edition of the Lisbon Architecture Triennale does undoutedly prove that the perspectives, the horizons, of architecture are changing. However, it still raises many doubts. It leads to wonder whether the ultimate consequence of this change will be seeing architecture even more deeply dug into the dark hollow it is now in, devoid of ideas and concepts.

The first thoughts that came to my mind after attending the event do, on the whole, talk about some kind of dejà-vu, a complete lack of substantial ideas and large levels of complacency.

The dressed-in-black architects (those plutocrats who ruled architecture throughout the last couple of decades) transmuted ideology into greed, into ambition to achieve fame and money, and put architecture at the service of neoliberalism. Thus, architectural thinking was stripped off from any powerful intellectual ground beyond over-the-top and fake conceptual pirouettes; and such perverse celebration was joined by a court of sycophants who never dared to claim (or, at least, never dared to do it aloud) that the emperor had no clothes on, that his empire was empty and it would completely crumble unless true thinking was injected to it: real thoughts beyond the obnouxiously pompous hot air and the paraphernalia of images produced for fast consumption which have undermined any chance to construct debates that would dare to tackle a strong and sincere reflection about the state of architecture.

That relentless craziness, the development of such absurdity has been brought to an end – to a certain extent− by the impact of the present recession. Nothing but the downfall of economy has removed the blindfold from the architects’ eyes (although, in the meantime, some of them still persist in the perpetuation of a failed model, in a state of exodus towards other fertile lands; and others, stay crouched and refuse to undergo any catharsis or attempt any deprecatory self-criticism, they are just waiting for those merry old times to come back).

The economical recession has exposed the need for a change of direction, the need to alter the absurdity of the model of architecture that was being sold through the media. However, it has not managed to encourage the motivation to reflect, so the scarce resources that the crisis left available for architecture would foster creative imagination and arouse a constructive state of rage which would lead to fight and break up the preceding system, in order to generate a clear-cut conversion and a constant forum where ideas could be discussed and proposed.

© Catarina Botelho

So: facing this drastic need for a change, is the Lisbon Triennale actually proposing any options? In my opinion, the only thing that can be recognised in it is the introduction of aesthetic changes on the same stage. It is all about suggesting that some conversion is being carried out, albeit everything is just a mere change of façade, only a travesty.

Perhaps out of the assumption that this might be the lesser evil, those dressed-in-black architects have willingly handed the generational renewal to tribes dressed in flashy colours, whose looks oscillate between nerd, hipster and trustafarian, and who are delighted to play the rebel game against the very system that embraces them −which in its turn is pleased by the weakness of that game.

This Triennale will be corroborating during three months the fact architecture is fleeing elsewhere; how these perfomatic actions, the «art-ification» of thinking on architecture (supposedly meant to formulate the possibility of changes into the present reality), are producing nothing instead; how the current architecture discourse wants to adorn itself with words such as «social», «politics», «radical»…and a pose of «social concern» but actually leaves aside any proposal that represents a real commitment with society.

I would like to introduce in brackets a remark in advance of any rushed and one-sided conclusions that might be concluded out of the opinions given in this article, as I have been often been accused (and with a particular intensity when the Spanish version of this text was published) of being an utter ignorant about any aspect related to this kind of avantgarde proposals, and subsequently been branded an inflexible reactionary. I want to emphasize the fact that I do absolutely believe in the need to find new paths for architectural thinking. I am totally for innovation, for an experimentation that aims at trespassing the established boundaries and, if necessary, turn everything upside down. But I did not recognise anything connected to this purpose in this Triennale’s edition, named «Close, Closer» and directed by Beatrice Galilee. Just as I do not perceive it either in the wider universe where these sort of approaches dwell. I interpret them as mere dramatizations of stereotyped ideas of radicalism, innovation, rebellion and break up.

Doubt is cast upon all these intentions when voices of the old and new architectural establishment give their blessings with oversweetened praises, as though some kind of tacit agreement between them had been sealed in advance.

The Venice biennale may be the most visible and glamorous architecture exhibition in the world, but it is not the only one on the design calendar [...]. One of the best of the newer architecture exhibits is the Lisbon Triennale, which is about to host its third exhibition opening September 12, 2013. The Lisbon event, like any new kid on the block, is more youthful and full of new ideas and features many architects who are appearing on the international stage for the first time. (Aaron Seward, The Architects Newspaper)

The Lisbon Architecture Triennale is the most eagerly anticipated event on the architecture world's 2013 calendar. It is a crucial laboratory the production of critical cross-disciplinary ideas - one of the things Europe most urgently needs in this moment. Portugal has been at the forefront of architectural thinking and production in Europe over the last decade and is set to begin a new era of this leadership with the next edition of the Lisbon Architecture Triennale. (Joseph Grima)

Every generation needs to be challenged, stimulated, interrogated and inspired by fresh curatorial voices. Beatrice Galilee has show she is fearless in questioning the status quo. I know from personal experience that she takes no prisoners in her approach. She demands to be listened to. Her work in Lisbon in 2013 promises to be essential viewing. (Deyan Sudjic)

What these supporters regard as «innovation» and «challenge» oozes, in my oppinion, an old stale perfume −eventhough here it pretends to appear as innovation and braveness. All this has been done before and, almost always, better. No criticism can be detected around here; dialogues are absurd and, once more, complacent; blatant cronyism can be suspected; and −I emphasize− everything, in the end, mostly seems to be nothing but games played to fake a transformation under the auspice of the system.

The title «Close, Closer» aims at expressing the idea of a will of rapprochement, of some wish to stop producing exhibitions that only celebrate «well-off, rich, old, white architects» (a quite meaningful appropiation of the recent headline provided by Denise Scott-Brown to critizise mysoginist attitudes in architecture, which Galilee infuses with additional connotations about ideology and power status to reinforce the supposed subversion this Triennale represents as opposed to that hegemonic hierarchy).

It must be also noted the way Galilee uses the word «generous» to describe the kind of attitude of architect towards society that features the Triennale, where arguably the arrogant undertone of the position of architects persists −albeit presented as a kind of saviour ‘do-gooder-ism’, which looks forward at being «incredibly inclusive, since architecture is not just affected by architects […], we want to offer the discipline to other people, and that is a generous gesture».

Still, such will of rapprochement and generousity somehow essentially appears as a patronising demagogic imposture, something which was probably reflected during the Trienale’s presentation at the central Praça da Figueira on September 11th: standing on a circular bent stage, as some kind of agora, the team of directors and the curators spoke to the audience using theatrically bullhorns, while the Lisbon passersby walked on –maybe wondering what was going on there. A dramatization of the architect as social agent in the street level that just seemed an artificial absurd play.

.......

The Triennale introduces three curatorial projects by Mariana Pestana, Liam Young and José Esparza Chong Cuy.

© Catarina Botelho

A Realidade e Outras Ficçoes, curated by Mariana Pestana and located at the Carpe Diem Arte e Pesquisa (in the Palácio Pombal), consists of a series of dramatic installations. The above comments related to ‘art-ification’ of architecture particularly apply in this case. It is certainly impressive to find «Embaixada de Terra Nenhuma» at the Sala de Nação, a peformance where an actor intertwines the stereotyped characters of an ambassador, a dictator and a corrupted politician delivering a loose speech that becomes increasingly exaggerated.

Such a performance offers nothing specific for an architectural event. It is not a satire: it is something obviously literal. Given the Triennale is an encounter whose aim is reflecting on the current real state of architecture and propose new statements about it, then why indulge in a harmless travesty of some generic political figure and pretend there is anything subversive about it, when probably a simple travesty of any protypical star-architect or greedy property developer might have been more apt and necessary? Is there no courage to parody Koolhaas, Hadid, Foster…? Or is it rather that there is actually no genuine intention to admit that it is necessary to break up with the established scenario? This performance validates itself by the act of presenting a criticism of politics and power which, although it is necessary on a general level, in this specific context ends up being nothing more than a easy resource that facilitates a deviation from the actual need for self-criticism within architecture.

The rest of the exhibition wanders across more or less ‘art-istified’ spaces: ludic proposals, esterile to raise a serious and effective debate on architecture.

A Realidade e Outras Ficçoes finishes with the least credible scenario: a proposal around molecular cooking, which defines itself as something «between political fiction and gastronomical experience» called «The Plantetary Sculpture Supper Club», «a project exploring the co-evolution of gastronomy and the ecological, technological and political systems».

As an exception, the only remarkable and substantial proposal included is «The Universal Declaration of Urban Rights» by Zuloark: a tiny parliament installed in one of the rooms of the Palácio Pombal, constituted as a public arena where the city and citizens rights can be discussed.

© Catarina Botelho

If Pestana's curatorial project relies essentially on performance, on unremarkable artistic works and in harmless criticism, Futuro Perfeito, curated by Liam Young and located at the Museo da Electricidade ressembles more a technology exhibition (or a school science fair or some kind of artefacts’ Wunderkammer, when in front of certain works on display). Young acted as some kind of peddler who introduced the visitors into each of the exhibition’s stages, trying to persuade them about the value of the experience/product.

The main attraction of this retro-futuristic environment is «The Garment District», some sort of pseudo-scientifical freak show. A half-naked woman, hanging from a sling, is immersed in a mixture of water and parafine; once she emerges, her body is covered by a membrane-dress created by the wax.

The short film «Chupan Chupai» by Factory Fifteen, the neverending adventure of a group of children playing hide and seek in some unspecified place in India, presents an spatial unfolding between the past and a future that despersonalises individuals, ruled by technological and economical superpowers. The model of a dystopian Dubai afflicted by an oil crisis appears as a somehow lazy copy of Lebbeus Woods visions. Leaps towards some distant and hypothetical future whereby Young eludes the responsability to speak about the close and tangible future.

© Miguel de Guzmán www.imagensubliminal.com

There is no recognisable purpose in the section curated by José Esparza Yong Cuy, which is constructed upon the safe grounds of the latest trendy and more popular social reivindications. Esparza seems to belong to the side of a generation that blindly believes in the utter innovative nature of their ideas, when they are actually making toned-down rehashes.

Forum Novos Publicos conceives itself as an experimental public program that vindicates the power of the community over the individual. It is inspired by the understanding that the recent citizens’ protests against the political and economical systems that took place in different cities in the world represent the emergence of a «new understanding of public space». The reference to a Bertold Brecht quotation adds the component of theatre, which ends up leading to the vague definition of Forum Novos Publicos as a «new understanding of public space», which opens spaces for the spontaneous improvisation of whoever wants to be heard, and offers «performative speeches», «body language workshops»…One can wonder in what sense this transference of the theatrical to the urban thing, or the theatralization of subjects supposedly concerned with the urban thing, represent an understanding of the meaning or meanings that those demonstrations (appropiations of the public territory) have had for the citizenship.

This proposal seems to confuse the concept of action with the concept of expression. It could be argued that any action involves an expression (a demonstration), but expression can be confined to itself and have no further trascendence −meaning, it should not necessarily have to be (or have the power to be) an instigator of action−. And the latter possibility seems to be implicit risk in this proposal: to relish in giving space to expression and take for granted it equates to action. The consequence of such an understanding is a disolution of the fighting spirit behind those protests Forum Novos Publicos considers its source of reference. (Having in mind the 15-M protests in Madrid, one could also ponder whether the actual source of reference has been the often simplistic focus about these protests given by the media and to what an extent this media narratives have been extremely detrimental −for they have trivialised its expression, and consequently distorted and neutralised the purpose of its action).

.......

The Triennale does not just circumvent the outskirts of architecture but it also seems to display a shockingly derisory interest to tackle in depth the current situation of Portuguese architecture. Whatever mentions to current Portuguese architectural are scarce and do not belong to the curatorial framework of the Triennale. This is a noteworthy aspect, not because of some pointless chauvinism, but because one should expect from such an event the intention to pay primary attention to local aspects that would lead to delve into global subjects of concern.

One could speculate whether José Mateus, president of the Triennale, has preferred to fall under the spell of such a prefabricated package (a franchisee product, transplantable to whatever location just inserting some particular details to bestow it with a certain specificity) of this kind of proposals. Did he perhaps guess this would bring some wind (or appearance) of renovation, but was he maybe cunningly aware at the same time that such a type of event prevents from making a raw exposure of sensitive issues?

© Jorge López Conde

This latter impression is reinforced when one checks that names such as Álvaro Siza, Souto de Moura, Gonçalo Byrne are listed as members of the advisory team. Their presence is legitimising the levity of this event ( a levity they probably do not agree with), and avoiding the need to deal with real urgent matters −such as the transfer between generations and the issues that currently affect architecture as job (particularly for the youngest professionals)− with a more consistent approach than the one offered by the Triennale –which among its activities introduces actions that expose, quoting Galilee, «not success, but the struggle of being a young architect in Lisbon», and which range from «workshops to help architects to get a job» or «seminars, as a small university course», as «actions that mark everything about to happen».

The feeling left by Triennale is that, yet again, the opportunity for a genuine discussion is being shunned; that the task of filling the ideological desert architecture is in lays in the hands of a bunch of deluded irresponsibles, who do nothing but articulate boutades while wrapping in supposed heroism and resistance actions that are simply a different version of the very same well-known thing: absence of any critical thinking, continuation disguised as change, a frivolous giving up of the obligation to question the hegemony of substanceless architecture.

The opinion I have presented so far is not just a specific reading on the Lisbon Triennale. I am not only assessign it as a wasted opportunity, but as a symptom of a general state.

Architectural thinking does not even seem to bother anymore to run forward –as star-architects have−, it seems to have chosen an escapade towards the sides, towards uncertain places. These places are pseudo-art, pseudo-science, pseudo- political and pseudo-sociological subjects and they foster the construction of a lifeless passive discourse that refuses (maybe because of an imposition of the status quo or maybe because of pure fear?) to step bluntly into the problems.

I perceive the proposal of Beatrice Galilee as unspecific, unfocused, grounded on a repertoire of fashionable hackneyed phrases –under the deluded slogan «everything is possible, everything is valid»− and the confusion that leads to turn the words «low cost» and «counter-culture/alternative» into synonymous of «thinking», «radicalism» and «imagination» −which, as I have stated, above and in previous articles, has taken the architectural ideologies to a dangerous barren periphery.

The attitude of this edition’s Triennale is negligent not just about a vision of Portugal but about the difficult real state of architecture, as it banalises its situation and problems. A negligence whose consequence is keep on delaying discussions that an event such as this one – which is not necessarily forced to surrender to the same ties and obsequious obligations as others, and has boasted of new younger energy − should have been able to get started.



Translation by Alicia Guerrero Yeste. Proofreading by Laura Acosta.