If statement in stella architect series#

Related story Visitors share their impressions of 'interesting and courageous' Venice Architecture Biennale

If statement in stella architect series#

It was an incredibly difficult series of moments in time when the curator and the whole biennale institution found it crucial to have the exhibition. This in many ways made the exhibition all the more refreshing and current to not only consider the impact of the pandemic but, in the words of Roberto Zancan, to consider that this year's biennale marked the end of an era. To not have bothered in the first place: fighting pandemic procrastinationДЄccording to the curatorial team, only a handful of participants were able to maintain their initial proposals without the need to change or adapt their installation due to the hardships and ideological shifts in thought that the pandemic brought, such as the loss of sponsorship or logistical challenges from shipping to production. It is the role of the curator to work towards creating the conditions and pushing boundaries for this new model to emerge.

Architecture and art exhibitions have been shifting in character while undergoing a significant self-critical revision. The museum model has long been challenged and, arguably, surpassed. Museum settings are one thing, international platforms such as the biennale are another, from the way works are produced to their meanings, audience and lifespan, which attests to the diverse role architectural exhibitions play today. This could not have been more anachronistic. This could not have been more apparent the moment statements such as 'a good curator should mirror the practice of a museum curator' emerged. The figure of the curator was also attacked. What is not acceptable is the ridiculing of long-term, serious efforts to advance knowledge in specific areas by discarding them, after short bursts of analysis into the work. If the criticisms were targeted to the medium through which such works got expressed, it would have been acceptable. The installations mocked as 'research' are serious works that try to bring to the foreground many of the pressing issues of our times. Much of architectural knowledge is produced through research and the ways to display them demand formats other than the traditional instruments of architecture, such as plans, sections and models. The seemingly blatant disdain toward research and or the diverse range of research production is another telling point in some of the critiques. The value of research and the installation format as a medium to convey its message The answers coming from participants attest to the diversity of topics that need to be engaged with if we are to achieve such a future, which has to be the opposite from, if at least in addition to a homogeneous one.ДЄrchitecture's knowledge and strengths go beyond the beautiful practice of building that too often gets obsessively relied upon to address the questions of how indeed we will live together. Related story Venice Architecture Biennale 'could be doing better' to increase diversity, curator says

This year's biennale set itself to discuss contentions and urgent topics that we, as a global society, need to address if we are to build a more egalitarian, inclusive and ecologically conscious world. It seemed clear that some of the readings were locked in a nostalgic past where architecture is synonymous with construction. Many of the criticisms fail to place enough gravity on the heterogeneity of contemporary practices, and the ongoing expansion of the architecture discipline. Traditional models versus emergent models We then conclude with some free-radical thoughts about the Biennale's future.

It sifts through the thoughts of a few participants in the exhibition, processed and consolidated into, yes, more words and readings that can help visitors take a fresh and deeper look at the exhibition. This year's biennale discusses urgent topics that we, as a global society, need to address if we are to build a more egalitarian, inclusive and ecologically conscious worldД«roadly speaking and without too much posturing, we present a collective counter-position that can be partitioned into five main headings, with the simple brief to balance the debate surrounding this exhibition and how it was all put together. Our unapologetic positioning as Africans in this response to these criticisms cannot be understated, especially when considering architecture's poor heritage of representation of diverse thoughts and practices of people seen to be 'below' the enlightened global North.