Less Becomes Nothing

By Shawna Hammon

Lecture – “Temporary Architecture”

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". - Antoine de St-Expurey

A few semesters ago, I teamed up with NC State studio mate, Jessie Braverman, to produce a prototype we lovingly dubbed the Folding Modular Retreat (FMR).   We envisioned that this piece of temporary architecture could be used as disaster relief shelter, a child’s playhouse, a dog house, or a camping lodge.  We sought a patent for it, and it is currently being reviewed by NC State’s Office of Technology Transfer who is in contact with industry partners to see if there is interest in development of the invention.  The design won first place in its category at the Graduate Student Research Symposium last spring for our research on the prototype – we built a full scale model and lived in it 24/7 for a full week.  During this week long occupation of FMR, we observed many issues, particularly with waterproofing, that needed to be reviewed and developed in later iterations, but there is certainly potential for this product.

FMR @ the Prototypes Show

 It was with this experience on my plate that we began our lecture on temporary architecture.  I was quite excited to learn more about its application throughout history and around the world.  But I was not prepared for the sharp emotions that overwhelmed me through the next three hours.  I believe I felt everything from awe and delight to disgust and revulsion with our profession.  Please allow me tell you why.

To me, architecture is not just about designing something beautiful, but it must be functional.  We do not want buildings that are as pointless as tea pots with no bottom, no matter how aesthetically pleasing that tea pot may be, we will eventually want some tea.  Buildings are no different – it could be fun to walk through a building that exhibits the latest technology – for about 5 minutes, then we wonder, how do I occupy this space?  What is the point?  Especially during this economic crisis, why do we continue to design and build temporary structures that serve no function? 

Perhaps the most popular examples of temporary architecture are the German Pavilion in Barcelona by Mies van der Rohe, the Venice Biennale, and the Eiffel Tower, to name a few.  These are not disaster relief solutions and yet we hold them up as architecture examples to follow. 

“Less is more.” – Mies van der Rohe

Barcelona Pavilion

While I know there is something to be learned from Mies’ Minimalist ideals, I feel like he has taken away so much from his pavilion that he forgot to leave the program.  Less is more, but what does it mean to create a space with no function.  If this exhibition was about the relationship of architecture and intentionally served no function, what kind of message is our profession conveying to the world?  Are we excessive?

Less is More installation by Pravdo.com

I had the pleasure of seeing the Venice Biennale this year and it was one of my favorite experiences, but I cannot help but feel like it was a vice that I should feel guilty for indulging in.  After all, we are in one of the worst economic crisis of our time and yet, we built these pavilions to show off our “mad skills” to other architects and the public.  This hardly seems like a noble thing to do, how many people could we have helped if we had put that money towards disaster relief.  How many houses could we have built with Habitat for Humanity with that money?  Did someone walk away with so much knowledge from this exhibition that they will make a real difference in the future making the capital invested truly worth it?  I have a hard time believing it is so.

And then there is the Eiffel Tower, which was certainly a flex of the technological muscle of its time that led to greater developments and technologies so that allowing it to remain as a beacon to tourism seems acceptable.  This was meant to be a temporary structure, but it was so successful and became an icon in Paris, that the city would hardly be the same without it.

What does temporary architecture say to the general public about architecture?  Does this stuff just fuel our egos or is it helping us stay ahead?  I stand by my conviction that architecture should serve a purpose and do something to better the communities in which we live, but I do wonder which exhibit at this years’ Biennale will be the next Barcelona Pavilion – which of these spectacles will we put on a pedestal for all time?

“Keep it simple stupid.” – Kelly Johnson

Sources:

http://www.pravdo.com/less-is-more-2011.html

Clarity at the Biennale

by Billy del Monte

Japanese Concept Model 

 Japanese Final Concept

After returning from the Architectural Biennale, I was really impressed with the overall experience from visiting the different exhibits, and pavilions on display, but for me the national pavilions was the most interesting part of the festival. After returning to Genoa and thinking back on these pavilions the ones that I remember most clearly and I think where most successful, were the exhibits that had some kind of cohesive message or theme to show about the current state of architecture within the nation, This was especially evident in the Finnish and Japanese pavilions. These two countries where both able to give real life examples of projects that were going on in their country that gave some insight into the style of the architects who worked on these projects, and showcased new and unique ideas that where coming out of these nations. Other pavilions where notable for the first impact they were able to make and for the, unique ways in which they set up for their display, if you had just walked out of the pavilion you couldn't really say you had any cohesive idea about the kind of unique ideas that are coming out of that country. For example the Russian Pavilion, while a completely novel and interesting piece of architecture on its own due to the unique system of coded tiles covering all of the interior space, seems that it was all made for the purpose of serving the information that had to be read off of a computer tablet, one project after another. This lead to the realization that the presentation of projects really came as an afterthought to the system the user must use to select the information. This is in sharp contrast to the example of the Japanese Pavilion which instead of trying to pick all the biggest projects from Japan that where worth displaying, they decided to find one project that most embodied the ideas and collective interest of their architects. By doing this they were able to look deeply into the entire creative process that a few young Japanese architects used to create a uniquely unifying piece of architecture and provide a specific understanding of that project. And also a better understanding of the process the Japanese architects use to solve the challenges of their particular situation, far better than a series of descriptions that just scratch the surface of many different projects, or even a feature of what the most well know architects from that country have been working on in the last two years. The Finnish Pavilion is similarly successful in its clarity as the Japanese Pavilion but uses a different approach, instead of focusing on one important project they decided to focus on one particular trend within their country that both reference the historic architecture of the country and show how there being applied to new ideas of design. Since many young architects in Finland have been working on doing new projects, often times with complex shapes, all in wood, they were able to find three examples of this to focus on for this exhibit and show the way in which this sort of new national style is developing. So at the end of the day I enjoyed most of the pavilions the ones whit the most cohesive theme and identity are the exhibits whose ideas where most understood and who I can take away the most. 

Finnish Pavilion

A Journey into the Biennale

Alessandro Giulio

  

INTRODUCTION
In all honesty, there is so much I could talk about on the subject of this year’s 13th annual Venice Architecture Biennale. The entire experience was thought-provoking and awe-inspiring, to say the least. Lucky for us students, we had heard this was the first successful ‘architecture’ Biennale in a long time.This experience of the Biennale proved to be an advantageous excursion through architectural thought and execution; a valuable experience. The Venice Biennale made a lasting impression on me and I wish to continue to attend in the coming years, bringing along friends and family.

L’ARSENALE di VENEZIA
The main space for the exhibitions of the Venice Biennale take place in the historic Venetian Arsenale. Although impressively restored and maintained today, the Arsenale dates back to the 12th century where it was one of several buildings that comprised the complex of Venice’s state-owned shipyards and armories. The Arsenale, as used by the Venice Biennale 2012, featured a long one-way circulation from start to finish. I found gentle circulation to be a pleasing transition between exhibits. This allowed for the experience to feel more like an architectural journey as oppose to what we are usually confronted with in museums; arbitrary mixes of ‘wandering’ and colliding circulations. Upon entering the Arsenale stood the Biennale’s exhibition title, Common Ground along a blank wall. Beyond this wall, the Arsenale would reveal itself slowly, room by room. Each room hosted the best work by notable contemporary architects and was truly an incredible display of great thought and reasoning with the accompaniment of drawings, sketches, models and ‘architectural project artifacts’. I felt that the time we were given at the Arsenale, to basically walk through, was the most fruitful of visits we took in Venice. At my own leisure, I examined everything. In short, the passage along the Arsenale, surrounded by so much inspiring work, was an overwhelming experience.

I GIARDINI della BIENNALE
The Giardini della Biennale, was a complete surprise to me. I had never heard of the Giardini before and was of course excited to take the visit when Giuditta handed us the itinerary. The Giardini was an incredibly powerful experience. Apart from the lush waterside landscape, the pavilions stood clear in the locations of the Giardini. With nearly 30 nations participating this year in the Giardini, the amount of national work (and pride) was inspiring. Each of the nations have built their pavilions over time and for each year Biennale year, the pavilions are refitted to match their exhibitions demand. The severity and willingness of each nation to showcase their greatest work was most exhilarating. Having studied the World’s Fairs of the past in various classes, the Giardini was the closest experience to such international showcases of leading works of architecture. It was really amazing to have been exposed to so much progressive thinking.

Lessons Learned from the Biennale

by: Arif Javed

What is architecture in its purest form? In my past two blog posts I arrived at the conclusion that reduced to its rawest and most essential qualities architecture is the meaningful shaping of space to serve a specific function. The Venice Biennale was as much an exhibition of architectural works as well as a tribute to the ability of architects to shape the experience of walking through a space. There were two exhibits in particular in the Arsenale section that stuck out to me because the architects really managed to treat their exhibition spaces in a way that, to me, spoke to what the nature of architecture really is.

The first exhibit was called the Vessel by O’Donnell + Tuomey architects. This was basically a wooden structure that was erected along the path through the exhibits within the Arsenale, which is an old brick building where ships used to be built. The structure, as the first picture below shows, is an irregularly geometric form that is composed of stacked wooden planks. These reference both the stacked brick construction of the Arsenale as well as the wood of the ships that used to be built within its walls. This abstract ship imagery is based on literary influences from Dante and poet Seamus Heaney for whom the ship is a place for profound spiritual reflection. When I saw the Vessel at the Biennale I was struck by how it seemed to loom out of the dark sea of space around it. I was impressed by how the architects used material, form, and site context to create a reflective and contemplative space that really only functioned as a quick passage between two areas. They managed to funnel the light through the chamber to further emphasize the procession through the vessel while illuminating the tectonic construction that balances the illuminated wood solids with the dark and hollow voids between the planks. I am still amazed by how the architects managed to make such a small passage into a shrine-like contemplative journey that momentarily makes made me forget my destination.

            The next exhibit was the room designed by Märkli Architekt. While I realize that this exhibit might not have come off to everyone as the most interesting project, I thought that it was somewhat noteworthy because it embodies the idea of the nature of architecture being the shaping of space. The room is sparse; there are two columns of the original Arsenale towards the center of the room and arranged around them are 6 sculptures of human figures placed on marble blocks. The human sculptures resemble sculptures of humans from ancient civilization. Märkli carefully arranged the sculptures around the two existing columns. This orderly arrangement was done in order to create a certain “spatial tension” between the elements in the space. The way the architect carefully placed the vertical sculptures around the columns and even in relation to the walls of the space creates a commentary on how people exist in relation to each other as parts of a whole. This main thesis on the nature of human existence is only possible due to the way the architect divided the space in plan based on the installed elements and the forms that already existed on site.

            The time that we spent at the Biennale was truly invaluable; I think that getting to experience and see all the different projects helped me get a much deeper understanding about what the job and purpose and meaning of architecture is.  The Vessel exhibit showed how space can be shaped by form and manipulation of light and the Märkli exhibit showed how simply arranging different elements in plan can also define the space in a meaningful way. 

The exhibit my Märkli, shows two main elements, column and human sculpture

The Vessel by Odonnel and Tuomey, in relation to the Arsenale space around it

[Re]juvenation and the Evolution of the Architect

By: Tyler Norton

After experiencing the 2012 Venice Biennale, there is no question in my mind that the job of the architect is evolving. The entire basis of the Biennale is to showcase innovative architecture from around the world and it only took walking through the first few exhibits to show that this year’s festival was no exception to the rule. One theme that I repeatedly noticed throughout many exhibits was a sort of rejuvenation of architecture. Many of the exhibits and pavilions were not about completely new designs, but more about redesigning what already exists in a new, creative, and highly innovative fashion. This brings up the question of how, exactly architecture is evolving and more importantly, how particular exhibits in the Biennale chose to represent this new age of architects.

           

            With the world population topping off at roughly 7 billion people, it is no wonder that cities are growing larger and larger, and more and more spread out. Eventually, we may even come to a point where we run out of space entirely. We may not be quite at that stage yet, but there is no denying that, while there are obviously still plenty of new designs being built, architects are focusing less on creating new buildings, and more on modifying existing ones. In my opinion, the higher the population grows, and the more the earth and cityscapes around us change, the more the job of the architect changes. Today’s architect has to deal with a whole new set of challenges such as rejuvenating existing spaces, all the while creating a delicate yet drastic balance of keeping touch with the past and remaining faithfully innovative in the design process. There are a few exhibits that I think did a beautiful job of illustrating this progression in the field of architecture.

            The first exhibit that sticks out to me that applies to this theme of rejuvenation is the Ruta del Peregrino exhibit, which focused on the pilgrimage of Mexican residents to the temple of the Virgin of Talpa. This long and excruciating journey has very poor conditions and very little shelter for the pilgrims to stay in along the way. This project dealt with new design, but in the sense that they took this very old tradition, reevaluated the conditions, and created new buildings that sheltered the journeyers. Another example deals with the reuse of existing buildings and that is the German Pavilion. Architects in Germany are particularly close to facing the challenge of modifying buildings because the existing and sometimes hastily built postwar buildings are no longer suitable for their way of life. Therefore, they are using the theme of “Reduce/Reuse/Recycle” not only applying to reusing buildings but also tying in sustainable and recyclable materials that make the modifications innovative. While the German exhibit was about reusing, the Japanese Pavilion instead focused on complete reconstruction of buildings that were damaged by the recent and devastating tsunamis. A personal favorite exhibit of mine is the Norman Foster exhibit, which was the ‘gateway’ exhibit. The overall message behind this exhibit focuses on a general regrouping of architecture all over the world. Next, the Zaha Hadid exhibit focused not only on her recent works, but also mainly on her reinterpretation of the engineer Frei Otto’s work. Finally, in the Dutch exhibit, called “Reset,” there were a series of curtains that were rearranged every 5 to 10 minutes to represent fluid and flexible spaces that can easily be rearranged, which alludes to existing buildings that have the potential to be transformed into something completely new.

 

            Although they do so in different ways, each of these exhibits show how existing architecture can be revitalized, refreshed, restored, and re-energized to turn out completely new. After seeing all of these exhibits, it is very clear to me that architecture has evolved from just simple design, to a much harder, and ultimately more rewarding field: that of redesign.

Forms of the Biennale

by Fielding Lowrance

My experience in Venice at the Biennale was one of the most enriching experiences I had while on my ten day extended travel around the north of Italy.  The first portion that we visited, which included expositions that related specifically to architecture, was particularly interesting.  We had only a very short period of time in which to take in a very large number of expositions, a fact that I found rather overwhelming and which led to a bit of a sensory overload. However, I still came away with some observations that have enhanced, and in some cases changed the way in which I think about architecture.

              

           The exhibition that had the greatest impact on me personally was certainly not the most sensational. However, the simplicity of the nature in which the idea behind the exhibit was conveyed lent power to the idea itself. The exhibit was one of the first that we viewed and was simply a darkened room with black and white images and text projected on each of the walls. The black and white, highly contrasted images immediately called attention to the architectural forms that they depicted. The fact that the framing of the images often took the subject out of the context of the entire building heightened the affect. There was written underneath each image the name of the building, and a description of the form: regulated, wavy, geometric, etc. A slide with text explained the difference between affect and meaning of form. While meaning is specific to the individual and dependent upon that individual’s biases, affect is the influence that the form has and has a closer relation to the form itself.

This idea colored many of the observations that I made later that day, and even influenced some of my previous experiences upon reflection. For example, in one of the later exhibits participants were asked to vote on what emotions certain buildings made them feel. The results were displayed on panels located throughout the room. Some buildings generally evoked similar responses. For example a rigid looking concrete government building elicited primarily anger and very few feelings of freedom. However, the responses to some buildings varied, or had votes split between similar responses such as happy and free. This reiterated the idea that the same forms can carry different meanings for different individuals.

The theme of the relationship between architecture and the people who populate was also present in many of the other exhibits I viewed that day. One that comes to mind in particular was another room that made heavy use of projectors. However, this room, presented full color images on all for walls, depicting large groups of people in states that varied from peaceful to highly agitated/protesting. On the floor cities were depicted coming together and dispersing in time with the images on the walls. This illustrated the role that populations play in the construction and destruction of a city environment and the cyclical nature of these developments.