The inaugural Chicago Architecture Biennial opened to the public this past weekend, and while expectations were high alongside the fanfare and enthusiasm, there has been some critical feedback:
Some weighted praise from Chicago-local Blair Kamin: "Such missteps could have been avoided by a stronger curatorial hand, though it is in the nature of biennials to be all over the map. This one marks an often-exhilarating but imperfect beginning for Chicago, a foundation on which to build discussions during the three months of the biennial's run, as well as the next biennial in 2017." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-biennial-review-kamin-1004-20151002-column.html
and from a post on Patrik Schumacher's facebook: "The State of the Art of Architecture" delivered by the Chicago Architecture Biennale Exhibition must leave lay-visitors bewildered by one overwhelming subliminal message: contemporary architecture ceased to exist, the discipline’s guilt and bad conscience has sapped its vitality, driven it to self-annihilation and architects have now en masse dedicated themselves to doing good via basic social work. A less charitable interpretation sees the hijacking of the newly created Chicago Architecture Biennale by a marginal but academically entrenched ideological tendency within the discipline that has abandoned their societal remit of innovating the built environment at the world technological frontier and instead pours its allocated resources into concept-art style documentation and agitation of behalf of underdeveloped regions and milieux. I am rather suspicious of these creative/artistic engagements with poverty. It sometimes risks to mutate into a questionable aesthetization of poverty, a questionable romance. Questionable because what the poor of this world most probably (and rightly) aspire to requires little creativity and imagination because it is already plotted out for them by the ladder of development leading up to what has been achieved in the most advanced arenas of world civilization, where – in contrast - true, path-breaking creativity is indeed called for. Even if my scepticism is too pessimistic and genuine concern and developmental help is forthcoming from the protagonists exhibited at the Chicago Architecture Biennale, one still wonders whether these laudable concerns should usurp the space that was presumably meant to be allocated to contemporary architecture."
Please share your thoughts on the Biennial, and the impression it gives of architecture today. How valid are these criticisms?
solely based on reading a lot of different reports etc....sounds like its all over the place, but that also sounds intentional.........one issue that kept coming up from reading, was this 'social practice' and its direct link to capital........i guess by making or offering the possibilities of being all over the place, maybe there will actually be something that is not "captured" by Capital? sounds like 'social practice' is a profitable business now........
It's definitely overwhelming, but overall something very positive for the profession. There are a couple "what the hell is this?" exhibits, and the idea of comprehensive survey creates that cacophony, but overall it's well done. A ton of my non-architecture friends want me to lead them through it.
I'm a big fan of the BOLD exhibit, but I'm biased.
I've been engaging with Patrik Schumacher on Facebook over that post and ultimately it just comes back, always, to why not both? Why can't we have practitioners at the forefront of technology and practitioners at the smallest scale of temporary intervention and everything in between, all learning from and supporting each other?
But this attitude admittedly supports my own agenda of opening the umbrella under which things can be called "architecture".
Aaron Betsy said it best... the exhibition seems to say "Make no big plans, just subvert the order." While the "everything is architecture" mantra sounds nice, as does moral relativism, I have to wonder if this doesn't just lead to lowest common denominator results. When you regard a "potato-chip exhibition" with the same seriousness as a reclaimed or new building that will serve its residents long past the time when the cocktail parties and blogging end--is that editorial negligence or cynicism? Or is it up to us to point out the difference? Also see: avant garde art. But it does seem like a missed opportunity to showcase ARCHITECTURE, which is probably more of what people were hoping for.
Architecture is poltics, in concrete. A potato chip, or spider-web may be cute but it speaks to the politics of the curators.. "architecture" as linkbait, bloggable, a conversation starter... perhaps the implication being that 'architecture' as we think of it is controlled by the 1%, so we are happy to pretend that the design of consumer culture is of equal value. Eventually you are led back to the idea that the building they are holding the exhibition was built and designed many years ago and is still being used, while this Biennale will be quickly forgotten.
Not to say there aren't good ideas here--mostly from the Chicago based designers (coincidence?) I think there are better ways at merging art and architecture in 2015. Perhaps the point was to contrast the substainative designs coming from the Chicago-based designers (Gates, Gang) who actually work there vs. the fly-ins.
Also, kudos to Marc Fisher for being knowledgable about what is actually happening in Chicago. Or perhaps he was responding to the inane and patronizing line of questioning coming from the editor of the ArchPaper. "As a local architect, what skyscraper do you most identify with." ARE YOU SERIOUS. The potato chip biennale meets potato chip media.
I would at least have reservations about contibuting to this.... though i guess the politics of curators.
This article has a misleading title (damn editors) but it gets into some of the same territory as Marc Fischer's commentary.
I think it is interesting because the project it discusses is most certainly not "State of the Art of Architecture" but it stands in opposition to the governmental and curatorial forces which included it in the biennial.
I am always impressed at how well Patrik Schumacher is able to type and post his diatribes to Facebook when he has his head so firmly planted up his own ass. I think that is a talent that he is not often recognized for.
in school I believed in the crisis, I was young and it made sense. Deconstruction was ending and computers were coming into the profession full force. But after practicing nearly 15 years the term crisis is a bit much if you look at the day to day blah.....drawings, emails,phone calls, bids, codes, site visits - same shit daily.....everyday there is a crisis,put the fire out, so when I think of Architectures essentially academic crisis it seems to be same issue......everday is a crisis, put the fire out, blah blah blah.........only studio crit qoute that I remember and will always apply was essentially "good architecture is experimental"......parametrics,is that really experimental or is it blah blah blah? i never need it to execute architecture. dont need spiders either and Peter Eisenman doesnt come in handy much on my daily routine - a cacophony of crisis.......tired.
maybe we are looking at it all wrong. Architects and most humans always look for solutions that can maintain a sucessful mode of operation spelled out clearly in the solution. God created the world. Christian God. Done,nothing else to think about, you dont believe - I dont agree - you evil....., but if we approached operations simply as ways of finding solutions based on nothing other than finding solutions through some operation then yeah everything would appear to be 'all over the place'. the solution is finding solutions?!? but not committing? (i am completely disregarding the apparent Capital value to all this showboating while thinking about this)
What's the matter with the Chicago Architecture Biennial?
The inaugural Chicago Architecture Biennial opened to the public this past weekend, and while expectations were high alongside the fanfare and enthusiasm, there has been some critical feedback:
Please share your thoughts on the Biennial, and the impression it gives of architecture today. How valid are these criticisms?
solely based on reading a lot of different reports etc....sounds like its all over the place, but that also sounds intentional.........one issue that kept coming up from reading, was this 'social practice' and its direct link to capital........i guess by making or offering the possibilities of being all over the place, maybe there will actually be something that is not "captured" by Capital? sounds like 'social practice' is a profitable business now........
it's a cacophony, but isn't that the current state of architecture?
so, in the words of jeff kipnis, it's "perfect"
I'm a big fan of the BOLD exhibit, but I'm biased.
I've been engaging with Patrik Schumacher on Facebook over that post and ultimately it just comes back, always, to why not both? Why can't we have practitioners at the forefront of technology and practitioners at the smallest scale of temporary intervention and everything in between, all learning from and supporting each other?
But this attitude admittedly supports my own agenda of opening the umbrella under which things can be called "architecture".
Aaron Betsy said it best... the exhibition seems to say "Make no big plans, just subvert the order." While the "everything is architecture" mantra sounds nice, as does moral relativism, I have to wonder if this doesn't just lead to lowest common denominator results. When you regard a "potato-chip exhibition" with the same seriousness as a reclaimed or new building that will serve its residents long past the time when the cocktail parties and blogging end--is that editorial negligence or cynicism? Or is it up to us to point out the difference? Also see: avant garde art. But it does seem like a missed opportunity to showcase ARCHITECTURE, which is probably more of what people were hoping for.
Architecture is poltics, in concrete. A potato chip, or spider-web may be cute but it speaks to the politics of the curators.. "architecture" as linkbait, bloggable, a conversation starter... perhaps the implication being that 'architecture' as we think of it is controlled by the 1%, so we are happy to pretend that the design of consumer culture is of equal value. Eventually you are led back to the idea that the building they are holding the exhibition was built and designed many years ago and is still being used, while this Biennale will be quickly forgotten.
Not to say there aren't good ideas here--mostly from the Chicago based designers (coincidence?) I think there are better ways at merging art and architecture in 2015. Perhaps the point was to contrast the substainative designs coming from the Chicago-based designers (Gates, Gang) who actually work there vs. the fly-ins.
Also, kudos to Marc Fisher for being knowledgable about what is actually happening in Chicago. Or perhaps he was responding to the inane and patronizing line of questioning coming from the editor of the ArchPaper. "As a local architect, what skyscraper do you most identify with." ARE YOU SERIOUS. The potato chip biennale meets potato chip media.
I would at least have reservations about contibuting to this.... though i guess the politics of curators.
This article has a misleading title (damn editors) but it gets into some of the same territory as Marc Fischer's commentary.
I think it is interesting because the project it discusses is most certainly not "State of the Art of Architecture" but it stands in opposition to the governmental and curatorial forces which included it in the biennial.
"one still wonders whether these laudable concerns should usurp the space that was presumably meant to be allocated to contemporary architecture."
Yeah I really hate when a bunch of idealistic kids trying to save the planet get in the way of my billion dollar picture making competition too.
I am always impressed at how well Patrik Schumacher is able to type and post his diatribes to Facebook when he has his head so firmly planted up his own ass. I think that is a talent that he is not often recognized for.
in school I believed in the crisis, I was young and it made sense. Deconstruction was ending and computers were coming into the profession full force. But after practicing nearly 15 years the term crisis is a bit much if you look at the day to day blah.....drawings, emails,phone calls, bids, codes, site visits - same shit daily.....everyday there is a crisis,put the fire out, so when I think of Architectures essentially academic crisis it seems to be same issue......everday is a crisis, put the fire out, blah blah blah.........only studio crit qoute that I remember and will always apply was essentially "good architecture is experimental"......parametrics,is that really experimental or is it blah blah blah? i never need it to execute architecture. dont need spiders either and Peter Eisenman doesnt come in handy much on my daily routine - a cacophony of crisis.......tired.
maybe we are looking at it all wrong. Architects and most humans always look for solutions that can maintain a sucessful mode of operation spelled out clearly in the solution. God created the world. Christian God. Done,nothing else to think about, you dont believe - I dont agree - you evil....., but if we approached operations simply as ways of finding solutions based on nothing other than finding solutions through some operation then yeah everything would appear to be 'all over the place'. the solution is finding solutions?!? but not committing? (i am completely disregarding the apparent Capital value to all this showboating while thinking about this)
why not both?
It's a dessert topping and a floor polish!
It's a social movement logo t-shirt and an organic gluten free snack!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.