A new Facebook post from Patrik Schumacher critical of the newly-opened 2023 Venice Architecture Biennale is gaining traction after the Zaha Hadid Architects Principal expressed his concerns over the apparent lack of architectural content in the Lesley Lokko-curated exhibition, whose theme touches on Afrofuturism, the environmental crisis, and identity.
In a fourteen-paragraph invective titled “Venice Biennale Blues,” Schumacher decried the Biennale as being “mislabeled,” claiming that “What we are witnessing here is the discursive self-annihilation of the discipline.”
Schumacher, who is himself a co-curator of this year's Venice Virtual Pavilion, claimed to visit twelve total pavilions without seeing anything related to architecture before lamenting the pavilions and themed exhibitions as being awash in “documentary-style intellectual-artistic allusions to moral issues, garnished with pretentious critical-speak.”
Perhaps controversially, Schumacher lambasted the American pavilion and “all [the] major European nations” for not directly featuring architectural projects before turning once again on the exhibition’s conceit (which is titled the Laboratory of the Future).
“Is my conception of architecture as a discipline too narrow if I expect to see architectural design in [an] architecture biennale? I don't think so,” Schumacher writes. “Whatever social, political or moral issues we want to address, the way to show their relevance to architecture is via projects that claim to respond to these issues. No talk about 'architecture as [an] expanded field' can convince me that we are still in an architectural event when the scene is dominated by documentaries, critical art practice and symbolic installations while architectural works are nowhere to be seen in 99% of the exhibition space.”
The post then goes on to claim a kind of intellectual high ground on the matter, evoking the “silent majority” espoused by the American conservative movement since the days of Barry Goldwater in league with his previously stated political philosophies. Schumacher says that these kinds of dialogue-centric fairs and exhibitions are becoming the more commonplace hallmarks of our era, a point that, while largely based on selective observation, is relatively hard to argue against — even from my perspective.
As he asks: “Whats the point of all this? Is it meant to inspire conversations? Architects want to talk about (and see) architecture. They won't talk about decolonising xyz. Perhaps architectural educators talk about such matters. Perhaps thats why architectural design has disappeared from most (especially the most prestigious) schools of architecture.”
Comments online appear to fall equally on both sides of the arguments about content and social engineering Schumacher is making. Here we should consider the explanation the Biennale's President Roberto Cicutto made before its opening:
“Until recently, the Exhibition was experienced as a representation of the new, of beauty and of technological development in the science of construction. Today the expectations and responsibilities attributed to those who work in the field of architecture are extremely high, making the architectural profession increasingly complex and concentrated on distinctly concrete themes that concern the reality around us, even if that doesn’t mean forswearing aesthetic research.” Cicutto went on to say: “This may well be why the curator likes to define the participants as practitioners, because she finds the term ‘architect’ to be reductive. And the word practitioners immediately suggests the idea of a necessary and tangible action, without preferring tried-and-true or aesthetic canons. A laboratory of the future must necessarily begin from a specific starting point, from one or more hypotheses seeking confirmation. [...] Let’s work together to understand where we have gone wrong so far and how we must face the future.”
Revisit our podcast conversation: Stargazing with Patrik Schumacher
The piece raises a number of questions that touch on trends and other debates within architecture of recent vintage: Ought the technical and stylistic development of architecture be charted by these kinds of fairs exclusively? Has the inclusion of social justice themes become a bit of a trope for academics and others to traffic in (and profit off of) in the West over the past five or six years? Does a figure such as Schumacher have any legitimacy to criticize the deliberate inclusion of Black and Indigenous groups in intellectual forums without acknowledging the reasoning behind it? And so many others.
It is perhaps worth noting that the Biennale is intended to display architecture to a general audience. Oftentimes these events are mislabeled as “interpretations” of architectural building and construction and disqualify the notion of architecture as a social endeavor, which many consider as its highest possible aim.
All this and more should be meted out in the following months as the Biennale unfolds. The exhibition closes on November 26th.
Archinect's coverage of the events circulating at the Venice Architecture Biennale can be found here.
32 Comments
I can't believe I'm about to type this - I agree with Patrick Schumacher.
Not only Venice, but the Lisbon Triennial and Chicago Biennial. Are the issues they raise important? Yes. Are they architecture? No. It seems self-evident that the content of an architecture biennial should be Architecture.
I respect these other artists but save it for an arts biennial or a humanism biennial. As Patrick rightly says, we should be addressing these topics through architectural projects. That's a problem though because 1/2 the people (or more) invited to exhibit aren't even architects, never designed a building in their lives.
The "expanded view" of architecture doesn't make these events more interesting or engaging for the public. Rather it narrows the interested parties from the rather large field of practicing architects and public who are interested in architecture to the rarified few who have carved out careers in academia pontificating on architecture (which they obviously know very little about) or social issues (which is done much better by people who have dedicated their lives to sociology, environmental sciences, etc...)
Okay ChatGPT, let's roast the bienniale!
Architecture biennials, especially the illustrious Venice Architecture Biennial, have long been a subject of my disdain. These self-congratulatory gatherings of the architectural elite are nothing more than extravagant spectacles, flaunting their disregard for the very principles they claim to champion.
Let's start with the environmental costs, shall we? The grandiose pavilions, the extravagant installations, the excessive use of materials—it's an environmental nightmare. The carbon footprint left by these events is enough to make Greta Thunberg's blood boil. And for what? To stroke the egos of architects and satisfy their insatiable appetite for self-promotion.
But it's not just the environmental impact that irks me. These biennials have become detached from the concerns of normal people and practicing architects. They've devolved into elitist gatherings, where the academic and intellectual circles pat each other on the back, while ordinary architects, who are actually designing and building, are left in the periphery. It's a charade of exclusivity that fails to address the real challenges faced by the profession.
And let's not forget the lack of architectural content. These biennials often prioritize spectacle over substance, favoring flashy installations and conceptual musings over practical architectural discourse. It's as if they've forgotten that architecture is fundamentally about creating spaces for people to inhabit, not just providing fodder for pretentious intellectual debates.
Furthermore, the misguided focus on social and political issues is a smokescreen for the lack of architectural rigor. Yes, architecture has a role to play in addressing societal challenges, but these events often reduce architecture to mere symbolism, as if erecting a provocative installation can solve the world's problems. It's a shallow and empty gesture that does little to effect real change.
In the end, these architecture biennials, including the Venice Architecture Biennial, have become bloated extravaganzas that serve the egos of a select few, while neglecting the needs of the profession and the wider public. It's time to reevaluate their purpose and refocus on the true essence of architecture—creating meaningful and impactful spaces that improve lives, rather than indulging in self-aggrandizement.
i think the best thing about the venice bienalle is its utter inconsistency - each session is very much aligned to the whims of that year's curator. it allows it to avoid falling into the kind of routines that would make for a boring summary of the state of the profession.
some years result in a fairly loose and random overview of compelling projects, academic works, and leftover models from starchitects. other years like this are more polemical and abstracted from the craft-work part of practice that motivates someone like me.
but i'm ok with that. it's better to view these programs as a statement by the curator rather than a recognition of excellence in practice, and know sometimes it will have little relevance to what many of will pursue in the day-to-day work. getting people to talk about the basis of value in architecture and relevance in different societies is worthwhile.
I mean, events such as these are expressions of the curators' interests - and that of the powers that be which select the curators in the first place. Most architectural exhibitions are circlejerks among friends - curators are more likely than not to select works by their associates.
Are they somehow indicative of the greater milieu in which the profession resides? Some curators certainly try to, but juggling immediate relevance with themes that span time and space usually ends up a fruitless endeavor. On the other side of the coin, Schumacher and the firm he inherited operates on a professional plane that is way different from the works curated at the Biennale. The vast majority of the AEC industry operates in the canyon between and the statements of both parties leave practitioners glazy-eyed.
it's all a giant waste of time and resources, and let's be honest, very few people care
Looks like the Saudis bought out the biggest microphone, stage, etc., thinking these people are the rulers of the architecture universe. Money+marketing+influence. The wealth imparity widens.
The developers' cultural production on your face.
Support Venitian tourism.
Bon appetite plebs!
Per PS article:
It's very disappointing that a center-stage type of chance for African architecture has not been used very well.
I always say; for a change, the demographics of architecture have to change.
Ever since I was a student and as a professional, I’ve genuinely and diligently tried to convince myself that, in the grand scheme of things, these Biennales and events like this should require more than a few moments of my attention. Maybe they should, but, at least right now, I don’t see how this is any different than the latest exhibition at a local museum.
except your local museum is much easier to get to and probably better staffed+ curated
and your local museum buys durable art to last and be conserved for ages, whereas these exhibitions are built and destroyed in less than a year at great environmental cost.
you are lucky to be in los angeles though, a city that is a living museum with a lot going on even without museums to bottle things up and point your eyes at it. Venice and Chicago may not be needed for you because your city is one of the centres where things are being tested and decided. For everyone else it is useful to go and have ideas thrown in your face in a pleasant way for a bit. Strangely it all reminds me of a marvel movie - enjoyable, sometimes thought provoking and inspiring, fleeting in impact.
Good point, Will. As a native Angeleno, I’m sure I take the plethora of cultural activities available to me for granted. There are still smaller museums out here I’ve never been to.
Architecture's deepest purpose is to keep the space warm and dry with commodity, firmness and delight - all else is academic gas.
It all goes back to vitruvius.
This from the guy doing cryptocurrency metaverse architecture
I totally agree with Schumacher....Went once, never wasted my time and money again.
Agree; thank you Patrik.
MDWed
Patrick makes some good points, some not so good ones. Without seeing it in person yet I dont think the correct response to Patrick's critique is to go straight towards cancelling the whole thing. That there is little architecture may be because we dont know what the architecture of our time is supposed to be yet.
We are living through a period of intense uncertainty and what we have are a bunch of metaphorical trains without an idea about what the train stations should look like yet. Cringe metaphor, sorry. It comes to mind because the first stations borrowed a lot from cathedrals cuz that was kind of close enough to start things off with. Schumacher seems to wish for a bit more of that kind of experimental mash-up trial by fire kind of effort was on view, and its hard to argue that he's wrong. At least there is a conversation going on that seems to be both timely and not stuck up its own ass, for a change.
Maybe two parallel conversations, one stuck up its own ass, one that is not? I agree, we shouldn't throw the whole thing out, I'd primarily just like to see more focus on architecture.
lol. Maybe the next biennale will have more architecture of the traditional sort.
I don't necessarily want to see "traditional" architecture (or traditional modernist solutions) I want to see innovative and experimental architecture that addresses big, messy issues THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, not by making a piece of conceptual art or installation that says, "hey, look at these issues." The former is Architecture, the latter is art.
Well, I'm certainly glad our resident Dracula Architect and his crew of Renfield cosplay standins have offered voluminous opinions on the value of Architecture. Except for one teensy problem; Drackitect has contributed copious amounts vomitous drek over the past number of years as evidenced by his Disney-Anarcho-Playland, his crypto trap Meta-Liberland, and his countless posts on the societal benefits of the same.
In Drac's world vision, building for dictators, oligarchs, and murderers is better than actual discourse about the how, why, and for whom.
Do me a favor, Drak The Annihilator, let the Renfields escort you back to your crypt, and let us breathe, or message me your address and I can send you some garlic.
All criticism of Patrick (who we all generally disdain here) but no opinion on the biennial?
If one year - or two, or three - of the Biennial does something other than architecture, we'll survive. What we won't survive, is this asshat's incessant bloviating on topics that fundamentally have more impact on humanity than anything the Biennial does.
Wow, you are giving Patrick way more credit than he is due.
He is just one guy at the head of an incredibly niche firm. The biennial is meant to showcase the vanguard or architecture and the zeitgeist of the profession.
In that, I'd say your judgement is completely backwards - we can easily survive Patrick, but letting the professional and academic expression of architecture continue in the direction set by this (and past) biennials is disturbing.
The problem with architecture these days is that it’s filled with a bunch of ideological leftists who don’t believe in the mechanisms that have built and still build our modern civilization, like capitalism, the enlightenment, liberalism, etc. They are in denial. These events are ways to cos-play their socialist revolution. Let them have fun I say, just be back at work on Monday.
Imperialism is the last stage of Capitalism.
Pot meet kettle.
As JR once said: "Register your absence with the Null and Void Trust Company."
Even when it does show actual architecture, the Biennale's selection process for what gets exhibited from the USA is hopelessly opaque and insular.
It's a club and you aren't invited!
This is exactly why I stopped going to the "architecture" biennale in favor of the art version. Both became undistinguishable and pretentious -- but at least pretension is a part of the art game, therefore, more honest!
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.