#2 — mar ts 2016
Aarhus Uafhængig udgivelse Oplag: 125 polemikpolemik@gmail.com www.polemikpolemik.tumblr.com
Redaktion:
Jeanette Amby Jens Vium Skaarup Johan Eg Nørgaard Kristoffer Codam Mathias Skafte Andersen Niels Eli Kjær Thomsen Sara Emilie Nilsson
Polemik
Velkommen til Polemik
3 is not a magic number
5
6—11
Smid—ud—fest
Succession of the image
12—15
16—17
Mise—en—scene
Sindslidende Arkitektur
18—23
24—25
We are all in the Gutter
Enestående! Enestående. Enestående?
26—29
30—33
Yes is more! Yes we can! Is it really...? Do we really? 34—39
~ Responsen har været overvældende positiv siden Polemiks første udgivelse i Februar. Vi er blevet forsikrede om at dén platform for arkitekturformidling og -debat, som Polemik forsøger at skabe, har manglet indtil nu. Et stort tak skal lyde til de bidragsydere, der har været med til at forme anden udgave af Polemik.
Polemik
Velkommen tilbage til Polemik
Hver måned vil Polemik danne ramme om debat. Ris, ros, spørgsmål, svar, bidrag og tilbagekaldelser rettes mod: polemikpolemik@gmail.com
Velkommen til Polemik
Tine Nørgaard anbefaler tre bøger vi skal læse i denne måned og Ruth Baumeister fortæller os hvilken bog vi IKKE skal læse. Niels Eli Kjær tager fat i Bjarke Ingels sprogbrug, Sara Emilie Nilsson skriver både om affaldscontaineres indhold og om det at være enestående. Forkvinden for De nystartede De Arkitektstuderendes Råd, Sophie Gille-Udsen, opfordrer i hendes artikel ’ We are all in the gutter’ de arkitektstuderende til at gøre oprør.
#2 — 2016
Canadiske Matthew Koniuszewski har skrevet en serie essays, som behandler repræsentationer af arkitektur. Hans essays vil i dette og de fire kommende udgaver af Polemik danne serien ’Succession of the image’. Vi starter med ’Mise-in-scene’ på side 18.
God læselyst.
5
Redaktionen
~
a
is
not
magic
Polemik
number
Tine Nørgaard Associate Professor, cand.arch
3
#2 — 2016 3 is not a magic number
Choosing one book is easy; three hundred quite a task, but three? To me the number three turned out to be magic only by way of swinging me like a pendulum between clever strategy and pure passion. However—thrilled by the POLEMIK initiative and an invitation to contribute— swinging by our local library, how I envied the person who got to the copy of Francesca Hughes’ ’The Architecture of Error’ before me—and was disappointed to discover ALI did not share my interest in Didier Faustino’s Misarchitectures. I made a choice of three books though, of mixed character and age which—whether they appease you or not—I think are worth your while: Utopia Ian Tod and Michael Wheeler, 1978 Regarding utopias very real speculations on how to construe alternatives to present conditions, one supplementing the other, in my recommendation of Ian Tod and
6
~ excerpts from p.´s 1-15.
2
Terry Eagleton, “Sande
utopister er kritikere – ikke profeter”, Information, Moderne Tider, 27.02.2016.
“The word UTOPIA stands in common usage for the ultimate in human folly or human hope (…). Sir Thomas More [14781535], the coiner of this word, was aware of both implications. Lest anyone else should miss them, he elaborated his paradox in a quatrain which, unfortunately, has sometimes been omitted from English translations of his Utopia, the book that at last gave a name to a much earlier series of efforts to picture ideal commonwealths. (…). In his little verse he explained that utopia might refer to the Greek “eutopia,” which means a good place, or to “outopia,” which means no place. (…). On the one hand the pseudo-environment or idolum is a substitute for the external world; it is a sort of house of refuge to which we flee when our contacts with “hard facts” become too complicated to carry through or too rough to face. On the other hand, it is by means of the idolum that the facts of the everyday world are brought together and assorted and sifted, and a new sort of reality is projected back again upon the external world. (…). The utopias that correspond to these two functions I shall call the utopias of escape and the utopias of reconstruction. The first leaves the external world the way it is; the second seeks to change it so that one may have intercourse with it on one’s own terms.” Finally, I shall quote the English literature theoretician Terry Eagleton: “True utopians are critics – not prophets”2.
Polemik
The Story of Utopias,
#2 — 2016
Michael Wheeler’s ’Utopia’ I shall quote Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) from his ’The History of Utopias’ 1:
3 is not a magic number
Lewis Mumford, 1966,
7
1
~ Polemik
Et foranderligt monument. En fotografisk fortælling om De Musikalske Haver af C.Th. Sørensen Christina Capetillo, 2012
#2 — 2016
If architectural critique may be defined as speculation, i.e. an activity in which the object of critique is observed; considered, then Christina Capetillo’s book is a speculation on C.Th. Sørensen’s Musical Gardens in which she succeeds in constructing an immediate— unmediated—relationship between reader and space. Certainly mediated though Capetillo’s camera lense, her choice of zooms and crops, finally her selection of prints for the book, each spread turned over (and over) invites you to explore space a’new/as new. In John Hejduk´s text ’The Flatness of Depth’3 I find the situation explained as follows: 3
3 is not a magic number
“(…), perhaps the most profound confrontation of all takes place—the fixed observer looking at a photograph, a single, still, fixed photograph, a most reduced confrontation. The mind of the observer is heightened to an extreme, exorcising out from a single image fixed photographic image all its possible sensations and meanings—a fragment of time suspended (…)”. Following John Hejduk’s line of thought, in Bergson’ian terms I think we may speak of Capetillo’s photographs
John Hejduk, 1985,
Mask of Medusa, p. 313.
8
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 3 is not a magic number
awarding us rare moments of presence, the gift embedded in unique encounters with art. PLATFORM 8: An Index of Design & Research Harvard University Graduate School of Design, , 2015 PLATFORM is the annual publication of the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, each individual year edited by a faculty member and a group of students.
10
“Letter from the
Polemik
~ 4
As faculty editor of the year 2015, lecturer in Landscape Architecture Zaneta H. Hong states “PLATFORM provides a glimpse into an assemblage of diverse individuals, fields of inquiry, and modes of production that come to define the school over the course of a year.”4
3 is not a magic number
Documenting outstanding student’s work; faculty research, as well the cultural and intellectual life of the school, PLATFORM 8 is structured as an encyclopedia, which— in Zaneta H. Hong´s words—“documents both scholarly discourse and material production as concomitant artifacts of contemporary practice, design education, and academic research. In keeping with the indexical approach of the publication, both text and image are presented as portraits of pedagogies, processes, and products of design.”(Ibid.). Admittedly a sucker for encyclopedias, I find this one is a particularly commendable one in that it is a presentation of a school, which—by choice of format—allows faculty members to stand out individually, in characteristic full figure. Wow!—have a look at Andrew Witt’s shoes…
11
8, unpag.
#2 — 2016
Editor”, PLATFORM
Polemik #2 — 2016
Ikke ubemærket gik det dog hen, at der blev slæbt store, og mange, affaldssække til containeren i gården. Som en steppebrand løb rygtet på skolen: gamle kort var at finde i den nu, magiske container. I løbet af et splitsekund kravlede ivrige, forundrede—og nogen tilsyneladende vrede—studerende på bunden for at redde alt, hvad reddes kunne.
Smid—ud—fest
Det er fuldt forståeligt, at tingene vil blive digitaliseret, hvorfor papirkopier og dupletter bliver overflødige. Til gengæld er det uendeligt svært at forstå, hvorfor skolen vælger udsmidning uden at informere de studerende. Det resonerer dårligt med en arkitektskole, hvor det analoge er af så ubestridelig værdi, ikke at skænke disse kort til de studerende. Heldigvis, skred de studerende til handling. Næste gang ville en advarsels-mail være på sin plads – det kræver ikke mere! Vi studerende skal nok komme og hente tegningerne. 20 studerende som kravler rundt i en beskidt (og temmelig klam) container, vidner om, at vi stadig elsker det analoge.
Sara Emilie Nilsson
~ Som Yvonne i Olsen Banden ville have sagt det: ”VOR HERRE BEVARES”. Uden varsel blev store dele af kortarkivet deponeret i skolens grønne container. Spildt, brugt, forvist, blev de historiske kort, der stammer fra en tid, hvor den analoge tegning ikke blot var en nødvendighed men også en kunst i sig selv.
12
13
Smid—ud—fest
#2 — 2016
Polemik
~
~
Polemik
#2 — 2016
Smid—ud—fest
14
15
Smid—ud—fest
#2 — 2016
Trash, apparently Polemik
~
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Succession of the image
’Succession of the image’ is the title of Matthew Koniuszewski’s thesis conducted at the Ryerson University in Toronto. The thesis discusses modern representations of architecture and how they affect architectural development. The thesis consists of a series of five essays. In this and the coming four issues of Polemik a new essay will be printet. To the right you will find Matthew’s own introduction to the series and on the following pages, the first essay entitled ’Mise—en—scene’. —Polemik
16
~ The succession of the image is the challenging of conventional methods of communication utilized by the architectural artifact. In focusing on the possibilities afforded via technological advances emerges a variety of mediums for the creation of spatial narratives. The image has progressed and disseminated architecture to this point and it is important to continuously ask what is next.
#2 — 2016
As technology evolves and spheres of information dissemination begin to converge, now is a crucial point to become critical with how these factors are beginning to influence architecture. It is important to understand the ways in which we consume architecture is affecting the architecture we produce. Is architecture a handful of money-shot renderings creating idealised moments captioned with generic copy and paste, or buried in books on shelves? Or have we as architects decided that mechanical reproduction is unable to capture the essence of architecture and that it can only be experienced?
Succession of the image
image
17
the
of
Polemik
Matthew Koniuszewski
Succession
Polemik
#2 — 2016
Mise—en—scene
Matthew Koniuszewski
~
18
scene
en— mise—
Cambridge MA: Harvard
(Photo by the author)
University Press.
Architecture ceased to be a mere medium of building the moment it required justification. Inversely, buildings are merely one means by which architecture attempts to transmit information. All simulations of architecture, whether they be physical realizations or abstracted constructs, act to disseminate intent and are only realized through their desire to be interpreted. The architectural artifact gains weight only through interpretation. The mass consumption of images prevalent in the 21st century, forces artifacts to become largely self-referential and strips them of their ability to be positioned alongside a contextual lineage.
Polemik
~ next millennium.
#2 — 2016
memos for the
Mise—en—scene
Calvino, I.
19
2
(1988). Six
The 21st century has provided viewers with an inconsumable mesh of content, exponentially expanding and forever broadening in depth. The rapid speed of information exchange has begun to “flatten(ing) all communication onto a single, homogeneous surface…”1 (Calvino, 1988, p. 45). The sheer momentum behind the dissemination of images dislocates the differences and minute qualities of the work, serializing them into a mesh of similarities. The shifting focus onto the image of the artifact begins to remove the ancillary weight attributed to it. This effectively grants works of impressive magnitude moments of [un]divided attention to communicate their purpose before they are again lost into an abyss of competing images.
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Mise—en—scene
Context, or the lack thereof, has remained the constant in artifact dissemination and production. With little reliability afforded by context to the designers, works have begun to embrace their displacement. Each piece has become as “self-contained and independent of the context of reception as possible,” 2 (Mitchell, 2005, p.13) allowing it to harmoniously blend with any surrounding. Although the architectural artifact is heavily rooted in place, reproducible simulations remain in a realm of contextual ambiguity. The dual nature of artifacts is forcing the two facets to erode their differences in a chameleon like homogeneity, allowing the mise-enscene to become as interchangeable as the artifact itself. Weight is the overt embrace of the interconnected web of relationships that produces, a voluminous tome to transcribe a work, anchoring the artifact to a body of text. This mise-en-scene moors the artifact with a tension or unease that can only be alleviated when the narrative moves, allowing the new space to absorb 2
Mitchell, W. J. (2005). Placing
words: Symbols, space, and the 20
city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
#2 — 2016
Polemik
~ The question at this point refers to the allocation of weight in the architectural artifact. One must simultaneously position the artifact between a state of utmost flatness idealized in the present condition without negating the necessity inherent by the burden of its own weight. To become flat, artifacts are separated
Mise—en—scene
It is not my desire to remove all weight; but to alleviate some of its necessity, allowing the weight to fluidly pass from scene to scene. To break apart the vastness and solidity of the encyclopedia and in turn focus on the particles which constitute it. This allows the particles to flow through the scenarios and realize themselves in a multitude of ways, all while being able to at a moment’s note shed their cumulative weight.
21
the ancillary layers of a grounded reality. This forces the designer “to change [his or her] approach,to look at the world from a different perspective, with a different logic and with fresh methods of cognition and verification” (Calvino, 1988, p.7).
~ Polemik #2 — 2016
from the meaning attributed to them by the designer. Without the narrative to rely upon artifacts lose much of their magnitude, transitioning into a caricature of their former selves. The primary obstacle facing the architectural artifact is the narrative sequence which fluidly shifts weight. Once divorced from the sequence the individual frames lose the weight attributed to them by the flow. A definitive structure sifts the individual elements into the most applicable position, carefully situating them amongst a series of similar elements to evenly distribute their weight. Each element at this point is suppressed, crafted in a manner which severs its undecidability.
Mise—en—scene
The elements survival is dependent on the elaborately woven connection to the entire narrative, which begins to fray at its boundaries. The point at which the boundary is witnessed, the weave expands to encompass the additional facets to supplement the repression of the existing. Calvino noted this phenomenon in the works of his predecessors as they began to document the network of relationships associated to particular artifacts, in turn producing unfinished ‘encyclopedic’ texts (Calvino, 1988, p.107). In vain attempts at encompassing the multitude of facets, each exploration swells in the middle; perpetually battling at the fringe to prevent the fray and ultimately unable of returning to the origin.
22
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Mise—en—scene
Each investigation is afforded a tabula rasa allowing it to isolate a separate and seemingly disparate perspective into ‘wholeness’. Instead of a birth through a translation of narrative, the physical artifacts themselves become structures keen on exemplifying their weight. Without the need to conform to an implied narrative, each facet is able to explore individual boundaries, becoming standalone narratives. By constructing parts with no definitive whole, each particle is capable of enunciating its own intent, while cumulatively constructing an ambiguous identity which is modular and combinatory (Calvino, 1988, p.120).
23
Weight at this point should not be fluidly transitioning between artifacts to eventually run flat, but exist in a way which it is distributed amongst the particular facets. In place of the rhizomatic suffocation, is a desire for individual boundaries and contradiction allowing each facet to remain detached.
Niels Eli Kjær Thomsen
~ Polemik
”Det er lidt vildt, at W57, vores gårdskraber, kommer til at se så sindssyg ud!”. Således beskrev Bjarke Ingels tegnestuens 2 World Trade Center projekt i New York til Weekendavisen den 11. december 2015.
#2 — 2016 Sindslidende arkitektur
Hvis vi et øjeblik ser bort fra udtalelsens forsøg på at tvinge arkitekturformidlingen ned til allerlaveste fællesnævner, og dvæler ved ordvalget, må jeg blankt erkende; at jeg ikke aner, hvad det betyder. Umiddelbart bunder dette selvfølgelig i, at der benyttes sprogspil fra et andet fagområde end mit. Men havde der nu været tale om en skizofren arkitektur, ville jeg stadig, rent intuitivt, have haft en idé om betydningen. Ligeledes ville jeg kunne forstå; en delirisk arkitektur som malplaceret; en psykotisk arkitektur som realitetsforstyrret; en neurotisk arkitektur som tvangshandlet; i den givne situation, ville jeg endda kunne forstå, hvis arkitekturen havde haft et avanceret faderkompleks, idet bygningen er født ud af fysisk afsavn. Men at arkitekturen i bred forstand skulle se sindssyg ud, giver vitterligt ingen mening. At Ingels benytter sig af meningstomme ord, i ét interview af de mange hundrede han har givet, vil måske kunne affejes med: ”det var en hurtig kommentar i kampens hede”, men jeg mener, at vi må holde fast på, at ideologien er på spil især dér, hvor man ikke regner med at finde den—også i Weekendavisen! Derfor skal arkitekter holdes op på det,
24
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Sindslidende Arkitektur
Den ideologi der er på spil i udtalelsen, er netop den, at arkitekturen skal være helt igennem letforståelig. Den lette og legende tilgang til arkitekturen, skal appellere til en fuldstændig umiddelbar oplevelse—arkitekturen er for alle. Men hvis vi insisterer på, at alle til enhver tid skal kunne forstå os, ender vi, som Ingels, med at benytte os af ord uden indhold. For at fungere skal sproget, såvel som arkitekturen, være rettet mod nogen, og denne retningsløshed forekommer os ubegribelig. Den arkitektoniske ideologi afsløres i sproget og fremstår ligeledes indholdsløs. Sproget, er det eneste, vi har. Hvis vi bliver ved med at bruge det vilkårligt, er det klart, at der ikke er nogen, der kan tage os seriøst, endsige anse os som en nødvendig del af en byggeproces.
25
de siger om deres bygninger. I dette tilfælde ender udtalelsen også med at figurere som billedtekst til portrættet af Ingels midt på dobbeltopslaget. Det er den udtalelse, læseren husker. Endvidere virker Weekendavisen ikke til at være klar over, at W57 og 2WTC er to forskellige projekter, så meningsløsheden er altså dobbelt.
~
We Polemik
in
#2 — 2016
The Gutter ...
We are all in the Gutter
“… but some of us are looking at the stars.” So wrote Oscar Wilde back in 1891. One could, when outlining the current situation at Aarhus School of Architecture, get the impression that the school is run top-down. In the following article I write on the basis of this hypothesis. I will reflect on how the school and the development of the school CAN be seen and present a suggestion for a solution to this. Aarhus School of Architecture is known for its activist past and for its bottom‐up approach on the education of architects. The industry knows the alumni from our school
Sophie Gille-Udsen Chairwoman of The Council of the Architecture Students
are
26
#2 — 2016
Polemik
~ When the shit hits the fan, we can either choose to be passive and get hit by it, or duck and look for new and better solutions. Possibilities for change has arisen and by acknowledging the current situation opportunities present themselves. During the last year we have seen students react to the current way of running the school, both when they objected against poor communication and bad planning in connection with the mandatory June�internships, when The Council of the Architecture Students was founded and they decided to oppose against
We are all in the Gutter
The democratic bodies of the school come of as being purely pro forma. Their role and importance in the management of the school is diluted. The voice of the students, the ones the school revolves around, is structurally muted and consequently overheard. The school and the management thereof has become opaque.
27
as being strong and independent workers. Architects from Aarhus School of Architecture are opinionated and engaged in society. However, in recent years something has changed. As I said before some might think leadership of the school has shifted from being bottom-up to being top�down. Rather than relying the decision making on the broader mass it has been assigned to very few people. Democracy and influence at the school feels distant, like nothing but a memory.
~
Polemik
#2 — 2016
We are all in the Gutter
28
#2 — 2016
Polemik
~ I am looking forward to the corporation and the dialogue with you. No matter if you agree with all of the above or not. Everyone is welcome in The Council of the Architecture Students for a constructive debate concerning how we can develop our school and our education for the better!
We are all in the Gutter
It is time for us to take back the ownership of the school! With the foundation of The Council of the Architecture Students the students have been given back their voice. The purpose of the new student political association is to strengthen communication at Aarhus School of Architecture and to spread the awareness of the interests of the students. The aim is to make it easier for all involved parties to navigate, if they have an idea or a challenge they want addressed. Now we can work to empower the students and to give room for vigour people full of ideas and initiative. We can bring back the transparency into the decision making bodies of the school. We can applaud decisiveness, creativity and critical thinking by showing the respect to actively consider and taking an approach to a given case. We can and we will engage—through architecture and through student politics.
29
the closing of Design as a field of study at the school, and latest at the launch of this magazine.
Sara Emilie Nilsson
Enestående!
Enestående.
Polemik
Enestående?
~ #2 — 2016 Enestående? Enestående. Enestående!
”No biographical details. Begin; Balthus is a painter of whom nothing is known. Now let us look at the pictures”. Det var et kort, men meget præcist svar, som Tate Modern modtog, da de bad kunstneren Balthus om at sende sine selvbiografiske oplysninger i forbindelse med en udstilling i hans ære. Et enestående citat i tider som disse. Enestående? Iøjnefaldende former, seje mønstrer, blændende facader! Dagens arkitektur skriger højt efter vores opmærksomhed. Den er hurtig, den er visuel og den foregår her og nu. Bag enhver succes-fuld bygning står i dag et ego, klar til at skrive sin selvbiografi i beton. Egoer som avfpejler den enkelte firma, den enkelte person eller den enkelte tegnestue. Og
30
~ Polemik
blandt dem, foregår der en evig kamp i individualismens ånd, om at skille sig mest muligt ud. Folket og brugerne er glemt, og at opfinde sin egen dybe tallerken har aldrig været mere populært end nu.
Arkitekturen kaldes anonym fordi den repræsenterer den almene del af folket, fordi den afspejler den hverdag og dagligdag som udfolder sig. Anonym fordi, den passer ind i konteksten og tilpasser sig alt andet omkring den. Anonym fordi, den ikke skiller sig ud. Enestående!
Enestående? Enestående. Enestående!
I den arkitektur som til tider beskrives som anonym, handler det snarere om hvordan man graver dybere. Her er arkitekturen dannet efter folkets behov, og gennem århundrede raffineret af deres erfaringer. Den er ægte, den er taktil og den er langsom. Den dikteres af den kontekst den står i; formes efter det givne landskabet og fortæller om de bygninger den står sammen med, i modsætning til den dagens enestående arkitektur. Beskenhed og anonymitet var en dyd.
#2 — 2016
Enestående.
31
Hvilken arkitektonisk kvalitet er der egentlig tale om, når bygninger i dag personificerer det enkelte firma,
~ Polemik
den enkelte person eller den enkelte tegnestue og deres facader? Arkitektur kan ikke forsimples til et billede, og dermed degraderes til et portræt som skal pryde forsiden på et chikt magasin eller en hjemmeside. Den er, og skal være mere kompleks end som så!
#2 — 2016
Arkitektur er ikke en genstandskunst, det er en brugskunst, men dette synes at være overset. Arkitektur foregår ikke i et todimensionalt format; det handler om at leve, at bo, at opleve og at integrere i tid og rum - og vi må bygge derefter. Kun når vi formår at bygge os ud af den individuelle selvtilfredshed og ind i den almene anonymitet, først der tror jeg, at vi kan skabe virkeligt enestående arkitektur.
Enestående? Enestående. Enestående!
Jeg undrer mig over hvilken arkitektonisk kvalitet vi kan tale om når det enkelte firma, den enkelte person eller den enkelte tegnestue svarer: ”No biographical details. Begin; About this firm is nothing known. Now let us use the architecture”. En mere kompleks og dybere, er mit bud.
32
33
Enestående? Enestående. Enestående!
#2 — 2016
Polemik
~
~ Polemik
While I made myself a name with book recommendations in the first number of Polemik, this time I would like to do the opposite and present a book that you should NOT read. The story goes back to the time when I taught at TU Delft and I was presented to only a handful of students in my history lecture, wondering, what had happened to the missing hundred. One of the students whom I inquired was telling me that the previous night, Bjarke Ingels was lecturing in Rotterdam and I could see that the student was still very much under that spell. I was told that the lecture had originally been planned at what was then the NAI (Netherlands Institute for Architecture and because of the economic crisis has now been diminished to The New Institute), but due to the overwhelming number or sign-ups, it was moved to Rotterdams 2200-seat concert hall. Despite the fact that there was an entrance fee to be paid—which is a big hurdle to take in a cultural context as stingy as the Dutch, Bjarke managed to attract hundreds of people. What was so fascinating about his lecture, was that it was so positive, inspiring and encouraging, while at the TU, they were always confronted with burnt-out teachers telling them how complex and difficult the trade
Yes we can!
Is it really...?
Do we really...? #2 — 2016
Prof. (mso) Ruth Baumeister Ministry of History & Theory
Yes is more!
Yes is more! Yes we can! 34
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Is it really...? Do we really...?
Since I had already missed this centennial lecture due to mothership duties, I decided to have a closer look at Bjarke’s work and theory and therefore got myself his book: ’YES IS MORE. AN ARCHCOMIC ON ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION’, (Köln: 2009). “Unlike a classic architectural monograph, it is more of a manifesto of popular culture, in which BIG’s methods, means, processes and approach to the concept of architecture are revealed as being as unconventional, unexpected and resultproducing as the world in which it exists…” is the promise, stated on the back cover. Admittedly, this compendium of almost 400 colored pages—something in between a graphic novel and a comic on architecture—was a rather unconventional format when it first came out. At the beginning, the author positions himself in the history of architecture, then presents his entire architecture theory on less than a double page, subsequently a presentation of his projects in chronological order, practically a portfolio
35
they were learning supposedly was, the student was telling me. To the contrary, this happy, young fellow actually was the living proof that it was possible to rise as a star in a world of environmental catastrophes, economic crises and an ever growing number of unemployed architects. “Yes we can!” was the message that Bjarke was putting out into the world of architecture and beyond and according to my student there was no doubt, he had hit the point!
~ to promote his office is following. Polemik #2 — 2016
Admittedly, discussing this book today, 7 years after it has first been published is debatable, but since it is still promoted as the “best selling architecture book of its generation” and certainly contributed to the author’s skyrocketing fame and success over the past years, I think it deserves a second look. Despite the fact that the Bjarke is Denmark’s pride when it comes to contemporary architecture and his success on the global market is undeniable, I will give you 3 reasons why you should NOT read this book:
Yes is more! Yes we can!
1. The author is presumptuous! At the very beginning of his book the Bjarke creates a genealogy of modern architecture proceeding from Mies van der Rohe’s paradigm of “Less is more”, over Robert Venturi’s “Less is a bore”, to Phillip Johnson’s “I’m a whore” to Rem Koolhaas “More is more”, to Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” all the way up to his own “Yes is more”, introducing himself like the new kid on the block (!), a new superhero of architecture. But is he really?
2. The work is fake! The book features innumerous projects of lego brick like compositions, which are extremely schematic. The few
36
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Is it really...? Do we really...? 37
he had actually built at that point are highly formalistic, and do not live up to the his claims regarding climate, sustainability, politics, social issues, etc. His theory is simplistic and dwells on generalizations. Is it really possible to transfer the principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution to the discipline of architecture, without any prior critical inquiry? You might want to argue that his populist take on the subject matter is in order to reach out to a large, general audience beyond the circle of architects. But would such an audience really fight itself through these almost
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Yes is more! Yes we can!
400 boring pages of repetitive arguments and images? The radicalism he claims in his design approach is false, because if he simply embraces everything mainstream does and calls for, what is there to hold against? Historically, the comic format in architecture was adopted by the avantgarde to convey their criticism on the existing but also as a mode of representing their visions, utopias, something the world has not seen before. Bjarke wants to sail in this wind and yet build in the real world which inevitably leads to conflate idealism and pragmatism. But isn’t it precisely the fact that these two entities are incompatible, which makes the game so challenging in the first place?— Instead of taking this challenge on, he presents a vision of “architecture as a gadget”, trying to make us believe that you can change scenarios with a simple finger touch on the surface. But, anybody who has ever built the most simple hut is aware of the fact, that the task is not that simple and if you look at his drawings and the built projects it becomes evident: he does not deliver his promises. 3. It reaches out for an audience of believers: At the beginning of the book, Bjarke claims that architecture is “never conceived by a single mind, and never shaped by a single hand.” In the several 100 pages that follow, it is more or less exclusively him featuring, him designing and him talking. But nobody had ever questioned or criticized that, because we like to believe
38
~ Polemik #2 — 2016 Is it really...? Do we really...?
Fazit: In the end, you might argue that this book is just one big polemic and not to be taken seriously. Maybe it is just a joke, a big parody of Bjarke himself or his sarcastic take on the world of architecture. But then again, I would advice you to go back to the primary source of all that. After his graduation, Bjarke had briefly worked for Koolhaas and became one of his many progenies, which shines through almost every page of this book. Thus, trash it, you are much better off to go back to the original. “There is nothing like the real thing…!”
39
his words. How about the projects he proposes on Dubai’s virgin desert sites for example, do they really match his promises when it comes to his awareness of sustainability, climate, politics, etc.? Or is it our strong belief, that in the end technology will provide the answer to all the questions we are confronted with?—There is no doubt, this world is made for believers and among architects, you will find a lot these days. Belief in a better future is one of the main motors of our existence. Who would not like to be moved by it? Who would not like to believe? ”Yes we can” was already a popular motto before Obama started his mission with a sentence that soon proved to be a cover up for the opposite. But despite, or maybe because of that, we still believe!
Noter
Noter
Vi har brug for dig!
We need you!
Deadline for bidrag
Submission deadline
til Polemik #3
for Polemik #3
er den 1. april
is on April 1st
polemikpolemik@gmail.com
Hjælp os med at holde Polemik uafhængigt og reklamefrit
Help us keep Polemik independent and ad—free
mobilepay: +45 40946648 (whatever)