At the 16th Venice Biennale of Architecture, the Golden Lion for National Participation was awarded to Switzerland for a minimal yet amusing installation Svizzera 240: House Tour, a mock luxury apartment that had been multiplied and re-scaled throughout the pavilion’s spaces. The humorous interpretation was meant to challenge our perceptions of scale in the domestic environment, as well as draw attention to the banality of these spaces. The Golden Lion for best individual participant went to Portuguese architect Eduardo Souto de Moura for a pair of photographs showing a before and after of a renovation of São Lourenço do Barrocal estate in Alentejo, Portugal, which was barely perceptible. The focus on architecture here, rather than a grand political statement, is in line with the overall character of the show, as well as the judge’s choices. A special mention went to the British Pavilion, for a dramatic structure, Island, that hovered over the building, which was left completely empty. On the plinth above, a cafe was setup and visitors could feel isolated from the Giardini below, while enjoying a beautiful view. Special mentions were given to Indian architect Rahul Mehrotra and Indonesian architect Andra Matin. New York–based British historian Kenneth Frampton won the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement. Critic Peter Lang told AN, “Grabbing the Golden Lion trophy like a brick, Frampton hoisted it up to shoulder height and beamed with no small amount of delight. In an exchange of banter between him and the curators Yvonne Farrell and Shelly McNamara, where they referred to his hugely influential legacy and his role as a “barometer of truth,” Ken responded wryly that they were the best architects in the world. Ken stood firmly by Hannah Arendt and his belief that modernism is an unfinished project. Clearly there will be more reflections from this British critic to come.”
Posts tagged with "Kenneth Frampton":
One of the first questions raised about this year’s Venice Architecture Biennale, “Freespace,” is whether this exhibition has anything in common with previous editions. Edwin Heathcote, writing for the Financial Times, sees similarities with the 1980 exhibition, The Presence of the Past. Heathcote recognizes related themes between these two versions that stand almost 40 years apart, because he sees this exhibition, curated by Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara, as going back to the civic realm, privileging urban public space. It does not come as a surprise that references to this earlier 1980 Biennale are already being made. Indeed, one wonders just how far Lea-Catherine Szacka’s provocative book, Exhibiting the Postmodern: the 1980 Venice Architecture Biennale, has permeated our consciousness, forcing us to reconsider the Biennale as an institution, an exhibition, and as a provocation in the making of contemporary architecture culture. Szacka’s book, which provides a comprehensive assessment of The Presence of the Past, came out in late 2017 and has been gaining significant momentum since. In this tightly researched account, Szacka provides an overview on what might very well be one of the most controversial post-war exhibitions produced for the Venice Biennale. While some might recall the full-scale street facades of the Strada Novissima, or Aldo Rossi’s floating Teatro del Mondo, it is the broader historical context that remains absolutely essential to understanding how the 1980 edition came about. In other words, Exhibiting the Postmodern is much more than a history of the first Biennale dedicated solely to Architecture: Szacka positions this exhibition as the primary vehicle for formulating new discourses on architecture, by understanding how the lead-up to this event, as well as its aftermath, have significantly influenced the way we understand architecture today. The Presence of the Past, curated by Paolo Portoghesi, would turn out to be a game-changer. The exhibition, in the absence of national pavilions (only found in later editions), held forth on numerous thematic fronts, providing seven separate sections, including works by those considered precursors of the architectural style that would come to be known as Postmodernism. The exhibition feted Philip Johnson, whose AT&T building was rising on the New York skyline, as well as solid contributions from Aldo Rossi, who designed the main tripartite gate to the newly refurbished Arsenale and built the Teatro del Mondo, a spectral theatre made to glide across the Venetian lagoon. But it was the novel Strada Novissima, a reformulated version of the famed perspectival street in Genova, assembled by stage craftsmen in Rome’s Cinecittà, that remains the most controversial display in the exhibition. The architects selected to contribute with full-scale facade structures made a notable community: Constantino Dardi, Michael Graves, Frank Gehry, Oswald Mathias Ungers, Robert Venturi, John Rauch and Denise Scott Brown, Léon Krier, Joseph Paul Kleihues, Hans Hollein, Massimo Scolari, Allan Greenberg, Rem Koolhaas and Elia Zenghelis, Paulo Portoghesi, Ricardo Bofill, Charles Moore, Robert Stern, Franco Purini and Laura Termes, Stanley Tigerman, Studio GRAU, Thomas Gordon Smith and Arata Isozaki. Szacka, in thinking about the use of this eclectic collection of facades for the Arsenale, asks, “So what exactly were they? Representation, simulacra, signs, images? Were they real or imaginary?” Szacka’s book unpacks this exhibition precisely through this lens. We don’t merely confront an exhibition, we penetrate deep into its subconscious. We learn from Szacka about the polemics surrounding the Venice Biennale’s reconstitution, brought about after mass protests demanded revolutionary changes in the way the Biennale was administered. Other events served as critical precedents: The 1973 Milan Triennale exhibition curated by Aldo Rossi, and in Rome, the Roma Interrotta exhibition set in the Trajan Forum in 1978, which reconceived the famed Nolli map through the urban projects of an international set of architects, many of whom would find their way into the Biennale two years later. “In the 1970s,” Szacka observes, “exhibitions were important events that served to define architecture’s intellectual discourse in the wake of the modern movement,” and were employed as “springboards to display ideas, debate and exchanges.” The direction of this debate, at least as it would be consolidated within the spatial configuration of the Arsenale in Venice, was further redefined by a significant break in the Biennale’s organizational program, when the institution chose to formalize the separation between art and architecture in 1980. Taken together, these prior exhibitions furthered sensibilities in architectural representation, and recent institutional reforms permitted the making of one truly unique architectural extravaganza. The invention of a dedicated architecture exhibition–independent of the arts sector–significantly reinforced the autonomy of the architectural subject and made possible a far more self-referential body of architecture. Access to the Naval yards and the Arsenale for the first time provided a unique building configuration with a monumental central corridor and flanking mezzanines spaces that could be readily adapted into an interior street mall. But in this reviewer’s opinion, the Presence of the Past lost something very precious in the process. The association with the Biennale’s fine arts program served to draw out ideas that went well beyond the built world of architecture and its urban fantasias. Szacka, in her very detailed history of the Biennale, glanced over one particular exhibition for Venice held in 1978, whose curators included Lara-Vinca Masini, and whose exhibition Topologia e Morfogenesi (Topology and Morphogenesis), merged the arts together with architecture. This exhibition would be best remembered for the piece by Superstudio, la Moglie di Lot—the Wife of Lot, the steel-framed mechanical contraption with five salt molds depicting five building archetypes and a dripping water spout that melted them away one by one. Masini, who built a solid reputation as art and architecture critique and curator working from Florence, spoke frequently about how art and architecture contaminated each other, enriching their modes of research and expressions on human nature and the built environment. Architecture, when contaminated with art, became radicalized, experimental and visionary, aspects that would be lost when architecture gained its independence. Nonetheless, 1980 would become a watershed year for postmodernism, and Szacka’s book very successfully points out how Biennales shape our understanding on these transformative and critical processes. She provides more than ample evidence to demonstrate how architecture evolves under the pressures of an international exhibition, from the genesis of a concept to the debates that brought a generation of architects together on a project few would have ever imagined possible. Exhibiting the Postmodern refreshes our understanding of the postmodern relationship between architecture and urbanism; a concern that seems to fuel Grafton’s curatorial vision for Freespace, but also connects to Kenneth Frampton, who is being awarded with the prestigious Leone D’Oro in this year’s Biennale opening ceremonies. In her pursuit of the exhibition’s multiple afterlives, Szacka details an insightful chapter on the exhibition’s follow-up tour through the U.S. and France, along with an insightful account of Frampton’s own controversial role in the 1980 Biennale. Szacka details how the British born architect and theorist felt obliged to step back from this historicist movement, as he could no longer reconcile his critical position within the expanding eclecticism of the postmodern. Frampton responded by formulating, according to Szacka, his own critical theoretical position on regionalism. Szacka’s book pulls together quite a few of these lose ends while brilliantly drawing out the major themes of the day. This extraordinary exhibit on the presence of the past, thanks to Léa-Catherine Szacka, is in no risk of becoming forgotten. Exhibiting the Postmodern: the 1980 Venice Architecture Biennale Léa-Catherine Szacka Forward by Adrian Forty $32.50
Architect, educator, and author Kenneth Frampton has received the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement at the 2018 Venice Architecture Biennale. Frampton joins the ranks of past winners such as Paulo Mendes da Rocha in 2016, Phyllis Lambert in 2014, and Álvaro Siza Vieira in 2012. Born in London in 1930 and educated at the Architectural Association, Frampton has worked as an architect, critic, and historian, and taught at a number of vaunted schools over the course of his career. He’s perhaps most well-known for his 1980 work Modern Architecture: A Critical History, which has since become a seminal text in the field. Frampton has also taught consistently at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation (GSAPP) since 1972. This year’s decision was made by the chair of the Board of La Biennale di Venezia, Paolo Baratta, with recommendations from the International Architecture Exhibition curators, Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara. "Through his work, Kenneth Frampton occupies a position of extraordinary insight and intelligence combined with a unique sense of integrity,” said Farrell and McNamara in a joint statement. “He stands out as the voice of truth in the promotion of key values of architecture and its role in society. His humanistic philosophy in relation to architecture is embedded in his writing and he has consistently argued for this humanistic component throughout all the various ‘movements’ and trends often misguided in architecture in the 20th and 21st century.” "There is no student of the faculties of architecture who is unfamiliar with his Modern Architecture: A Critical History,” said Baratta in a press release. “The Golden Lion goes this year to a 'maestro,' and in this sense it also intended to be a recognition of the importance of the critical approach to the teaching of architecture.” Other than Modern Architecture: A Critical History, Frampton has authored numerous other influential books clarifying the internal language of the built environment, including Studies in Tectonic Culture, Labour, Work and Architecture, and A Genealogy of Modern Architecture: Comparative Critical Analysis of Built Form. Frampton will officially receive his award on Saturday, May 26, 1018, during the award ceremony and inauguration of the 16th Venice Architecture Biennale. The event will open to the public at 10:00 AM and will be held in the Biennale’s headquarters of Ca’ Giustinian.
One of the most charming and instructive accounts of the modern architect’s design process was offered by Filarete, architect of the Ospedale Maggiore in Milan and author of the long, neo-Platonic Trattato di architettura. Writing around 1450, Filarete compares the architect to a mother who conceives and gives birth to a child—the building. “When this birth is accomplished—that is, when he has made in wood a small relief design of its final form, measured and proportioned to the finished building—he then shows it to the father.” In this fable of creation the “father” is represented as the patron, and like Plato’s demiurge, or craftsman, the architect does not create a complete building, but rather its model in scale relief. Models since antiquity have taken on the roles of varying kinds of architectural representation, from the symbolic to the ceremonial. Yet the primary function of an architectural model was the demonstration of a design in three dimensions, made to scale and itself derived from drawings. But beginning in the 18th century, with the establishment of educational institutions—the Ecole des Arts of Jacques-François Blondel, the school of the French Academie Royale, and notably the school of the British Royal Academy—models came to seen as indispensable teaching tools. Sir John Soane’s Model Room in his museum-cum-house documents the scales and contents of a curriculum geared to those students who were (at least in the midst of their training) unable to visit the real thing in Italy or Greece, or even hypothetical reconstructions of lost or ruined monuments. Today “modeling” has become a virtual affair. Google “architectural models” and the first entries to appear are advertisements for modeling software. Kenneth Frampton, Ware Professor of Architecture at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, has long been countering this trend towards the virtual. For the past few decades Frampton has taught the course Studies in Tectonic Culture, which is dedicated to, in his words, revealing to students “the tectonic essence” of works of architecture, a “constructive poetic.” By which he means the way in which a built building, as an object constructed out of materials with structural logic, could not be understood—let alone internalized—by architectural students through drawings or photographs alone. Consequently, over many years of teaching he has had his students build models of existing structures. However, these are not “representational” models of the kind an architect might display to clients, financiers, or even the public. Instead, they are analytical models whose process of design and realization—a process of careful interrogation of the constructive and tectonic nature of a building—is as important as the final object. “A tectonic model,” Frampton explains, “must be expressive of its intrinsic structure by way of the way it’s made. The tectonic is an expressive culture of construction… So what you choose to reveal and what you choose to conceal are part of its poetics.” For Frampton, an architect must internalize such “poetics” on many levels, which encompasses an aesthetic that is not purely visual, but that is grounded in the very process of material construction. Hence the difficulties of virtual modeling in revealing this process: only by, so to speak, re-living the step by step conception of a design, and its transformation into a tectonic object, can the student internalize the work of architecture on all levels. A selection of these extraordinary models is now on display in the Arthur Ross Architecture Gallery at Columbia GSAPP. Six of what must have been dozens of such objects built by students over the years have been rescued from the school’s storage and meticulously restored. They range from sectional models of the Bagsværd Church (1976) by Jorn Utzon and the Saint Benedict Chapel (1988) by Peter Zumthor, a fully furnished three-dimensional presentation of Gerrit Rietveld’s Schröder House (1924), to constructional analyses of Le Corbusier’s Pavillon des Temps Nouveaux (1937) and Norman Foster’s Renault Distribution Center (1982). Each is clearly a work of affection and intelligence; each demonstrates what the student has identified as a guiding formal, poetic, and constructive principle of the work. These six models, standing at appropriate heights in this small, spare gallery, would have been eloquent enough alone—they do, in a very concrete way, speak for themselves. But the curators have chosen to pair them with a series of specially commissioned photographs by the architectural photographer James Ewing. However, rather than replicate what the models exemplify in the straightforward fashion of model photography, Ewing has chosen to work with the models to fabricate his own artistic, photographic essays. In fourteen remarkable images he has responded to the history of the buildings represented by the models, as well as to his own photographic intuitions. Using projected backdrops, special lighting, and in one “spectacular” case a smoke machine, Ewing photographically manipulates the models in order to propose alternative, supplementary readings of their original analytical positions. Here, the results are mixed. Where these supplementary readings involve a demonstration of the power of the model and the photograph to produce, together, a new realization of the qualities of the building—as, for instance, in Ewing’s exemplary photograph of the interior light at Zumthor’s Saint Benedict Chapel—the photograph and the model are brilliantly paired in conversation. Where, on the other hand, the photographic image attempts to constitute an entirely different reality from that implied by the model—as in the case of the hyperrealist image of red clouds hovering behind Le Corbusier’s exhibition pavilion—the effect is less one of conversation between model and photo, as one of contrast pointing to the difference in medium. In sum, the importance of this little show is to open up another conversation—one that is sorely needed today—between the virtual, the visual, and the concrete, in a way that pays eloquent homage to a pedagogical approach and a teacher, whose indefatigable defense of architectural qualities has informed and inspired his students and colleagues for over half a century. Anthony Vidler, New York, March 2017 Stagecraft: Models and Photos is on view through March 10.
At his book launch at New York’s Center for Architecture, Kenneth Frampton admitted that he had not visited all of the 14 pairs of building analyzed in A Genealogy of Modern Architecture: Comparative Critical Analysis of Built Form. This distance to some of the buildings by the author makes even more pertinent the rigor of the analytical method presented as a way to read buildings as a cultural construct deep in meanings and references as in literature or painting. The index of the comparative analysis: First, the dialogue between type and context referring to the site and the programmatic type of the built form. Second, the coding of the space according to the variable degree of public, semi-public, and service space is indebted to his close reading of Hannah Arendt’s book The Human Condition rather than as a reference to Louis Kahn’s famous served-service spaces. Third, the dialogue of structure and membrane is indebted to his previous book on tectonics and of course, The Four Elements of Architecture by Gottfried Semper. And fourth, the connotational summation is the synthesis of these categories as they refer to larger cultural values. With this book Frampton gives teachers and students an important pedagogical tool as an alternative to the schematic reductionism prevalent in the contemporary architectural practice and education. Frampton writes, “Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, first published in 1945, augments the ontological implications of The Human Condition by introducing the concept of the ‘body-being’ as the prime agency through which we experience the world. This recognition is intimately linked to our motility through which we experience space.” The public-private and goal-route analysis conjoins a structuralist-phenomenological point of view established by the close reading of the body’s movement through space in the plan and section drawings and then corroborated by the archival photographs. The articulation of built form in terms of typology, tectonic expressivity and referential detailing allows us to experience the architecture through its representation guided by the belief in the “body-being” as if touching, hearing, seeing, and smelling while actively moving-reading the represented spatial sequence. The historical frame of 1923–1980 is marked by a “post- 1945 denouement of the myth of progress (that) first permeates our late modern consciousness through the successive traumas of Stalinism, Auschwitz, and Hiroshima.” The modern project is thus divided into two distinct periods: The period between WWI and WWII 1918–1939 and the period post WWII 1945 until the Venice Biennale of 1980, organized by Paolo Portoghesi, that acknowledged the advent of a postmodern condition, both aesthetically and politically. Frampton believes the three main factors at play in the evolution of the modern movement being are the classical tradition and its tendency towards the abstract, the technological and the vernacular. Each of these categories is present in different proportions as we travel throughout Europe as Le Corbusier noted in his annotated map of his Voyage d’Orient of 1912 and published in L'art décoratif d'aujourd'hui of 1925. Frampton notes “The contrast between the latent classism of Le Corbusier’s Purist paradigm in his entry for the Société des Nations competition was more capable of achieving a rational solution” than Hannes Meyer’s reductive functionalism “insisting on using the same module irrespective of the egg shaped auditorium and leading to an unresolved juxtaposition between the inclined supports of the auditorium shell and the surrounding orthogonal structure.” Yet Frampton ends his introduction with a return to Arendt’s “space of public appearance”: “Today, however, we may still assume an ideologically progressive approach to postmodern architectonic form via a sensitive response to context, climate, topography, and material, combined with the self-conscious generation of place-form as a political-cum-cultural space of appearance.” In his comparison of Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Museum and Aalvar Aalto’s Nordjyllands Kunstmuseum, Frampton writes “Aalto’s organic planning within the orthogonal re-enforced concrete frame enabled him to provide appropriately dimensioned ancillary spaces as found in the lecture halls…This in contrast to Kahn’s dependence of the width of a single vault, irrespective of the function. The comparative analysis pointing to the limitation of Kahn’s insistence on the vault and at the same illuminating how structural invention as large curved beams (not vaults) allowed Kahn to achieve a free plan. The book is lucid not only in the literary content but as a graphic document where each illustration re-enforces the text and analysis. This is the result of a long process of design undertaken by Frampton and his editor Ashley Simone to achieve a coherent graphic design that works a handbook in the tradition of Serlio. It is the ethical content of this book that is rare today. Frampton insists, “architecture is a singular material culture that by its very nature it has the potential to resist the current pervasive drive to commodify the entire word.” Frampton, the architect, historian, and critical thinker, makes clear in this extraordinary book of curated comparative analysis what architecture can achieve.