Koolhaas tells about the CCTV project and working in autocratic Peking, the differences between himself and fellow architects like F. O. Gehry or I. M. Pei, the social possibilities of buildings, the Berlin Stadtschloss/Palace of the Republic situation – to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? – and how ugliness happens to be more interesting than beauty. And, well, about he used to write screenplays for Russ Meyer who’s rather well-known, too, for a certain kind of movie genre… (this is actually mentioned in Chuck Palahniuk‘s  “Snuff”, though a little contorted – Koolhaas wrote, but didn’t act).

Thanks for the good research, M.! :-)

Read the Spiegel interview here.

But let’s keep track of the events and move on step by step. First, the basic information:

The 11th architecture biennial took place in the Giardini and  the Arsenale of Venice from 14. September until 23. November2008 and was curated by Aaron Betsky.

Historical facts

(Cited from all-knowing wiki:) Mostra di Architettura di Venezia, the Architecture section of the Venice Biennale, was established in 1980, although architecture had been a part of the art biennale since 1975. [...]

As well as addressing the academic side of architecture, the Biennale is an occasion where big-name architects and designers can showcase new projects, arranged in different pavilions, each with different themes. The Biennale is currently held in the Biennale Gardens.

This year, Frank O. Gehry was awarded the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement.

Mostra Internazionale di Architettura 2008: OUT THERE: Architecture Beyond Building.

The curator of the 2008 biennial  Aaron Betsky, director of the Netherlands Architecutre Institut (NAI) in Rotterdam and since 2007 director of the Cincinnati Art Museum, chose the motto:  OUT THERE: Architecture Beyond Building .

(Well, somehow it’s all very beyond these days – it’s not for the first time that we have a “beyond” title.  One rather recent example is this.)

Posed objective was “to address the central issues of our society” and centered the fact “Architecture is not building. Architecture must go beyond buildings because buildings are not enough” (Betsky). Thus shown were not architectural buildings, but installations made by architects. Furthermore Betsky is cited in the official program description as well as in Betsky’s foreword:

“Most buildings are ugly, useless and wasteful. Yet architecture is beautiful – says Betsky – it can place us in the world in a way no other art can. It can make us at home in modern reality. It offers and shapes that most precious and luxurious of all phenomena in the modern world: space. The exhibition seeks is to collect and encourage experimentation in architecture. Such experimentation can take the form of momentary constructions, visions of other worlds, or the building blocks of a better world. It does not want to present buildings that are already in existence and can be enjoyed in real life. It does not want to propose abstract solutions to social problems, but wants to see if architecture, by experimenting in and on the real world, can offer some concrete forms or seductive images”.

Comments on the Biennial

Some photographic impressions are shared by Bola Blog, dezeen and bd (! all mostly photos, no comments).

Opinions mostly tend to reject the event, though as always you can’t just pull one unique comment out of the hat, there were better and worse projects to see (again, as I’ve not been there myself I have to restrain from making a judgment myself ;-) but I want to collect and share some opinions I found online.) But obviously Betsky’s non-academic, non-scholarly challenge didn’t lead to convincing results in most of the cases.

Helpful descriptions structured like a tour through the exhibit are these articles on Architectural Record , the Guardian and the LA Times.

Kieran Long from the Architect’s Journal makes quite a point: “Venice architecture biennale is like nerds talking about sex” he titles his article.

DavidReportBlog, however, points out why the common opinion obviously “must” consider the Biennial unsuccessful, even though this might be a little too short-sighted:

“This years Biennale has touched on inquiries sidereal to ‘canonical architecture’ so, for that reason alone, we will be hearing many people say that this years Biennale was ‘unsuccessful’,  since inevitably some of the experimentation was perhaps better left to ‘specialists’ in their fields (filmmakers, artists, etc,), but I fully believe that every now and then, a Biennale needs to be conceived in order to shake up pre-conceptions of who does what, but more importantly, on what needs to be done.”

And finally, in the British Telegraph a personal curatorial statement by Ellis Woodman how curated the British Pavilion.

So, MARTa Herford, Herford/Germany – by Frank O. Gehry, opened in May 2005

(Self-Description/Website:) With the name MARTa fronting the triad of design (M standing for Möbel/furniture), art (ART) and architecture/ambience (a), the museum aims to provide fresh inspiration for art, design, architecture and business both in the local region and far beyond. [...] The main idea behind MARTa Herford is to highlight and redefine the contradictory links between art and business.

Gehry’s building is actually an annex to the older museum building, now called “Centre”, which dates back to the 1950s and was designed by the Herford architect Werner Lippold.

The MARTa complex now comprises 4 different building components: a Museum, a Forum, a Centre and a Café.

(As I could not enter the museum – changing exhibitions… I rely on the website’s description of the interiors:) The Museum consists of a 22-metre-high dome and five smaller galleries which are flooded with light from the lofty skylights. All these galleries will have one floor only, so that visitors will have an unimpeded view not only the artworks, but also of the sky. A total of 2,500 square metres exhibition space is available both for alternating exhibitions and for the collection.
The older Lippold building is integrated into the Gehry museum

Opposite the Museum is the Forum, which covers almost 380 square meters and can seat 199. It is to be used for presentations and events related to the themes of architecture, design, art and furniture.

The Café-Restaurant, with its copper-clad bar and glazed front looking onto the river bank, opened in November. It is of particular interest as it is the only place where the typical roof construction is not clad.

Some more impressions:

1988 wurde im Museum of Modern Art New York eine Architektur-Ausstellung unter dem Titel “Deconstructivist Architecture” veranstaltet, kuratiert von Philip Johnson und Mark Wigley.

Gezeigt wurden 7 Architekten, die meisten von ihnen noch recht jung. Mittlerweile spielen alle 7 in der obersten Liga weltweit mit:

Zaha Hadid

Bernard Tschumi

Rem Koolhaas

Coop Himmelblau

Daniel Libeskind

Peter Eisenman

Frank O. Gehry

Seit besagter Ausstellung werden diese Architekten – salopp gesagt – in die “Schublade” Dekonstruktivismus einsortiert, eine Zuordnung, die eigentlich keiner von ihnen unterstützt. Hinzu kommt, dass die Dekonstruktion eigentlich ein Begriff ist, der aus der Philosophie stammt und einige Jahre zuvor von Jacques Derrida eingeführt wurde.

Problematisch dabei ist, auf welcher Grundlage also ein ursprünglich philosophischer Terminus in eine andere Disziplin übertragen werden kann:

Haben Kontakte bestanden zwischen Philosophie und Architektur? (Jein – bis auf Tschumi und Eisenman hat sich keiner der Architekten intensiv mit Derrida auseinander gesetzt. Aber keiner sagt jedoch “ich übertrage den philosophischen Begriff jetzt in die Architektur”.)

Hat der De-Konstruktivismus etwas mit dem modernen russischen Konstruktivismus zu tun? (auch hier wieder: jein)

Wird denn etwas “de” gemacht, wie die Vorsilbe nahe legt, also zerstört? (nein, gerade nicht. Alle Architekten entwerfen hoch-komplexe und konstruktiv höchst anspruchsvolle Bauten.)

Warum also die Bezeichnung Dekonstruktivismus in der Architektur?