Embracing the ambivalence, here we go

Philip Ursprung calls the architecture exhibition “an area of architectural praxis that most commentators avoid because of its ambivalence”. Herzog & de Meuron are the only architects I’ve read about so far who explicitly deals with the exhibition of architecture; in the book Natural History, Ursprung writes about exhibiting H&deM’s architecture, taking his starting point in their collaboration in making the exhibition Herzog & de Meuron: Archaeology of the mind. Remy Zaugg, an artist who has written and thought a lot about exhibiting in general, has also published a conversation with H&deM about their collaboration in making the 1995 exhibition at the Centre de Pompidou, Exhibition Herzog & de Meuron. In the following I would like to try to unfold H&deM thoughts about exhibiting architecture as part of their architectural praxis because I think it can be used as an interesting theoretical (in an artistic sense) background for looking at the biennale exhibitions. H&deM’s way of exhibiting isn’t necessarily right or wrong but it is at the very least conscious, and naturally takes up all the aspects of exhibiting architecture that I’ve come across so far.

In saying that the architecture exhibition is “an area of architectural praxis that most commentators avoid because of its ambivalence”, Ursprung also acknowledges the exhibition of architecture as an area of architectural praxis. In the conversation between Rémy Zaugg and H&deM, they discuss thoroughly the subject of exhibiting architecture, exhibition being a primary interest for Zaugg and architecture for H&deM, who through collaborations with artists since the end 70s have been interested in staging architecture in different ways. The fact that H&deM has worked with exhibitions for so many years naturally leads the conversation between Zaugg and H&deM, as well as Ursprung’s essay in Natural History, towards the issue of art and architecture. Since the exhibition is originally a venue for art rather than architecture, and since it seems to embody a more obvious function for art than for architecture, it is only natural to discuss the relation between art and architecture. But Ursprung quickly transcends this discussion of art and architecture (whereas Kurt W. Forster in the essay Pieces for four and more hands develops the subject of their artistic inspiration further). Ursprung writes that the art-and-architecture discussion distracts us from another issue, for which there isn’t yet an established language: The issue of representation [p. 21 Ursprung] Ursprung tells the symptomatic story of how H&deM invited the artist Joseph Beuys to take part in a carnival procession. “Far from attempting to create a carnivalesque parody of the controversial sculptures by Beuys (…) we were in fact trying to get close to the reality of this work of art. We wanted to create a new reality, a new sculpture.” [p. 20 Ursprung] This idea of creating a new sculpture out of the existing art is what leads Ursprung on to the idea of the sphere of representation. H&deM are interested in this new reality because it transcends simple documentation; it becomes a form of expression in it itself and in this way it has the potential to reflect on architecture [p. 22 Zaugg]

Why have exhibitions played such a big role in the work of Herzog & de Meuron since 1988? Interestingly, Herzog & de Meuron perceive the exhibition as an individual genre, and they number it in line with all their other built projects. Ursprung summarizes the role of their exhibitions:

“They stress that for them exhibitions of architecture are like a test run. Their point is neither to document finished (or unbuilt) projects nor to provide an insight into the architects’ creative process. And it is also not a matter of designing exhibition architecture as either a form of installation or a formal ambiance. It is purely and simply about the genre of architecture exhibitions.” [p. 21 Ursprung]

The exhibition provides a possibility to test new ideas; and to confront these ideas with an interested public. In that sense, the exhibition of architecture can perhaps be seen as a laboratory of some kind [p. 25 Ursprung] In any case, the exhibition has to use different forms of architectural representation to express itself. This can be in the form of sketches, videos, models, photographs, words etcetera. All of these forms point to one essential factor: the absence of the building, the ‘real’ architecture. In an art exhibition the actual works of art are exhibited, whereas architecture exhibitions will always be in need of mediators or substitutes in the shape of plans, drawings, models, animations and so on. Faced with this challenge, Herzog & de Meuron pose some essential questions:

“But even so, is there a way of presenting, exhibiting and putting things together, which would allow us to achieve more than a simple accumulation of documents? (…) is it possible in an exhibition room to constitute a place, which, similar to a building site as it exists outside in the town, might be a reality for itself, and which at the same time reflects the reality of the documented building?” [p. 43 Zaugg]

Ursprung looks at ways of representing in the 1851 World Exhibition to which he traces the roots of exhibiting and representing in the name of the spectacle, a specifically capitalist system of representation, which is still present today. H&deM’s architecture doesn’t seem to operate within this “representative architecture”. And it is because of this that Ursprung sees – with Herzog & de Meuron – the potential in the exhibition to explore alternative ways of representation. The exhibition of architecture can take on many shapes:

“the architectural exhibition as a genre in which architecture is mediated to an interested public; the exhibition of architecture itself, as a means for the presentation of objects; and the question of exhibiting their buildings in mental and social spaces.” [p. 25 Ursprung]

As opposed to the spectacle-like modes of representation, Ursprung sees that Herzog & de Meuron seeks “…a form of representation that can cope with the complexity and dynamism of the current situation and is thus, by definition, oriented towards the future.” [p. 25 Ursprung] In their exhibitions, they take it on them to exhibit architecture’s “waste”, the things that have no place in a spectacle: “Because of its obsession with the finished product, the spectacle makes no provision for exhibiting the ‘reality of architecture’” [p 35 Ursprung]

According to Herzog & de Meuron, the reality of architecture is not built architecture, rather architecture creates its own reality and is therefore an autonomous entity comparable to painting and sculpture [p. 35]. This conviction obviously also influences how architecture is exhibited and takes the exhibition of architecture seriously as more than just documentation or representation.

In H&deM’s exhibition with Ursprung they included many items that aren’t finished products, that are fragments seen out of context. The objects aren’t self-referential like so many objects in exhibitions of art of architecture (monumental models etc.); the materials are celebrated for their own sake and are as such seen as the reality of architecture rather than a fictional whole. It is also an attempt to suggest things that resist representation and which are nevertheless part of the “reality of architecture”: odours, temperatures, spatial memories, day-dreams. [p. 35 Ursprung] The point is, these things embody thousands of man hours, as Ursprung puts it, that could never have been represented but lies in the materials themselves.

But undeniably, the materials are also removed from their natural context. To a certain extent, isn’t the exhibition of architecture always a replacement or displacement of the objects it is trying to speak about? The minimal artist Robert Smithson worked with removing rocks and dirt from their natural sites, placing them into the context of gallery representation [p. 49 Forster] In other words, he works with the art of transforming the nature of materials. Similar to this, Herzog has commented: “the reality of architecture does not simply coincide with what is built, but rather finds its manifestation in its material”. Herzog hereby locates the reality of architecture in materials because “they find their highest manifestation once they have been removed from their natural context”. [p. 54 Forster]. It is only when removed from their conventional reference that materials can assume a specifically architectural purpose. Like Smithson’s experience it is precisely from the discrepancy between their familiar function and a newly invented one that materials acquire character. It is this character that Herzog & de Meuron dares to call the reality of architecture.

The exhibition can be a way to make architectural thinking physically tangible. The title of an exhibition at the Basel Architekturmuseum, Architektur Denkform / Architecture A Way of Thinking, points to this intention. But what the exhibition doesn’t give you is a one to one experience with space/architecture. In an interview with H&deM, Ursprung comments that it is very difficult to represent H&deM’s architecture, that it is almost unphotogenic. H&deM answer that direct confrontation with their buildings is – of course – essential, that their architecture is always based on one-to-one experience. “It is absolutely essential to continue to aspire to these intrinsically architectural qualities.” [p. 82 Ursprung]

In short:

The exhibition of architecture: an area of architectural praxis + the issue of art and architecture + the issue of representation + the different forms of architectural representation + the absence of the real architecture = exhibiting the ‘reality of architecture’ & transforming the nature of materials

Herzog & de Meuron Natural History

Edited by Philip Ursprung

Canadian centre for architecture Lars Müller Publishers

Herzog & de Meuron an exhibition

Rémy Zaugg

Art and Architecture: A Dialogue

Cantz