Carnival never ends - XV. Biennale in Venice

The Venice Biennale of Architecture 2016 is titled Reporting from the Front. “Do something! Instead of complaining and lamenting.” – this is the activist credo of Aravena, who became famous with his office Elemental for improvisation and simple methods of “doing” architecture. From Aravena, I expected that as the first non-Western curator of the traditional Venice exhibition, he would bring a new perspective to the architecture of other countries, which I do not register from my usual Eurocentric viewpoint. However, a cursory glance at the list of participants in the main exhibition has led me to realize my mistake. Of the 155 participant names, 88 were from Europe, 25 from South America, 8 from Japan, 6 from India, and 4 each from Africa, China, and the USA. Most of the non-European names likely belong to people who studied or work at Western universities and in Western architectural offices. The curatorial intention, therefore, apparently did not lie in presenting a post-colonial perspective on unknown non-European architecture. There are 61.3% of Western – transatlantic representatives, making the Venice Biennale fully dominated by the Western view of architecture. Women are also significantly underrepresented, with only 16.77% within the exhibition. On the introductory discussion panel on infrastructure, featuring eight star architects, there was not a single woman present. It is surprising that Aravena, who wants to be a voice against inequality, allowed such a blind spot in his curatorial focus!

What is the curator's intention, then? Aravena's concept represents a nonsystematic collection of projects that relate more or less to a set of themes he repeatedly addresses: quality of life, inequality, segregation, migration, periphery, waste, banality, and others. The arrangement of projects is loose, creating no narrative thread. The enormous logistical and organizational scope in a short time frame forces architect-curators to choose a personal curatorial selection approach, resulting in a heterogeneous mosaic of isolated projects. This lack of conceptual thinking has been repeated in several recent biennials (with the honorable exception of Koolhaas). It is evident that architects are not, and need not necessarily be, good curators of architecture. The activities of architects and curators differ. A curator focuses on techniques and practices of public presentation of art, architecture, and culture, collecting objects and exhibits, information, and the relationships between them. Architects, on the other hand, deal with space, form, and organizing buildings – activities distinct from gallery or museum presentation.
At an art biennale, it is unusual for artists to solely take on the role of curators. Perhaps in this regard, the architecture biennale, the younger sibling of the Venice Biennale of Art, will grow out of its childhood ailments and move toward a standard division of roles in exhibition operations.
Disappointment with the biennale has also permeated accompanying discussions: in the panel “2016-ennials,” dedicated to the biennale, triennale, and architecture exhibitions in general, moderator and curator Léa-Catherine Szacka asked whether there is an excess of architectural biennales recently and whether the art biennale and architecture biennale should be combined. MoMA's architecture collection curator Martino Stierli did not hide his fatigue with the biennale format, the overuse of the term radicality, and criticality. The curator of the Nordic pavilion, David Basulto, characterized the preparation of the pavilion as setting up an entirely new institution, in terms of energy, finances, and the complexity of the entire task in a limited time of 6 months. After experiencing a similar process in discussion with guests, he posed the heretical question of whether it is even worth it? It is clear that the format of the architecture biennale and national pavilions needs to be rethought, updated in the context of contemporary curatorial practice, and made accessible to not just the architectural audience.

The charm of the night enveloped the exhibition space, and opulent celebrations and parties erupted in local palazzi. In crowded places such as the Peggy Guggenheim Collection or on a pirate ship rented by Bjarke Ingels and at the parties of national pavilions, world architectural celebrities sparkled, anticipating future biennales, as the carnival in Venice never truly ends...

The text by Helena Doudová is published with the kind permission of the cultural biweekly A2, where it appeared in issue 15/2016