Alexander Brodsky (b. 1955) and Ilya Utkin (b. 1955) are Russian architects, who worked along side each other through the Soviet regime and the dawn of Glasnost, as part of a loosely organized group known as paper architects—a vein of visionary architecture that proposes metaphorical and fantastical designs. Usually entering their work into international competitions, their work was a response to the state sanctioned architecture that consisted of standardised and often poorly constructed buildings in Soviet Russia. Borrowing from architectural styles throughout history with ideas that seem more appropriate in a Borges short story, the two came up with some incredible designs (e.g. Museum of Disappearing Buildings, Columbarium Habitabile, Crystal Palace, Electronic Donjon, Villa Claustrophobia, etc.) that together feel like a walk through a city as drawn by Edward Gorey.
Great imago - Alexander Brodsky & Ilya Utkin building visionary landscapes and architectural visions. An article with more pics and links u find on russianculture.wordpress.
As the Venice Takeaway exhibition draws to an end, we look at the responses and changes it has taken during its lifespan from the British Pavilion in Venice to London’s RIBA on Portland Place, and where we can expect to find the fruition of the ideas exhibited after this exhibition’s lifespan.
Few people have the chance - or desire for that matter - to see a travelling exhibition twice in its different environs. However, given the development of ideas which Venice Takeaway: Ideas to Change British Architecture is based and the shift in the exhibition's time and place, it has necessarily and interestingly required new material, a fresh curation and a general re-thinking since its initial opening in Venice last autumn. An obvious aspect of any architecture exhibition is how best to represent a non-present building within another building. Regarding a touring architecture exhibition, then, it is interesting to note its change in location and therefore in its own space, light, and the preconceived ideas and expectations of its visitors.
Venice Takeaway represents the travels and collated ideas of 10 individual British architectural groups who sought out inspiration from different areas of the world in hopes of bringing something back to the UK to re-invigorate our architectural practices, and also with the hopes of being able to see the architectural problems we face today from a fresh perspective.
Whilst on showcase in Venice, walking into a national pavilion in the Giardini one cannot blame visitors to be looking for the traditional parading and branding of what that particular nation’s architecture was, is or hopes to be. Embracing the Biennale’s theme of “common ground”, in 2012 the curators of the British pavilion courageously flipped this historical showcase dynamic to instead look outward to the rest of the world to find a true international common ground. Few pavilions take the somewhat general, open-ended themes of the biennale seriously, which in turn inevitably calls for general themes to be selected each year. The layers of a common ground are manifold, and one could say the British pavilion found a definition that the biennale itself seeks to find – an international dialogue of architectural or artistic ideas. But another reversal is evident. Being an exhibition on ideas and therefore a display of the often unseen initial research of the architectural process itself, the material in the exhibition is vast, varied (from travel journals, filmed interviews and skype sessions, prototypes and artworks including a traditionally made Chinese scroll depicting a possible British village), but most relevant for us here the ideas included into the exhibition are subject to change during its lifespan.
In Venice, the very space of the pavilion held its challenges. Where a research emporium filled the entrance and the subsequent exhibition filled the side and back rooms, the visitor's attention span and memory was stretched to connect information ingested from this initial text-based space to the following rooms which held the represented material, such as prototypes for a potential British Exploratory Land Archive. On an intellectual scale visitors imaginations were also slightly stretched to take ideas of architecture from 10 different countries in the world and convert them to how best to understand and enjoy British architecture, without perhaps a previous understanding of what ‘British architecture’ is or what challenges it faces in order to change.
Now on show at the Royal Institute of British Architecture in London, at the heart of the UK where these ideas have the intention to be implemented, the exhibition picks up a new meaning. What is considerable is the change in point of view of the visitor, who necessarily already holds some knowledge of British architecture and a real lived-in sense of how we relate to spaces and buildings here, and how these have changed in history. One only needs to walk down Portland Place for such an education. The street is lined with historically important facades representing the height of English heritage (for example the grandiose Victorian Langham Hotel). Many of these buildings have now undergone a cultural shift, if not externally then in terms of utility, by housing the embassies and representative offices of many different nations around the world; directly opposite the RIBA lies the Chinese embassy, a renowned site of contestation and protests. Within RIBA then - a self-titled British institution building amongst these foreign offices - it is comforting to discover an exhibition based on a ‘looking outward’ to various nations for inspiration to change our own architectural landscape, culturally but also in other disciplines which cross over with architecture (in mind is the political case of Daryl Chen’s New Socialist Working Village). Even historically the exhibition seems to fit rather suitably - designed by George Grey Wornum, RIBA was built to be a building for British architects by the best of British architects, the plans having won a competition from hundreds of entries. However what few people may not know is that Wornum’s inspiration for the design of the building came from his own travels to Sweden and the photographs and drawings which he made there and brought back to Britain and into his own work.
Ideas being living things, the exhibition at RIBA has necessarily grown to show how these ideas have shifted, developed and come to fruition since last fall. To effectively show this, a timeline has been displayed for each project that maps out these developments from initial idea, to travel expeditions, to presentation at the biennale, to future events and plans for further developments. Ascending to the second level, Gallery 2 extends also ideologically from the original ideas presented in Venice (in the lower Gallery 1) and documents events which occurred between the two exhibitions, and what was learnt from these sessions in these short few months. Aleksander Brodsky’s and Ilya Utkin’s original A Glass Tower is a particular special addition which did not feature at the Venice exhibit, as are the floor-to-ceiling photographic panels which give the light filled gallery space of the RIBA a colourful and enticing entrance and an extension of a sense of scale and actual place.
Not only does Venice Takeaway’s focus and documentation on the methodology and research of an architect’s work allow for a certain freedom in material selection, but it also begs for discussion and debate. In the last few months, weekly talks and events held at the RIBA and the AA have not only drawn British architects to engage with the exhibitions contents but also with many of the international personalities who were visited by the 10 groups, to give their first-hand knowledge of the projects and to provide insights to their experiences and how they were/are similar/dissimilar to Britain. At the Paper Salon for example, Yuri Avvakumov gave an overview of the restrictions he felt as a young architect and what inspired him to begin the Paper Architects in Soviet Russia during the 1980's. Other talks have included architects such as Jan Kleihues, an Internationale Bauaustellung expert from Berlin, Washington Fajardo from the Rio City Secretary of Heritage, Architecture and Design who spoke about the compatibility of architecture with Oscar Niemeyer’s standardised school design, and Sebastian Adamo from Buenos Aires who focused on Argentina’s response to financial crisis in 2001 and the protective legal trust system which was put in place for architects, investors, lawyers and accountants. That said, conversations have not been limited to planned events, and with the increased space and relaxed open plan and café atmosphere of RIBA it has been really enjoyable to be able to personally welcome people into the space and discuss the exhibited ideas with visitors - a nice change from the flurry and excitement of the Giardini and thousands of people pouring into the Pavilion daily.
As the exhibition Venice Takeaway closes today, we nevertheless look forward to the future developments of its ideas and watching them blossom. Given recent events in Britain, these seem to be inevitable. Mark Hackett and Declan Hill will open an exhibition in Belfast in a matter of weeks to showcase how they plan to take Berlin’s IBA building competition idea to tackle the similar problem of empty and vacant sites within the city through meaningful spatial planning. Their exhibition also marks the 400th anniversary of Belfast receiving its town charter. There have been talks of continuing the Paper+ Salon events into the future – maybe even a summer school - based on the success rate of the previous one, as it inspired young architects and artists to think outside the box and regulations (and perhaps most importantly design programmes) to incorporate a fresh creativity into their work (see http://blog.britishcouncil.org/2013/04/22/paper-architecture/ or previous blog entry by Isabel Moseley on this site). And DRMM’s study of a floating community close to Amsterdam becomes more of a reality with London’s Royal Albert Docks currently being targeted for redevelopment in the news, with mayor Boris Johnson initiating an international competition for developers to design a 15-acre floating community there (see http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/boris-seeks-backers-for-stilt-city-riviera-in-the-miserable-lagoon-of-londons-royal-docks/8644077.article ). On a more somber note, Oscar Niemeyer’s passing in December last year turned Aberrant Architecture’s investigation into his standardized school implementation throughout Rio de Janeiro’s suburbs not only as a model for UK’s current re-evaluation of school building, (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/mar/15/flatpack-flexible-oscar-niemeyer-schools) but also as UK’s homage to one of the great architects of our time.
The effect of an exhibition based on research rather than the traditional architectural models and drawn designs is meaningful. Here, not only is the cultural significance of a building analysed within its own cultural context and compared with Britain, but the exhibition also opens a dialogue and demonstrates the processes of architectural research and design, as well as the building, as a cultural act. The future actions of these ideas will undoubtedly continue to unfold into architectural practices and future discussions and planning, despite the original seed of these ideas no longer being on display in an exhibition space.
On behalf of all the Venice Takeaway stewards, thank you for following the travels of our architects, the exhibition and also us. See you in Venice in 2015!
As part of the program for Venice Takeaway:Ideas to Change British Architecture an experimental event entitled Paper Salon was organized in connection with Ross Anderson and Anna Gibb’s project Paper+Architecture. The project looks at the ideas surrounding Paper Architecture, a movement that came to importance in Russia in the 1980s, where a group of young Russian architects began to submit wildly imaginative proposals into forbidden competitions in response to the restrictions they faced within the parameters of Russian socialist realism. The Paper Salon aimed to bring together an enlightened gathering of like-minded creatives for a day, to explore imagined environments, exchange ideas about visionary architecture and build a dialogue through the physical act of drawing. A week or so ago I was lucky enough to be invited to the Paper Salon by assistant curator Alastair Donald. It wasn’t long before the much-anticipated day arrived and I made my way among rows of sleepy red brick shops to the Calvert 22 Foundation in east London. There was a quiet buzz of excitement as everybody took their seats, tea and croissant in hand, the speakers were introduced and the discussion began. . .
On the panel were many inspirational speakers including one of the original Paper Architects Yuri Avvakumov who gave a wonderful slideshow of images illustrating the quiet yet spectacular work of the Paper Architects. It is certainly apparent how passionately they must have felt about what they were doing and you can see this in the painstaking detail that has gone into each silent protest; a protest against rules that threatened to stifle their visions. Yuri spoke of their work as fantasy and an expressive means, describing it as a ‘non conformist reflection’. One of the projects of the Paper Architects he described as depicting amorphic spaces combined with historical definitions such as square and boulevard etc where the inhabitants would be given materials to build ordinary objects such as bus stops, clubs and public toilets. This aimed to raise questions as to which ordinary objects should be monumentalized and which should be allowed to die naturally. During the debate words such as as utopian, escapism, creative freedom and poetics of space were frequently used- describing things that naturally, we all crave. Interestingly the illustrations that the paper architects produced were compared to those in Chinese art and there are certainly similarities that can be drawn. Both depict fantastical and whimsical environments mingled with the architecture of nature and seem to confirm the fact, that we all crave escape.
We went on to discuss the difference between Visionary Architecture and Paper Architecture; panelist James McAdam suggested that Visionary Architecture is used to expand the limits of technology but Paper Architecture does not have to become material. Perhaps there is no such thing as real utopia; this kind of fantasy can only ever remain on paper and non-conformist architecture in its nature must remain unbuilt? But what is it that we need to confront today? Some suggested that perhaps we need to decide what and whom regulations are designed for. In this way we can begin to challenge conventional thinking and inspire a new set of ideals.
In order to be non-conformist today you have to be socially irresponsible however you could argue that in western civilization we are unsure whether to react or rebel. Within the current recession though, perhaps we will have time to talk about change in architecture and create a new set of sustainable limits. It is true that we need architecture in the UK to be more exciting and in order to do this we need to take more risks. In taking risks we do not necessarily need to build anything iconic or to propagate visionary architecture as this has failed many times in the past and can be used as superficial device to get noticed. Members of the audience agreed that an icon needs to be specific to its location in order to thrive and be accepted, perhaps in the same way that public art does. Architecture, particularly iconic buildings can sometimes seek to disassociate themselves with the everyday and the ordinary, implying some kind of higher status and setting themselves apart from mass culture.
As an artist I can only expressively agree with the importance of drawing in fueling creativity. Itsuko Hasegawa stated that one ‘must draw quickly or lose all spontaneity of image’ and I completely agree however in the word of architecture perhaps one must be more considered and there is a need to slow down make more decisions? I recall an audience member commenting that drawing slows down the mind and the hand. This is something I have to disagree with; I think drawing is a meditative act and allows you to get lost in the physicality of the materials – the difficulty is not to think. In this way you are able to see what is in your mind - things that you didn’t know were there. However I can appreciate that between art and architecture drawing plays different roles and there is a difference between design and image making. The workshop was very helpful in blurring these boundaries and allowed me to gain a new perspective on the function of drawing. Anna Gibb, who has currently taken on the challenge of completing a drawing a day for a year, commented that the process of drawing is a physical pursuit. I can whole-heartedly agree with her and it is perhaps the reason why a lot of people are afraid of drawing or take a tentative approach or opt to use computer programs. It can be an emotionally and physically exhausting activity as opposed to using computer programs where you can remain somewhat detached. Computers definitely have their place in creating architectural plans and can replicate the process of thinking but have no specificity of intention like drawings have. It feels as if less thought goes into them, they have less sense of purpose and give an impression of fake authenticity. ‘The computer is a tool but not a design instrument’ Glenn Murcutt.
In the afternoon we were split into teams and provided with enormous sheets of paper to begin imagining our own Paper Architecture. Admittedly it was a difficult task for me as it defied everything I had been taught in art school where we had no limitations and were specifically taught to defy rules and regulations; though we were set free to let our imaginations run wild we also needed to be mindful in creating a space that had a purpose. My partner and I decided to create a kind of memorial site leaving the existing footprint of the buildings but giving the space a new lease of life with a beautiful carpet of greenery and a glass walkway. Other projects included an enormous elephant to stand as the icon of south London, hot air balloon housing and upside down buildings buried in the ground lying in wait for the earth to turn over.
We all came away quite exhausted from the day but incredibly inspired. Walking down the high street the next day I couldn’t help but imagine how much more exciting our environment would be with mad animal shaped buildings and floating houses in the sky. Perhaps some ideas, though seemingly impractical, could one day become reality, for now though they remain on paper and we will have to wait and see what the future brings…
