ARCH'IT files / The end of modernism

[in italiano]		[01dec2002]
	GIOVANNI CORBELLINI. Your manifesto, The end of modernism, presents itself as a kind of inventory of issues, goals, images, slogans, sensations and everything is passing through contemporary architecture, or at least that part of it that experiments new paths and tries to look beyond the crisis of architectural thinking and of its actual chances to intervene in the real things. What you propose seems crowded and contradictory, full of possible openings and necessary mutations that are interesting to deepen. HRVOJE NJIRIC. It is crowded and contradictory, indeed, but just as much as our contemporary world is. Take landscape issues, for example. There is a whole range of misreadings and very superficial interpretations happening under the label of territorial operations. A whole bunch of architects got it quite easy - manipulating the plot by dividing it into strips, bending each of them differently, inserting some programs into the interstices and planting some greenery atop of it. Look at the artists like Robert Smithson who offer a much more sophisticated and complex attitude towards our surroundings. The same faux-pas happens with infrastructure and ecology. If we are willing to deepen the issues, we should definitely look beyond the boundaries of our discipline, not just perpetuating the contents from glossy magazines. Possible points of departure could be found practically everywhere. An austrian tourism-guru once said that none of the tourist-managers could afford not checking out the MTV for a couple of hours - daily! The supermodern architect interprets the present tense. Twenty years ago the Sex Pistols shouted "No Future!", Bob Venturi was learning from Las Vegas, Paolo Portoghesi, together with many others, proposed again the "façade" architecture, styles, ornaments and so on. Your approach to the end of modernism seems now more optimistic: it doesn't look back to the past, it hasn't fear of the future, it simply lives in the present. A condition that seems to be paradoxical for architecture, tied as it is to the idea of vitruvian "firmitas", to the authority of the masters and to the aspiration to eternity. Do you think that "instant architecture" is possible? If you observe how our consumer society functions, it is obvious that even houses could not escape being classified as goods or ware. An "instant" solution is on demand. Nevertheless, if we regard our profession as a cultural act, there is enough room for added value (VAT). This is what I understand as a professional responsibility. How long would "a product" last is not the issue. It transcends from one state to the other: in the beggining, it is a paper architecture, later it is experienced as a physical presence and, finally, it becomes a memory - expressed in the number of pages, megabytes or simply as our rememberance. The Chicago Herald Tribune Tower by Adolf Loos is such an example of instant reaction, deeply rooted in the very moment of its appearance and present as a cultural fact even today. The end of aesthetics. Another end announced by your manifesto is that of aesthetics. Do you really believe it? The Venice Biennale edited by Fuksas, in spite of its title "More Ethics. Less Aesthetics", was a triumph of formalism. On the other hand, the architects work, especially that of the most interesting ones, is more and more concentrated in image processing. And the icons of your manifesto are, in this regard, particularly meaningful… End of aesthetics was meant more relatively, referring to the present exaggerations, ranging from the production of images to the overall appearance of built mass. It is exactly the state of things you are speaking of as well. Furthermore, aesthetics should be seen as a more complex issue. As contemporary artists show us, aesthetics has nothing to do with beauty anymore, but with a specific intellectual discourse. How else could one understand the work of, let us say, Damien Hirst? The Fiat Multipla testifies a counter position: aethetics of The Ugly in its own right. A shift towards non-authorship. Although the architectural star system is far to be dead, the end of authorship is probably near. Interdisciplinary work is necessary and its increasing complexity puts out the figure of the lone creative architect. But it is interesting to understand if the architect way of thinking, a mix of scientific and humanistic approach with manual skill and selling attitudes, allows him to keep a central role, or, vice versa, he could just coordinate more powerful professionals, acting as a kind of "front man", a role that could be funny but with little real influence. I agree with you. Teamwork is a must. Another thing we were trying to suggest was a new means of architectural expression, by upgrading and combining the already existing in a new way, rather than inventing the completely new. When Koolhaas bends the Barcelona Pavillion as the OMA exhibition stand for the Milan Triennale - it is an act where the author steps back and creatively reiterates the "common good". Furthermore, it stresses the validity of compositional principles based on ready-mades, as the 20th century legacy, still viable today. Termination of urban planning. I don't know if the planning approach is now facing a crisis or not. But I think that many typical urban issues have positively hybridized the contemporary architectural project, introducing a kind of "reality principle" that was particularly important. If urban planning is about predicting the course of growth, the new economy could not be taken as a reliable basis. Drammatic shifts on market often could not be foreseen. In terms of globalization, the current neo-colonial trends in the former Eastern Europe and the birth of new democracies are too vague to reckon with. Because all of that, new strategies of high flexibility, of a built-in self-organization and adaptivity should be devised. One has to learn to cope (or better - get along) with the most brutal demands of foreign investors, treating the transitional countries as the Third World. It was the author who produced the object, it is the interdisciplinary that defines the process. The shift from objects production to organisation of processes is one of the most interesting and necessary for contemporary architecture. Someone seems to fade in the process every intention of morphological control. Others, vice versa, accept it as a defensive strategy that allows an "architectural" approach to the environment transformations making them understandable in terms of shape. Which is your way? I do not find them so opposed to each other. Neither is a process necessarily threatening the consistency of architecture, nor an object-oriented practice must go wrong. Anyway, the former option, if conceived fairly enough, offers more freedom and a correct urban outcome. Client-oriented reprogramming will be appreciated as a reliable strategy. A client oriented strategy represents a true inversion from the pedagogical approach of the modern movement. Anyway, I wonder if clients are really interested in architectural quality. In other words, it is necessary to show them if and how a good project could become an immediate advantage in commercial terms. I do not believe one could make developers believe by speaking the language of architects to them. I try to teach my students to develop (at least) a twofold manner of expressing themselves when speaking of one and the same thing. Language A for an academic environment, language B for the market. One should be decisive about efficiency in architecture, something that could be expressed in facts and figures. The issue of reprogramming addresses the profession in terms of engagement to participate in a critical development of implied programs. It is a belief that contemporary architects do not only shape the physical domain, but a series of non-physical aspects, as well. "Faith in fakes". Faith in fakes has now many adepts, especially among the postmodern architects engaged in imitating styles, shapes and matters. And it really works: everything is now, under various aspects, a fake. But there is fake and fake: silicone tits or Rolex made in Naples are less honest and appealing than ecological furs o the blue hair of some rocker. Do you think that it is possible to propose a new loosian moral approach, a kind of "fake pride" that says that the good fake is the one that is recognizable? When talking about fakes, I stick to the notions put forward by Umberto Eco in his book Travels in Hyperreality. It is not about using "false" or cheap materials, but dealing with concepts related to "the original" in a certain manner. Mixing corporate brands and shaping of consumers' culture. Logo o no logo? How we can resolve the paradox that sees us, as image operators, fascinated by the pop aura of commercial brands and, as citizens, absolutely disappointed by the economical and social consequences of the globalisation ruled by the big companies? We are not in a position to resolve anything. We are (just) architects and we can interpret the circumstances and eventually shape them somewhat differently than intended by corporative standards. Generally speaking, architects should finally become aware of their limited impact. The sooner we become familiar with a scope of our own devices, the better. Giovanni Corbellini giovcorb@iol.it

	We're thankful to Adriano Venudo and Simone Zoia for their valuable collaboration.

s	files