Alessandro Bosshard, along with his fellow curators of the Swiss Pavilion, received the Golden Lion at the 2018 Venice Biennale for Best National Pavilion.
Interview text provided by Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design.
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Today I will tell you about the project that we did for the Swiss pavilion - Svizzera 240: House Tour. I must say that this whole adventure began with an open competition initiated by the Swiss government. There were a lot of applications - from large and small architectural firms. We are very lucky: Switzerland chose an idea rather than some impressive project. We wanted to initiate a conversation about the architecture we know, which is so familiar to us that we do not notice it, it is invisible. Now I mean the interiors of modern housing, modern apartments. It seems to me that all over the world these interiors are very similar, at least in the West. Most often these are walls, parquet floors, windows.
The project is based on our ongoing research. In other words, we were not trying to come up with something one-off, some one project. We tried to formulate questions, not offer ready-made answers. The starting point for us was the quote […] from 2002: “The interior is being reduced and standardized to such an extent that there is simply no work here for architects. There are no photos of interiors, because all interiors are the same, all apartments are the same. They have cheap steps, walls, doors and so on. It doesn't matter if it is social housing or, conversely, luxury housing. The next step is that the interior will simply disappear completely. " In fact, [there are] so many different norms, so many rules, that architects simply don’t even rethink the interiors of the buildings they create.
Last week, for example, in our architectural bureau we discussed the next architectural competition, discussed norms and rules. We all agreed that […] interiors are more concerned with popular culture and popular magazines than architects.
An important question: how can small changes in the interior completely change our perception of space (depth of space, diagonals, details)? For example, a window opening. The window opening opens up a view of the landscape, how space constantly flows from one room to another, lighting, diagonals. I personally really like this picture.
What have we done? We took hundreds of pictures as architectural material and created a concrete representation of sterile, clean apartments with white walls. We wanted to highlight this invisible interior. We didn't want to hang the pictures as such, but we wanted to make an architectural representation in a three-dimensional model, which you can even go to. You enter the pavilion, everything looks very familiar, like an ordinary apartment. Then you turn to the right and see another space diagonally, and gradually you realize more and more that everything is not as you expect, the proportions are completely different: some rooms are very small, some are very large, somewhere the space is completely changed, the proportions are generally violated.
We called our work a house tour, which is a tour of an unfurnished apartment. We wanted to bring the background to the fore, to bring to the fore what we usually don't notice. For example, a doorknob. The doorknobs weren't supposed to work, they just had to look like a doorknob, and we weren't that interested in functioning. Again, we played with the proportions, meaning we made these handles a little smaller or slightly larger than usual on purpose, in conjunction with the real doorknob makers. Here's what's interesting: even if the doorknob is even slightly smaller than usual, you immediately feel that something is wrong. Switches, electrical outlets, they look like real ones, but they are not working. From the materials we needed cladding. See, here's a whole ship with cladding materials in Venice.
We gradually began to put all the elements together in the pavilion. You see, there is so much material that the pavilion immediately became cluttered, at first it was even difficult for us to start building. Here are the windows. We tried to imitate daylight. Inside, when you walk around this apartment, it seems to you that real daylight is streaming through the windows. This is actually an LCD monitor. Here is a photo when you are standing in front of these two doors. It seems to me that you are becoming some kind of new subject, a home tourist, a home tourist. We propose to explore familiar surroundings in a new way - this is our proposal. You open the door, go through the main door, find yourself in the hallway, and then you realize that the banality of everyday life seems to be destroyed, and at some point you stop trusting anything at all in this pavilion.
On the one hand, this project is about architecture. You are looking at architecture and architecture is looking at you. All elements acquire their own identity: doors, windows. They turn into characters, they look at you too. Sometimes it seems to you that you are a child or, conversely, a giant. Space flows from one room to another. This is the texture of the floor, it is also different. You see, on one side, the parquet is made of very large planks, and on the other, very small parquet floors. What was amazing was that people changed their behavior, many started laughing. People had a very direct bodily reaction. This is our youngest visitor. It was the only door this boy could open. We were very happy when we saw this.
Maria Elkina:
– Thank you very much, Alessandro, for this wonderful story. Once again, we congratulate you on your victory. I think this is an amazing project in many ways. We have a public interview, so I’m probably asking a stupid question. You probably already know that the question will be about "Alice in Wonderland", because your pavilion has been very often compared to "Alice in Wonderland". You and I have agreed that we will not lie to the audience. Alessandro said that in fact this pavilion has nothing to do with Carroll, in general he wanted to avoid this comparison. My first question is, why did you want to avoid this comparison with Alice in Wonderland?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– We wanted to avoid this because we didn't want the pavilion to be perceived as a joke. This was a serious study for us. This is a specific topic that we have explored here. We wanted to make people think about this topic.
Maria Elkina:
- So you wanted people to take your project seriously?
Alessandro Bosshard:
- Yes. I think that's what the magic is about.
Maria Elkina:
– The magic of this project, I think, is that it was good not only for Instagram, but it was also a sensual experience. It was not only about the picture, but about the fact that you could try to go through a large door, through a small door. It seems to me that you have shown the absurdity of our normalcy. The question arises: is what we perceive as normal normal? What do you think is abnormal in this standard interior? In a way, this interior is normal because it is standard. What can be changed in it, what questions can you ask, do you think? This is a question, maybe about centimeters. This is not only about some standards - how high the ceiling should be and so on, but rather a question about space, about how the living room and other rooms should look like.
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Yes, we wanted to raise a lot of questions in connection with this project. For me, the first and most important question is: why do architects not deal with the interior, but simply make such a clean, in some sense sterile plan? It seems to me that from a certain point of view, this is a very simple path. […] When you go inside, and you understand that there are a lot of small inventions in this space that you will not see on the plane, as if the composition of reality is completely different, and not the one on the plane, it is more alive. In our project, we thought a lot about representation, about all these details and how they live together. If we talk about the architects of the future, I think this is also a very important and very urgent issue. We observe that the world of architecture is the foundation, the foundation for our ideas. It is important for us to unearth this potential and see the future in it.
Maria Elkina:
– Yes, that's right, I agree with that. We discuss a lot in Russia, for example, residential units and typical buildings. It seems to me that these standard boxes, living quarters, modernist buildings define our life. They appeared a hundred years ago, when there was a housing crisis in Russia, and it was necessary to provide a large number of people with shelter. Architects and politicians decided to put people in these boxes because boxes were the cheapest to build, but better than nothing. These boxes contained a shower room, a kitchen, and so on.
If we talk about this typical development, we are still rethinking it. It seems to me that this is a problem that is relevant for many countries. I don't know anything about Switzerland. Do you think everyone in Switzerland can afford individual housing?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– This is a truly gigantic problem. I still think that if we just come up with some new typology, then in a couple of years the same problems will begin. When you work with these details, with these subtle points, you cannot just blindly copy them, it is impossible. It seems to me that because of the desire to copy, to stamp, a problem is born.
Maria Elkina:
– Do you think this is possible at all? I am not asking the question “how” yet, because you received the award just a couple of months ago. Do you think it is possible to add some individuality to a typical building? Can standard housing be customized?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Firstly, I think it makes sense to produce a catalog of different parts, different finishes, which can be combined with each other in different ways. Then we already have a lot more options.
Maria Elkina:
– How much did the doorknobs cost? How much did the doorknob cost for your pavilion?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– We were lucky to find a very good sponsor, so it was such an adventure for the company that made these pens. It was not easy to do, but it was inexpensive for us.
Maria Elkina:
– We agreed that we will now talk very sincerely, directly, as if we were sitting in a bar, and not on stage. All of these projects have a very long history, for example, these typical door handles. These are mass-produced products, so they are very cheap. What if you want to avoid mass production finishes and mass production facilities? Maybe you need to change the mass production? How to be?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– You can start with color, for example. All white is our default interior design. This is a performance that appeared some time ago. It is manifested in all models, in all pictures, drawings. It's white and black, everything is white and black in our interiors. For example, if you want to make yellow walls, perhaps not everyone will like them, but only one person in a hundred. Perhaps new technologies will really help us, but at the same time, it seems to me, we should not blindly rely only on new technologies. I think the role of the architect is to respond to the changing reality of construction.
Maria Elkina:
– What exactly to rely on? Will the architects save us?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– It seems to me that we do not need to look for universal answers. I think sometimes you just need to leave the question open. For us, the exhibition was about raising this issue. We just want people to be aware of the conditions in which we live.
Maria Elkina:
– I’ll ask a simple question. What do you think is the optimal ceiling height?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– It seems to me that two forty is about the figure that all countries agreed with. This is the compromise that the construction industry and the human body have made. That being said, the goal of the construction industry is to lower ceilings and keep them as low as possible, and people want ceilings as high as possible. I would, of course, make the ceiling higher than two forty. It seems to me that there is magic in the fact that ceilings can be of different heights, that each project can have its own individual indicators.
Maria Elkina:
– How do you think the height of the ceilings affects our lives? If the ceiling is two forty, then we feel more limited, and if four fifty, then more free?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– I think this is very interesting. We were once in the showroom, where you could change the height of the ceiling. There you directly feel: if you lower the ceiling by ten centimeters - and the feeling is very depressing. Even ten centimeters is a lot. It seems to me that it is important that there is space for individuality for each individual person. You can't live in white boxes, it's just awful. If you compare modern architecture with old monasteries, the spaces there were very diverse.
Maria Elkina:
– Yes, that's true, they just couldn't have introduced any standards. For example, you have your own room, a space where you can close and be alone. Fifty years ago, this was not possible. How does this affect us? Do you think this is good or bad? Let me put the question more directly. How many square meters per person do you think you need?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– It seems to me that the matter is not in square meters, but in what kind of spaces exist, how they fit together, but the trend is that there are more, more and more square meters. Soon we will be combining spaces, like, for example, a toilet with a bath was combined. It seems to me that we will live in shared apartments with neighbors.
Maria Elkina:
– Do you think you will need to stop at some point?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Yes of course. The space in which we live is limited, especially in our time. Of course, we will not creep endlessly.
Maria Elkina:
– Alessandro's question, which he proposed to redirect to the audience: when everyone lives in a room about a hundred meters in size, maybe he will treat others worse or just need to communicate with them less?
From the audience:
- Good evening! I'm Ilya. Yes, indeed, I am ready to answer, because I have had the experience of living alone in a very large space in terms of square footage for four years. Yes, it greatly affects behavior. I feel my personal boundaries much more sharply, and it really becomes more difficult to let someone inside. I react much more sharply to any encroachment on my space, and this affects my communication skills rather negatively.
Maria Elkina:
– Before we hear the following opinion - I think this is a very interesting discussion - I will tell you about the opinion of the forensic experts: quite the opposite. They study the social environment in studio apartments on the outskirts of large cities in St. Petersburg. They tell us quite clearly what the situation is like there. A young man or a young girl is buying a studio apartment. She at this moment, most likely, is just starting to work. Then she meets someone, they start a family and give birth to a child. It turns out that the three of them live in this studio. When there are a lot of people in an urban setting on a small number of square meters, the situation deteriorates. They become irritable, they become aggressive, even if they are very good and educated people. A small amount of square meters and close contact affect us badly in urban conditions. See, extremes are not very good. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? There are no opinions yet, but it seems to me that this is actually a very interesting question in general.
The government prescribes that we will have eighteen square meters per person, then thirty-two square meters per person, and then thirty-five, and how this will generally affect us as a civilization, we rarely think, although it will undoubtedly affect whether we will whether we get married, how often will we communicate with friends, so to speak, for all our habits. Alessandro, do you have your own answer to the question of how much personal space do you think is ideal?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– I would say that if we manage to create structures that are quite flexible and allow people to live in different ways in their homes, I mean flexibility at the level of including role models, lifestyles, I think this will be very important. It will be much better than creating some kind of rigid structure, much better than creating housing or buildings for a specific type of use.
Maria Elkina:
– I think this also relates to the question of how our interiors provoke communication. Switzerland has always had a very good architecture school, and a lot of famous architects have been brought up in Switzerland. I want to ask you: how did it happen that so many professionals appeared in such a small country? Or maybe it happened just because this country is so small?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– It seems to me that this is also a question of competition. The housing is mostly government sponsored. It is always an open acceptance of applications, an open competition. Many architects take part in these competitions. The Swiss seem to me to be very focused on the quality of architecture. This is important to them. We also very often move from one apartment to another during our life. We very often do not have our own housing, we rent apartments. This also affects. I think it has something else to do with it. In Switzerland, it seems to me that we have not emerged from the era of modernism. In a sense, we still exploit the ideas of modernism. That is why, I think, in Switzerland there are so many projects related to collective housing, with new types of apartments.
Maria Elkina:
– So it seems to you that Le Corbusier is to blame?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– No no no. Not just Le Corbusier. I just want to say that we are continuing the same line.
Maria Elkina:
– It seems to me that it all started long before modernism. Outstanding architects began to appear in Switzerland. Some of the architects currently working in St. Petersburg were born in Switzerland. They speak Italian, Italian is their first language, but they are from Switzerland. How do you feel about Le Corbusier, by the way?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Complex issue.
Maria Elkina:
– Why complicated? Let's just be honest.
Alessandro Bosshard:
– What to say? I really like the work of Le Corbusier. First of all, I appreciate the plasticity of his work.
Maria Elkina:
– I mean, there is still a lot of discussion about Le Corbusier's work. Someone says that he was an outstanding architect, and someone says that he hurt us a lot. Whose side are you on?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– I don’t want to answer this question.
Maria Elkina:
– Alessandro does not want to express his attitude towards Le Corbusier. We have almost no time left. Maybe someone in the audience wants to ask questions?
From the audience:
- Hello! My name is Alexandra. Alessandro, I was in your pavilion, which you supervised. After we left your pavilion, I watched a video with all the curators of the Venice Biennale and with you too, and none of you said the word “scale of space”. My question is: is this intentional, because it seems to you that scale is a concept that has nothing to do with your pavilion, or is it just so obvious that you are trying to raise some other issues?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Great question. We did not use this word intentionally, because at the very beginning we thought: it should be a project about scale, or, conversely, scale and scale distortion - this is just a tool to bring our main theme to the fore. Therefore, we tried to avoid the term “scale” when we talked about this project, but, of course, it is clear that we are working with scale here, this is obvious.
Maria Elkina:
– Do you think there is something else that has not yet been revealed in interior architecture? Since we are talking [at the conference] about the future of education, do you think there are any other issues that need to be discussed?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– There are hundreds more questions to be asked. It seems to us that it is important to ask a topic and in this topic formulate your own questions, create your own projects. We don't want to just talk about standardization, norms and so on. Our next project may be completely different.
Maria Elkina:
– So you answer these questions through research? Do you think that in order to ask the right question, you need to do research, that is, this is such an academic approach?
Alessandro Bosshard:
– Yes, that was our strategy. You start with research and then formulate your own project, grope your own project.
