The charming Teresa Iarocci Mavica, appointed Commissioner of the Russian Pavilion at the Biennale in November, and her chosen curator of the 2020 exposition Ippolito Pestelini Laparelli, OMA / AMO partner [UPD: he leaves OMA and will work as an independent curator, the competition website says that Laparelli worked at OMA in 2007-2019, - approx. Ed.], for two hours they talked in a relaxed manner about the space of the pavilion and around it, cross-disciplinarity, fresh eyes of young architects and about the competition announced in early December. The MMOMA hall, where the conversation took place, was full, as Teresa Mavica jokingly noted, despite the political events. Some time after the start of communication, Sergey Kuznetsov, the chief architect of Moscow, an experienced person in organizing exhibitions at the Biennale, joined the commissioner and curator: he acted three times as a curator and co-curator of the Russian pavilion, and once again made an exhibition of a parallel program in Venice, and now is also planning something bold within the collaterale. At the invitation of Mavica and Laparelli, Evgeny Ass, curator of the 2004 Russian pavilion, was present in the hall, and he criticized the program immediately after its announcement. Evgeny Ass is the only curator who conducted a workshop in the pavilion, an event similar to the one that is planned now. Only then did the students make projects for Venice, now young architects will reflect on the fate of the pavilion.
Pavilion and its restoration
Whatever one may say, Teresa Mavica was appointed commissioner with a specific task: to restore the pavilion.
It was built in 1914 according to the project of Alexei Shchusev and, as you know, underwent a series of reconstructions, one of the most significant - in 1968. In 2009, the roof was repaired, which managed to leak in 2008 on the opening day of the exhibition, then it was raining heavily. However, the participants in the conversation agreed that the current roof is practically a meme, Evgeny Ass confirmed that it was leaking in 2004 as well.
When asked why it was now necessary to restore the pavilion, which seems to have been repaired relatively recently, Commissioner Teresa Mavica answered not quite exhaustively: “There are many reasons. There are many old problems. During recent exhibitions, new drywall was pitted in front of the old one, and rubbish was piled between them. Electricity certificates and other permits are coming to an end. Checks arise within the Biennale itself. Now we are looking for documentation, and we would like the situation with it to be transparent too: so that there is, for example, a portal where you can see all the details, including technical ones. Of course, it was possible to close the pavilion during the renovation, but we decided that we can simultaneously reconstruct the building and the very idea of the pavilion."
What, however, is important to know about the pavilion. It has the status of a monument, it is impossible to rebuild it, "build on the third floor". Venetian security legislation, according to Teresa Mavica, is much worse than Moscow. One of the commissar's favorite ideas is to make the balcony accessible to the lagoon, now it is often closed, because there is no certainty that the structures will withstand many people. The restoration will have to be done together with Italian colleagues, which, again, is a legal requirement. Restoration or renovation of the pavilion is an obligatory part of the program.
In principle, it is not surprising that Teresa Mavica was appointed commissioner of the pavilion with the task of restoring it. Although she is primarily an experienced producer and curator of contemporary art, in her role as head of the V-A-C Foundation, Mavica has already had to deal with the renovations of at least two buildings:
HPP-2 designed by Renzo Piano and the V-A-C building in Venice on the Zattere embankment.
But the repair task, of course, looks small and technical, no matter how you look at it. Therefore, the commissioner and curator expand it "to heaven", turning it into a reflection on the nature of the exhibitions, calling the younger generation into colleagues, proposing to consider the reconstruction of the pavilion as a rethinking of the actual institution of our country's representation at the Biennale. The situation is changed by the fact that although the commissioner is appointed until 2021, and the curator, as usual, for a year, SmartArt will be in charge of management for another 10 years - which ultimately determines the planning horizon and the specifics of the task that faces both the contestants and the initiators.
In the paradigm of questions
Teresa Mavica began by saying that the appointment of the pavilion commissioner was unexpected for her: “I started asking myself questions, a lot of questions. And now I want to ask questions - not even look for answers, but rather understand whether these questions are correct. Who is the Commissioner? What is it for? What is a Biennale? What is the National Pavilion in 2020? I dreamed of asking all these questions to Sergei Kuznetsov, who has made exhibitions in Venice four times already. I got the impression that reporting projects were being made in the pavilion all the time, with the exception of the project by Evgeny Ass. Maybe the time has come when it is necessary to move from the exhibition mode to doing something. It is interesting for me to understand how we can use a cultural institution so that each of you, having arrived in Venice, will feel that the pavilion is a part of you. Make the pavilion work."
Rethinking the pavilion as an institution
The essence of Teresa Mavica's position, she said, is to understand the “renovation, reconstruction, renovation” of the pavilion as “rebuilding the institution itself … I am interested in understanding how we want to see the pavilion in the future. The theme of the Biennale is how we will live together. Therefore, I could not help but remember Ippolito Laparelli, with whom we in 2018 in Palermo dealt with the same topic [the theme of the Manifesto 2018 - “Earth's Garden. Cultivating coexistence "- really very close to the theme of the 2020 Biennale, - approx. auth.]. I had a choice: just close the pavilion and restore it - or, conversely, open it completely, open it to a foreign curator, open an interdisciplinary dialogue, open it to young architects and philosophers. To start a conversation on the topic of what architecture is today, what tasks it solves today”. The pavilion will be open during the development of the concept, which is planned to be done live at the Biennale. The actual restoration work is planned to begin in the fall, after the Biennale. Therefore, the pavilion's program is called OPEN! - it was not closed for reconstruction, but opened, both literally and figuratively, for comprehension. Probably the most accurate definition for the task at hand will be to rethink the pavilion.
Mavica also sets itself the task of "decommissioning the pavilion", relieving it of the dictates of one person. By the way, the Manifesto, where Teresa Mavica is a member of the expert council, is already being held under the guidance of several curators. An international art committee has been set up to oversee the pavilion. It included: artists Emilia Kabakova and Vadim Zakharov, curator Francesco Bonami, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art M KHA in Antwerp Bart de Bare and director of the Pushkin Museum named after A. S. Pushkin in Moscow Marina Loshak.
Park, lagoon, new entrance
Among the proposals related to rethinking the pavilion, the commissioner soon voiced the following: to open and rethink the terrace, perhaps even an exit to the lagoon - to open the entrance to the pavilion from the side of the embankment. The Russian pavilion is the only one located so close to the lagoon - and, perhaps, this will make it active not only during the entire Biennale, but in general throughout the whole year, even after the Biennale. According to Teresa Mavica, the idea of a separate entrance is currently being discussed with the festival's management. Ippolito Laparelli recalled in his presentation about the project of Ilya and Emilia Kabakov with a red pavilion in the park in front of the terrace.
And then, indeed, a stormy life occurs only during the days of the preview, then, as a rule, there is silence. So, shouldn't the pavilion be activated all the time? Should we come to an agreement with the organizing committee of the Biennale? “We will have to open our entrance and admit it to the Biennale at a discount, so we will recoup the costs,” joked Sergei Kuznetsov. All jokes, but I must admit that, despite all the openness, the appearance of a new entrance to the Russian pavilion will probably be a very difficult task: nevertheless, the entrance to the Biennale is paid, which, of course, the participants in the conversation immediately remembered. We add that there are only two checkpoints, one for Giardini and one for Arsenal. The relatively recent appearance of a new exit (but not an entrance) from the territory of the Arsenal towards Garibaldi Street was announced by the organizing committee of the festival as a very important step towards the convenience of visitors to the exhibition. The exit is indeed convenient, but the entrance would also be appropriate there, meanwhile it is not there, which, one must think, speaks of the complexity of the problem.
More than a lion
The idea of Teresa Mavica about the Russian curator of the entire Biennale seems even more daring: to submit the Russian pavilion over the next 10 years so that the administration of the Biennale would think of appointing a Russian curator. “For me, this is a much bigger challenge than the Golden Lion. I would strive for this. To make our voice heard,”said Teresa Mavica.
The fact is that when appointing a new commissar, the ministry said: it would be nice now to bring the pavilion a "Golden Lion" to their country. Until now, we recall, the pavilion received "lions", but these were not exactly lions, but special mentions by the jury - a special mention. They were awarded: an exhibition of photographs by Ilya Utkin "Nostalgia" under the curator Grigory Revzin,
the exhibition of Sergei Tchoban, where the projects of the Skolkovo innovation city were shown in the space of the dome, made up of glowing QR codes, and the Fair Enough exhibition, designed in the spirit of a commercial fair, where instead of products they presented meanings brought by Russian culture into the world. Three special mentions are also a lot, but now it seems that the Golden Lion itself is required, the main award, which, frankly, is unlikely [we will be glad to be mistaken, - approx. auth].
Therefore, it is not surprising that Commissioner Teresa Mavica chose to reformulate this question in a completely paradoxical way - we need to strive for more, that we are Lev, it's time for us to think about why there are no Russian curators? The statement of the question, of course - and we are now operating with questions - sounds extremely ambitious. It is even difficult to say which is bolder and more difficult: the third entrance to the Biennale through the Russian pavilion, or the Russian curator of the entire festival. And what, after all, for example, one of our famous "paper architects" could become such a curator. Isn't it possible to dream?
But if we take the difficult-to-accomplish beyond the scope, the rest of the conversation was devoted to the competition: potential participants were expected to have both questions and, in general, to actively participate in the discussion.
Without a winner? Or is it with?
The first topic that apparently caused some surprise to the audience was the statement of the curator and the commissioner that the competition had no winner as such: “… this suggests that someone should be better than others. We are starting to rethink the idea of an institution. This requires as many people as possible. " The curator and commissioner have repeatedly stressed that the reward will not be money - but a trip to Venice, work experience and knowledge. And - "it's cool to be involved in this story."However, one way or another, and the winner will be - in any case, Ipollito Laparelli said that he would like to work with one team, well … maybe with several, if their views coincide.
The composition of the jury is not known or announced. According to Teresa Mavica, in addition to the artistic council, a working group is now being created, “which includes young people, guys like you, who have something to say. The jury assumes that there is someone who knows how it should be. But we will not evaluate the reconstruction project, we will evaluate, as Ippolito says, attitude. And even - “you must forget about working on the result, you must work on the process” (Teresa Mavica).
Make way for the young
The age limit is declared in the competition - not older than 40 years. That somewhat upset Sergei Kuznetsov, who in a joking manner expressed a desire to participate in the competition, since he had ideas about the pavilion, but received a fairly firm answer: no, and - “we should introduce a rule for the Russian pavilion that no more than a curator can be two times in a row,”commented Teresa Mavica. At the very beginning of his speech, Laparelli expressed the hope that the generation of his peers, and the curator is 39 years old, and people younger, “probably has its own special vision of practice, international relations, exchange, and especially - its own view of the discipline of architecture. They can change the status quo."
Expanding horizons competition
Trying to summarize the rather long conversation of the curator, commissioner and audience about the tasks and boundaries of the competition, let's say that they are intentionally stated as broadly as possible, if not vague. What is needed: transcending, performative, cross-disciplinary, mobile, focused not on the object, but on action and interaction, with each other and with the audience - something like this. Architecture is just a shell. It is necessary to think about content, perhaps about temporary installations, but it is better to think in a long temporality, that is, count on a long term, because, as the example of the exhibition of Documenta's visual arts shows, a long time allows you to achieve the best.
In no case, according to Ippolito Laparelli, should we limit ourselves to architecture, we need collaboration with many disciplines: “architecture is never enough, neither to find answers, nor to tell the whole story”. The broader the view, the more inputs and outputs, the connectivity of the external and internal, currents, flows, the better. It is necessary to pay attention to the interaction with the audience and even "interference" with it - while on the slides amphitheater slides. The pavilion is not a frozen object, and architecture should be thought not as a project, but as a performance.
According to Teresa Mavica, now we also need to think about the very essence of the exhibition: do we need to do exhibitions now, to bring exhibits somewhere far and expensive. "Maybe it is worth developing a more conscious attitude towards all this?"
One could recall here “go there, I don’t know where” of Russian fairy tales - if this focus on going beyond the framework in all directions would not have been a generally characteristic feature of the progressive rhetoric of our time. To some extent, this pursuit of a glimpse of the future, the freshest, the newest, resembles the play by Mikhail Shatrov, popular in the 1980s, where Ilyich [Vladimir Ilyich, explain for young participants, approx. auth.] at the very end says: "We must go further … further … further!". In fact, those who are ready to go further and further are called to the competition.
On the other hand, the uncertainty may also stem from the fact that the current competition is a preliminary plot, it should select those who will then be in Venice, in real time come up with a new future for 10 years for the Russian pavilion, starting from the reconstruction of the current roof and ending with a new approach to exhibiting in general. And they will come up with it only by the end of autumn. We are now seeing a very preliminary reasoning and a search for those who are ready to reason at this level and in such a degree of uncertainty. Should I show something, or should I show the pavilion itself? Or dance ballet there throughout the entire Biennale, as Evgeny Ass said?
Evgeny Ass
Eugene Ass, “as a patriarch,” remembered how he worked in the pavilion as an artist in 1995 - it was he who then replaced the letters USSR with Russia. At the same time, "a hole in the floor was repaired from the first to the second floor, which Sergei Kuznetsov then re-punched 20 years later." In 2004, Evgeny Ass held the same workshop for a hundred students in the pavilion, which echoes the current idea of architects working in the pavilion: “It was a rather fascinating sight that did not receive any awards, but it turned out several successful marriages, several successful careers.
So the rector of MARSH began by saying that he was embarrassed to speak, because he is in a “competitive attitude” to the current project. And he came to the discussion to “clarify the situation,” which, according to him, has not yet been very successful: “The task of the competition is not very clear, the very existence of the pavilion during the Biennale is not very clear. The very problem of rethinking an institution does not lie in the field of architecture. Architects who are accustomed to solving problems directly related to reconstruction and renovation can hardly offer serious solutions for the whole future, for 10 years of the existence of the pavilion. I feel in the mood of the hall and in the questions of students - they do not understand what to do? What do they want from us? I would like to know exactly and without any metaphors what you want to get from this competition. I do not see now an architectural problematics, dramatic, such that would be excitingly attractive. It seems to me that it is not too late to clarify this issue."
Ippolito Laparelli replied in the sense that he does not strive for dramatic architecture: "Do you want every project to be dramatic?" - and remembered my favorite, according to the architect, curated project in Palermo, where 90 participants worked together “on very small changes: the architecture was not dramatic at all, it was sustainable, it was minimal, friendly, healing device. Competition requires something else, it requires solving problems at a different level. For the older generation it is difficult, they have a certain mindset and it is difficult for them to understand what is the value here. But the value is that we are healing a wonderful space that we cannot use now as an office or whatever, but we can bring it back. From an architectural point of view, in a narrow sense, this sounds vague. But it seems to me that it is time to re-create the model of architecture as a discipline. And maybe architects will not be great authors signing a big sketch, and I hope there are no such architects here, because we are looking for partners."
Immediately after the meeting, Evgeny Ass and Teresa Mavica embraced, thus proclaiming the absence of disagreement.
***
The results of the competition are promised to be announced on February 14.
