Byera Hadley Travelling Scholarship

BYERA HADLEY TRAVELLING SCHOLARSHIP

Student Category 2012

New (Media) Biennale

Tracey Hau

University of Technology, Sydney

Architectural demonstration, execution, education, conversation and degradation; Venice Architecture Biennale is presented as so many things, but why should you or I believe any of those? The content and image of the Biennale is so heavily processed by the media and inherent in the structure of the Biennale itself that it becomes more and more difficult to discern the complex nature of the event itself. The real question is why is the Venice Biennale significant and how can the media shape that image?

PROFESSIONALISM

Architecture gives us licence to do so much. It gives us the potential to work at city-wide scales and a level of respect to comment on public issues, but not the confidence to portray the passion with which we engage with our field. The media coverage of the Venice Biennale is an affirmation of the sobriety of professionalism and the disconnectedness of our field from current ways of communication and outreach. Some may say that the Venice Biennale does not need to advocate for Architecture on a wider setting, but the Biennale does exist for three months. The effort in the Venice Biennale is front heavy and is used to convince the already elite group of Vernissage pass-holding patrons that Architecture is important and integral to the world. Self-preservation. The truth is, the pavilions and exhibitors are completely vindicated for pandering to the media and Vernissage patrons in order to continue the survival of exhibitions and their own personal research and work. Anthony Burke has revealed that the financing of the Australian Pavilion is based on foot traffic through the door. 2500 people passed through the doors of the Australian pavilion on the first preview day this year while one month later the numbers were more around 100 each day. There needs to be an overhaul of the structure of the biennale that better utilises the longevity, media coverage and money behind the event and reassesses the intended audience.

LONGEVITY, TRADITION, EVOLUTION

The Venice Architecture Biennale has been long acknowledged as the single most important architectural event in the calendar. Involving people from all over the world, there is a wide distribution of its participants and hence the media that surrounds it. The media and image perpetuation, starts before the public opening with press wielding all access passes and press kits. A lot of the media isn’t necessarily a critique of the exhibition content, but rather architecture/design blogs such as Dezeen and ArchDaily actually just replicate what has been given to them on press releases and add photos. All that is, is propagation into an already saturated field. Where interest really lies is the critique of the event and content where the passion for Architecture comes through. Controversy is something that the Biennale could potentially use to not only widen its audience, but also reinvigorate its antiquated media structure. This year, the most controversial critique came through in Wolf D. Prix’s (Coop Himmelb(l)au) The Banal:

“It is no longer about lively discussion and criticism of topics in contemporary architecture, but rather about empty, conservative and perhaps populist shells that are charged with feigned meaning.” (Prix, 2012)

In addition, it was found out that Prix was not even in attendance at the Biennale so commentators and architects were asking how could he know! But that is the scenario for most of the architectural profession and for nearly all the wider public. There is a serious issue about the ways that the media and architects themselves showcase their work at Biennale. There were fantastic conversations, arguments and discussions during the Vernissage that are invisible online. The Danish Pavilion opened with a large topical panel about Greenland and the Hong Kong pavilion hosted an incredibly intriguing discussion about the future of Hong Kong involving Peter Cook but both those events are seriously under covered. Prix called for Venice Architecture Biennale to be organised and I agree. It needs to thwart the strength of new media and the strength and strong tradition it holds.

NEW MEDIA

TED talks are a simple demonstration of the opening up of professional environments through media and the abandonment of sombre professionalism. The most successful talks are those that intrigue, are easily comprehendible but still leave you wanting to know more. Their passion is contagious and their topics unique. Architects and the Architecture Biennale need to harness the power of events and media formats such as this to expand and reshape the event to tap in more heavily into the strength of media avenues. The events during the Vernissage could quite easily be series of streamed talks, relaxed conversations over drinks and impassioned fights over content and the Biennale could be shortened to a month long intensive physical and online event. Sure opening it for three months means that people can travel there, visit the exhibitions and experience it for themselves but today if it could be incorporated into a media, online event we could all be there.

Bibliography

Dezeen & Prix, W.D., 2012, Venice Architecture Biennale “cannot get any worse” – Wolf D. Prix, Dezeen, <http://www.dezeen.com/2012/08/30/venice-architecture-biennale-is-exhausting-bleak-and-boring-says-wolf-d-prix/>, viewed on 6th November 2012