In recent years cultural institutions across the world have seen a renaissance in architecture and architectural presentation. The vigour and enthusiasm with which the development of London and Bejing鈥檚 respective Olympic parks were reported in the mainstream press reached a fever pitch unfathomable 15 years ago. The constant development and new witty monikers of the latest high-rises to crop up on London鈥檚 skyline has become common parlance while the phenomenal growth in Dubai is a source of fascination with the ability of architects and engineers to achieve ever-higher feats.
Add to this, recent big-ticket shows on Richard Rogers and Sensing Spaces at the , and Thomas Heatherwick at the , in addition to television鈥檚 roster of restoration programmes and Jonathan Meade鈥檚 recent esoteric defence of Brutalism, and it becomes clear that architecture is having its moment. Cultural consumers are establishing a re-appreciation of recent mid-20th century architecture previously derided, the so-called 鈥渟tarchitects鈥 have become celebrities and there鈥檚 a clear indication that we are increasingly aware of the spaces in which we live, work and play.
The in Paris has been at the heart of this discourse with exhibitions dedicated to Jean Nouvel, Thom Mayne and Dominique Perrault. Indeed its very design is symptomatic of the revitalisation of public space that we鈥檝e been experiencing since the 1980s with museums assuming exciting new forms either from headline-grabbing architects such as Renzo Piano/Richard Rogers鈥 Pompidou and Sejima + Nishizawa/SANAA-designed in New York, or innovative renovations to recapture the unique qualities of an existing overlooked space such as 鈥檚 The Tanks and John Pawson鈥檚 careful remodelling of the former Commonwealth Institute for the Design Museum both in London.
However, amongst this anticipation and excitement over new projects and interrogation of architects鈥 working practices, there is an abstract, intellectualised element that is more elusive and difficult to explore. The Pompidou鈥檚 latest exhibition is dedicated to the work and theory of Bernard Tschumi and unusually, perhaps because Tschumi espouses more theory than most, equal weight is given to both his finalised projects, with the working processes behind them, and to his intellectualisation of the field and interdisciplinary studies into architecture not only as a space in which to live, but also as a proactive way to challenge the institutions of power and our commonplace acceptance of how buildings should be.
The exhibition is the first major European show of Tschumi鈥檚 works (the Museum of Modern Art in New York presented a monographic exhibition in 1994 but any assessment of Tschumi鈥檚 career has been surprisingly absent on his home soil). Having worked at Columbia University, New York from 1988 to 2003, Tschumi is well-established in intellectual circles in the USA as well as in the UK (where he taught at the Architectural Association in the 1970s). The exhibition鈥檚 co-curator, Aur茅lien Lemonier (Curator of Architecture, Mus茅e National d鈥橝rt Moderne), attests that Tschumi is perhaps more at home in the Anglo nations but his influences (Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes among them) are of a decidedly Gallic disposition: 鈥淗e brought Jack Derrida鈥檚 theories to the question of architecture, to the issues of space and to the system of creating a new one.鈥
Furthermore, in acknowledging Tschumi鈥檚 hiatus from France鈥檚 museums Lemonier argues: 鈥淗is contribution acknowledges the figure of the architect as an intellectual, and that may be why he went to London and then to New York because he didn鈥檛 feel very comfortable in France thinking in that way.鈥 It was in London that his work established a direct influence from the British architect Cedric Price who 鈥渃omposed the idea of architecture as a structure for a social event,鈥 and at Columbia Tschumi innovated the 鈥減aperless studio,鈥 bringing computers into the concept and planning stages.
Tschumi鈥檚 unique contribution to his field lies in 鈥渢his question of architecture as a language and as conceptual art not just as a formal academic form. However, he did not approach it in a post-modernism manner, much more in an abstract way.鈥 Lemonier believes that for Tschumi, architecture is: 鈥淣ot about form but about the deconstruction of it and not about drawing but about how to write architecture. This point is at the core of his position and it was very important for a cultural debate in the USA, more than in France.鈥 For Lemonier, in spite of Tschumi鈥檚 protest that 鈥渉e is not a landscape designer there is no question of that,鈥 the soon-to-be-reopened and Tschumi鈥檚 original are the stand-out works (and conveniently, both situated in Paris, those best-placed for visitors to enjoy in actuality after attending the exhibition). Lemonier explains: 鈥淚n his work he always thinks about the question of the garden, as a social event, as a space for architecture and as a counter-point to the city. I think the garden may be the key to understanding his practice.鈥
With Tschumi鈥檚 large body of work and his current high profile, 鈥渉e is doing many things now in France [so] we have a large overview of his work,鈥 the exhibition is broken down thematically (and simultaneously chronologically) into sections focusing on Space and Event, Program and Superimposition, Vectors and Envelopes, Context and Content, and the Concept-Form. 鈥淭hose five chapters to me explain his work 鈥 They are allegorical, chronological and also thematic.鈥 The serendipity of the exhibition following both chronological and thematical lines highlights the progression that Tschumi has made throughout his career and Space and Event has Tschumi鈥檚 first major project in Paris, Parc de la Villette, at its core, its presentation under Event highlighting the extra contribution that witnessing the projects in real life can bring to an exhibition: 鈥淢any people in Paris know it, so it is quite obvious to understand what happens in the garden is an event.鈥 Program and Superimposition interrogates Le Fresnoy Art Center, as well as Tschumi鈥檚 competition entries from the 1980s. The chapter highlights Tschumi鈥檚 core ethos that space is implicit in creating the social structures of the people within it, and his argument against the use of architecture to impose the status quo.
Vector and Envelope takes the most traditional approach of an architecture exhibition in providing an opportunity for Tschumi 鈥渢o explain how he critiques architecture 鈥 it鈥檚 a chapter more about architectural form and the context and content [of Tschumi鈥檚 work].鈥 In conclusion Concept-Form highlights why Tschumi鈥檚 way of thinking is so influential in today鈥檚 highly competitive architectural industry of pitches and competitions: 鈥渨hen you do a competition you just have two weeks to design the building so you have to construct the form hypothetically. If you win, you reflect in the structure and the complexity of the architecture the use of the space.鈥 It illustrates the role of concept-led architecture in today鈥檚 landscape. Moreover, Tschumi espouses the cross-cultural currents between architecture and other art forms, and his openness to the theories and works of artists, writers and filmmakers leads Lemonier to describe his role as 鈥渘ot at the centre of the architecture but on the margin 鈥he main idea of Tschumi is a question of import and export 鈥 he wants to overlap film and art with the construction of a building in order to make an interaction. [He] interacts and uses a critical reading of Roland Barthes or James Joyce to challenge his reading of architecture.鈥
Lemonier co-curated the exhibition with Fr茅d茅ric Migayrou, (Deputy Director, Collections of Architecture and Design, Mus茅e National d鈥橝rt Moderne) and he states the importance of Tschumi in the architectural landscape: 鈥淗e is one of the only practitioners who thinks of architecture in conceptual terms. He put forward a post structural debate that offered a new way of thinking about the form for a new generation of architects. He was on the same page as Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid.鈥
Still practising, theorising and building, Tschumi himself was very involved in the process of planning the exhibition and even designed an installation featuring archival plans and films. 鈥淲e worked very closely together. For the first time Tschumi literally opened his archive, so [we saw] all his first drawings and it鈥檚 very unique because they have never been exhibited before.鈥 The curators and the architect met regularly in France and so, for Tschumi as well as Lemonier and Migayrou, it was a process of discovery and re-discovery, and a very interior process because now had come the time to reflect on his work. In addition, Tschumi designed the exhibition鈥檚 sceneography as 鈥減art of this process of looking at himself, he designed the scenography in the exhibition itself,鈥 which in a manner moved the architect to the position of visitor, whereby he must imagine how people would proceed through the exhibition.
Herein lies one of the difficulties of presenting architecture and Tschumi鈥檚 architecture and theory are particularly vulnerable. In spite of our new appetite for the medium, architectural exhibitions are notoriously difficult to mount, as Lemonier explains: 鈥淲hat do you show about architecture? Not the architecture itself but you show that it is a process of design.鈥 Whereas authenticity is paramount in most museum shows, the authenticity of the work is essentially impossible for an architectural exhibition. Despite the curators鈥 best efforts, the majority of visitors will not have seen many (or any) of Tschumi鈥檚 works in real life. And while the Royal Academy鈥檚 recent Sensing Spaces exhibition took an innovative approach to commissioning architectural practices to create actual spaces, in many ways that approach has its quandaries because it doesn鈥檛 ensure that audiences see the architect鈥檚 best works; there is a possibility that the architects and curators are hampered by constraints in space and expense. Yet, it is often in these moments that true innovation can occur and an exhibition created that breaks new ground. This presentation takes a traditional exhibition and fully exploits the archives with an extensive exploration of his drawings and scale models. In showing the working process Lemonier believes: 鈥淔or Tschumi it fits very well because he considers the architect as an intellectual and the question around the process of design is at the core of his own position. All of his sketches have autonomy; they can be understood individually.鈥
With his emphasis on theory over form, and language over drawing, it鈥檚 inevitable that Tschumi鈥檚 exhibition will be a hard sell for visual audiences. While the theory draws you in, without experiencing the buildings themselves it can be difficult to contextualise, and Lemonier acknowledges: 鈥淭he theoretical position of Tschumi is quite complicated [but] that鈥檚 why the drawings are important.鈥 In essence Lemonier hopes that the beauty of Tschumi鈥檚 drawings will speak for themselves: 鈥淭he drawings are fascinating鈥 and they add 鈥渁n emotional aspect to the visit 鈥 There is also a second line of exploration for the exhibition: of asking what the pieces mean. If visitors would like to delve deeper into understanding their cultural relationship with other theorists like Jack Derrida then there is the catalogue available for further reading.鈥 Lemonier, however, does not shy away from leading the show with concepts, and this marks Bernard Tschumi as radically different from popular architectural presentations: 鈥淲e are looking at architecture as a cultural event, not just as a guide of how to construct a building. In addition to the images of his works we also show what Tschumi thought the cultural position of a building should be, what it should be used for and the social, economic, intellectual position of architecture. People are not coming to the exhibition to look at a documentary of the practice, they are visiting to understand the cultural impact and importance of architecture.鈥
Realigning Architecture appeared in Issue 58 of Aesthetica. More details can be found at .
Bernard Tschumi ran at the Pompidou Centre 30 April 鈥 28 July 2014. For further information, visit .
Ruby Beesley
Follow us on Twitter for the latest news in contemporary art and culture.
Credits
1. Bernard Tschumi, School of Architecture, Miami, Florida. Courtesy of Peter Mauss Esto (2003).
