ALEJANDRO VARELA WRITING SAMPLE

This document discusses the Uruguayan curatorial production through the architectural Venice Biennale. To do this, it approaches the historical dimension of the Uruguayan pavilion, describes the curatorial projects between 2000 and 2016, and critically analyzes the discussion held in 2017. This essay is part of the course Themes and Problems of Architecture and the City of the Master’s Degree in Architecture with a Historical, Theoretical and Critical Approach of the School of Architecture, Design, and Urbanism of UdelaR.

Summary

Student:

Alejandro Varela

Professors: Mary Mendez

Santiago medero

Lucio de Souza

Uruguay acquired the pavilion in 1960. However, different socio-political and economic situations led the country to pay attention to the architecture biennale just in the 2000s (see the chart below). During these last 20 years, different institutional entities and the academic community have tried different formats to define participation in the Architectural Biennale, such as direct commissions and, closed and open contests. At the same time, the competition terms have varied in aspects of evaluation and the selection of the juries. Often, juries range from those who have not been to Venice to those who have never had a curatorial practice but are “good architects.”

Over the years, the curatorial proposals have varied in type and shape, some approaching artistic issues, others more of a historical or archival nature, and the most recent have had the virtue of linking local production to problems of international relevance. However, in this genealogy of facts, it has yet to be possible to consolidate either continuity of the curatorial exercise or a strong curatorial production capable of having academic and social repercussions. Therefore, participation in the Venice Biennale happens as an isolated event, revisited every two years.

The analogy to Rudofsky in his 1964 MoMA exhibition allows us to associate the hegemonic disciplinary lack of the national curatorial practice. The essay seeks, without falling into a formal simplification, to investigate beyond photography through the study of exhibition catalogs and a series of interviews and analyze the panel discussion held in 2017 to bring to light the successes, failures, and continuities between the projects. Although, even with making visible the fact that our local curatorial production is based on the instinct about what curatorial architectural practice is, like Architecture made without architects.

Note: The first graph makes it possible to visualize the relationship between Uruguay and the Venice Biennale and to identify which historical events influence this relationship. The second graph allows an agile reading of the body of each edition, its form of designation, proposal, authors, juries, and authorities. Moreover, the different projects are presented in file format to be able to be worked on and disseminated individually.

First

Opportunity to Uruguay with Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Chile to have a shared place in the Gardens of Venice

1931

Uruguay acquires the pavilion, concession of the pavilion for 30 years. 1960

1940

1930 Music, Cinema and Theater began

The cultural institution1 that today encloses the Biennale di Venezia arose in 1895 from the first International Art Exhibition. It was in the 1930s that Music, Cinema, and Theater began to be celebrated.2 In 1931, Uruguay —with Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Chile— had the possibility of having a shared place in Los Jardines de Venecia, although this operation was unsuccessful.3 In 1948, the institution resumed its activity after the culmination of fascism, and it was not until 1960 that Uruguay acquired the concession of the pavilion for 30 years.4

The Uruguayan pavilion, a space built in 1958 for the service of the Biennale,5 was popularly associated with storage space for the Biennale, an aspect that appears in various descriptions