MONTEVIDEO SEMINARS: SPACES FOR COLLECTIVE REFLECTION AND

13- See “The loom of Venice”, on the previous page.

14- “The exhibition analyzes crucial issues of contemporary society, deepening the interaction between cities, architecture, and inhabitants. In particular, it examines the role of architects and architecture in creating sustainable and democratic urban contexts and their links to policy interventions, government actions, and social cohesion. See more: Venice Biennale official page, History: https://www.labiennale. org/en/history

15- Refers to a workshop that was held once a year with an international guest. Where different urban and territorial problematics were rehearsed.

16- “…Uruguay presented itself with the Montevideo seminars that were products made by foreigners in Uruguay, it is kind of schizophrenic …” Pedro Livni, in notes from the discussion table on “The Venice Pavilion” moderated by Magalí Pastorino Rodriguez within the framework of the R15 in 2017. SMA Archive.

For the eleventh edition, a closed call for university professors (grades 3 and 4) was made —in a short period— to present proposals for Curatorship at the Biennial in 2008. The contest terms expressed the need to “draw state of the art” in local architectural theory and production to show it abroad, which is rarely shown abroad.17 Also, responding to the topic raised by Aaron Betsky, “Out there: Architecture beyond the building,” in Betsky’s words, the proposal seeks to “advance towards an architecture without buildings, to face crucial issues of society” and to collect and encourage experimentation, not through built work but through seductive images.18

The Dean in charge selected the proposal LUP + TANGO by Marcelo Danza and Miguel Fascioli as curators and Felipe Ridao and Federico Parra as collaborators. The proposal was declared — under a broad spectrum of possibilities— as: “an invitation to think about architecture from Uruguay, beyond buildings and discipline, and offer a unique opportunity to learn about our current architectural and urban culture, its ideas and proposals, their achievements, their illusions, their debates, their achievements and frustrations, their rebellion.”19

LUP approached the general curator’s proposal in two ways, the first by rethinking and reviewing local production in terms of architectural culture, and the second by addressing the problem from a local perspective, where “Out There: Architecture Beyond Buildings” in the key of —how the curators define— a “political south” can be reinterpreted as: “Right here: life beyond the building.”

Although the proposal is close to the general theme, in exhibition terms, it is defined exclusively by the placement of a catalog. Unfortunately, the “political south” curators talk about was not being materialized. The catalog as a device in the exhibition is an evident effect of the possible scope of the material according to the monetary funds available. However, on the other hand, it is worth noting the content of the catalog.

The first episode presents key photographs of Uruguayan events, interventions, and iconic works in the first half of the 20th century (The Centenario stadium and the construction of Clinicas hospital, among others). It culminates with two statements —which constantly compare the north and the south— one called “Gravity 0,” which refers to a field without cultural friction, and a second called “malleable bodies,” which refers to the bodies in that field of gravity and friction 0. The authors argue that “the malleable body and its “creative spirit” seem to have weakened, and therefore the cultural

Curators: Marcelo Danza & Miguel Fascioli

LUP:

Urban Political Laboratory

virulence of previous years has extinguished. The episode ended with a series of neologisms, and popular or political expressions, which are supposed to reflect a national cultural identity, such as: “We are fantastic.” Although the strategy is attractive because it makes different aspects of popular culture visible, it does not link them with the concerns of the architectural discipline.

A second episode, called Normal Pressure and Temperature Condition (CPTN), features a series of passages. The first passage defines LUP as: “a Laboratory of Political Urbanism”20. The following passage, called “Visibility,” refers to the practical aspect of this exhibition. LUP carried a meeting at the National Museum of Visual Arts (MNAV) between July 14 and 19, 2008, for which a call was made open to individuals and groups to submit proposals according to the theme. The last passage, “Exploration,” expresses the workshop’s findings as a menu of multiple ideas without a synchronic or diachronic order allowing them to interconnect.

“Weakness: architecture as displacement of energies”; “Vulnerabilities, as resistance”; “Globality, as a connection”; “inefficiency, as a limit”; “excitement, as a life drive,”; among others, are the categories used to group this information. Although being seductive and participating in topics of global discussion are not deepened from the local condition. This general position integrates many participants with various ideas and has the doubtful aspect of looking at everything without saying anything in particular. However, the construction of this thematic repertoire was significant precedent for future proposals. For example: Reviewing local production at the beginning of the catalog serves as an antecedent to the “5 narratives, 5 buildings” proposal in 2010; and the “La Aldea Feliz” proposal in 2014. In addition to the concerns described in the CPTN chapter on the need to review the architecture of the pavilion, which serves as a background to the discussions on the subject and the 2012 “Panavisión” proposal; or, finally, the reflections on “life behind the buildings” which is undoubtedly a precedent of the “Prison to Prison” proposal in 2018.

17- In Miguel Fascioli, 2012, Research initiation project: The national pavilion at the Venice Biennale, p. 22.

18- See more: Out There: Architecture Beyond Building, Aaron Betsky, 2008 https:// biennalewiki. Org/?encyclopedia=out-there-architecture-beyond-building

19- Introduction to the LUP exhibition catalog for the XI International Architecture Exhibition of the Venice Biennale, 2008, page 8. https://issuu.com/miguelfascioli / docs/celestial_body/172.

20- Catalog of the exhibition, CPTN, LUP for the XI International Architecture Exhibition of the Venice Biennale, 2008, page 153. https://issuu.com/miguelfascioli/ docs/cuerpo_celeste/172

In 2009, was created the commission in charge of designing the School’s strategy for the realization of the Uruguayan submission to the Biennial, as mentioned earlier. The School deanery of Gustavo Scheps selected the Academic Assistant, Luis Oreggioni, and the teachers, Cristina Bausero and Miguel Fascioli, as commission members.

In 2010, the commission raised a report that set the standard Terms of the following contests21 The School council establishes the architect

Salvador Schelotto, Dean Gustavo Scheps, the director of the National Museum of Visual Arts

Mario Sagradini, and the Director of Exhibitions and New Media of the Cultural Center of Spain

Patricia Bentacur as jurors. Bentancur was the first member of the jury to date with curatorial experience. Also, the titular professor Angela Perdomo participated, although she does not appear in the council statement.

The twelfth international architecture exhibition of the Venice Biennale was curated by the architect Kazuyo Sejima who proposed that “people meet in architecture,” The purpose of the proposal was to generate spaces for the exchange of information between architecture and subjects based on physical and conceptual experiences. In the words of Sejima, “a series of spaces instead of a series of objects.” This edition had a greater participation of the universities and the implementation of new schedules of activities such as talks, performances, open debate spaces, and exchange spaces between all the directors of the previous editions.22

The jury selects the proposal “5 narratives, 5 buildings” by Emilio Nisivoccia, Lucio de Souza, Martin Craciun, and Sebastian Alonso. The proposal addressed global themes and problems from the narrative about five buildings in Uruguay. 23 These five buildings were the Palacio Salvo, the Rincón del Bonete, the Pan-American building, the Centenario Stadium, and the Anglo Frigorífico, all of them respond to completely different logic in terms of scale, context, program, language, and technology but with one constant: modern challenges and the relationship with discussions of international relevance.

Through written and graphic pieces, the narratives use diverse resources, such as press releases, literary passages, interviews, different written productions, oral accounts, photographic archives, and graphic collections. The exhibition consisted of an audiovisual montage on five monitors, one for each building, articulated

Curators: Emilio Nisivoccia, Lucio de Souza, Martin Craciun & Sebastian Alonso on a large black and white cowhide rug in the center of the space. In addition, some texts that complemented the narrative were placed on the perimeter walls. The curators had the brightness to work in two dimensions, the first an attractive object such as the carpet with the monitors, and the second the opportunity to go deeper into reading with the narratives on the wall and the catalog. Although the proposal does not directly mention the general theme of the Biennial, “people meet in architecture,” it does so intrinsically. It achieves the exchange of information between the visitor and the architecture, in both ways opening the door to multiple dialogues within each of the narratives to capture the attention of those who want to investigate more works of these characteristics. Moreover, it builds an experience, addressing the double approach proposed by Sejima.

5 BUILDINGS, 5 NARRATIVES.

The catalog introduces the exhibition with a quote from Manfredo Tafuri on Modern Architecture,24 which offers the reader the complexity of the guiding thread that sews the exhibition together. Then, for each of the works, a brief description is presented, allowing the reader to understand it in its context. It also introduces each work with a battery of black and white images previous to initiating the fragments of narratives corresponding to the work. A notable aspect of this proposal was the subsequent repercussion. The exhibition toured various cultural institutions such as the MNAV, the Atchugarry Foundation, the Museum of Industrial Renovation in the Anglo industry in Fray Bentos, and the Uruguayan Architecture exhibition at the MARQ in Buenos Aires in Argentina.

21- In November 2009, facing the proximity of the twelfth edition of the Venice Architecture Biennale, the Academic Assistant of the culture and extension area, Prof. Arq. Luis Oreggioni, raised a report in which he proposed to the council the creation of a commission that work on the sending of architecture to the National pavilion See files: - Exp 031130006645-09 (Dist 1481/09) Report by Luis Oreggioni; and Exp 031130-006629-10 (Dist 11/10) Second Report by Luis Oreggioni and (Dist 74/10) Approve the Terms for the call for curatorship 2010

22- See more at: https://www.designboom.com /architecture/kazuyo-sejima-people-meetin-architecture/

23- “Exploring and learning from built architecture in the light of a multiplicity of interpretations is the central objective of the exhibition, and for this reason, five narratives are presented out of five pieces of architecture located in Uruguay.” Emilio Nisivoccia, Lucio de Souza, Martin Craciun, and Sebastian Alonso, Introduction of the catalog of “5 narratives, 5 buildings”, page 9, (Uruguay, 2010).

After this edition, the authorities of l ́Giardini called attention to the Uruguayan pavilion for the non-universal accessibility conditions presented. The ramp construction costs 100,000 US dollars, five times the economic value destined for each edition. The high cost is due to three aspects to built in Venice. First, mobility is by water, so moving and bringing the material to Venice Gardens is expensive. Second, because the materials are close to the seawater, the materials are conditioned to be highly resistant to oxidation, and finally, Venice’s construction taxes are incredibly high. This event led to doubt about constructing a new pavilion, which was under discussion due to the need for a significant investment to carry it out; this allows us to ask if the 2012 proposal was based more on fiction or reality.

24- “modern architecture has meant, firstly, an anticipation ideological or a pure request for principles, and then a technical procedure, inserted directly into the modern processes of production and development of the capitalist world”” Emilio Nisivoccia, Lucio de Souza, Martin Craciun and Sebastian Alonso, Introduction to the catalog of “5 narratives, 5 buildings”, page 9, (Uruguay, 2010).

The proposal by Pedro Livni and Gonzalo Carrasco, Panavisión,25 intends to re-position a type of national architecture, meet the need for a pavilion project, transcend the light exhibition box that Uruguay has and cover national commissions with a “quality” architectural space.26 This exhibition fits in precisely with the general theme “Common Ground” raised by David Chipperfield, who sought to “stimulate colleagues to react to professional and cultural trends prevailing in our time” that sought to highlight the importance of influence and the continuity of the architectural and cultural commitment.27 The proposal could be seen as an architectural loop of possible future architecture scenarios within architecture.28

The curatorial team calls six national studios29 to develop a pavilion project for the Venice Biennale. The teams were: Marcelo and Martin Gualano from g+; Horacio Flora and Alejandro Baptista from 11:54 pm; Mario Baez and Adrian Duran from MBAD; Marcelo Bednarik and Federico Mirabal from BM, Diego Perez, Fabio Ayerra, Marcos Castaings, Martin Cobas and Javier Lanza from Fábrica de paisaje; and Matias Carballal, Andres Goba and Mauricio Lopez from MAAM.

These architectural offices, or this “expanded youth” as Diego Capandeguy defined in the preface of the catalog, maintain certain constants such as age, academic activity, commitment to multi-employment (teaching or jobs in the state), the studies (from vertical workshops, of beaux arts origin and the need to “take party”), and the participation in the Montevideo seminar (which promotes collective and linked works at the regional level). However, the primary resource used is the project, and the sample showed the six possible projects with their corresponding strategies and discussions about the project process. The curators say, “Panavisión must be understood as a place where diverse approaches, tools, concerns, and strategies are currently building the architectural agenda of contemporary production in Uruguay.”

The teams had one month and ten days to complete the project and models. The development of the projects had to yield the spatial condition of working within a volume equivalent to a cube with a 15 m edge, with universal accessibility and respecting a 2-degree slope of the land. Regarding the program, it had to have at least one exhibition room that could be darkened and a storage area equivalent to 4 m2. Also, the model had to respect the scale of 1:25 and a weight of 30 kg, and the expression could be free.

Curators: Pedro Livni & Gonzalo Carrasco