There is a central question on the issue of organizing a biennale for architecture. If a stream of, let’s say, Egyptian architects, require a venue, let’s say, in the Venice Biennale -- what does it do? At first thought, the answer is obvious. The national pavilion. Let us give the proposed question more figure. This stream is composed of a rather large young constituency that finds itself shadowed and made parallel to an established body that renders itself official, lacks validity and claims domain and authority. Classic. Still, the national pavilion. A brief look at recent past editions of the Egyptian pavilion’s contribution in the biennale would better illuminate our figure.
The Egyptian pavilion in the Venice Biennale has long been subject to a tradition of direct commisioning, as is most urban and architectural projects in the country, that involves policies of favoritism, inadequacy and/or corruption. It has in recent years been dealt heavy blows resulting from the disastrous entries of those that it appointed to represent it.
From sad to worse The organizing committee of the Egyptian pavilion is made up of various departments from the ministry of culture. As is the long tradition of the committee, the pavilion is directly commissioned to an architect to act as commissure. As is every commission in the grasp of a governmental arm, it is unknown how they are handed out. Not unlike political decision-making, nepotism usu-
In 2010, whilst the country was below boiling point due to crony neoliberal capitalism, the commission was handed to an infamous architect to reproduce himself through. The result was a sloppy version of the typical work that he does compared to which nothing can be more suitably labeled as kitsch. Alas, kitsch that is widespread in Egypt posing itself as a ‘popular alternative discourse’ of architecture. We stand confounded. It is neither alternative nor founded upon any discernible discourse. In fact, our main problem with it is the fact that it is indeed popular.
A recent study in Harvard regarded Gamal Mubarak’s economic policies as best course material for Nepotic Capitalism
Entrance of the Egyptian Pavilion, 2010
A work sample of the infamous state-comissioned architect
In 2012, whilst the majority of us were struggling either to make the revolution work or find their position in the midst of its newly born reality, the commission was slipped to another architect. We still don’t know who he is. His name is published, but we really don’t know him. The reason behind the fact that we are not interested in knowing him is that we met his work. It showed us that a worse outcome does exist in the possibility that an architect builds a few arches out of mud brick accompanied by orientalist music set on repeat from a stereo on a table at the forefront of the pavilion. In short, an orientalist disgrace.
For decades, the organizing committee has appointed itself “monarch, sole inhabitant and universe in one.” Recently, not detached in significance from the uprising, the organizing committee has announced the Egyptian pavilion to be subject of an open competition. The wall has fallen. We are divided within ourselves if it was a stepping down or bankruptcy. All the same.
Mirror, sound system and fire distinguisher. The Egyptian Pavilon, 2012
People taking to the streets in what came to be known as the Arab Spring
The stepping down speech, vice president Omar Suleiman announcing the end of tenure of 30-year dictator Hosni Mubarak
Analogy Tahrir square has always succeeded to play this role. Back and forth, the square was board for a power game: who controls public space? Past-2011: Security Apparatus 1-3/2011: Residents of the Tahrir Commune 2011-Present: Security Apparatus
Adi sj oi nt edor ganofanobsol et ebody Backt oourcent r alquest i on/ f i gur e. I fapar al l elst r eam ofEgypt i anar chi t ect s[ seei ngi t sel f asr epr esent i ngagener at i ont hati sal i enat ed,shadowedandf undament al l ydi sj oi nt edf r om i t sor i gi ns]r equi r esavenue[ wher ei n,st ar t i ngf r om l ooki ngatpast edi t i onsoft heVeni ceBi ennal e,i tcoul dt ur nar oundand r ef l ectonr ecentdecadest hatf or mt hef oundat i onofi t s comi ngt obe]ser vi ngasapl at f or mf orshapi ngacon t empor ar ydi scour seonar chi t ect ur ei nEgypt–what doesi tdo?
Thedet onat or ,as t r eeti ns t al l at i onmadeofbox esofpot at o c hi ps ,par toft hei ndependentex hi bi t i onSt r eet l es sSt r eet nes s
Ther ei snoi nt er estt obej udged,nordoest hej ur yhave t her el evance,adequacyorcapaci t yt oj udge.Ther ei s nopoi ntal soi ncompet i ngwi t honeanot hersi ncewe’ r e al lexcl udedj ustt hesame. New quest i on:whatdowepr oposet odowi t hour venue?
Res el i enc e,as t r eeti ns t al l at i onmadeofc ol or edc ar dboar dal l ur i ngt oi nf or mal modesofs pac eac qui s i t i on,par toft hei ndependentex hi bi t i onSt r eet l es sSt r eet nes s
What do we propose? A collaborative entry, incorporating other teams within ours, that pertains to a critical discourse on architecture in Egypt by a disjointed generation. How? An invitation for collaboration, rather than the traditional call. What is the result? We offer ourselves as collective curators, setting a tone and merging within it all that resonates with it. Outcome? A scenographic incident that we like to call Publication. It is a publication in as much as it documents and publicizes various scenes converging in a singular moment. Starting from looking at past editions of the Venice Biennale, we turn around and reect on our position within the contemporary discourse (or lack of one, to be more accurate) of architecture in Egypt. Why now? We’re in a situation where we all have time, and this is a way in which we can use it.