Operative Divertissement EXHIBITION / 12.03.20
MAXXI STUDIO. MANNING MCBRIDE.
The University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Design Masters of Architecture Design Studio D, Semester 2, 2020 Studio 08 MAXXI Studio: The Home, The Monument, The Museum Studio Leaders Scott Woods & Kim Vo Special Advisor Pippo Ciorra Student Manning McBride 986 442
2
Contents Directory 4 Prologue 8 Interview 10 Does it Matter How You Slice it?
17
Material 21 Works 35 Appendix I: Step 1 & 2
57
Appendix II: Notes
79
Appendix III: References
159
3
Directory GROUND
EXHIBITION SUITE 1
COFFEE-BAR
RECEPTION
AUDITORIUM 1
SHOP
GRAPHIC COLLECTION
4
ENTRANCE HALL
TEMPORARY EXHIBITION
FIRST
EXHIBITION SUITE 2
"EXHIBITION SUITE 1"
EXHIBITION SUITE 2
"RECEPTION"
"ENTRANCE HALL"
"SHOP"
EXHIBITION SUITE 4
AUDITORIUM 2
5
SECOND
"EXHIBITION SUITE 2"
"LANDSCAPE" "AUDITORIUM 2"
"AUDITORIUM 1"
EXHIBITION SUITE 5
"ENTRANCE HALL"
EXHIBITION SUITE 3
"GRAPHIC COLLECTION"
6
"TEMPORARY EXHIBITION"
THIRD
"EXHIBITION SUITE 1"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 3"
"LANDSCAPE"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 4"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 4"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 5"
"COFFEE-BAR"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 5"
"ENTRANCE HALL"
"LANDSCAPE"
Directory
7
Prologue A MESSAGE FROM THE ARCHITECT This exhibition is an exploration of a design process that is present in the architecture of Aldo Rossi. It is a work that is not entirely resolved. And it may raise more questions than it answers. This is reflective of the intricate and challenging brief that instigated this journey. A divertissement is a short dance in a performance, usually digressing, or, not relating to the overall narrative. In many ways, this is how I view the work, and process of Aldo Rossi. A serious treatment of the discipline of architecture with small injections of personality and meaning. This is also how I have approached this work. To follow a process but identify and capitalise on moments of digression in order to test its limitations. In this way, the work is clunky. Ebbing, flowing, skipping and jumping between the consequence of procedural design and personal decisions. It is an architecture born in and for the museum, in the pursuit of something novel. A special thank you must go to my Studio leaders Scott Woods & Kim Vo for their provocative brief and continual support. And of course, my peers. Many of whom I am yet to meet in the flesh but who have humoured and inspired me along the entire journey.
8
MANNING MCBRIDE
9
Interview INTERVIEWED BY JESSICA LIU On Rossi JL: Do you think that you have moved out of Rossi’s shadow? How have you embraced him but also managed to move away from him? MM: I think I have definitely have been able to move out of Rossi’s shadow, particularly because the approach I took was to reveal, what I could, of a procedure in the work of Rossi and apply it in my project – albeit in an abstracted way. I’ve used this ‘procedure’ to the context of the MAXXI Museum rather than the city. I think the dominating thing about Rossi is his identifiable forms and motifs. So following a process, or an approach to context, entirely different from the city, has allowed me to escape those tropes. Also, I’ve tried to discover some new things that can come out of that process. Some peculiarities or missing pieces, I’ve had to fill in the gaps with my own intuition and even take some of my own liberties within the process, abstracting it to see what comes of it. JL: Do you think Rossi is still relevant for contemporary discourse? If yes, why? If no, why? MM: I think that Rossi can be relevant to contemporary discourse, only for the fact that 10
he, or a lot of his ideas, have almost been missing for quite some time. A lot of what has obsessed contemporary discourse recently, particularly the ideas of program, iconicity, parametricism, diagram and those sorts of things, are absent in Rossi’s architecture. And some of the ideas that his discourse embraced such as the memory of the city, history, form and typology, those things have been missing for a number of years so it’s almost time to return, or at least see what significance the ideas have in a completely new context of the profession and society as a whole. On Exhibition JL: What is the challenge of exhibiting architecture? What is exhibited and what does the exhibiting in your project? Is it that simple? MM: I think the biggest…well…there’s a couple of challenges in exhibiting architecture. For one, there is the notion of architecture simply becoming an art object. So how does architecture exist in an exhibition setting without just becoming a piece of art? A lot of what that problem comes from, is because in an exhibition space you don’t have the 11
context of the architecture. Which is a challenge, but also an opportunity – it can be, and should be, liberating. And, well, it exists within a new context itself, which is that of the museum. So I think that is the biggest challenge, to partially bring in some of the contextual understandings of a project but also how to embrace the context of the museum itself and have some sort of interplay with the architectural project. And I think that the second part of the question is about that exchange and interplay between the architecture and this new context of the museum itself. And one might argue that the museum is exhibiting the architectural project. But as the question implies, it isn’t that simple. It can work both ways. Because the architectural project can raise questions of its new context. JL: How would you describe an architecture that exists solely inside the museum? How is that architecture different to architecture that exists outside the museum? MM: Well I’ve probably partially already answered this question by mentioning the idea of context. But what else can I suggest…I suppose the scale is also important to mention, an architecture that exists outside of the museum exists in totality. When the 12
architecture that exists within the museum, it is a of curation of ideas and concepts and they manifest in different scales. It might even imply some sort of fragmentation, or, distillation of the project – leaving the subject to develop an accretion of the totality of the work. One The Project of Architecture JL: Can you identify a moment of crisis in the development of your project or your thinking about you project – for example a particular problem that couldn’t be resolved, or the idea that took-over your project…? Is it an architectural problem that will continue to haunt your project even after its completion? MM: Haha, to be honest, yes and no. It’s hard to pin point a distinct moment of crisis in the development of the project because right now, I feel like every step has been a mini-moment of crisis. There are a number of things that I found very difficult. The first was making a mark on the MAXXI Museum. And then, it was how to escape the tropes of Rossi and use his ideas in a completely different and perhaps, unidentifiable way. And developing layers Interview
13
of complexity. I initially started with a very simple, procedural approach. And that can come across as quite under-developed, so it has been a process of continuing to interrogate, use and re-purpose Rossi’s ideas. And lastly, the interaction between the original MAXXI Museum and the new one. I initially created the second one that existed independently and integrating them was (and still is) one of the biggest challenges. How they interact, what the relationship between them is, what is exhibited and what does the exhibiting. Do they exhibit each other. It may or may not haunt the project, but it will certainly continue to haunt me. JL: Has your project for an architecture exhibition changed your position or attitude to architecture more generally? If yes, how? MM: Definitely. The theoretical emphasis on this project and the studio itself has highlighted the importance of theory and discourse to me. And the value in trying to develop an architectural ‘project’ as oppose to a ‘proposal’. I’m not sure if I got there but it has influenced my thinking and approach significantly. My attitude has particularly changed in relation to the notion of exhibiting architecture. It is not something I was drawn to prior to this 14
project, but upon completion I’ve been able to see how the exhibition of architecture frees it from certain restrictions, allowing it to develop some valuable discussions within the discipline.
Interview
15
“As if there was a slow motion of insertion, stopped when both museums interlocked with each other�
16
Does it Matter How You Slice it? REVIEW BY YI WANG What drew my attention immediately was the moment of mixture in Manning’s floor plan. Something strange, yet, familiar. What seemed to be a blend of plans and sections also looks like a cautious action of slicing and dividing. The result was weirdly satisfying. It wouldn’t be successful if the new museum was just a stack of boxes that align with the division lines. Manning’s project was interesting because even without a sectional drawing, one can still easily understand the increasing gradients of intervention gradually developed from the ground level - as if there was a slow motion of insertion stopped when both museums interlocked with each other halfway through. The moment of intersection was highly articulated in the fragments and perspective drawings. The new interior in some fragments are acting as staging devices for the existing while others interlock perfectly with contrast to the context. The contrast is also brought by a constant switching sense of space between the external and internal with the introduction of unexpected building elements. I also like the sectional elements of Maxxi, the ceiling blades, being brought back to the space and wall panels to further make the argument of the interchangeable relationship of
17
museum as both a typological institution and an object on display. A strong reference was made from the facade elements of Rossi’s Schutzenstrasse project in Berlin. However I wonder if there is space to take a step further. Compared to Rossi’s other project, Schutzenstrasse has a very distinct character. There is a consistent battling and compromising among the color, the material and formal language within the building and its context. I thought such an attitude can be expressed more dramatically as a potential opportunity. Overall I thought this project was very well articulated especially well delivered through the comprehensive illustration technique.
18
Critics Review
19
Material
Quartier Schutzenstasse, MAXXI Museum Archive
22
Quartier Schutzenstasse, MAXXI Museum Archive
Material
23
Aldo Rossi, The Life and Works of an Architect Alberto Ferlenga
24
Material
25
26
Material
27
28
Material
29
30
Material
31
Aldo Rossi, The Life and Works of an Architect Alberto Ferlenga
32
Material
33
Works
CC
ASA
VIA M
Site Plan 36
0 10
40
100m
CIO
UIDO
VIA G
I
REN
Works
37
EX
Ground Floor Plan 38
0 2
10
20m
XHIBITION SUITE 1
COFFEE-BAR
AUDITORIUM 1
SHOP
GRAPHIC COLLECTION
RECEPTION
ENTRANCE HALL
TEMPORARY EXHIBITION
Works
39
"EXHIBITION SUITE 1"
First Floor Plan 40
0 2
10
20m
EXHIBITION SUITE 2
"ENTRANCE HALL"
"RECEPTION"
"SHOP"
EXHIBITION SUITE 4
AUDITORIUM 2
Works
41
"EXHIBITION SUITE 2"
Second Floor Plan 42
0 2
10
20m
"LANDSCAPE"
"AUDITORIUM 2"
"AUDITORIUM 1"
EXHIBITION SUITE 5
"ENTRANCE HALL"
EXHIBITION SUITE 3
"GRAPHIC COLLECTION"
"TEMPORARY EXHIBITION"
Works
43
"EXHIBITION SUITE 1"
Third Floor Plan 44
0 2
10
20m
"EXHIB SUI
BITION ITE 3"
"LANDSCAPE"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 4"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 4"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 5"
"COFFEE-BAR"
"EXHIBITION SUITE 5"
"ENTRANCE HALL"
"LANDSCAPE"
Works
45
Overall Isometric 46
0 2
10
20m
Works
47
Fragment: ‘Sync’ 48
0 1
5
10m
Fragment: ‘Slice’
0 0.5
Works
2.5
5m
49
Fragment: ‘Slip’ 50
0
1
5
10m
Works
51
‘Foreign Familiarities’ 52
‘Stacked Space’ Works
53
‘Traversing Transitions’ 54
Works
55
Appendix I: STEP 1 & 2
1.1 The City
Perspective 58
Overall Axonometric
0 2
10
Appendix I
20m
59
1.2 The Monument
Axonometric 1 60
0 2
10
20m
Axonometric 2
0 2
10
Appendix I
20m
61
1.3 The Object
Axonometric 1 62
0 2
10
20m
Axonometric 2
0 2
10
Appendix I
20m
63
2.1 One Room
Project Argus
64
AUGMENT The curatorial strategy of Augment involves the fracture and multiplication of architecture via the insertion of a new context. In this gallery, the monument from Step 1.2 has been placed in the centre of a large gallery space. A series of light, video and mylar installations simultaneously reflect and distort the space, providing unpredictable perspectives. The process of augmentation does not subvert the subject but uses a range of multimedia installations to emphasise the tension that exists within the architecture and fracture the experience into a series of distinct episodes.
Appendix I
65
Perspective: Room 1
66
Appendix I
67
2.2 Three Rooms
ARARAT
68
DISPLACE The curatorial strategy of Displace is twofold. It involves both the displacement of exhibited content from its context and the displacement of the visitor from the museum. As the visitor progresses through each room, they are progressively detached from the context of the museum in order to achieve a process of interaction and discovery. The exhibition content is at first presented in a fragmentary manner, with each room revealing a wider breadth of context. This culminates in the final room, an ‘archive’ where the role of curation is given to the visitor. But can only exist within the hyper-curated sequence of spaces and experiences of the exhibition in its entirety.
Appendix I
69
Perspective: Room 1
Perspective: Room 2 70
Perspective: Room 3
Appendix I
71
2.3 Five Rooms
Sensing the Future: The Architect as Seismograph, Venice Architecture Biennale, 1996. 72
SYNERGY The curatorial strategy of Synergy involves the interplay between architecture and art object in such a way that they produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. Architecture directly emphasises the conceptual genesis of the art object, and vice versa. A progression from formal to non-formal means of destabilisation is experienced from one room to the next. Each room of the exhibition is more formally coherent than the last but the final room is no less disquieting than the first.
Appendix I
73
Perspective: Room 1
Perspective: Room 2
74
Perspective: Room 3
Perspective: Room 4
Appendix I
75
Perspective: Room 5
76
Appendix I
77
Appendix II: NOTES
STEP 1.1
80
04.08.20
Appendix II
81
STEP 1.1
82
04.08.20
Appendix II
83
STEP 1.1
84
04.08.20
Appendix II
85
STEP 1.1
86
06.08.20
Appendix II
87
STEP 1.1
88
06.08.20
Appendix II
89
STEP 1.1
90
10.08.20
Appendix II
91
STEP 1.1
92
12.08.20
Appendix II
93
STEP 1.2
94
13.08.20
Appendix II
95
STEP 1.2
96
17.08.20
Appendix II
97
STEP 1.1
98
17.08.20
Appendix II
99
STEP 1.3
100
20.08.20
Appendix II
101
STEP 1.1
102
20.08.20
Appendix II
103
STEP 1.3
104
24.08.20
Appendix II
105
STEP 1.1
106
26.08.20
Appendix II
107
STEP 2.1
108
27.08.20
Appendix II
109
STEP 1.1
110
27.08.20
Appendix II
111
STEP 1.1
112
28.08.20
Appendix II
113
STEP 2.1
PROJECT ARGUS was a multimedia spectacle in the Yale Art & Architecture Building in 1968. It consisted of a diagonal bridge over the gallery space covered in mylar and featuring projected films, light and sound installations by Pulsa Group. The exhibition aimed to dissolve the architecture of the Paul Rudolph designed modernist building. Through the act of inserting an art object, Pulsa Group created a new context in which the architectural space could be framed. It was not the installation of mylar, lights, film and sound that was being exhibited, but rather, the architecture of Paul Rudolph. Albeit in a fractured and unfamiliar way. The curatorial strategy of AUGMENT involves the fracture and multiplication of architecture via the insertion of a new context. In this gallery, the monument from Step 1.2 has been placed in the centre of a large gallery space. The facades of the monument are flanked by levels alternating on each side, providing double height spaces that allow the viewer access to the facades that would otherwise only be experienced from the ground plane. These framed horizontal bands provide a disjunctive experience of the work. A series of light installations have been inserted into the monument and spaces at each level. These installations have been oriented and positioned in a manner to emphasise the vertical rhythm of the monument. A series of mylar and projection screens have been hung to disrupt the regularity of the light
114
31.08.20
Appendix II
115
STEP 2.2
116
03.09.20
Appendix II
117
STEP 2.2
118
03.09.20
Appendix II
119
STEP 2.2
120
07.09.20
Appendix II
121
STEP 2.3
122
10.09.20
Appendix II
123
STEP 2.3
124
10.09.20
Appendix II
125
MID SEMESTER REVIEW, STEP 1
126
14.09.20
Appendix II
127
MID SEMESTER REVIEW, STEP 2
128
16.09.20
Appendix II
129
STEP 3
130
24.09.20
Appendix II
131
STEP 3
132
24.09.20
Appendix II
133
STEP 3
134
28.09.20
Appendix II
135
STEP 3
136
28.09.20
Appendix II
137
STEP 3
138
28.09.20
Appendix II
139
STEP 3
140
01.10.20
Appendix II
141
STEP 3
142
01.10.20
Appendix II
143
STEP 3
Rossi’s approach to context in the Schutzenstrasse is to repeat and vary forms and expression while maintaining a vertical datum
144
12.10.20
Hadid’s approach to context in the MAXXI Museum is to extend and simplify the movement and direction while varying the vertical datum.
Appendix II
145
STEP 3
Striations in the work of Rossi
146
Title
147
STEP 3
148
AA
AA
BB
BB
CC
CC
DD
DD
EE
EE
FF
FF
GG
GG
HH
HH
JJ
JJ
12.10.20
Appendix II
149
STEP 3
150
14.10.20
Appendix II
151
STEP 3
152
14.10.20
Appendix II
153
STEP 3
154
14.10.20
Appendix II
155
STEP 3
156
14.10.20
Appendix II
157
STEP 3
158
18.10.20
Appendix II
159
STEP 3
160
19.10.20
Appendix II
161
STEP 3
162
20.10.20
Appendix II
163
STEP 3
164
20.10.20
Appendix II
165
22.10.20
166
26.10.20
Appendix II
167
28.10.20
168
03.11.20
Appendix II
169
STEP 3
170
03.11.20
Appendix II
171
STEP 3
172
04.11.20
Appendix II
173
STEP 3
174
04.11.20
Appendix II
175
Appendix III: REFERENCES
REFERENCE LIST
Aldo Rossi, 1985, edited by Peter Arnell and Ted Bickford, New York: Rizzoli. ‘The Architecture of the City’ in Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, 2006, edited by Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Aldo Rossi: The Life and Works of an Architect, 1999, edited by Alberto Ferlenga, Milan: Electa. Aldo Rossi and the Spirit of Architecture, 2019, Diane Ghirardo, Yale University Press. ‘Show Me: Arguments For an Architecture of Display’, 2010, Kurt Foster, in Log, no. 20, pp. 55-64 ‘Curatorial Design’ in Displayed Spaces, Wilfried Kuehn, edited by Roberto Gigliotti. Exhibit A: Exhibitions That Transformed Architecture, 2018, Eeva-Liisa Pelkonen, Phaidon. ‘Aldo Rossi’, 1981, Micha Bandini, AA Files, no. 1, pp. 105-111. ‘Typology as a Form of Convention’, 1984, Micha Bandini, AA Files, no. 6, pp. 73-82. 178
‘At Home in the Museum’, 2009, Barry Bergdoll, Log, no. 15, pp. 35-48.
Appendix III
179