Three Strata, A Heterarchy by Kim Võ

THREE STRATA, A HETERARCHY Francis Burne Thompson

Studio Triplicate

Semester 02 2021

The institutional setting of the museum functions paradoxically as the place for the generation, display and disappearance of architecture, at once affirming and suspending any evidence of architecture actually ‘being’ there. This architecture in pseudo-absentia has an uneasy relationship with the museum’s institutional order – it’s codes, practices, perceptual histories and blockbuster exhibitions. Architecture’s unease in the museum buttresses claims for the disciplinary autonomy of architecture and supposes the probability of the museum interior as a site for the emergence of new architectural modalities, co-dependent, and perhaps even independent of the museum. Led by Scott Woods and Kim Võ of the Melbourne School of Design, alongside collaborators: Luigi Alberto Cippini and Alexei Haddad of Armature Globale (Milan) University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Design Semester 02, 2021

CONTENTS Way Finding 4 Prologue 7 Q + A 8 Material 13 Works 21 Critique 50 Index lii Notes lxviii Knowledge Bank cxi Bibliography cxxii

ro un d G

cG de

Rest rooms

Ticketing & Information

la De

ch Ar n

WA Y F I N D I N G

og en

eld

s re

5 2 l0

P R O L O G U E The museum as an institution is one that must negotiate and curate its contents, their arrangement, and their presentation. Simultaneously, as an architectural work, the museum must offer something more than simple re-presentation of its archival body lest it become like any ill-defined other. This tension manifests as a friction between architecture, exhibitions and works from which a spectrum of decreasing temporality and scale emerges. In negotiating this resultant tension, the museum too often is relegated to a simple container - idealised as non-descript box devoted to the protection and presentation of works. In 'Three Strata, A Heterarchy', this tension is deconstructed and arranged across three levels spaces as distinct interventions. These interventions sit within

the Ca’ Corner della Regina as a juxtaposition - A Stirlingesque application of collaged material and surface-throughreflection. Contemporary modularity and reflectivity sit against the Ca’ Corner's organic baroque ornament and Venicecompromised proportion. The discretising of interventions becomes emblematic of unease inherent in the wider institution, in reorienting each of the: architecture, exhibit and works to the top of the gallery hierarchy, the project becomes - through satire and irony – a critique of the unexamined potential to reconfigure the default hierarchy into something more mellifluous, here: a heterarchy – mutable and non-definite, elsewhere, perhaps something different again. Ultimately what is revealed herein is a volatility and pluripotency, that has hitherto remained largely unexamined.

Questions provided by Hao Yu Chen

On Stirling

What did you find most challenging when working with Stirling’s material from the CCA (Canadian Centre for Architecture) archive? I think the most challenging thing about working with Stirling's material was, well I think it was twofold: First of all was the, the sort of the position that Stirling's work sits at within the wider context, right at the intersection between modernity and postmodernity. But then also within Stirling's own work, he has a very sort of specific set of ideas within his museum projects and he [sic], and to try and extract and distil those without unknowingly drifting towards his other work Or at least trying to resist the temptation to look at these other really distinct and rich sets of projects. I think this was perhaps the most challenging part about working with Stirling. Do you think Stirling is still relevant for contemporary discourse? If yes, why? If no, why? Oh yeah, of course. I mean I think, I think it will be foolish to sort of to mark any architect as prominent as Stirling as not relevant for the contemporary discourse but also I think Stirling is really important because like I said he sits right at that intersection between modernity and post-modernity – he’s exhibits aspects of each whilst retaining his own very distinct characteristics and flourishes I think kind of as a result he's he develops his own very distinct sort of voice and language and regardless of whether or not that's relevant, I think just that the very concept of a single architect, being able to do that is really important to sort of appreciate.

On Museum

What are the challenges of thinking of the museum beyond a container for art? What is exhibited and what does the exhibiting in your museum project? Is it that simple? Yes, I think I think museums generally within architecture as a typology. They've got this really interesting friction that they have to deal with where the art and the occupant -the occupant, being the a person - are two separate things, but perhaps the art becomes the occupant, that is almost more important than the person. So you suddenly have this, this extra layer to deal with or engage with where the architecture, the art and the occupant are all sort of acting cyclically, with a reciprocity. Beyond that very sort of base or literal concern there’s also this wider concern of curation and collection and display which has wider cultural and intellectual ties back to these sorts of enlightenment and then colonial ideas of ascribing value and order to things which often are entirely unconcerned with such valuations. What are the challenges you have encountered when working with the Ca’Corner building? E.g., the Venetian context, the architectural ornamentation, the spatial structure, etc. How did that challenge inform your approach to the museum? So I think Ca’ Corner is really interesting and obviously that's where the challenge The challenge and it's interest are sort of aligned. But the way that on both the civic and, and even a detail scale, that's a density to the Ca’ Corner. So it's simultaneously open and expansive, but it's context is cramped, claustrophobic. It's detailing, is extremely dense and complex. And, and trying to understand that, especially in a sort of contemporary context where that level of sort of textural ornamentation is, is something we don't normally work with so trying to negotiate and appreciate the reasoning behind that sort of - it becomes artisanal and hand crafted on every surface and that butting up against our sort of, you know, modular off the shelf components that may be more common in the contemporary discourse or contemporary pallet of materials rather. I think that's the challenge of the Ca’ Corner.

On Exhibition

Considering the role of technology in exhibition design, is this a concern for your design? If so, in what capacity? Yeah, so I think the technology of exhibition design is extremely important. So like I just said that the sort of off the shelf kit of parts that contemporary architecture is largely restricted to is super important and that the technology is, is made of those parts just as much as any sort of you know wall or whatever other system and then additionally to that the way, the technology becomes that interface between occupant and art in the way that it sort of mediates that relationship is super interesting. Does this idea of exhibition or display technology change your conception of museum architecture? I think, I think I would say it, maybe enhances rather than changes my conception. So, I think understanding technology is that that thing that sort of, really mediates, the experience between artwork and occupant and building as the sort of next layer of detail between spatial organisation within the museum.

On (the) Future

How would you describe an architecture that exists solely inside the museum? How is that architecture different to architecture that exists outside the museum? So, I think, I think what really defines museum architecture and something that it kind of uniquely has to navigate, is the idea of the temporary exhibition and the sort of the role of the sort of exhibition designer against the sort of larger [scale] architectural design, and that sort of temporality and how a museum architecture is perhaps a lot more regimented than I guess more general architecture, where the expected changes over time are perhaps less predictable or maybe more organic. But then balancing that against the museum as a sort of civic or cultural entity and the sort of static and significant position that has to take within its urban fabric. So I think museum architecture is maybe it's if if you really wanted to sort of distil it and differentiate it from more general architecture, I think it's one that has to navigate the sort of static versus temporal, externally versus internally respectively.

Has your project for a museum changed your position or attitude to architecture more generally? If yes, how? Generally, I mean, yes, I think sort of every project, you know, ideally results in a sort of, but maybe if not a change, but a development in, in my sort of attitude towards architecture. But I think being able to appreciate, just the real diametrically opposed scales of the museum in a single project, like from the civic to the, the detail of the hanging of a painting against a wall. Developing, that understanding and making those things, you know, working harmony has been really beneficial.

M A T E R I A L A collection of important images from the Canadian Centre for Architecture's Stirling Fonds + Key images of the Ca' Corner della Regina

Staatsgalerie Stuttgart

a Corner Della Regina

Arthur M. Sackler Museum

Staatsgalerie Stuttgart

Ca Corner Della Regina

Wallraf-Richartz Museum

Ca Corner Della Regina

Piano Quarto Sottotetto

R4-01

+24490 mm

Piano Terzo

R3-01

+21250 mm

LOCALE 02-10 BAGNO

LOCALE 0 SPAZIO ESPOS

Piano Secondo Nobile

R2-01

+15800 mm

LOCALE 0 SPAZIO ESPOS

Piano Primo Nobile

LOCALE 01-10 BAGNO

R1-01

+8990 mm

Piano Secondo Ammezzato

RM-02

CORTILE

+ 5480 mm

LOCALE 00-13 MAGAZZINO OPERE

LOCALE 00-18 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

Piano Terra

R0-01

- 60 mm

Section A A

02-1 SITIVO

01-1 SITIVO

LOCALE 00-1 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

Striation

LOCALE 00-23 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

23 01

Piano Quarto Sottotetto

R4-01

+24490 mm

Piano Terzo

R3-01

+21250 mm

LOCAL SPAZIO ES

LOCALE 02-6 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

Piano Secondo Nobile

R2-01

+15800 mm

LOCALE 01-6 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCAL SPAZIO ESP

Piano Primo Nobile

R1-01

+8990 mm

Piano Secondo Ammezzato

RM-02

+ 5480 mm

LOCALE 00-20 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCAL SPAZIO ES

Piano Terra

R0-01

- 60 mm

Section B B

LE 02-1 SPOSITIVO

LOCALE 02-14 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

LE 01-1 POSITIVO

ASC 1 ASCENSORE PUBBLICO

LOCALE 01-14 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LE 00-1 SPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-6 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

New Vertical

25 02

Piano Quarto Sottotetto

R4-01

+24490 mm

Piano Terzo

R3-01

+21250 mm

LOCALE 02-7 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

LOCAL SPAZIO ES

LOCALE 01-7 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCAL SPAZIO ESP

LOCALE 00-17 BIGLIETTERIA

LOCAL SPAZIO ES

Piano Secondo Nobile

R2-01

+15800 mm

Piano Primo Nobile

R1-01

+8990 mm

Piano Secondo Ammezzato

RM-02

+ 5480 mm

Piano Terra

R0-01

- 60 mm

Section C C

LE 02-1 SPOSITIVO

LOCALE 02-12 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

LE 01-1 POSITIVO

LOCALE 01-12 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LE 00-18 SPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-9 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

Galleries, Triplicate

27 03

Piano Quarto Sottotetto

R4-01

+24490 mm

ASC 2 ASCENSORE PRIVATO

Piano Terzo

R3-01

+21250 mm

LOCALE 02-8 MAGAZZINO OPERE

Piano Secondo Nobile

R2-01

+15800 mm

LOCALE 01-8 MAGAZZINO OPERE

Piano Primo Nobile

R1-01

+8990 mm

ASC 2 ASCENSORE PRIVATO

Piano Secondo Ammezzato

CORT

RM-02

+ 5480 mm

SCALA PRIVATA

Piano Terra

R0-01

- 60 mm

Section D D

LOCALE 02-11 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

LOCALE 01-11 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

TILE

LOCALE 00-9 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

Cortile

29 04

Axonometric Section

Incision

tion

Incision

Axonometric Section 0

3 05

CALLE CORNER DELLA REGINA

LOCALE 00-16 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

SCALA PRIVATA

LOCALE 00-17 BIGLIETTERIA

LOCALE 00-14 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-19 SPAZIO RETROSCENA

LOCALE 00-15 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-13 MAGAZZINO OPERE

CORTILE

LOCALE 00-18 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-12 MAGAZZINO OPERE

LOCALE 00-11 BIGLIETTERIA

LOCALE 00-8 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO LOCALE 00-10 BAGNO LOCALE 00-9 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-9 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

A ASCENSOR

LOCALE 00-7 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCA SPAZIO E

CALLE DELLA RO

Plan Level 00

LOCALE 00-20 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-21 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-22 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-23 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-5 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 00-2 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

ASC 1 RE PUBBLICO

LOCALE 00-4 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

ALE 00-6 ESPOSITIVO

Archeologic Garden

LOCALE 00-3 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

CANAL GRANDE

LOCALE 00-1 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

33 06

LOCALE 01-15 BAGNO PRIVATO

LOCALE 01-8 MAGAZZINO OPERE LOCALE 01-7 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-9 MAGAZZINO OPERE

LOCALE 01-6 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

ASC 2 ASCENSORE PRIVATO

LOCALE 01-10 BAGNO

CORTILE

SPA

LOCALE 01-11 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-12 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-13 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

A ASCENSOR

LOCAL SPAZIO E

Plan Level 01

LOCALE 01-5 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-4 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-1 AZIO ESPOSITIVO

ASC 1 RE PUBBLICO

LOCALE 01-2 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LOCALE 01-3 SPAZIO ESPOSITIVO

LE 01-14 ESPOSITIVO

Delaminated Forest

35 07

LOCALE 01-15 BAGNO PRIVATO

LOCALE 02-7 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-8 MAGAZZINO OPERE

LOCALE 02-9 MAGAZZINO OPERE

LOCALE 02-6 RETROSCENA

ASC 2 ASCENSORE PRIVATO

LOCALE 02-10 MAGAZZINO OPERE

CORTILE

SPA

LOCALE 02-11 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-12 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-13 RETROSCENA

A ASCENSOR

LOCAL RETRO

Plan Level 02

LOCALE 02-5 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-4 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-1 AZIO ESPOSITIVO

ASC 1 RE PUBBLICO

LOCALE 02-2 RETROSCENA

LOCALE 02-3 RETROSCENA

LE 02-14 OSCENA

Scenographic Field

37 08

Apparatus 01

1. Out of Style, Gene Beery, 1961, Oil on masonite, 96.5 x 122 m

2. DEP-MK-033, Michael Krebber, 2017, Arcylic on canvas, 198 x 150 cm

3. Point, Francis Picabia, 1951, Oil on canvas, 10 x 8.5 cm

Palimpsest

39 09

Apparatus 02

1 2

4 1. Lettera (C), Pino Pascali, 1964, Tarpaulin, 69 x 50 cm

Buvez Coca Cola frais, Ben Vautler, 1960, Oil on canvas, 40 x 50 cm

Untitled (Piss Painting), Morag Keil, 2014, Oxidised copper water-based paint on canvas, 72 x 56 x 2 cm

NO-ON, Boris Lurie, 1962, Oil paint on canvas, 65 x 72.5 cm

Morphology

41 10

Apparatus 03

Rotes Bild, Katharina Fritsch, 1990-91,

Wood, foil, lacquer, nettle, paint, 140 x 100 x 8.5 cm

Amplification

43 11

Oblique

45 12

Kaleidoscope

47 13

Reflection

49 14

C R I T I Q U E By Kira Lo The new museum project created by Francis Thompson: ‘Three Strata, A Heterarchy’ extracts the essence of museum projects by James Stirling and incorporates them into Ca’ Corner della Regina. Along with the Venetian context, the fusion of modernist and classical architecture constructs an interesting architectural discourse about contemporary museum architecture. On the first floor, an elevated walkway establishes a new datum above the existing architecture. By appearing to float above the ground, the walkway creates a contrast with the original heavy ground. Beginning from the main entrance, the walkway forms a new route for visitors and guided them to the side rooms, which are often ignored. In this way, side rooms are transformed into exhibition spaces and become significant to the curation. With the arrangement of glass panels on the First Piano Nobile, the original hierarchy of space is obstructed, and a new circulation is formed. Artworks are displayed on the glass panels and expanded by the reflection on surrounding glass panels, achieving a sense of multiplication of artworks. Alongside the glass panels, the light tubes exist as an exaggerated expression of exhibition and display technologies. The lighting system is often minimised or remains hidden in exhibition spaces, but it is enlarged into columns and intrudes into the gallery space, manifesting the designer’s critique of contemporary museum settings. The central idea of reflection is further expressed on the Second Piano Nobile, by placing the artworks into finely designed mirrored cases. The existing doors to the rooms are blocked by the mirrored cases, and the mirrored cases occupy the rooms. By looking into the openings of the cases, the viewers not only appreciate the artworks themselves, but also the reflections of them. In this way, the architecture and exhibition are flattened while the artworks become multiplied and expanded by mirrors, creating a unique viewing experience. This project demonstrates an innovative insight into contemporary museum architecture and exhibitions. With delicate curation by Francis Thompson, the architectural elements generate an impressive dialogue with the exhibition, as well as the original Ca’ Corner della Regina.

lii

A collection of works both generative predecessors and progressive developments

liii

liv

Phase i

Object

The A

false

Frame orthogonal

Phase i

The False orthogonality of the Ca Corner is an example of an urban renaissance project that isn’t afforded the scale required to break away from Venice’s axis-less planning and plots. Through the accumulation of ornamental mouldings in an a-historical Stirling-esque mode, the object’s constituent parts compete for frontality through both literal geometric projection and visual, phenomenal means of transparency and layering elements The frame is given a polarity, revealing the falsity of the decorative pilaster from the oblique while through the alignment of classically understood ornament, the object generates a framed-beyond, a kind of en filade that has been delaminated from any wall and is therefore permitted to operate independently the larger assemblage.

lvi

Phase i

Object

The Lantern An

impolite

projection

Phase i

Within the museum typology there is an expectation that the lighting system, as an extension of the architecture: is to be subservient to the artifacts contained within. This object challenges this established hierarchy between object, occupant and container using Stirling early high-tech approach of over scaled and emphasised technological elements. By taking on a scale with spatial implications, the object eschews its expected introversion and instead takes on prismatic qualities in much the way that Stirling’s education projects do under Eisenmann’s Conceptual Destruction reading. The pointing of attention by illumination is flipped. Instead lighting as an object now demands its own attention. The object, as an extension of the architecture intrudes into its own space

lvii

Phase i

lviii

Object

The Bridge

An unmeeting at the junction

Phase i

Within the Ca corner, there’s a lack of mediated junctions between the walls and the floor, in contrast to the liberal application of ornament throughout the remainder of the building. This object is therefore an element that seeks to blend between wall and floor, as the surfaces of exhibition making and occupation respectively. Again, taking a scale that pushes away from the wall and into the territory of the floor The composition of the object is an both an acknowledgement and inversion of the layering systems of classical ornament. Profiles taking cue from Stirling’s spaces are accumulated, but rather than congealing the profiles are kept discrete, floating on Miesian strips of chrome instead of bands of shadow.

lix

Phase i

lxi

lxii

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

lxiii

lxiv

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

lxv

lxvi

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

0 Frank Thompson

1.5

Phase ii

Frank Thompson

lxvii

lxviii

Some thoughts, in order but not ordered

lxix

lxx

lxxi

lxxii

lxxiii

lxxiv

lxxv

lxxvi

lxxvii

lxxviii

lxxix

lxxx

lxxxi

lxxxii

lxxxiii

lxxxiv

lxxxv

lxxxvi

lxxxvii

lxxxviii

lxxxix

xci

xcii

xciii

xciv

xcv

xcvi

xcvii

xcviii

xcix

cii

ciii

civ

cvi

cvii

cviii

cix

KNOWLEDGE

BANK

A collection of images and works that became important, presented here without comment

cxi

cxii

False Apse of Chiesa di Santa Maria presso San Satiro, Bramante

St Jerome in His Study, Henry V Steinwick, 1630

cxiii

cxiv

Mike Kelley, Various Works 1.Craft Morphology Flow Chart 2 & 3. Endless Morphology Something Something

cxv

cxvi

Cenacolo Palladiano and Veronese' Wedding at Cana

It Broke From Within, Goshka Macuga

cxvii

cxviii

Balenciaga Women Winter Show, 2012

Miu Miu Womenswear Fall Winter, 2013-14, OMA

cxix

cxx

Orpheus, Adolphe, Appia, 1913, Hellerau

Pallazzo Branciforte Gae Aulent, 2012, Sicily

cxxi

cxxii

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kipnis, J., 1997. The Cunning of Cosmetics: A Personal Reflection on the Architecture of Herzog and De Meuron. El Croquis, (84), pp.429439. Koetter, F. and Rowe, C., 1980. The Crisis of the Object: The Predicament of Texture. Perspecta, 16, p.108. Krauss, R., 1990. The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum. October, 54, p.3. Pevsner, N., 1976. A History of Building Types. London: Thames and Hudson, pp.111-138. Rowe, C. and Slutzky, R., 1963. Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal. Perspecta, 8, p.45. Rowe, C. and Slutzky, R., 1971. Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal...Part II. Perspecta, 13, p.287. Tafuri, 1998. L’Architecture dans le Boudoir: The Language of Criticism and the Criticism of Language. In: K. Hays, ed., Architecture Theory Since 1968. New York: The MIT Press, pp.148-173. Vidler, A., 1989. Losing Face: Notes on the Modern Museum. Assemblage, (9), p.40. Vidler, A., 2011. James Frazer Stirling Notes From the Archive. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp.7-27, 31-75, 79-235, 239-357.

cxxiii

DFT

BMB