The Reality of an Inflatable Utopia Ana Rewacowicz
f loating, ephemeral spaces of human imagination, flexible in form, beyond socially regulated boundaries, zones of transience and imper- manency – what is the future of inflatable technologies? Will they allow us to live up to the radical idea of bettering the world and provide us with practical solutions for the social concerns of globalized culture, or will they bring us to yet another commodified moment of material distraction? A vision of stability and permanence is what created the greatness of all ancient civilisations we admire. It is the remains of their buildings and monuments we study and not the cultures of nomadic tribes. Entering the twenty-first century, are we ready to reconsider our attitudes in light of our need for mobility in a global community of airspace travels or are we still concerned with what is going to stay behind? Is the development of new materials and technologies making pneumatic structures more easily accessible or will they remain in the hands of a few scientists, academics, artists and paper architects? Are we ready for a society in which the form and function of constructed environments will unite, allowing us to live without affecting what’s around us? Are we ready for Buckminster Fuller’s ‘Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science,’ or is this just another utopia and a dream of science fiction? The desire for a more democratic future has fueled the imaginations of many minds throughout the history of Western civilization and many have looked at technological advancements as a way of liberation. In his book Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution , Simon Schama comments on the ascent of Montgolfier Etienne’s globe airostatique at Versailles in 1783: In Russia after 1917, there was a great aspiration to abandon aristocratic restrictive and selective forms and invent new ways of alternative living. Movements such as Russian Constructivism, Futurism and Suprematism were driven by this enthusiasm for change and Tatlin’s concept of Art into Life had significant influence on later generations. Marc Dessauce in The Inflatable Moment, Pneumatics and Protest in ’68 draws an interesting parallel between inflatable technologies, liberation and revolution and student protests that stirred Europe and the United States in 1968 2 . Without a doubt, the nineteen sixties was a time of concurrent cultural infatuation with pneumatic technology. After WW2, there was an urgent need to provide shelters for people whose houses had been bombed. Intensified by rapid population growth, the need to build affordable housing resulted in ugly gray high-rises that obliterated the landscape Instead of being an object of privileged vision — the specialty of Versailles — the balloon was necessarily the visual prop- erty of everyone in the crowd. On the ground it was still, to some extent, an aristocratic spectacle; in the air it became democratic. 1
of cities all over Europe. These concrete tower blocks were often poorly constructed and unpleasant to live in. As a reaction to the monotony and ugliness of urban planning, architecture groups such as Archigram (UK), Utopie (France) and Hans-Rucker-Co and Coop Him- melblau (Vienna) emerged. Inspired by military technologies 3 and earlier pneumatic innovations 4 , they turned their imaginations towards science fiction and utopian visions to make a better world, introducing the concepts of inflatable structures, furniture and environments 5 . Especially with the Utopie group, the wish to engage in architecture as social practice was particularly strong and was considered an ‘anti-monumental and therefore anti-establishment answer to the desire for emancipation through technology’ 6 . Yet, four decades later, when you ask the average person what they asso- ciate with inflatables, most likely the answer is lifesaving devices, gigantic parade floats or sex toys. Disposable objects of ultimate consumerism have flooded the markets of Western countries and have had little to do with the concerns of improving social conditions. Jade Chang, in her recent review of Los Angeles artist Jessica Irish’s website project Inflat-o-scape (www.inflatoscape.com), says that ‘giant inflatable penguins and dinosaurs—advertising gimmicks grown almost to the size of their owners’ desire for dollars—are shown next to inflatable warehouses designed for the New Economy. (Should you ever need to close shop, just deflate your warehouse and relocate).’ 7 The irony is that the inflat - able fascination of the sixties, intended as a critique of consumer society, ended up in the landscape of McDonald’s Playland and overblown dot- coms. As an antidote, imagine yourself stripped to the bare minimum, where all you need is a room that you can carry with you wherever you go. Utopian science fiction? Not for Barcelona-based artist and designer Martin Ruiz de Azua, who produced his Basic House project in 1998, an inflatable cube that can be carried like a handkerchief in a pocket and, when needed, can be inflated by a gust of wind, solar or the body heat. The notions of living with less and the possibility of ‘having it all without having a thing’ 8 stand behind de Azua’s house made from a reversible metalized polyester film that was developed by the Paï Thio Company, but never commercially produced.
40
O n S ite review
W eight
I ssue 10 2003
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator