“(...) IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT BIENNIALS NOT AS EPISODES ISOLATED IN TIME, BUT IN THEIR ARTICULATED DIMENSION, NOT ONLY AS A CONTINGENT DEBATE SPACED EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT ONE WITH ITS OWN EMPHASIS AND ITS OWN HISTORY. IN IT, UNDOUBTEDLY THIS BIENNIAL OF THE UNPOSTPONABLE DIALOGUES WILL MARK A SIGNIFICANT MILESTONE (...)”.
La ampliación de los límites disciplinares operó entonces no solo como una forma de expandir la idea de proyecto sino, sobre todo, como una forma de manejar mayor información de la realidad actual, una que nos permita comprender de manera más precisa los desafíos de la propia disciplina arquitectónica frente a la sociedad y el entorno construido. Fue quizás por esta fijación en el diagnóstico correcto, propia de los diálogos impostergables, por este énfasis en el presente -o, si se quiere, en la construcción de un presente-, que la mirada hacia el futuro apareció en esta bienal como un horizonte plagado de incertezas 15 . Fue de hecho el mismo equipo curatorial el que lo expuso al señalar que “Puede ser verdad que lo que se viene no está claro, que probablemente seremos amateurs en nuestras respuestas y que una arquitectura del 'feísmo'puede estar a la vuelta de la esquina”. 16 Acaso por eso las entradas ligadas explícitamente a la idea de futuro tuvieron una importancia relativamente menor, si las comparamos con el foco puesto en los otros ejes temáticos de la bienal. No solo porque el número de proyectos agrupados bajo esta idea fue significativamente más bajo que el de otras entradas de la muestra, sino porque la prospección futura explícita apareció como un acápite final de corta extensión frente a un profuso catálogo de más de 700 páginas. Esto resulta claramente paradójico para una bienal de arquitectura, si se piensa que el proyecto, ese “designio o pensamiento de ejecutar algo” 17 , constituye la herramienta principal de la disciplina. Desde luego, lo anterior no era una novedad para el equipo curatorial, el cual decidió asumir el riesgo de exponer “más que proyectos arquitectónicos y urbanísticos específicos”, para hacer alusión “a temáticas en conflicto que resultan de la acción misma del hombre” 18 . Sin embargo, acaso por las mismas herramientas empleadas para construir esa mirada, la bienal se arriesgó a quedar atrapada en la parálisis del diagnóstico, que frente a la complejidad del mundo contemporáneo del cual formamos parte no logró sintetizar futuros posibles desde la arquitectura. Es ahí entonces donde corresponde mirar las bienales no como episodios singulares aislados en el tiempo, sino en su dimensión articulada, no solo como un debate coyuntural espaciado cada dos años, sino uno con sus propios énfasis y con su propia historia. En ella, sin duda esta bienal de los Diálogos Impostergables marcará un hito significativo, en que la apertura a otros campos disciplinares por la vía del proyecto, así como la dimensión internacional de esta fiesta de la arquitectura, fueron estimuladas con fuerza e incorporadas a su repertorio futuro.
The expansion of the boundaries of the discipline then operated not only as a way to expand the idea of a project but, above all, as a way to handle more information from current reality, one that allows us to understand more precisely the challenges of architectural facing society and the built environment. It was perhaps because of this fixation on the correct diagnosis, part of the unpostponable dialogues, because of this emphasis on the present -or, if you may, on the construction of a present- that the vision towards the future appeared in this biennial as a horizon full of uncertainties 15 . It was in fact the same curatorial team that stated that “it may be true that what is coming is not clear, that we will probably be amateurs in our responses and that an architecture of “ugliness” may be just around the corner”. 16 Perhaps this is why the entries explicitly linked to the idea of the future had a relatively minor importance, if we compare them with the focus placed on the other thematic axes of the biennial. Not only because the number of projects grouped under this idea was significantly lower than that of other entries in the exhibit, but because the explicit future prospection appeared as a final section of short extension in a profuse catalog of more than 700 pages. This is clearly paradoxical for an architecture biennial, if one thinks that the project, that “design or thought of executing something” 17 , constitutes the main tool of the discipline. Of course, this was not new for the curatorial team, which decided to take the risk of exhibiting “more than specific architectural and urban projects”, to allude “to issues in conflict that result from the very action of man” 18 . However, perhaps because of the same tools used to build that vision, the biennial risked being trapped in the paralysis of the diagnosis, which in the face of the complexity of the contemporary world of which we are part, failed to synthesize possible futures from the point of view of architecture. That is where it is appropriate to look at biennials not as singular episodes isolated in time, but in their articulated dimension, not only as a conjunctural debate spaced out every two years, but one with its own emphasis and its own history. In it, undoubtedly this biennial of the Unpostponable Dialogues will mark a significant milestone, in which the opening to other disciplinary fields by way of the project, as well as the international dimension of this festival of architecture, were strongly stimulated and incorporated into its future repertoire.
(*) Emilio de la Cerda E. , arquitecto y magíster en Arquitectura PUC, docente y ex director de la Escuela de Arquitectura PUC, recientemente nombrado subsecretario de Patrimonio Cultural del gobierno del presidente Sebastián Piñera. (*) Emilio de la Cerda E. , architect and Master of Architecture PUC, teacher and former director of the School of Architecture of the Catholic University, recently appointed undersecretary of Cultural Heritage of the government of President Sebastián Piñera.
1 Larach, C., Vera, F. (Ed.). (2017). Unpostponable Dialogues. 20 th Chilean Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism. 2017. Catalog of the exhibit. Santiago. Editorial Metales Pesados. 2 Ibid., Page 46. 3 Ibid., Page 638. 4 Ibid., Page 37. 5 Ibid., Page 43. 6 Ibid., Page 97 7 As diverse and relevant instances of discussion around these and other topics, developed in recent years, it is worth mentioning the National Policy on Urban Development of Chile (2013); the conclusions and agreements of the Habitat III conference, held in Quito (2016); the postulates of the XV Venice Architecture Biennial: Reporting From the Front (2016); the conclusions of the Santiago Humano & Resiliente strategy, developed by the Metropolitan Government of Santiago and promoted by the Rockefeller Foundation (2017), among others. 8 Larach, C., Vera, F. (Ed.), Op cit., Page 37. 9 “Unlike systems of large production, which obey the law of competition for the purpose of conquering a market as vast as possible, the field of restricted production tends to produce its own production standards and evaluation criteria of its products, and obeys to the fundamental law of competition for cultural recognition granted by the group of peers, who are, at the same time, privileged clients and competitors. “BORDIEU, PIERRE. El Sentido Social del Gusto. Elementos para una sociología de la cultura. First edition. Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Buenos Aires. Page 90. 10 The understanding of architecture as a restricted field of production is assumed by pointing out the need to “reconnect the discipline with the forces that effectively produce the city, giving visibility to projects or initiatives that are forming new relationships with political, economic and social forces. “ Larach, C., Vera, F. (Ed.), Op cit., Page 40. 11 “The 20th Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism (...) invites us to understand the project based on this broad vision, which includes aspirations and knowledge from outside the discipline that, when found, give life to an enriched architecture. “Larach, C., Vera, F. (Ed.), op cit., page 96.
12 Ibid., Page 97. 13 Ibid., Page 97. 14 Ibid., Page 722. 15 “The projects presented here are broad questions, as an invitation to articulate broad and ambitious social desires and agendas.” Ibid., Page 638. 16 Ibid., Page 43. 17 One of the five definitions of the word “project” according to the Real Academia de la Lengua Española. 18 Larach, C., Vera, F. (Ed.), Op cit, page 638.
117
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker