The overarching motto selected for the Biennale by Rem Koolhaas, who is this year’s curator, is “Absorbing Modernity 1914?–?2014”. Ciriacidis Lehnerer Architekten saw the opportunity to confront the German Pavilion with a building that reflects the spirit of Modernism. But instead of rehashing old stories, they intend to tell one of their own.
The floor plan also plays an important role in the Biennale project. In Venice the architects take a critical look at the reality of the floor plan: it corresponds exactly to the original building in Bonn, the spatial effect inside the historic pavilion in Venice is, in contrast, completely different from the transparent flowing spaces on the quay of the Rhine. In place of the view into the natural expanse, here the visitor encounters the pavilion’s.
It is, to begin with, as concise as a monosyllabic sentence: by building the glazed courtyard in the monumental exhibition pavilion the architects let two different interpretations of state pageantry collide. In their elaboration of the concept, they did not try to evoke the art theory discourse or place it in a wider context. Their aim was to be as thorough as possible in the realisation so that its haptics will be believable.
There is one major difference to the present state of the original: unlike the restorers in Bonn, the creators in Venice did not attempt to reproduce the signs of wear and tear. The Venice version shows the appearance upon completion in 1964. The contrasts of the new materials are stronger than in Bonn. There, as time has passed, the dark rosewood has become lighter, while the lighter-toned wood ceiling has yellowed due to exposure to light and cigarette smoke.
(Frank Kaltenbach spoke with Alex Lehnerer and Savvas Ciriacidis)
The floor plan also plays an important role in the Biennale project. In Venice the architects take a critical look at the reality of the floor plan: it corresponds exactly to the original building in Bonn, the spatial effect inside the historic pavilion in Venice is, in contrast, completely different from the transparent flowing spaces on the quay of the Rhine. In place of the view into the natural expanse, here the visitor encounters the pavilion’s.
It is, to begin with, as concise as a monosyllabic sentence: by building the glazed courtyard in the monumental exhibition pavilion the architects let two different interpretations of state pageantry collide. In their elaboration of the concept, they did not try to evoke the art theory discourse or place it in a wider context. Their aim was to be as thorough as possible in the realisation so that its haptics will be believable.
There is one major difference to the present state of the original: unlike the restorers in Bonn, the creators in Venice did not attempt to reproduce the signs of wear and tear. The Venice version shows the appearance upon completion in 1964. The contrasts of the new materials are stronger than in Bonn. There, as time has passed, the dark rosewood has become lighter, while the lighter-toned wood ceiling has yellowed due to exposure to light and cigarette smoke.
(Frank Kaltenbach spoke with Alex Lehnerer and Savvas Ciriacidis)