ON TOUR

> January 2010 : Alliance Française of Pretoria

> April 2010 : Alliance Française of Luanda (Angola)

> May 2010 : Alliance Française of Gaborone (Botswana)

> July 2010 : Alliance Française of Mbabane (Swaziland)

> August 2010 : Alliance Française of Maseru (Lesotho)

> September 2010 : Alliance Française of Port Elizabeth

> October 2010 : French and Namibian Cultural Center Windhoek (Namibia)

> November 2010 : Alliance Française of Durban

> December 2010 : Centre Culturel Franco-Mozambicain (Mozambique)

For more information
Contact Pauline :
culture.jhb@alliance.org.za
011 646 1169

About the exhibition

While it is fairly difficult to resist the pessimistic atmosphere that reigns in today’s world, and fairly exasperating to note that attention is most often focused where there is nothing to see, while the things that should enchant us receive no mention at all, it is useful to highlight works, which, although they may sometimes seem discrete and are often far from the established mainstream, are well worth looking at. Since the 1950s, it can hardly be claimed that contemporary architecture has captured the enthusiasm, or even the interest, of the general public. Compared with the past, the present always loses out : a real catastrophe and, apparently, one without any hope of escaping from. Each new construction is sensed as something that disfigures our environment a little more or, worse, as adding to the destruction of the very balance of the planet. Architecture seems to have become an unavoidable calamity : irreparably damaging all landscapes and turning towns and cities into unmanageable monsters (even if their hearts have been carefully embalmed). The only elements to escape this judgement are the media-favoured gems, like Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, which seem to define a future for our “new monuments” as they become the icons of dynamic cities.

But this feeling isn’t really accurate. Behind the general mediocrity are hidden many thoughtful, inventive and, often, poetic works. We only need to open our eyes. What is unbearable is that we don’t see them, don’t look at them and, worst of all, we never separate the wheat from the chaff. Under these conditions, how can we create the desire to carry on ? After all, the past isn’t the ideal and just because the dreams of modernity have been perverted doesn’t mean they were detestable. In short, we must encourage a new taste for contemporary architecture and, to do so, excite the curiosity, strike the imagination and encourage the desire to take an interest in it, by showing just how interesting, surprising and captivating it can be, thus making us want to discover the reasons, extend our view and acquire judgement. Beyond the fact of deciding to present only styles of architecture capable of enchanting reality, one of the most effective ways of changing people’s views of contemporary architecture is to mix things up, stepping out of the narrow context of “Architecture” by going beyond the recognised limits and paying equal attention to “architecture without architects”, whether from today or the past. This idea is not very original, but it works (in any case, it’s exactly what the first Modern proponents did by building up the beauty of big American silos and Japanese or Mediterranean houses). In a certain manner, “Extra-muros” offers back doors designed to attract those who, a priori, have always felt that contemporary architecture was unbearable. It forces them to change their angle of view and forget their preconceptions, because it speaks of adventure, invention and creativity and through that, of course, leads imperceptibly to the consideration of contemporary architecture as something other than a closed world or reserved domain – which also explains the choice of only showing documents that can be read and understood by everyone (no plans, or cross-sections or technical drawings). Through a critical mass effect, the juxtaposition of the projects presented says that “good” architecture isn’t as rare as it seems, and that if we do not see it that’s surely because it isn’t where we expect it, because it’s simpler, more modest or simply less preoccupied with its durability than we imagine. Because it has nothing to do with schools, it isn’t under any influence, isn’t necessarily seeking confrontation and it pays attention to others – people as well as places – and, sometimes, can have its head in the clouds. These projects also tell us that, in reality, architecture is more about liberty, generosity, creativity and enthusiasm than about seriousness, coherence and doctrine, and that, above all, it should be adventurous, ingenious, bold and sometimes mischievous, paradoxical, impertinent and even provocative. Although they are all very different and clearly follow diverging pathways, the projects and completed works presented still have some points in common enabling us to understand what allows them to enchant us.

The first point is their diversity. Of course, we can’t help being aware of the disorder that surrounds us, which seems to extend at a dizzying speed as modern times continue to submerge the past ; of course, we may regret a certain harmony that we attribute, perhaps a little too rapidly, to the past. In reality, aren’t modern disorder and ancient harmony simply red herrings ? You simply have to take a more dispassionate and objective stance to cast doubt on this appreciation. What will people say about the 20th century in twenty year’s time ? In any case, it would seem that this so-called chaos of today is simply the direct consequence of democracy : with no Prince to serve, everyone can take their ideas to their own conclusion. This is rather satisfying. Our horizon has expanded, which is apparently the source of many pleasures. Should we complain about this ?

The second common denominator is liberty, another consequence of democracy. Far from dogmas, doctrines, ready made ideas and preconceptions, everyone can invent their solution. No master to follow blindly, no ready made solution to apply mechanically and no formal obsessions to gratefully yield to. Each construction is a new problem requiring an original response. It’s not that we shouldn’t have references, but rather that culture should be versatile. It’s rather like cuisine : you have to fill your cupboards with good products, but the essential factor is to combine the ingredients well. And culture should, also, be opportunist. No exclusive admiration for a given school, but in-depth knowledge of all the best achievements.

The third point in common is the taste for adventure and discovery. Times change and call for the invention of new strategies. This can be perceived as a difficulty or an encouragement to transcend one’s limits, a curse or a pleasure. It’s always more or less the same old story : some people like to protect themselves with walls, while others like to move freely like the wind. In architecture, as elsewhere, there are explorers and stay-at-homes, exploiters and the exploited, weak and strong, inventors and copiers, those who fortify positions and those who adventure out, those who understand and those who don’t, those who raise problems and those who solve them, those who liberate and those who imprison, those who give and those who take. We are most interested in those who dare – and who like to – open doors, those who doggedly call everything into question.

The fourth point in common is generosity. Above all, generosity is about knowing how to listen to others and hear what they are saying. It’s also about the desire to give more – more than was asked for. Giving more is transforming the context, making space more fluid and more luminous. It means making spaces enchanting, making them more dynamic or softening them, by making them more attractive, more spiritual, or even more receptive and welcoming. These plus factors may also stem from extreme attention given to the place and a subtle way of handling the operation. There are plus factors that cost nothing and which change everything.

The fifth point in common is radicalism. We could even say integrity, as long as we understand that this is about following ideas through to their conclusion, although, obviously, without the extremist connotations these words have today. Being radical means knowing how to be whole, not drowning in the sea of temptation, not giving in to fashions, but refusing whims and being painstaking, intense and profound. “Good” architecture can have a thousand different orientations ; the essential thing is that it goes there without procrastination. Integrity isn’t that the part should be like the whole, but rather that all the parts should be necessary, including the icing on the cake. Having integrity doesn’t mean being closed, but, rather, maintaining one’s demands and requirements at the very highest level.

The sixth point in common (apparently contradictory but, in fact, as essential as it is complementary) is lightness. Without this, everything we have discussed above would be heavy, labored and cheerless. Without lightness, diversity, liberty, generosity and integrity would be unbearable. Lightness is subtlety, sensitivity and innocence. It’s also humour and a sense of mischief. It’s not taking oneself seriously, putting problems into perspective and knowing how to improvise.

The seventh point in common is enchantment. Enchantment is being a practitioner of judo rather than boxing, it’s liking “Alice in Wonderland”, it’s never forgetting the charm of “A Thousand and One Nights”, it’s being able to fill oneself and others with a sense of marvel, and it’s escaping from the empire of realism and opening the door to dreams.

Diversity, liberty, the taste for adventure, integrity, generosity, lightness and enchantment form an explosive mixture.

by Patrice Goulet / Brigitte Borsdorf