1. ON LOCAL DISCOURSES AND ITS LINK WITH POLITICS
Verónica Rosero (VR).- As part of the curatorial team of the National Congress of Ecuadorian Architecture, I had the task of choosing the speakers who will present their work on this occasion. The objective was to choose projects that maintain agreement between speech and work. Many of the proposals were left out of the selection due to this lack of connection. Finally, the most interesting and coherent ones were selected, however, one of the recurrences resonated in me, both in several of the selected projects and in many of the discarded ones: the presence of an apparent social and political conscience.
On the way to this discussion, Fredy and I commented on the current situation of separatism in Catalonia (current place of Fredy’s residence). I remembered having heard a professor of history on the subject, who decided to "take perspective" in the conflict between Catalonia and Spain, to distance himself from the current historical moment and thus make a real reading of the situation.
In the particular case that concerns us, it has been fundamental for me to "take perspective". That distancing allows me to express my opinion as an observer and critic. Living several years out of the country (coinciding with the first year of Correa's government and the return with his last year in office), I return to a reality where we can breathe in the atmosphere of polarized political positions..
In architectural environments there were also two polarized groups that emerged in a context of economic prosperity due to the financial liquidity that produced oil and allowed architectural professionals to link to large projects, despite the severe economic crisis in several countries around the world. In general terms I will describe them, nevertheless, this categorization isn’t a straitjacket.
A group is identified with a "social and political" discourse accompanied by underconstruction tendencies, an aesthetics of poverty where the detail lies in the unfinished, however, it is finished. Parallel, there is a scorn for the academy, a rebellion with the boom that inflated the real estate market, although paradoxically its influence comes from the Spanish groups emerged in the middle of crisis, product of job insecurity that caused the housing bubble.
The other group is committed to the discipline in more conventional terms, with a more polished and careful aesthetics, away from the folk clichés and where the discourse is architecture, avoiding talking about disciplines that do not concern to the profession. Many of the offices identified with this group advocate a more academic practice recognizing, while remaining critical, the role of university education. This group presents a more diverse range in the execution of the discipline, but since the investment either public or private they also took advantage of the economic bonanza to carry out their projects.
While both groups are debating between which architecture is the right one for our environment, Ecuadorian architecture can not be classified between these two aspects that, when viewed with perspective, appear as fundamentalist.(3)
To go beyond these two groups, it is necessary to go back a few years ago, when the severe crisis in Ecuador, due to dollarization, caused the migration of a high percentage of its poorest population to countries such as the United States, Italy or Spain. Their remittances were, before the European crisis, an important part of the Ecuadorian GDP. The money sent by the migrants served mainly for their families to build their own house. This phenomenon ended up characterizing diverse zones, especially rural, of Ecuador with a style not foreseen nor controlled by the architects: a kirsch eclecticism capable of combining from neoclassical to neomudéjar, where the greatest effort of the process (of self-construction) is in the front facade.
To explain this, I will refer to what Umberto Eco calls the primary and secondary values of the image: the first speaks of the denotative and the second of the connotative. The denotative image of these houses is their style, while their connotative values imply the need to demonstrate through architecture the product of their effort, a kind of image of success and the will to rise in status. These connotations, beyond value judgments about their aesthetics, say that the desire for progress of the most needy people can not be translated in terms of underconstruction. This phenomenon would be the first step to consider if one wants to integrate economic-political discourse into architecture.
Another phenomenon in this line is that of post-crisis in Ecuador: the new bonanza due to oil that fostered public investment. I must stress again my position as observer of a historical phenomenon: militant or opponent, the reality is that from 2008, in the middle of the two positions between which the local architectural culture is disputed, its debate appears incipient when the architecture loaded with political and social discourse, of significant incidence in the territory, is in the state architecture.
The second oil boom in Ecuador brought with it a monumental architecture translated into buildings of government administration, universities, schools, nurseries, hospitals, among many others, whose judgment or relevance deserves a separate debate. However, we can assure that they are connotatively a symbol of the power of the state; either in terms of scale or square meters, its incidence in the Ecuadorian territory is quite significant, constituting the third government that carries out a large-scale modernization in the country's republican history. In this same context, public officials, members of an inflated state apparatus, as well as public contractors, were anonymous authors and at the same time great beneficiaries of the privileged situation.
Thus, while the discussion about what has really influenced our territory is incipient, the most "famous" architecture studios are sickly on media: even the most banal can be relevant news and be social discourse. They matter more as an image than as a product; they care more about their "brand" and the construction of an imaginary. Again, the connotations of the image matter more, which can be deeply reflected. I see, therefore, two dangerous speeches, derivation of the poorest zones of the country, for the local human habitat: one lies in speeches disguised as "social" with apparently progressive ideas but which actually maintain the global status quo, granting spaces of short useful life, at the same time as their proceeding with the media reveals neoliberal behaviors in the hand of practices that perpetuate precariousness. The other discourse, even more dangerous, is that product of state demagogy that grants, as a political offer, housing in quantitative terms but with serious deficiencies in terms of quality of life, infrastructure and architectural lifetime. These discourses perpetuate even more the precariousness because the political structures catalog and segregate their citizens through their economic policies and territorial planning.
This is the current climate of Ecuadorian architecture, a brief review that questions and asks for reflection on the relevance of the speeches of the profession. Fredy Massad through his critical vision on the state of the global architectural culture can provide complementary reflections, with his own distance, on what was described above.
Fredy Massad (FM).- I think it is important to point out that divisions, fragmentations and polarizations are being considered that end up leading to a certain fanaticism that leads nowhere, and thus we are spoiling the emergence of other possibilities. In my opinion, when Europe and the First World enter into crisis in 2008, a new approach emerges at a global level that concentrates its attention on the realities of what, incorrectly, would be called "the periphery", the scope of the countries, also imprecisely called "developing". A field that had been completely ignored for a long time and that, suddenly, when the spectacle system collapsed based on opulence, self-centeredness and iconicity, it must hastily search for new strategies of continuity. Thus, what could have been an opportunity to make a critical review about the contemporary dynamics of architecture and its connivance with the interests of neo-capitalism, ended up becoming a recycling of the spectacular system, the provision of a new showcase or pantheon of architects -star from 'peripheral countries'. Francis Kéré appears in Burkina Faso, in Latin America he appears as an Aravena figure.
My question before the rise of this architecture is: Are you really looking to understand the other, approach other conceptions of architectural practice and the sense of the social function of the architect, or just show an impoverished model of what architecture is?.
Personally, I believe that this model is a process that is done according to the stereotypes that are in the eyes of others. The idea of 'precariousness' is associated with the realities of Ibero-America, Africa ... It is homogenized and, consequently, the definition and practice of architecture in these places is simplified even to trivialization. This fascination with 'the precariousness' that the First World has adopted is nothing more than the enthronement of a new fashion trend to nourish magazines and publications from which to impose a new ideological and critical current.
I think there are people who are selling this idea in a dishonest way. I always point out Alejandro Aravena as the most obvious example of this, whose discourse is carefully crafted to seduce and be bought by the first-world good. And so it is failing to show that in all these countries there is also an interesting new architecture that is developed in different economic and social contexts, and that has equal value.
I think that today it is crucial to value the qualities of an architecture made in the place, which does not necessarily have to look at a reference. It is essential to get out of this duality, that fanaticism and conflict to start opening the fan and understand that the amount of roads through which it is possible to travel allows a lot to be produced.
Latin America has always been seen as the continent of precariousness because everything is always done with great enthusiasm but does not have technology. However, I believe that the media has and for a few times of 8 to 10 years of prosperity, and it is evident that the country has advanced. In my opinion, there are ways to try to make a more fair society and minimize that social division.
2. ABOUT THE LATIN AMERICAN IMAGE AND AESTHETICS
VR.- The image towards the exterior on the Ecuadorian architecture is quite homogeneous. And the mediaticity of this homogeneity is causing in the new generations a kind of obligation to carry a "Latin American" aesthetic (that impoverished image of which you speak) when in fact it is an option. It seems very important to show, as you say, our heterogeneity.
FM.- We must take into account from the point of view from which the critic and the media are playing their role. An emotional, sentimental, even sentimental component has been introduced, which plays against the architecture itself.
Some time ago, architecture was completely aseptic: no people appeared in the photographs, one aspired to an extreme visual cleanliness. The photogeny of the building and its spaces was the maximum objective, in order to make them attractive to be published. Think of the technically immaculate photographs published by El Croquis or the carefully stylized architectural photographs that we see in specialized publications or general press.
From that sophisticated asepsis, now this abuse of the narrative that surrounds these projects with a "social" or "humanitarian" or "anti-system" character has been abused. The term “poverty-porn” is not exaggerated when you contemplate the photographs of the David Tower and its residents made by Iwan Baan. Through this type of images, we try to convey the message that poverty or precariousness is attractive, acceptable, because it is allegedly supported by ethical values that the voracity of neocapitalism has engulfed within First World societies.I think this poses a serious problem, because the situations and their circumstances are trivialized and distorted, while at the same time stripping the architecture of a theoretical component. We can not turn architecture into a willful question, based on the sentimental, because doing so suppresses or diminishes the disciplinary value of architecture. The work, the knowledge of the architect does not consist merely of knowing how to build houses. However, homes elaborated within collective processes or experimentation with precarious resources are being praised and would be unacceptable in any school of architecture. It is stated that with them the wishes of the people have been satisfied and they are offered opportunities to improve their quality of life and status, however I am not so sure that this can always be the final result. I do not think anyone would find it a convenient solution for an architect to give him a house half done, leaving it to his charge to complete it, telling him that this way he revalues it and opens the doors to the rise in the social scale.
In the search for coherent and appropriate solutions, I think that technification plays an essential role, which I think you have to see from a good understanding of the resources of local technology, as this allows lower costs, introduces advanced models in construction and allows achieve a quality architecture, reasonable cost and that provides welfare to the user. This makes it possible to make good low-budget architecture without it implying working with materials or with precarious processes.
3. ABOUT THE ACADEMY AND CRITICAL REFLECTION
VR.- Another of the particularities of the era we are currently living is that there is an important group of professionals trained abroad, by public policy, since 2008 who are returning to the country in recent years. This has generated new reflections, there is a new critical mass with high academic level that has come to feed a debate before very closed and inbred. Hand in hand are the new rules of the game in educational institutions, again, for public policy, where the publication has become an obsession.
Recently we had practically only one relevant means of diffusing architecture. Now social networks have "democratized" the media. Parallel is positioned an obsession for papers that range from mediocrity and excellence. There are groups of architects very rebellious to this situation, however, it is essential not to see it as a black and white: if the pressure to publish streamlines the criticism, develops local theory and research and scientific rigor, I think we are facing a path more promising, or at least more critical.
Recently we had practically only one relevant means of diffusing architecture. Now social networks have "democratized" the media. Parallel is positioned an obsession for papers that range from mediocrity and excellence. There are groups of architects very rebellious to this situation, however, it is essential not to see it as a black and white: if the pressure to publish streamlines the criticism, develops local theory and research and scientific rigor, I think we are facing a path more promising, or at least more critical.
FM.- I agree, and I think we should also become more aware of the problem of digital ideology, the power of social networks. I also consider that obsession with papers worrisome.
That today students resort to 'cut and paste' or copy directly from the Internet seems a very serious problem. Even more so because they do not have the slightest awareness that this implies a detriment to their training, to their acquisition of knowledge. Having digital technology is an excellent advantage, access to information that we have today is undoubtedly a huge benefit, however, has been poisoned by the obsession with speed and immediacy. The ideal would be to be able to relearn the value of slowness, of the essence of knowledge as the result of a constant and attentive effort, of a maturation. This would be what would allow us to reflect critically on what we are doing and not be easy prey of the media subject.
It is important to go to the facts and not to the narratives, because currently the product of media consumption are the narratives around the projects. However, when we go to check the concrete facts we check the gap between the narrated and the material reality, patent and objective, of the built.
I think that the character of the unbearably egomaniac star-architect of the 90s and early years of the 21st century deeply damaged the perception that society had about the role of the architect and this new profile of the architect 'of the social' tries to present itself as the antithesis of that, and is presented from these supposed profiles of humble anti-hero willing to obey 'the people'. I think it's important not to give in to what these characters imply and mean. The architect must demonstrate, from a respectful and dialoguing position, the value and authority (in the good sense of the term) of his knowledge.
It is necessary to be aware and reaffirm the professionalism of architecture.
If the conditions are right, I think that it should be demanded, and I think it is much more progressive or much more evolved, to demand that the State fulfill its role and provide us with schools, hospitals, instead of accepting their carelessness. and negligence through the creation of alternative solutions, outside the system. I believe that they are only short-term solutions, and I do not believe that this is the way to reflect the evolution of architecture.
I believe that true rebellion consists in transforming society from one's own society and demanding from governments (without being utopian), since this is the way to demand the rights that democracy guarantees and not be marginalized. Architecture is demanding, giving to individuals and thinking about them. I think that influencing this approach to work for the individual, for the citizen, has more importance than many other speculations that are being made in the university and nurturing that useless abundance of paper producers, docile bureaucratic mentalities lacking any intellectual creativity and ability review.
VR.- I agree. We have been intertwining some ideas. It was very pleasant to hear a few days ago the presentation of your "Critica de Choque" in Quito. Your analysis shows that there is a lot of demagoguery in the construction of discourses on a global level. I verify what you say from a local position. The CNAE has speakers from younger generations who are learning to build their discourse. I recommend, also being part of this young generation, not trying to merge the discourse and practice into pressure.
FM.- And it is essential to add training. Training is important to avoid manichaeism and hooliganization. In opposition to the individual aware of the need not to stop learning, to be formed, the fanatic has limited knowledge of things, since he thinks that people will applaud him for everything he says or does.
I am also in favor of some pessimism and negativity, because the excess of optimism and puerility can lead to everything being considered as a constant game, a mere voluntarist luddism that believes that everything is possible and that rules are not necessary, nor any rigor . That point is the one that also cuts the value and the need for all kinds of knowledge. The main value of the university is not to help acquire a lot of knowledge but to teach to acquire and apply them, and to expand them. I think we are missing our own criticism, I do not know what you think would be our starting point to include ourselves in the scientific method.
4. ABOUT KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE AND CLICHES
VR.- I see fundamental the function of knowledge, to have the ability to work with "suspended judgment": that is, not to judge a priori, but to take the time to learn and reflect before judging. It is very necessary to reflect on the teaching of criticism in architecture schools. If I look back, when I was a student, critical training was somewhat deficient, closely linked to simple value judgments and without the ability to discern between what information is reliable or simply demagogic. If criticism is not teached, it is even more complicated to be self-critical. That's where demagogy begins.
FM.- I totally agree. The cure for this is to return, in another way, to communicate. There is a different form of communication currently but, if we lose the training, we will lose the possibility of filling ourselves with information, either through digital or analogue media or others to come. It is a matter of relearning to delve into the contents and find contemporary ways to manage them, use them, take advantage of them.
A current issue that highlights the danger of the loss of capacity for dialogue and critical assimilation of ideas and information is the debate about the independence movement in Cataluña (Spain). Apart from the deeply emotional component, and therefore irrational, on which the arguments are based, the positioning is defined by other types of spurious interests, it will never be possible to reach a point of understanding. None of the positions is honorable, insofar as one is not defending in full freedom a reflection or positioning constructed from a full intellectual autonomy, individual and intimate, but influenced or directly dictated by a superior voice or simply the inertia of the voice of the masses . Thus, dialogue is impossible and it is another element that makes knowledge tend to disappear.
In the case of Catalan separatism, the clinging to an idea has been encouraged, to the construction of a reality for which, in the end, it has been demonstrated that there was no supporting structure, no feasible basis, and stubbornly it continues to refuse to assume that everything that has been no more than a kind of dream, let alone accept that it could have been a flagrant deception. Something similar happens in architecture: it has gone from building iconic architecture (buildings sometimes without defined use, which are not used to help build the city or were designed for the user) to, suddenly and without any self-critical reflection, only as a reaction to the crisis to promote and vindicate that architecture of austerity, the humble, the social ... And, since no self-criticism has been made, it is possible to fascinate instantaneously and frivolously with models that seem to represent a 'rebellion' against that established system and propose radical alternatives and not consider that these solutions work within a specific context but can not be extrapolated to other conjunctures.
There is a lot of misinformation and also lack of knowledge, ignorance, because there are many proposals that already existed and did not work but today they are sold again as completely innovative issues. Of course there is nothing wrong with resorting to concepts created in the past, the unfortunate thing is to pretend to be the inventor of it, to omit the authorship of the precedent.
Before the film "Hacer mucho con poco" I appreciate a work technically very well done and that shows a type of architecture that is being built in Ecuador. From the partial view it offers about Ecuadorian architecture, it is necessary to hold its recipients accountable and lack of criticism and criteria. It is a film destined to please that self-satisfied first world viewer, who needs this new type of narrative.
When in Europe today we talk about Latin American architecture, the examples mentioned are of the type shown in this film. It is true that the task of contrasting other examples and being able to elaborate a more real and complete portrait is still pending, but I do not know if the consumer of this type of 'social' or 'precarious' architecture is interested in receiving that type of information because, I think, it is a spectator who believes that Latin America is that, that cliché. It is very positive that it should be highlighted how in Latin America we have learned to do a lot with little, but it is fundamental, I believe, to show that this architectural reality is much more heterogeneous and has many other focuses that would also be worth putting into value.
I return to Aravena as a model: When the Pritzker is awarded (an award that is not important to me as a prestigious sanctioner but has unquestionable media importance), Latin American architecture is automatically associated with the -Quinta Monroy-, with a question that is summarized in a series of people without resources who were offered half-built housing as a solution that, in the medium or long term, should mean an improvement of their social and economic status. The triumph of Aravena and the model for export of Latin American architect that today is applauded in the First World supposes the interested negation of the heterogeneity of the reality of Latin America. Ecuador is also undoubtedly a complex country, which can not be summarized in a single topic, and my impression is that you truly and honestly believe in the work that you do and that can not be outlined according to clichés that are to be liked by the media market global.
In that sequence of "Do a lot with little" where Wilfred Wang appears to me, I am invaded by the sensation of seeing someone who does not seem to be very clear about what he is talking about. I do not know if you also share this impression of being in front of a person fascinated by something you do not fully understand. I do have it and that is why I think it is important that you consider not only how you see yourself but how you are being interpreted by other people's eyes.
5. ABOUT FANATICISM, POST-TRUTHS AND THE CLIMATE OF EDUCATION
VR.- A student asked me if education is currently in crisis, I believe that the processes of education are always in crisis, always trying to reformulate the ideas on which the academy supports to make it contemporary; It is part of its own nature. Now we are at an interesting point to put education in crisis, we are reformulating the way we teach. This tells us that it is wrong to be fundamentalists; There is a range of possibilities in the ways of doing, learning and teaching, the important thing is to understand that they are complementary and not antagonistic. Finally, those who oppose the academy have also learned in the classrooms and even taught them.
FM.- I say that we should not fall into confrontation. It seems to me that we have to dialogue and see where things are going. And again, you can not criticize the system because the university, the education system have a transition problem from one moment to another to which certain actions have to be adapted. I think that if students do not read, you have to invent strategies, resources, that encourage them to read more and to learn to read better. Sometimes you give in to defeat, but I think we should not settle for it. This is the great problem that there is regarding everything we talk about certain characters, because they do not lend themselves to daily scrutiny. Never, or on rare occasions, have I seen any of these guys put into question because all their mental structures are very weak.
One can end up thinking that his own fantasy has become reality, even more when he is surrounded by flatterers who constantly extol and fertilize his delirium. I think the important thing is to break with this dynamic and delve into the autonomous, critical thinking, and make a profound reflection on the present issues. But it is impossible to maintain a fruitful dialogue from a position of fanaticism and emotion.
VR.- Maybe that fanaticism is due to the excess of information that currently overwhelms the public, so many prefer to ignore to know. On the other hand, knowing how to discern what information is valid represents a competitive advantage. Fredy, you mention in your book "Crítica de Choque" the subject of post-truth, that is, lies so insistently repeated by the media that they become true. For example, thinking that theory and practice do not connect is definitely one of those post-truths.
The practical workshops as well as theoretical classes are definitely positive. We must understand that theory and practice are not divorced in the production of knowledge. Much practical knowledge that is integrated in our work in a natural way has been born from empirical observation and from the interpretation and / or application of the theory and vice versa. We must relax and work more openly in relation to the integration between both principles. Now, not necessarily a theoretician must have practice and a person of trade be a theoretician. However, there are no whites and blacks, the situation presents its respective nuances.
Having clear the existence of these nuances, but especially having clear the own competences of the profession, helps to fight that way so reductionist with which the social and the political thing has been adopted in the discourse of the architecture. We must also say that the political discourse has used architecture as a tool, which deserves to be meticulously observed also from the powers of the public powers.
The practical workshops as well as theoretical classes are definitely positive. We must understand that theory and practice are not divorced in the production of knowledge. Much practical knowledge that is integrated in our work in a natural way has been born from empirical observation and from the interpretation and / or application of the theory and vice versa. We must relax and work more openly in relation to the integration between both principles. Now, not necessarily a theoretician must have practice and a person of trade be a theoretician. However, there are no whites and blacks, the situation presents its respective nuances.
Having clear the existence of these nuances, but especially having clear the own competences of the profession, helps to fight that way so reductionist with which the social and the political thing has been adopted in the discourse of the architecture. We must also say that the political discourse has used architecture as a tool, which deserves to be meticulously observed also from the powers of the public powers.
FM.- There is a problem between the architecture that is made and what should be done. It seems to me that politics is important. First, an architect with knowledge has to listen to the user and their needs, but this is a job that really must be done, not to say what should be done. I believe that for culture and for not imposing things, you should analyze the idiosyncrasies of people, their needs. The places should not be underutilized or misinterpreted. Precariousness does not seem to be the option. The designs may change depending on the users. The architecture of the 21st century must be social.
I think we are always building inclusive conditions. That is, if we go to the pragmatic, we forget about this ... before the architecture was empirical. I think it is necessary to take advantage of the fact that the transmission of knowledge is better and that there are conditions that we should not ignore in order to improve them. There is no better or worse architecture.
VR.- That's right, I think before cataloging between better and worse architecture, you have to reflect and discern about what is relevant or not relevant. I am optimistic about the moment we are living. Despite the oppositions, fundamentalisms, categorizations, I see a lot of reflection and debate, which encourages the future.
NOTES.-
(3) Another critical version about Ecuadorian Architecture from the same author: “The Ecuadorian House: a Door to the Present” in Casas Internacional: Ecuador.
(4) Translation: Christian Silva.
(4) Translation: Christian Silva.
