POLITECNICO DI MILANO
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE URBAN PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
M.SC. IN ARCHITECTURE - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
A.Y. 2015/2016
PERSPECTIVES ON (THE HISTORY OF) CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE
PROF. FEDERICO DEAMBROSIS
TUTOR: NICOLE DE TOGNI
AXONOMETRY AS REPRESENTTION OF MORE THAN ARCHITECTURE:
THE PERSPECTIVE OF VENICE BIENNALE 2016
HAYK MARTIROSYAN, DILETTA TRINARI
ABSTRACT
The studies on visual representation are considered to be mostly
dedicated to the perspective projection. Studies on parallel
projection as a representational tool are comparatively new and in
many cases are reactions to the hegemony of perspective.
The current paper, although addressing many common
originates initially from the opposite end: we see
projection, as used today, implied extensively and
whatsoever. This was a naïve, non-conscious notice
specified interest to understand such an extensive
nowadays.
questions,
parallel
not neglected
that became a
use of it
The first part of the paper briefly renders a historical development
of the axonometric drawing technique and its main characteristics in
architectural representation. However, the objective is not to trace
a chronological or typological development of the subject but to
understand the historical points of origins that enhanced its use.
That is to say, what else parallel projection represents besides
architecture? As such, the topic is approached from the perspective
of architectural writing.
It is believed that the modern revival of axonometric representation
coincides with the De Stijl exhibition in Paris from 1923. This,
taken into account within the brief discussion on the importance of
architectural exhibitions since post World War Two period, Specify
the Fil Rouge of exhibitions. Particularly, Venice Architecture
Biennale 2016 is taken as a platform to examine the topic. Being one
of the main architectural exhibitions of contemporaneity, currently
ongoing Biennale renders a relevant phenomenon to refer to. This is
specifically true in case of the current topic, due to Biennale’s
richness in visual materials represented in axonometry.
INTRODUCTION
During the course of twentieth century the studies of visual
representation were mostly concerned with the studies of perspective
projection, having Erwyn Panofsky’s “Perspective as Symbolic Form” as
the main reference in most of the cases. Partly as a reaction to
this, many scholars undertook studies of other visual representation
forms as oblique or axonometric drawings.
1
For instance, In Massimo Scolari's “Oblique Drawing: A History of
Anti-Perspective” it is stated clearly that “despite the hegemony of
central projection, or perspective, other equally important methods
of representation have much to tell us”1. What is interesting in the
statement is that both perspective and parallel projections
consistently have something to tell. In other words, the
representation, in this case of architecture, in its essence is going
beyond architecture and acts as an individual discipline, that of
representation.
Concerning perspective projection, this is evident from Christopher
S. Wood’s introduction to Panofsky’s book: “it is perspective, after
all, that makes possible the metaphor of Weltanschauung, a worldview,
in the first place”2. Scolari, in his turn, examining axonometric
drawing, states: “It always expresses an anti-artistic will, as it
did for the architects of the nineteen-twenties who celebrated the
rites of the New Objectivity with neat axonometric drawings, as if
seeking to dehumanize the excesses of the perspectives of Beaux-Arts
designers”3. After all, if perspective with its real central point of
view is representing Weltanschauung then it’s opposite, parallel
projection with its infinitely remote point of view, is representing
the opposite of Weltanschauung, the absence of the world view.
In this paper we will analyze and clarify the relationship between
the use of axonometry nowadays and its historical reasons on the case
of Venice Architecture Biennale 2016. On the first hand, however, an
overview on the use of axonometry in earlier phases is given with the
indications of intrinsic specificities in each case.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The history of axonometric representation dates to the ancient times,
considerably originating in ancient China, although it is hard to
credit its emergence to any singular time and place. In western
culture, despite the fact that perspective was main pictorial
technique since its formation, axonometric drawings were consistent
throughout centuries. They appear both in the works of the
renaissance masters, such as Leonardo’s axonometric sketches from
Atlantic Codex in late 15th century or Baltasare Peruzzi’s drawings
of St. Peters Basilica in Rome from the first half of 16th century,
to Jacques Perret’s drawings of fortifications from early 17th
century, to J.C. Hindret’s axonometric drawings in Diderot’s
encyclopedia from late 17th century.
However, it was not until 18th century, that parallel projection was
theorized and rationalized. First, in 1706 so called cavalier
perspective (also known as soldierly or military perspective) was
defined by Louis Bretez in “La perspective pratique de
l’arcitecture”. The definitions here were Later graphically presented
in Jean Baptiste de la Rue’s treatise on stonecutting4. Further, the
theory of parallel projection was consolidated by Gaspard Monge’s
works on descriptive geometry first, followed by invention of
1
Massimo Scolari, Oblique Drawing: A History of Anti-Perspective, MIT Press 2012
Erwin Panofski, Perspective as Symbolic Form, Zone Books 1996, p13
3
Massimo Scolari, On drawing. Considerations and aphorisms on drawing, Stella 2007,
p19
4
Jean Baptiste de la Rue and the Académie royale d’architecture (France), Traité de
la coupe des pierres: ou, Méthode facile et abrégée pour se perfectionner en cette
science (Paris: Libraire du Roi, 1764)
2
2
isometry by William Farish in England and Meyer brothers works in
Germany. The Meyer brothers, in their “Lehrbuch der axonometrischen
Projectionslehre” (1855-1863), were actually the firsts to use the
word axonometry. They went further in the exploration of axonometry,
revealing its characteristic as “...not only a means by which to
manifest a picture, but also that the picture has the same effect as
the object itself”5.
Leonardo da Vinci, sketch of a
winch for lifting weights, 15th
century
Baltasare Peruzzi, St. Peter,
1520-1533
Jacques Perret de Chambery - Des
fortifications et artifices
d'architecture et perspective,
1601
Jean-Claude Hindret, Album du
metier a faire des bas, drawing
in "soldierly perspective", 1664
Louis Bretez, Cavalier
perspective, The Turgo map, 1739
Gaspard Monge, Descriptive
Geometry, 1799
5
Martin Herrmann Meyer and C. Th. Meyer, Lehrbuch der axonometrischen
Projectionslehre (Leipzig: H. Haessel, 1855–1863), p13
3
M.H/ Meyer, Lehrbuch der
axonometrischen, 1664
William Farish, On Isometrical
Perspective, 1822
This one and a half century long development of the discourse on
axonometry was truly and most diversely implemented in architectural
representation in the works of Auguste Choisy (1841-1909): “L’art de
batir chez les Romains” (1873), “L’art de batir chez les Byzantins”
(1883), “Histoire de l’architecture” (1899). In the first two works
Choisy’s masterly implemented drawings are notable for their variety,
altering from axonometric to oblique (military) projections and
experimenting with numerous axial rotation and shadow techniques and
ingenuous “frog-eye” point of views. In “Histoire de l’architecture”
the diversity of drawings is more restricted, nonetheless, novelty of
the combination of planar and section views with axonometric or
oblique views gained immerse importance and appreciation, continuing
to influence the realm of architectural representation throughout the
twentieth century to nowadays.
Auguste Choisy, Histoire de
l’architecture, 1873
Auguste Choisy, L’art de
batir chez les Romains, 1873
It is important to highlight though, that Choisy’s drawings in
parallel projection are a product of careful choice that make it
possible to represent certain ideas.
The drawings engage the poles of the real and the fictitious,
the rational and irrational. Choisy stimulates spatiotectonic
imagination. The drawings create a carefully crafted
imaginative world of architecture from the architectural ruin.
Choisy’s parallel projections introduce a modern form of
representation, straddling the world of the object and subject
which was only imaginable through the axial rotation of
4
axonometric representation.
Grahic abstraction via oblique projection is an essential
quality used to shift his graphic representations from
illustration to the theoretic expression.
Space now becomes one of the essential elements of
architecture-joining the column, the arch, the vault. The
distortion of the plan agitates the structure, amplifying the
space.6
From these texts it is evident how Choisy’s drawings possess inner
meaning that is over the iconographic representation of an
architectural object. They also serve to express author’s ideas about
the architecture. Thus, they represent more than architecture.
Concerning the twentieth century, perhaps in the most relevant way,
axonometry is examined in Y.A. Bois’ article “Metamorphosis of
Axonometry” from 1981.
Since axonometric projection abolishes the fixed viewpoint of
the spectator and creates several possible readings of one and
the same image, there are several different "ideologies" of
axonometry. Throughout history, it has been used in many
different, often contradictory ways: Jesuit strategists of the
eighteenth century used it quite differently than Lissitzky,
Albers, the painters of Japanese renaissance, or Russian
constructivist architects.
In short, what makes axonometry such a strange and fascinating
theoretical subject is above all its extremely long history
(originating in ancient China); but also the large number of
sciences it has invaded: from the already mentioned military
strategy as well as architecture and painting to descriptive
geometry, stereometry, cartography, mechanical drawing; and
finally the fact of its sudden revival today, which is the
point of departure for my attempt to retrace certain avatars of
axonometry.7
From this paragraphs of Bois’ text the importance of the axonometric
representation is clear, as it possesses “ideologies”. Also the fact
of axonometry’s invasion into wide spectrum of disciplines indicates
on its own sovereignty. What resembles a specific interest in the
scope of the current paper, is Bois’ close look to the concrete
meaning of axonometric representation in early 20th century:
The modern revival of axonometry can be dated quite precisely:
it began during the De Stijl exhibition in the gallery L'Effort
Moderne in Paris from October to November of 1923, in which the
drawings by van Doesburg and van Eesteren caused a general
sensation.8
And later:
Let us return to the modern rebirth of axonometry. All
treatises preceding this event (which I have dated 1923),
6
Hilary Bryon (2008). Revolutions in space: parallel projections in the early modern
era. Architectural Research Quarterly, 12, pp344-345
7
Yve-Alain Bois, Metamorphosis of Axonometry, Daidalos, 15, September 1981, p42
8
Ibid
5
regardless of their concern with architecture, military art,
technical drawing or geometry, emphasize the convenience and
accuracy of axonometry, whereas the modern artists celebrated
its perceptive ambiguity; thus Lissitzky's concern for the
virtual expansibility of axonometric vanishing lines into the
foreground as well as into depth.9
El Lissitzky,
Proun 10, 1919
Cornelis van Eesteren,
Schematic
representation of the
optimal relationship
between skyscrapers and
traffic, 1926
Hence, a strong involvement of axonometry in the representation of
artistic ideas is emphasized. At the same time, the transition of
ideas between De Stijl and Bauhaus designs exists, which is, to a
certain degree, a transition of representation techniques in parallel
projection. For example, in the light of modern ideas, Gropius
declared in 1923 that Bauhaus restricts academic perspective drawings
and favors axonometric representation. In this case it was that of
isometric parallel projection. However, De Stijl exhibitions, first
in Paris and later in Weimar, introduced military projection which
consequently became the main choice in Bauhaus design.10 It is
important to notice, that this seemingly minor shift expresses a
general shift in the tendencies of Bauhaus design. The use of
isometry, that is an orthogonal projection of real objects on the
projection plane, corresponds to the period of Bauhaus design
inclined towards expressionism. On the other hand, the use of oblique
projection, where one does not see but rather reads the represented
object, corresponds to the later period of Bauhaus design with the
ideas of Neue Sachlichkeit or New Objectivity.11 In other words, the
shift appears “from an image of appearance to an image of objects
themselves”.12
9
Ibid, p56
For more information on the use of axonometry in Bauhaus design see: Michio Kato,
Axonometry and New Design of Bauhaus, Journal for Geometry and Graphics, Volume 11
(2007), No. 1, pp73–82
11
Ibid, pp77-78
12
Ibid, p76
10
6
Theo van Doesburg,
Contra Constructie,
Oblique rendering, 1923
Walter Gropius and Herbert
Bayer, Director’s office of
the State Bauhaus Weimar,
Isometric rendering, 1923
This shift represents an important step, as oblique projection
becomes the dominating method of parallel representation in the
upcoming decades, most importantly, post World War Two period.
An abridged survey of iconic ‘axonometric’ representations of
the twentieth century, from van Doesburg to Sartoris, Koolhaas
to Tschumi, and including Eisenman, Holl and Stirling,
demonstrates that most drawings are not axonometric, but rather
oblique projections. In these representations, it is possible
to immediately discern the benefit achieved through maintaining
the two-dimensional geometric purity stemming from the fact
that one plane of the object lies parallel to the picture plane
in such projections. I suggest that most representations
broadly identified as axonometric are in fact oblique
projections, particularly based on the historic facts of the
system of parallel projection. Clearly, there are phenomenal
spatial qualities that differentiate the two forms of
projection which offer different potentialities. While oblique
projections following Choisy’s abstract graphic language can be
seen throughout the twentieth century, the promise of the
axonometric has not been pursued.13
The reason of such bias towards the oblique projection in post World
War Two period is a complex issue and does not need to be discussed
in detail in the scope of the current paper’s interests. However, to
give a reference to the use of axonometry nowadays, a laconic
explanation, given by Bois at the end of his article, is relevant:
I am not certain if architects had celebrated the ambiguities
of axonometry without the earlier enthusiasm of the painters.
Choisy himself, whose drawings often border on the
'undecidable', followed the advice of Jules de la Gournerie in
shading his drawings. Today, however, it is exactly this
fundamental ambivalence, this play on “+/-". which dominates
the architectural use of axonometry: consider e.g. the drawings
of the "Five Architects" which are frequently denounced as
'unreadable'.14
13
Hilary Bryon (2008). Revolutions in space: parallel projections in the early modern
era. Architectural Research Quarterly, 12, p345
14
Yve-Alain Bois, Metamorphosis of Axonometry, Daidalos, 15, September 1981, p57
7
Rem Koolhaas, The City of
the Captive Globe, 1976
Peter Eisenman, House VI,
axonometric, 1972-75
In general, the twentieth century use of iconic parallel projections
deals with the essential spatial qualities and their ambivalence
characteristics. At the same time, the fact that “while oblique
projections following Choisy’s abstract graphic language can be seen
throughout the twentieth century, the promise of the axonometric has
not been pursued,” is of particular interest to us. This is so due to
the recent domination of the axonometric over the oblique projection,
partly because of the easiness to receive the former from digital 3d
models and partly due to the factors described in depth later in the
paper.
To sum up, axonometry is an objective representation in contrast to
subjective representation of perspective. It shifts from the limited
world with the human in the center to a fixed infinite world of
objects with no center. More poetically the essence of parallel
projection is defined in the following lines:
Isometric perspective, less faithful to appearance, is more
faithful to fact; it shows things more nearly as they are known
to the mind: Parallel lines are really parallel; there is no
far and no near, the size of everything remains constant
because all things are represented as being the same distance
away and the eye of the spectator everywhere at once. When we
imagine a thing, or strive to visualize it in the mind or
memory, we do it in this way, without the distortions of
ordinary perspective. Isometric perspective is therefore more
intellectual, archetypal, it more truly renders the mental
image - the thing seen by the mind's eye.15
Thus, it can be assumed that axonometry with its essential quality of
not centralized (fixed) point of view is representing wide and
complex set of ideas in each of the moments of its dedicated use. It
is in this light that the current paper examines the specificities of
axonometry’s current use attempting to distinguish its historical
point of origin.
15
Claude Bragdon: The Frozen Fountain, 1932. The text is taken from the cover of
Bois’ article Metamorphosis of Axonometry
8
Y.A.
FIL ROURGE OF EXHIBITIONS
Architectural exhibitions can be considered a recent phenomenon. Even
if it would be possible to trace the temporary existence of some
examples related to the pre-war period, we can define its real
continuous development starting from the 1960s, outlining a specific
timeframe.
Moreover, according to what supported by Jean Louis Cohen in his text
“Exhibitionist Revisionism: Exposing Architectural History”:
in the past three decades, architecture exhibitions have
experienced exponential growth, a significant change in the
materials displayed in exhibitions has taken place. The
photographic medium, which essentially dominated in exhibitions
right up to the 1970s, has given way to a preference for
original documents and drawings.16
Thus, we identify exhibitions as one of the most efficient way to
write about architectural representations.
We understand exhibitions as a way to represent the past in the
present through an added reading that consists in the specific
interpretation of the shown materials in relation to the historical
context in which an exhibition is located.
Between the moment in which a specific event happens or a project is
developed and the time of exhibition there is a space made up of
doubts, of reconsiderations, and more complex interpretations. This
period, according to J. L. Cohen, has revealed new genealogies for
figures once considered great originating geniuses. For example, he
argues, it was exhibitions that underscored the importance of such
major figures as Peter Behrens and Auguste Perret, and revealed the
interesting relationship of Modernism to earlier traditions - Le
Corbusier's indebtedness in the concept of the promenade
architecturale to Auguste Choisy's analysis of the Acropolis in his
“Histoire de l'architecture” (1899), or Mies van der Rohe's
multifaceted relationship to Schinkel.
The most relevant references, in our case, are, of course, De Stijl
exhibitions from 1923. The significance of the contribution of these
two consecutive expositions, first in Paris and second in Weimar, is
discussed earlier and is indispensable.
The exhibition is but one moment in the sequence of events that
comprise research, in its trajectory from an initial definition of a
problem or issue to the diffusion of findings. Yet the exhibition is
only very rarely the end of the journey. Nevertheless, it often
constitutes a major step in the research process, because it provokes
a kind of crystallization of results that themselves trigger new
developments.
Approaching an exhibition, a hierarchy of readings can be found:
documents and their nature, the disposition and exposition of these
elements (a three-dimensional demonstration goes beyond what is
possible to discern in two-dimensional documents), then the result,
the reinterpretation of those representations due to an explicit
16
Jean-Louis Cohen, Exhibitionist Revisionism: Exposing Architectural History, Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 58, No. 3, ArchitecturalHistory
1999/2000 (Sep., 1999), p316
9
current context.
In particular, we want to investigate about the specific choice of
representation technique when it is about axonometry. Why and how
much this choice is on purpose? Which is the relation with the theme,
the space and the time of the exhibition?
The possibility to refer to specific space-time situations and to be
open to a vast audience of both professionals and nonprofessionals
give an opportunity to investigate the role of architecture in the
society.
… architectural exhibitions continue to represent more than a
remote horizon line for the history of architecture; they
function as a kind of therapy which-not without risk-reconciles
the field with the reality of the society in which it is
inscribed.17
Hence, considering the importance of architectural exhibitions during
the scope of the last fifty years, and also the constant presence of
Venetian Biennales in the field since 1980, the relevance of the
Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 as a platform to investigate in
purposes of the current paper is unambiguous.
REPORTING FROM THE FRONT
It happens in Venice, may 2016; a cover-manifesto portraying a lady
climbed on top of a ladder in the middle of a desert announces the
Biennale of Architecture entitled “Reporting From The Front” and
curated by Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena.
In the foreground, the mysterious woman observes the landscape with
her back to the viewer, having the possibility to gaze over a far
broad horizon, conquering an “expanded eye”.
This representation reminds us the Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, by
Caspar David Friedrich (1818). Metaphor for the unknown future, the
man looks through a central perspective view at the infinite world
with a romantic and contemplative approach, representing the spirit
of that époque.
On the other side, in the world of Maria Reiche, the woman on the
ladder, the border is defined and specified with clearly visible
horizon line in the background. To have a look “from the front” she
is obliged to attain a different point of view, detached from the
ground and more realistic. Indeed, she needs to do so, as the stones
which she observes in Nazca desert make no sense from the ground
level whereas from the height of the stairs they reveal the images of
a bird, a jaguar, a tree or a flower.
In these two images, the subjects from two different periods of time,
with which the observer identifies himself, take different positions.
The wind that once messes with the hair of the wanderer, today also
blows in the same point but this time moving the dress of the woman
from below, thus highlighting the gap in between the level of the
ground and the one of the observer. Together with her dynamic pose,
17
Ibid, p325
10
this gives the idea of an active and productive approach with which
the human becomes the one that rolls up his sleeves and acts, in
contrast to the contemplative one of the man and following specific
criteria and avoiding emotional involvement, on the object of her
analysis.
As the curator stated: “we would like the Biennale Architettura 2016
to offer a new point of view [towards architecture] like the one
Maria Reiche has on the ladder”.
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer
above the Sea of Fog, 1818
German archeologist Maria Reiche
mapping Nazca lines in Peru,
photo by Bruce Chatwin
Dealing with an architectural exhibition, the drawing, as a technique
to represent things from the specific point of view called for by
Aravena, couldn’t be undervalued; in fact, it gains more and more
relevance.
In this sense, the result that the Venice Architecture Biennale 2016
reached is almost uniform. The axonometric representation spreads and
seems to be essentially preferable tridimensional representation
technique, a mean to tell about architecture, landscapes and not
only, granting a certain perception of the shown “object” and free of
any kind of subjective view. Reporting some examples, the following
axonometries look like honest representations of a reality that is,
taking the curator’s words, “not more complicated than that, but also
not easier than that”, dealing with different themes, talking about
diverse countries, and coming from the mind of many authors.
11
Various axonometric representations from Venice Architecture Biennale 2016
In this set of pictures from Biennale exhibition one can see objects
that are representative of various human activities: a bike to be
ridden, a chair to seat on, a building to occupy, a city to live in.
They are not the end results in themselves.
Architecture appears as a tool to represent the process rather than
the finished result.
The culmination of this fact is stated brazenly in the Golden Lionwinning Spanish Pavilion with the exposition entitled “Unfinished”.
In the official brochure of the pavilion it is written:
The “Unfinished” exhibition, presented in the Spanish pavilion
at the Biennale, seeks to direct attention to processes more
than results in an attempt to discover design strategies
generated by an optimistic view of the constructed
environment.18
Looking at the economic crisis from a realist and sober rather than
melancholic and nostalgic point of view, Iñaqui Canicero and Carlos
Quintáns Eiras, the curators of the pavilion, focused on structures
left unfinished in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
The key-point of the exposition arrives when, assumed these
incomplete construction projects are “contemporary ruins”, it
presents a wide variety of work of about 55 recent buildings that
18
Biennale Architettura 2016 “Reporting from The Front”, UNFINISHED, Spanish Pavilion,
Iñaqui Canicero, Carlos Quintans, p2
12
demonstrate a selected range of solutions working under economic
constraints, showing new ideas to intervene in what already exists
instead of building new things.
The economic crisis – which hit Spain harder than many other
European countries – forced local architects to become more
resourceful.19
As the curator observes, in the new way to view the constructed
environment as unfinished and in constant evolution, the economy of
means compels to modify design strategies, sometimes through
simplification and other times by incorporating previous structures
or anticipating future adaptations. Architecture without place,
façade, structure, without new spaces, which aims to spring as a
result of yielding to difficult initial restrictions that limit
possible actions.
This view of the ruined object that opens to creative speculation
isn’t new. Indeed, it can boast important references such as the past
Piranesi’s engravings, often featured the surprising juxtaposition of
architectural fragments from antiquity, that being inhabited revealed
the sublime condition of an available space to be reoccupied. In this
sense, his fantasy of Campo di Marzio could be seen as an adaptation
of the ruins of antiquity used as a starting point to define a dream
city enormously rich formally and spatially. That is being said, the
space of Piranesi’s Campo di Marzio, represented as a space of
objects, is a precedent for a space indicated in Spanish pavilion
through similarly represented axonometric objects. The theme of
architectural ruins finds another major reference in Choisy’s
drawings from “Histoire l’Architecture”, this time not only by
spatial qualities but, more importantly, by representational ones. In
both cases the drawings create a carefully crafted imaginative space
for architecture from the architectural ruin.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Campo Marzio
19
Iñaqui Canicero in an interview with dezeen.com
http://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/31/unfinished-spanish-pavilion-venice-architecturebiennale-2016-economic-crisis-golden-lion-inaqui-carcinero/
13
UNFINISHED exhibition, Spanish Pavilion
Moreover, “Unfinished” reminds the Italian expression “Non Finito”,
used in the art world to name a group of artworks whose value resides
in their unfinished condition often reached at some moment when the
author’s intent meets with an unexpected event that humanizes and
contextualizes the artwork. It’s possible to find examples in work by
important artists such as Leonardo or Michelangelo. Architecture is
not far-removed if we observe the variables that can occur during the
design and construction process that modify the author’s initial
intentions.
These interferences are opportunities to understand up to what point,
far above the specific needs of the client, architecture belongs to
society and therefore should evolve along with the culture willing to
submit to future needs.
Architecture is generally hybrid, hybrid because it is altered
by its use, because its wear demands attention and adaptation
to prolong its life as a useful building. It is subject to
transformations to adapt to its inhabitants and users.20
Here the detachment from Piranesi’s visions that exhibit the values
of spaces without any possible use can be deduced; “Unfinished” shows
the aim to avoid any construction that remains vacant through a
defined program of project grouped into nine categories.
The Consolidate section features examples of architects who have
helped to save historic buildings; Re-appropriation focuses on the
revival and reuse of abandoned heritage buildings like churches,
industrial spaces and military complexes; Adaptable looks at projects
that explore changing use and flexibility in buildings; Infill
displays structures that fill in the space between existing
buildings; Naked is about buildings that are "nude" and make the most
of their incomplete appearance; Perching features structures that
"perch" on top of others, built in "places where they don't belong";
Reassignments focuses on examples of projects that "questions the
established uses of materials and alter their typical position,
dimensions, connections and uses; Guides shows projects that aim to
offer a blueprint or propose solutions for future structures;
Pavements is about public space interventions.
The project selection tries to evoke the collective. Thus, in this
20
Biennale Architettura 2016 “Reporting from The Front”, UNFINISHED, Spanish Pavilion,
Iñaqui Canicero, Carlos Quintans, p2
14
case, more than in every other pavilion, axonometry triumphs with its
ability to standardize and harmonize all the themes that characterize
the projects, showing a uniform, compact, precise, as simple as
strong strategy.
Axonometric representation takes the highlight off from the final
result and makes a stress on the process of the design. The
objectivity of axonometry devalues the emotional attribute of an
architectural work. The intention is to shift the attention of the
audience to other issues, in this case, specifically to the idea of
“unfinished” architecture as a possible starting point of redesigning in the economic crisis.
This appears as something so intrinsic in the idea of “Unfinished”,
that the required graphic tridimensional documents of the call for
projects to be shown in the pavilion, launched by the curators at the
beginning of the year, asked specifically for “one axonometric view
or a sequence of axonometric views” as necessary required drawings.
Entering the pavilion, the core presents the specific context from
where the exposition idea started; a steel frame hangs from the
ceiling and contains photographs about the “unfinished”, the constant
to which people refer in every moment of the visit walking around it;
then, alongside, the development of the new projects are represented
each through an architectural plan, an axonometric view (strictly
black & white) and some pictures. Moreover, most of the boards with
axonometries are exposed laying on a horizontal plan; in this sense,
intentionally or not, the top-front point of view of the visitor is
recalling the one of the woman on the ladder, both inside and outside
the drawing.
Axonometric representations from Spanish pavilion in Venice Architecture Biennale 2016
Using the tool of representation through the field of architecture,
Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 is a suggestion to assume a
different point of view with respect to the world. This is the one
detached but still close to the problems, the one that wants to gain
a general realist overview in order to have the possibility to solve
them using a specific scientific coherent approach intrinsic to
architecture. In some way it aims and needs to clarify the role of
architecture in the world.
More than showing single element of newness, the Venice Architecture
Biennale 2016 gives an input to deal with the enormous amount of
information we gain and common problems we need to solve. Global
situations need to be represented with the same language, thus
15
axonometry acts as a specific grammar to unite information of
enormous scale and communicate universal messages in coherence with
the new taken point of view.
16
REFERENCES
Books
Massimo Scolari, Oblique Drawing: A History of AntiPerspective, MIT Press 2012
Erwin Panofski, Perspective as Symbolic Form, Zone Books 1996
Massimo Scolari, On drawing. Considerations and aphorisms on
drawing, Stella 2007
Claude Bragdon: The Frozen Fountain, 1932
Jean Baptiste de la Rue and the Académie royale d’architecture
(France), Traité de la coupe des pierres: ou, Méthode facile et
abrégée pour se perfectionner en cette science (Paris: Libraire
du Roi, 1764)
Martin Herrmann Meyer and C. Th. Meyer, Lehrbuch der
axonometrischen Projectionslehre (Leipzig: H. Haessel, 1855–
1863), p13
Journals
Jean-Louis Cohen, Exhibitionist Revisionism: Exposing
Architectural History, Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, Vol. 58, No. 3, ArchitecturalHistory 1999/2000
(Sep., 1999), pp316-325, (University of California Press on
behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians, 1999)
Yve-Alain Bois, Metamorphosis of Axonometry, Daidalos, 15,
September 1981, pp40-58
Hilary Bryon (2008). Revolutions in space: parallel projections
in the early modern era. Architectural Research Quarterly, 12,
pp337-346 doi:10.1017/S1359135508001255
Michio Kato, Axonometry and New Design of Bauhaus, Journal for
Geometry and Graphics, Volume 11 (2007), No. 1, pp73–82
Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 Exhibition Catalogues
Pavilion of Slovenia, “Home at Arsenale”
British Pavilion, “Home Economics – Five new models for
domestic life”
Finland Pavilion – “From border to home”
Korean Pavilio – “The Far Game: Contraints Sparking Creativity”
French Pavilion – “New riches”
17
US Pavilion – “The Architectural Imagination”
Spanish pavilion – “Unfinished”
Web-site articles
ArchDaily - Call for Projects: Spanish Pavilion at 2016 Venice
Biennale (January 28, 2016)
http://www.archdaily.com/781147/call-for-projects-spanishpavilion-at-2016-venice-biennale
Dazeen - Economic crisis made Spanish architecture more
radical, says Biennale pavilion curator (May 31, 2016)
http://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/31/unfinished-spanish-pavilionvenice-architecture-biennale-2016-economic-crisis-golden-lioninaqui-carcinero/
18