Poverty, Homelessness, and War: Architechture at the Venice Biennale

by B. Lana Guggenheim, Staff Writer

The Venice Biennale is getting a lot of airtime, but what is it? As might be implied from its name, it is a biennial festival held in Venice concerning art, architecture, and film. The first was held in 1895, when the Venetian City Council set up an art exhibit to celebrate the silver anniversary of King Umberto I and Margherita of Savoy. As the event grew and gained prestige, more nations began presenting their art in national pavilions. Every festival has a name and theme. The 2015 Art festival was named “All the World’s Futures,” and the exhibits naturally concerned the dire state of the world itself, including issues surrounding colonialism, immigration, and multiculturalism. This year is the 15th Architecture biennale, and the theme is “Reporting From the Front.” (The art and architecture shows alternate, so that there is a biennale annually.)

The director and curator for this year’s Architecture Biennale is Alejandro Aravena, a highly accomplished architect who won the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2016 for his design of the Siamese Towers at the Catholic University in his home country of Chile. He also won the Silver Lion at the 11th Architecture Biennale, and received a Global Award for Sustainable Architecture in 2008, and a Holcim Awards Silver for Sustainable Construction. As one can might be able to tell from the nature of his past work, it due to his direction that the theme of this year’s show focuses on what architecture can do to aid the ills of others, rather than examining the ills of the profession, as was done in 2014. As Robert Landon reported from ArchDaily, Aravena stated in his opening remarks that  "We believe that the advancement of architecture is not a goal in itself but a way to improve people’s quality of life." In other words, his biennale does not ask what architecture ought, yet often fails, to be, but rather what it could, yet often forgets, to do.

In the central pavilion, Aravena notes that over a billion rural people will move to the cities, and often their homes will be built without the input of an architect. As a result, the display of simple, reusable templates, designs featuring simple materials, and the ability to be reproduced by non-professionals is both pointed and horizon-broadening. It also recalls Aravena’s downloadable, open-source urban housing project, designed to encourage participatory building and slash costs, with an eye towards infrastructure for the urban poor.

The exhibits here focus on how architecture can improve and otherwise impact lives, and they have a decidedly political bent, showing both success stories and celebrating innovation as well as highlighting where there is desperate need. The sum result is an expansion of horizons, as architecture is called upon to answer environmental, political, social, and economic needs, in profoundly regional and local terms, rather than just (sometimes highly sanitized) cultural, artistic, and functional demands to which the field so often limits itself.

Different pavilions highlight different things, to come together to form a cohesive response to Aravena’s theme. Spain’s pavilion, “Unfinished,” took the prestigious Golden Lion award this year. The recent economic crisis has proven especially hard for the country, and their architectural exhibit relays this struggle, especially for their architects. When the crisis hit, many projects were left unfinished and abandoned as they were no longer economically feasible, and half-completed and ill-maintained projects litter the cityscapes as a result.  Photographs of these buildings present them as an opportunity for the present, with uncertainty and evolution as part of the nature of architecture, and especially poignant for Spain at the current day.

Gabinete de Arquitectura also took a Golden Lion for their exhibit, which was entitled “Breaking the Siege.” Solano Benitez’s studio is focused on bricks, a versatile, easy to make material that is accessible to all walks of life all over the world, and thus uses it almost exclusively. The light, airy structure is a statement on structural ingenuity, simple materials, and unskilled labor to make architecture accessible to underserved communities.

Britain’s pavilion, “Home Economics,” takes a look at their acute housing crisis, thanks in part to Thatcher’s Right to Buy program, which promoted private gain over common prosperity, and helped engineer a housing shortage that gave way to “Generation Rent.” But the nature of the home has also changed over the generations, including mass migration and global interconnectedness along with growing wage disparity and lack of economic mobility. The models on display here therefore show how shared living can be a luxury rather than mere economic necessity, and avoiding the common problems of speculation and predation in the real estate market. The result is very pragmatic and directly applicable.

The Dutch Blue pavilion is particularly interesting, as it addresses the role of architecture in urban conflict. Increasingly, conflicts and the security apparatus and infrastructure supporting it both are in cities. The exhibit looks at the UN outpost at Gao, Mali, with the title of the exhibit in reference to both the UN Peacekeepers’ blue helmets, and the indigo garb of the Tuareg, the desert people who live on the edge of the Sahara. The project proposes that architecture be part of the planning process of UN peacekeeping bases, in order to leave behind a stronger city with better infrastructure and resources that will aid local populations long after the mission has departed.

Ukraine’s exhibition is a live report from the warfront, and Venice’s is dedicated to Marghera, a polluted and abandoned port. Germany’s talks about immigration in the wake of the Syrian influx of refugees, and looks at “problem zones” as opportunities. Scotland’s virtual reality exhibit is both playful and hopeful, using horse masks as the interface to talk about their history and near extinction of their Gaelic culture, depopulation, and re-orientation towards the Nordic and opening Arctic in the wake of climate change and development.

It’s impossible to describe every pavilion, and the regional takes on the Aravena’s global theme. But perhaps most poignant is not what is at the Biennale, but what was inspired by it: one group of Yale students proposed pop-up religious structures to sustain community and culture in refugee camps, where the transient nature normally prevents such structures from being built. This focus on how architecture can address moral and community needs bereft of resources, materials, and expertise, heeding the sacred in a profoundly unsanctioned environment. It shows that Aravena’s call to broaden architecture’s horizons has been heeded.

Works Cited

"Biography: Alejandro Aravena." The Pritzker Architecture Prize. The Hyatt Foundation, Jan. 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

"BLUE: Architecture of UN Peacekeeping Missions: Inside the Netherlands' Pavilion at the 2016 Venice Biennale." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 31 May 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Carnicero, Iñaqui, and Carlos Quintáns. "Spain's "Unfinished" - Winner of the Golden Lion at the 2016 Venice Biennale." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 28 May 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Doroteo, Jan. "Yale Students Propose a Series of Pop-Up Religious Buildings to Sustain Culture in Refugee Camps." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 10 June 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

"First Look: "Reporting from the Front" Arsenale Exhibition." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 26 May 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Landon, Robert. "Aravena's "Reporting From The Front" Is Nothing Like Koolhaas' 2014 Biennale-But It's Equally as Good." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 14 June 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

"Prospect North: Inside Scotland's Pavilion at the 2016 Venice Biennale." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 07 June 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Russeth, Andrew. "The 2015 Venice Biennale’s Central Show, Focused on Strife, Is Uneasy, Uneven." ARTnews. ARTnews, 05 June 2015. Web. 15 June 2016.

Self, Jack. "Home Economics: Inside the British Pavilion at the 2016 Venice Biennale." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 14 June 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Smith, Roberta. "Review: Art for the Planet’s Sake at the Venice Biennale." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 May 2015. Web. 15 June 2016.

Valencia, Nicolás. "Malkit Shoshan on How the City Is a Shared Ground for the Instruments of War and Peace." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 17 May 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Watkins, Katie. "Gabinete De Arquitectura's." ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 31 May 2016. Web. 15 June 2016.

Government Cannot be Run Like a Business

by Michael Makovi, Guest Writer

We sometimes hear that government is inefficient and wasteful because it is not run like a business. The implication is that if only government were run in a more businesslike manner, its performance would not be so unsatisfactory. In a way, this criticism is true, but not in the way its advocates intend it. Government really would be more efficient if it were run like a business. But the only way to achieve this is through privatization and deregulation. By its constitutional nature, government cannot be run like a business.

In fact, even the most accomplished business person could never run government like a business. If a business person were ever elected or appointed to political office, he or she could not help but execute their office in a typically bureaucratic manner. Only businesses can be operated in a businesslike fashion. There is a fundamental constitutional distinction between government and business, and it is not not the person which makes the office, but it is the office which makes the person. Anyone occupying government office cannot help but behave as a bureaucrat, no matter how accomplished of a business person they might have been previously. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) explained why in a passage worth quoting at length. The following comes from his landmark 1920 article, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", translated from the original German and reprinted in F. A. Hayek's 1935 collection, Collectivist Economic Planning (https://mises.org/library/collectivist-economic-planning):

A popular slogan affirms that if we think less bureaucratically and more commercially in communal enterprises, they will work just as well as private enterprises. The leading positions must be occupied by merchants, and then income will grow apace. Unfortunately "commercial-mindedness" is not something external, which can be arbitrarily transferred. A merchant's qualities are not the property of a person depending on inborn aptitude, nor are they acquired by studies in a commercial school or by working in a commercial house, or even by having been a business man oneself for some period of time. The entrepreneur's commercial attitude and activity arises from his position in the economic process and is lost with its disappearance. When a successful business man is appointed the manager of a public enterprise, he may still bring with him certain experiences from his previous occupation, and be able to turn them to good account in a routine fashion for some time. Still, with his entry into communal activity he ceases to be a merchant and becomes as much a bureaucrat as any other placeman in the public employ. It is not a knowledge of bookkeeping, of business organization, or of the style of commercial correspondence, or even a dispensation from a commercial high school, which makes the merchant, but his characteristic position in the production process, which allows of the identification of the firm's and his own interests. It is no solution of the problem when Otto Bauer in his most recently published work proposes that the directors of the National Central Bank, on whom leadership in the economic process will be conferred, should be nominated by a Collegium, to which representatives of the teaching staff of the commercial high schools would also belong. Like Plato's philosophers, the directors so appointed may well be the wisest and best of their kind, but they cannot be merchants in their posts as leaders of a socialist society, even if they should have been previously.

Let us parse this passage more closely. "A merchant's qualities are not the property of a person . . . The entrepreneur's commercial attitude and activity arises from his position in the economic process and is lost with its disappearance." It is not the person which makes the office but the office which makes the person. A business person behaves as they do because of the institutional constraints of the position. A business person must satisfy voluntary and willing customers who are free to take their dollars elsewhere. It is the phenomenon of profit and loss which fundamentally shapes the character of the business person's activities. The free-market business enterprise faces no captive market and it can take nothing for granted. Either the firm produces products which willing customers voluntarily purchase, or else it goes bankrupt. The business person behaves as they do because of these institutional constraints, not because of anything peculiar to the person him- or herself. "It is not a knowledge of bookkeeping, of business organization, or of the style of commercial correspondence, or even a dispensation from a commercial high school, which makes the merchant, but his characteristic position in the production process, which allows of the identification of the firm's and his own interests." Therefore, "with his entry into communal activity he ceases to be a merchant and becomes as much a bureaucrat as any other placeman in the public employ."

By contrast, a government bureaucracy possesses a monopoly. Its customers cannot choose whether or not to purchase from the bureau. They have nowhere else to turn. Furthermore, the bureau is subsidized by taxes whether it satisfies customers or not. Compare a car insurance company to the DMV, for example: the insurance company must strive to serve its customers at least as well as its competitors, or else it must compensate for worse service with equivalently lower premiums. If it fails to do so, its customers will all abandon it for its competition. Contrariwise, the DMV has no fear that its "customers" will leave it for another. The citizens have nowhere else to turn to obtain their licenses. And whether the citizens are satisfied or not, the DMV receives its funds from taxation. The DMV is paid whether it does its job or not. Therefore, the DMV has no incentive to operate efficiently or to provide satisfactory customer service. The difference between the insurance firm and the DMV is not that the manager of the one is a better business person than the manager of the other. Rather, the fundamental distinction is the conditions under which each operates. Again, it is not the person which makes the office, but the office which makes the person. Therefore, it will do absolutely no good whatsoever to appoint a proven business person to political office. With the loss of their position in the market system, they lose everything it is that ever made them a business person. "Like Plato's philosophers, the directors so appointed may well be the wisest and best of their kind, but they cannot be merchants in their posts as leaders of a socialist society, even if they should have been previously."

Mises made a similar argument in his 1922 book, Socialism (https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis) and by now, the reader should be equipped to interpret it without assistance:

If the work of a body of officials appears unsatisfactory, there can be only one explanation: the officials have not had the right training, and future appointments must be made differently. It is therefore proposed that a different training should be required of future candidates. If only the officials of the communal undertaking came with a business training, the undertaking would be more business-like. . . . It is not difficult to expose the fallacies inherent in such notions. The attributes of the business man cannot be divorced from the position of the entrepreneur in the capitalist order. "Business" is not in itself a quality innate in a person; only the qualities of mind and character essential to a business man can be inborn. Still less is it an accomplishment which can be acquired by study, though the knowledge and the accomplishments needed by a business man can be taught and learned. A man does not become a business man by passing some years in commercial training or in a commercial institute, nor by a knowledge of book-keeping and the jargon of commerce, nor by a skill in languages and typing and shorthand. These are things which the clerk requires. But the clerk is not a business man, even though in ordinary speech he may be called a "trained business man."

In summary: if a political candidate ever promises he will run government like a business, do not believe him or her. He or she cannot run government like a business. It is simply impossible. The difference between government and business is the difference between monopoly and competition, between compulsory taxes and voluntarily paid fees. The institutional constraints of the office make all the difference, and the person him- or herself is almost an afterthought. This is not to say that free-market business enterprises are necessarily superior to government bureaus. Perhaps regulation and publicly-owned corporations are necessary. But let us not confuse the matter by believing that the one can be operated on the same basis as the other. Private and public firms operate within totally different contexts and the principles of one cannot be applied to the other. If regulation is necessary, so be it, but let us be frank and admit that insofar as government is necessary, it is precisely because it is not business like and it never can be.