ARCH+ features 75: Performing Architecture. The Property Issue
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
Title |
| |
Title of Series | ||
Number of Parts | 101 | |
Author | ||
Contributors | ||
License | CC Attribution - NonCommercial 3.0 Unported: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor. | |
Identifiers | 10.5446/54134 (DOI) | |
Publisher | ||
Release Date | ||
Language |
Content Metadata
Subject Area | ||
Genre | ||
Abstract |
|
ARCH+ features91 / 101
13
49
60
64
68
73
74
75
78
93
98
00:00
PropertyIssue (legal)ArchitectureArchMicroarchitectureHousing cooperativeArchitectureTäfelungScale modelDepartment storeLand lotPavilionCuratorFloor planMicroarchitectureBox (theatre)Dock (maritime)Earthworks (engineering)ApartmentSpaceCity (band)CityLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
04:54
TäfelungMicroarchitectureSpaceHousing cooperativeCity (band)ArchMeeting/Interview
08:51
TileIssue (legal)PropertyArchitectBuildingMinimalismMicroarchitecturePavilionTäfelungConstruction trailerNature (innate)CourtyardCrown (headgear)Nursing homeSpaceMeeting/Interview
14:46
PropertyClassical orderIssue (legal)StreetEmbankmentPavilionM72 LAWScale modelMicroarchitectureHouse
18:04
BauträgerPavilionUrbanismCuratorEarthworks (engineering)DirtIssue (legal)ArchitectCity (band)BuildingRentingNew ObjectivityHousing cooperativePropertySpaceLandfillLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
21:35
Typology (theology)FuturismArchitectCity (band)PavilionChapter housePropertyClassical orderElevatorSpeculationFoundation (engineering)BauträgerBuildingLand lotIssue (legal)CuratorStreetRoomStoreyCASTOR-BehälterCourtyardPublic spaceSpaceMicroarchitectureHistory of architectureBuilding materialLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
28:51
MicroarchitectureAir conditioningArchitectWassernutzungLand lotFuturismZoningShooting sportIssue (legal)ApartmentSpirit levelPropertyLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
32:08
TombHouseIndustrial archaeologyEmbankmentHousing estateCity (band)Land lotConstructionPublic spacePropertyPersistenter organischer SchadstoffCrossing (architecture)CityLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
34:32
HousePropertyLightingSquat effectIndustrial archaeologySpaceLecture/ConferenceMeeting/InterviewComputer animation
36:34
SpaceMeeting/InterviewComputer animation
38:26
City
41:17
City
45:14
Water wellRentingNursing homeCity
47:05
SpaceCity
49:35
Nursing homeHouseCity
54:41
Water wellSpaceDock (maritime)Squat effectCityLecture/Conference
56:56
Squat effectSpaceMicroarchitectureArchitectureCity (band)ProfilblechBox (theatre)Industrial archaeologyMeeting/Interview
59:25
MicroarchitectureIndustrial archaeologySpaceCity (band)Capital (architecture)Artist collectiveClassical orderHousing estateEarthworks (engineering)StoreyHouseRentingMeeting/Interview
01:01:51
SpaceHouseHousing estateCity (band)Earthworks (engineering)RuinsCanal poundCentringIndustrial archaeologyRentingMobile homeLightingMovie theaterClassical orderMeeting/InterviewLecture/Conference
01:04:20
Industrial archaeologyClassical orderSpaceNoise barrierTypology (theology)Spirit levelLightingLand lotMeeting/Interview
01:06:10
ParkEarthworks (engineering)Industrial archaeologyCity (band)Issue (legal)Land lotNoise barrierTypology (theology)SpaceHouseLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:08:33
City (band)Noise barrierIssue (legal)UrbanismHouseCentringParkLightingLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:10:20
SpaceRentingLand lotCity (band)Housing estateLandscape architectureSpeculationApartmentUmweltverschmutzungArsenalEarthworks (engineering)New ObjectivityLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:12:44
Issue (legal)Scale modelContactorEarthworks (engineering)PropertySpaceDoorMeeting/Interview
01:14:33
Earthworks (engineering)Capital (architecture)Classical orderSpaceMicroarchitectureLightingIssue (legal)DecadenceCity (band)CuratorTypology (theology)Track gaugeBox (theatre)HouseLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:18:26
City
01:26:57
Rail profileBungalow
01:30:19
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/InterviewCity
01:36:22
MicroarchitectureTownNachttopfIssue (legal)TäfelungCuratorRenaudie, JeanContactorBalconyHouseMeeting/Interview
01:38:44
HouseBalconyContactorSpaceRenaudie, JeanProfilblechLand lotBauhausPublic spaceMicroarchitectureRegionLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:40:29
City (band)City blockDoorCourtyardFenceLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:42:49
BanlieueMicroarchitectureProfilblechAir conditioningNew ObjectivityCuratorHouseNursing homeStreetIssue (legal)ArchitectFenceBuildingMeeting/Interview
01:46:12
HousePropertyRailroad tieBuilt-up gunFarmLight fixtureFenceCut (earthmoving)Lecture/Conference
01:48:07
Land lotIssue (legal)PavilionFenceClassical orderLight fixtureWallLecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:49:53
Land lotInterior designPavilionWallAnstrichfarbeBuildingSurveyingConcreteNursing homeMetropolisMeeting/Interview
01:52:59
StreetScale modelContactorTownCity (band)PavilionBridgeConventMeeting/Interview
01:56:24
Water wellSpaceCurator
02:02:00
Hall
02:07:37
Air conditioning
02:13:31
MicroarchitectureLand lotArchitecturePavilionDissolved organic carbonNursing homeMeeting/Interview
02:15:21
Oxygen sensorArchFuturismPublic spaceCity (band)StaubLecture/Conference
02:17:13
ArchArchitecturePropertyTäfelungCity (band)Public spaceSpaceKeystone (architecture)ConstructionLand lotMeeting/InterviewCity
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:11
Hello and welcome, welcome to this panel and welcome to Performing Architecture.
00:21
My name is Joachim Bernau, you don't find my name on the program because this is a cooperation of the Goethe-Institut und Eichplus and it's not only the panel that we are and the performance we are going to see in a moment. And it's also the opening of the, let's call it the third act of performing architecture.
00:46
So you have seen this program, the third edition of performing architecture. A program developed by the Goethe-Institut started at the Biennale of Architecture two years ago,
01:00
four years ago and two years ago and it was the second time. So it's the third time. For the third time, Susanne tells me, we are printing our program on Schiro alga carta and that's made of an algae that otherwise would clog the lagoon of Venice.
01:23
So we have a third time. We have a second time that we cooperate with Eichplus. This has started two years ago and has been a very good cooperation. And for the first time we are cooperating with Saledocs and Rebienalle in this wonderful space
01:41
and with such wonderful partners. So the Goethe-Institut, you know, we are a private institution funded by the Federal German Foreign Office. And freedom probably is value number one in our work.
02:08
There are about more than 150 institutes around the world. So this year's motto of the Biennale, free space, comes very natural to us. Actually since two years we are working on a program that is called Freireum.
02:24
It's just exactly the same word. Freireum is a project we are developing with 40 cities around Europe bringing together partners who think about what matters, what is at stake, what means freedom to us.
02:44
And of course we are talking about freedom in expression, freedom of religious belief, freedom of artistic expression. And I stop here because that would be another panel. So let me quickly thank for the cooperation.
03:02
We are cooperating with Eichplus. We are cooperating with the German pavilion and the Swiss pavilion. We are cooperating with Saledocsale and we are cooperating with Rebienalle and the Spedel Architectural School. And we are supported by the Prolevizia, by the Rheinbein Kulturfon, by the Cultural Ministry of Saxonia
03:28
and last but not least by the German Federal Foreign Office. And we want to thank very heartfelt our partners here, our new partners at Saledocs and from Rebienalle.
03:46
Take applause. Roberto and Marco will be here on the panel.
04:01
And I want also to thank, and I have to name them, the team of the Goethe-Institut because everything that happens in Venice is on the responsibility of the Goethe-Institut in Milano. So the Goethe-Institut in Milano with Catherine Oswald Richter, Rosina Francais and Chiara Salmoneta, they are here and they also should have a big applause for organizing this.
04:24
Thank you so much. And last but not least, the head office is involved. So my name is Joachim Berno. I'm heading the cultural department in Munich and on my side is Susanne Traub,
04:42
who is a curator of this program. The Performing Architecture Program. She is assisted by Isabella Widamer and Susanne. Perhaps you can say a few words about Performing Architecture and the artists. Thank you very much for your attention.
05:01
Thank you, Joachim, for introducing and just a few words on the program. The program started four years ago, 20, 2040, and right from the beginning, actually, we focused to create actually experimental space on the interface of architecture,
05:27
fine arts, choreography, performing arts, and also asking institutional questions. And why do we do that? It's actually an attempt to create a new space.
05:41
And this is really meant where we can experiment by maybe getting new perspective, but also new experiences. And this is what we really mean. And therefore, I think artists' perspectives are always very welcome.
06:00
And space is something we share, not just art disciplines. We, all human mankind, share spaces to get together and really experiment and confront each other with new thinking and new experiences. This is the focus or it's the intention of performing architecture.
06:20
And therefore, in this edition, I'm really happy that there always are artists they're really there to go with and also are eager to experiment. And I want to welcome these artists to this year's performing architecture
06:41
and also like to thank them. And I do it just by reading the names and already started to have the artists from the group around Monika Ginterstaufer and Knut Klaassen. We also will have a performance now afterwards or in between.
07:06
And therefore, with Monika and Knut, I want to welcome Gotadebrie and Richard Siegel and also Frank Edmond. Actually, the both are the performers tonight.
07:21
And then also Montserrat Gardo, Castillo. And we have another group already around in the city performing. This is the group around Xavier Le Roy. And they did already a workshop and around them, I also welcome
07:40
from Scarlett Yu and Alexandra Ashour, Susanne Grimm and Sena Hanna. And I also see amongst the audience other experts and artists. And there I welcome a fellow who is really very important for this year's. It's Armin Avanesian.
08:00
It's Marie-Franz Raphael. There is Sandra Uhi. I see Johanna Bruckner. And are there some others? Please raise the hand if you are amongst us. So we will see you all maybe tomorrow in the panel discussion. So I thank you for daring this experiment and being with us.
08:23
And be welcomed in the program. Now we shorten up and I want to pass on the stage and the microphone to Anne Lingo. And I'm really happy having this cooperation and having nice discourse aspects
08:43
from the architectural side in this performing field. Thank you and it's you at the stage. Thank you very much Mr. Bernau and Susanne Traub for the welcoming words
09:04
and for the second time that we cooperate in Venice. And I think if we continue next time and after three times you can say it's a tradition. So let's keep on. And it's in fact a small tradition for Act Plus to be present coinciding with the opening of the Architecture Biennale.
09:30
It's the fourth time we've been here. In Venice for the Act Plus features. It's a series we started in 2010 with the generous support of our initiative partner Ziekle
09:45
who are also present here today. And prospective partners like Dornbrad and Ouroboden. Which allow us to have the opportunity to travel here and present to you some of the issues we've been dealing with in the past.
10:06
And today it's quite a dry topic. But in a way also a very urgent topic which is in German we call it Die Bornfrage
10:21
and in English we've translated it as the property issue. And that's also the name of the issue we co-edited together with Arno Gränerhuber who was planned to be here today. But he caught a serious flu and is lying in bed and sending his greetings.
10:43
And we wish him a good recovery. But the other editor of the issue is Olav Kravat who is with me here today moderating the panels. There will be three panels, short panels with three interventions by the performers.
11:03
So it's really the first time for us kind of performing architecture. Because it's also about the way we deal with the surfaces on which we walk naturally. Naturally in a sense that we never think about.
11:23
The ground on which we walk or the ground on which architects build. So the creators of this year's Biennial have named their addition free space.
11:41
So if you have been there you will see or you will see in the next few days that they mainly focus on architectural solutions. Narrowing down the discourse in a way to a very minimal so-called kind of discourse of architecture.
12:02
And what we would like to do today is to open it up a bit in the sense that architects quite very reluctantly if ever really deal with the question of who owns the land, the ground on which we build.
12:24
And in the face of the accelerating privatization, commercialization of space, it's getting more and more urgent that we get back to this old-fashioned question
12:43
which has been dealt with over the last century. And also by you've seen the film Hans-Jorgen Voge, Olaf will be discussing this together with Florian Hartwig who curated together with Andrea Rumpf the Luxembourg pavilion this year
13:08
which is devoted to the theme of how architects, how architecture deal with the question of the land. So with that I would like to pass over to Olaf.
13:23
Olaf works with the office and is teaching with Arno at the ETA Zurich. So Olaf maybe just to start, why are we here?
13:41
What's the property issue about? Maybe we start with because actually it was a very practical problem or it is.
14:03
Is this better? Yeah. So actually the property question is really not only a theoretical question, it's like our daily business because it came to happen that when you want to build something new in Berlin, you cannot find land anymore, like a very basic question.
14:22
And actually in the discussion with other architects and other people, you quite fast realize that it's not a present topic. So it's not like, it's not common sense that we have to question who owns the land and how can we redistribute it or how could we even access it. So I quickly want to show the trailer and then start the discussion with Florian and Hans-Jochen Vogel.
15:17
The land belongs to everybody.
15:36
And of course, all we know, we all know, ecologically, if I have a stream in my property,
15:42
you have a stream in your property, it's the same stream. And so what I do in my property, the stream is going to affect you, etc. An architecture of good intention does not solve anything.
16:05
It does not change our way of looking at the problems, our way of inventing tools, our way of trying to find solutions.
16:27
So if we do not change our culture, our way of doing, our way of thinking, I do not think that we can find any solution. To approach the problem of social injustice,
16:41
reproducing model of housing 50 years ago, makes no sense. Not to rethink what does it mean today living.
17:10
It is important that I have access to water and love. And here I am, I am the owner of the property, and I am the owner of the property,
17:20
and I am the owner of the property too. But how is that a problem? I have to talk to Ken Baez. I mean, in England, when you had those laws of freehold and leasehold, you know, the leasehold was great. The idea of private property to me is anomalous. I don't think we should have it.
18:01
So what we see here is actually your article on Hans-Joachim Vogel's project to reform ownership in urban land. You also, as Anne-Lynn mentioned, are the curator with Andrea Rumpf together of the Luxembourg pavilion. And what we have in the issue, it's like in the beginning and also in your pavilion is this timeline
18:21
on the development of land ownership and land distribution. So maybe as like an entrance for the audience who is not familiar with the topic, you could quickly like outline or give the most important points historically on this discussion. Well, actually the driving force of this timeline
18:42
was Dirk Loehr, who is really the specialist in the issue. I'm only an architect, but I'm interested in the topic. And actually it starts with the Bible, which I will not quote, but I think a quite similar quote is the one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who says, it's a beautiful sentence, he says,
19:01
You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one. And then there, I mean there are so many philosophers in history that are concerned with this issue. I would say the first real important moment is, of course,
19:23
Henry George and his proposal of a single tax that of course in Progress and Poverty was one of the most read books ever, I think, after the Bible, apparently. He calls for the fiscal confiscation of ground rent
19:41
and the abolition of all other taxes. And this, of course, raises a very important question of what society do we want to live in, a society where, for example, labor is highly taxed or the ground, which is basically or mostly inherited, right? But is there something like, is there like one point in history
20:03
or a person that contributed to our idea of ownership, which is quite related, like we define ourselves over the ownership of land? Well, of course, then there are the cooperatives and the anarchists in the beginning of the 20th century,
20:21
but I think one of the most important figures is, of course, Silvio Gesell, who divided the land from the building. And this is, I think, something extremely important and that we are thinking of today, again. And that was actually Fogel's idea or project. Silvio Gesell called it Freiland.
20:42
I don't know. We thought about maybe calling the Luxembourg pavilion Freeland, but free space Freeland. Free space becomes Freeland, but it's not a very good translation. So basically this is the idea, of course, Silvio Gesell. And then there is, of course, an architect who was very close to Silvio Gesell who was Hans Bernoulli,
21:03
the Swiss architect. And what is interesting about Bernoulli, that he was not only an architect, he was also a politician. He was in the Swiss parliament, and he was also a professor in Zurich. And he wrote this beautiful book, Die Stadt und der Burden,
21:20
The City and Its Land, 46, in which he claims this kind of idea of division between the land, which should be, of course, of communal property, and the building, which could be a private object. We had already one event in Berlin where it became quite clear that it's a systematic problem.
21:42
Nevertheless, there's also the interesting side of typologies, like which architectural typologies could give an answer or could try to deal with it in a different way. So you have behind you the feature, which is also in the ARC+, that is also related, of course, to your pavilion,
22:01
to the Luxembourg pavilion, which possibilities do you see as an architect to deal with the land question in a different way, like in a built way? Maybe just let me allow, first of all, maybe to say one sentence on Hans-Hermann Vogel, because we started to think about this, actually,
22:21
with the dialogic city already that we published with Arno, and Thomas Meyfried, who is sitting there. And it was the seventh chapter, actually, the last chapter. I think if we do the project today, it would be probably the first chapter. And what was interesting, so I went to Bonn, to the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung,
22:43
the foundation of the Social Democratic Party, and they have the archives of Hans-Hermann Vogel, and it was absolutely interesting. I asked for material for two years, and the guy came with tons of materials, papers. It was really documents.
23:01
It was absolutely interesting to see that in the beginning of the 70s, it was a real public debate. It was a debate in all the parties, in the Conservative Party. They had a commission about Sozialis-Bodenrecht in, of course, the Social Democratic Party,
23:21
where the driving force was, of course, Hans-Hermann Vogel, who was a mayor already during 10 years in Munich. So he was aware of the problem, of the over-speculation of the urban land. And even the Liberal Party, after their program in Freiburg, they were concerned about this issue.
23:42
So it was a real debate in the parliament, but also in the public sphere, in the magazines, in the journals. So it was really very interesting to see that, well, all we are talking about today was already discussed in the beginning of the 70s.
24:01
So that was actually interesting, and that was the research, so you can see it here. Maybe I would like to quote, what is interesting is that Franz Joseph Strauss, who is not really well known as an anarchist, he says, I quote Franz Joseph Strauss,
24:21
who says in 1970 at a party conquest in Nuremberg of the conservative party, CSU, he said, the land prices in the Federal Republic of Germany are rising to such an extent that it is inexcusable to allow these profits to flow untext into the pockets of a few.
24:43
Between 1957 and 1967, so in 10 years, for example, the city of Munich purchased land for around 650 million marks. Had it bought these properties altogether in 1957,
25:00
so 10 years before, it would only have paid 148 million. Half a billion was thus earned by a handful of people thanks to state services, development costs, and it was even tax-free. And this is of course something, I mean, so you see that it was real debate.
25:22
And so to answer your question, so it's of course a political debate, and I think we as an architect, we should even maybe launch or at least contribute, and maybe we can be a driving force in this kind of debate, that it has to be really a public debate,
25:42
but at the same time, how can we react as an architect? So we did this research, we revisited the history of architecture, and we defined like five typologies, because of course there is a time-related dimension and there's a space-related dimension. Time-related dimension would be the distinction between the land
26:03
and then via leasing rights, you know, to lease the land to develop the architecture. So this would be the time-related. And we were more concerned about the space-related approach.
26:21
So five typologies. One would be, we don't see it here, the first one would be, for example, the reduction of the footprint in order to offer most of the land to public uses. For example, take me's Seagram building, and of course we all know that the owner of the,
26:43
I mean, the client who lost a lot of money by following me's, you know, when he put his building 30 meters behind the street. And for the pavilion, we chose the most radical of those typologies,
27:01
which are elevated buildings. It's not, of course, a plea for an elevated city, which doesn't make sense, because we are aware of the importance of the activities in the ground floor. But in the elevated building, of course,
27:23
the idea is that symbolically and physically the ground floor, the land remains open for other kind of uses. And if you see the privatization of the land, and in Luxembourg it is already dramatic, that is the issue of the pavilion, we show that only 8% of the constructible land
27:44
remains in public property. What does it mean, 8%? And of course, we can observe this everywhere, this kind of privatization, which means in Luxembourg that there is also a speculation of the land, which is not developed,
28:02
because there are no taxes on the land. And so, of course, what we can observe due to this privatization is that we see that our cities are transformed into kinds of archipelagos of socially homogeneous islands, more and more.
28:23
And this, of course, resists to this. It means it's also a message, okay, we as an architect, even in the context of privately owned land, we have to fight for public uses, making them accessible, and so on.
28:41
So this is the idea of this pavilion. So we selected 11 projects from the history of ideas. Unrealized projects, for example, on this image you see on the right, it's Luigi Snodzi's diploma in Zurich in 1956, I think.
29:04
And on the left, there is this tremendous building, Habitat of the Future, imagined by Nathan Osterman, who was a very brilliant architect in the Soviet Union. You know that after the death of Stalin, they opened again the architecture for experimentation.
29:23
So that's basically it. Okay, so we heard Vogel before saying he compared land to air and water. It was his argument that is quite obvious and quite clear to us. Nevertheless, he never really made it, no? It also becomes clear in the issue
29:42
that he had a lot of good ideas, but he always had the other side, the other political side, and he always argued that they were afraid of not being re-elected, because it was always compared to expropriation, what he suggested in a way. So, did you find out about any ideas, or what could you imagine that architects,
30:01
how could we build up an argument and participate in this discussion or develop it further? You mentioned becoming like a politician. First of all, you know that he didn't, that he couldn't realize his project because of his partner in the coalition, of course, because of the Liberal Party.
30:22
Even so, the Liberal Party in the beginning of the 70s was not the same Liberal Party that we have to face today. I mean, it was really a much more social Liberal Party in the beginning of the 70s, and they were very much influenced by the program in Freiburg, the famous Freiburg program. And even during the debate in the parliament,
30:43
the deputy of the Liberal Party, he said, maybe somebody can translate it, he said in German, Now, as you know that in the German constitution,
31:06
which, for example, doesn't exist in the very liberal Luxembourgish constitution, there are two meanings for property. There is, of course, the property that is a right, and that you have to be careful with,
31:20
as a private right, but at the same time, there is, how does he say it, property enables social... Property entails obligations. Entails obligations. Thank you very much. So that was even the ambition,
31:42
that was the idea of the Liberal Party, even the Liberal Party was for this aspect, but they were afraid of an absolute, which is unimaginable today, they were really afraid of an absolute majority of the Social Democratic Party.
32:00
And that's why it failed. But I don't have an answer to your question, actually. Why do you think the question is urgent again? Because we've collaborated not only with you and Arno, but also with Hara Trapp and Robert Toome from London and from Trier,
32:22
who also were dealing with the same question. What's the meaning of the question returning today? I can't tell about the Luxembourg case, but it's a case that you can almost observe everywhere. Of course, for example, in Luxembourg,
32:41
we have this huge housing shortage problem. I mean, it's really problematic. Even people from the middle class cannot afford anymore to live in the city of Luxembourg. And we know, of course, since Friedrich Engels said,
33:03
we have to keep the shortage very high of the offer of housing on the market. Then the price for the real estate industry
33:20
remains extremely high. So, as I said, last sentence, as I said, there are only 8% of the constructible land in public property, and the rest, the 92%, are not developed. Why? Because they belong to lots of old families,
33:44
and they don't want to develop. There's no interest in developing them. So, there's an absence of taxes on undeveloped land. I mean, there's an absence on taxes on land, and also on undeveloped land. And so, they see the value increasing
34:04
from year to year of their land, and so they don't develop it. That's it, and that's the problem. And we can observe this, of course, everywhere in all the major cities. I mean, look at Berlin. Berlin, apparently, Michelle Meninger always says that after the fall of the war, 50% of the constructible land belonged to the city,
34:23
the municipality, and after, especially the Landowski scandal and banking crisis, 2002, they sold out everything, the whole city. So, of course, the housing question is, of course, Bodenfrei.
34:40
So, continuing this, actually, behind you, there was this property entails obligations. What you mentioned, it's also part of the German constitution, Eigentum Verflichte. And it's also interesting, because there was like a moment in history where Fogel said, Lieber in Stammt besetzen, als kaput besitzen, and he was referring to the squatting scene in Berlin
35:01
when he was a mayor at this time, which actually brings us directly to the next theme of squatting.
35:33
Jad siente, luwet, jedst hat sich ein so zeslich es, aktu eles problem egem, neem lech das der Haus besetzen,
35:42
esen über näun sich heuser inswüsschen. Dan musstig nach meiner Wahe in die Janur shannen anfang feberein erig Jungsze gliung, abgem die sich hab sechlich mise Haus besetzen, und den Gewalt het ich geiten die damit vabund wern, beuschäftigtat, und so wie wir nacht in Schwabenkegravin
36:02
ein mündchener, ein mündchener lineen, in wie geltam, ein der Berliner lineen, der verhiln ist michigkeit für geslauen, verhiln ist michigkeit, das eben für das eingeifen der Polizei, nicht, der simplet hat bistand genüt, des unden das nach Dinge,
36:21
dat zu krum musten inspezondere, klerung wast dann mit im Perunten, gebäuschen, anwesen, anwesen, gesiehen zu. Now we will have the first intervention of the performance and after that we will have the discussion with Marco Babal
36:45
about this space which was formerly a squatted space so it's very much related to the theme of what we are talking in practice so now we will have the first and I would like to ask you to move to the side
37:04
for the performance please, thank you and please take the cushions with you, thanks.
47:43
Why are we not allowed to do this? Why can't we squat? Anybody can explain why we're not allowed to squat?
56:33
Thank you very much for the first intervention and it has already raised a few questions and themes we will be discussing now with Marco Babal
56:44
who is part of the collective, the curatorial team of the space of Solidox and the theme of squatting has been raised
57:00
so that's the starting point for this place also maybe you can talk a bit about what's this space about, what relationship this space has to the arts economy and the tourism, so all the key words we've heard already.
57:21
Sure, I'll try to make a long story short first of all thank you very much for involving us in your project in this amazing 2018 edition of Performing Architecture I must say that it's very difficult to talk after the performance because I feel my pale and anaphabeticized body
57:41
really barely sustaining the weakness of my words so I mean it's kind of an effort but I'll try first of all I would say since you're here and since we're talking about free space and sharing that Venice is a space which is easily available it is very easily available to rent or to buy
58:04
if you have the necessary financial resources but it is very difficult to share so the present situation is really I think tragic because the space here is not really available for other forms of life than those linked to mass tourism
58:21
industry and to the event economy and the Biennale plays a role in it so we as a small experience, as a small space which is anyway part of a larger network of social movements which are active in Venice and social realities I think we could be described not as a, first of all
58:42
not as a box for events that we need to fill with a program but we were, the whole project was founded as an attempt to reclaim free space in a city which is losing all the space for sharing
59:00
for inhabitants, for a normal life of a normal city of course with its contradictions I mean so we started in 2007 and we occupied actually the space which was and is owned by the municipality of Venice and as I was telling Aline before when I say we, I mean a group of activists
59:23
in 2007 we, I mean we became aware that many of us had something to do with the cultural industry we were working in the art field, in architecture all were art students at local university and we were witnessing huge investments in the fields of contemporary culture that were happening
59:41
at the half of the 2000s let just mention the Francois Pinot operation who invested 30 millions of euros to restore Punta de la Dogana and to have an agreement for the use of that space for 90 years I think in order to show us private art collection
01:00:00
new universities were opening, and of course, the Biennale was raising and is still raising in terms of national participation, collateral events, and numbers of visitors. We were, of course, interested in this development, but we also were experiencing on our skin the dark side of it. So, from two different points of view.
01:00:20
The first one is how is it possible that art is involving gentrification in a city which already lost hundreds of thousands of inhabitants? You must know that now on the island, so on the historical part of the city, there are only 53,000 residents.
01:00:40
So, like a small promised village, let's say. And we suffer, let's say, a touristic pressure of over 30 millions of tourists per year. So, the disproportion is completely crazy. So, we asked ourself, how does gentrification work in a city in which gentrification already has another name?
01:01:01
It's called Exodus, because we are already over the stage of gentrification. So, we asked, how does real estate, how does ground rent, real estate rent, parasite not only the collective symbolic capital of the city, but also art and the art economy? Well, for example, through the business
01:01:22
of renting the spaces for the collateral events of the Biennale, that's also why in 11 years of activities, this is only the second time that we are opting for a partnership during the Biennale opening. Because for the rest of the other years, we always produce our own curatorial project
01:01:43
with our own funds and our own fundings. We decided to work with you this year, of course, because it's useful to cover the costs that we have, but especially because we have such amazing artists and such compelling debate proposal. So, we were very happy to collaborate with you,
01:02:01
and I think you also understand who we are in a way, or what we're trying to do here. So, the idea is, imagine that we were speaking about this business or renting out spaces for collateral events of the Biennale.
01:02:21
Sources of the press say that every art Biennale, the amount of money that circulates around this business is around 25 millions of euros per year. And not, I think, one-tenth of this amount of money goes into, for example, into fueling public projects
01:02:41
or get invested into, I don't know, like young local cultural enterprise, or for example, in social housing, or refurbishment of the huge estate heritage of Venice, which is really endangered by ruins. So, 99% of this amount of money
01:03:02
is parasited by private rent. So, this is truly a very terrible mechanism, and it really elights how real estate parasites art and how gentrification works, even in a city which is already beyond that stage.
01:03:21
So, we decided to occupy this space and to try to do something else, to try to self-manage a cultural laboratory which work with completely different logics to the neoliberal logics that we know that we see at work with this economic and social mechanism in the city,
01:03:41
also linked, not only linked to mass tourism, but also linked to the art event economy. And we did many different things. Of course, we host exhibitions, workshop, but we also are center for independent research. We are actually involved into actions
01:04:02
or strikes at the side of cultural workers in Venice, and so on and so forth. So, very different thing, because the other dark side of this process is basically the kind of labor mobilized by this very rich economy. So, if you try to work and live in Venice,
01:04:22
you immediately witness the amount of unpaid labor, the amount of de-qualificated labor that you have to give to this industry in order to be part of it. And it's a paradox, because it's a very, very rich industry. Anyone who tries, for example, any institution that try to organize something here
01:04:42
during the United Days, opening days, know how much it costs to be here. And none of this money is reinvested into something that we could describe as a common project. So, for example, by having a partnership with us,
01:05:01
the money that you spend are not appropriated by some private owners of Palazzo, or not appropriated by some intermediary agency that manages 20 spaces in the city, but go completely to finances. This type of project that, until we are here, is always going to be a free space, a shareable space.
01:05:22
So, this is the first thing that I wanted to tell. More on the general level, something to try to explain how difficult is the situation in Venice. Now, also on the side of the governance of the city. So, a few weeks ago, our mayor,
01:05:40
Brunaro, Luigi Brunaro, which is a right-wing mayor, imagine a small local Berlusconi with a bit of delay. Basically, our mayor really acts and behaves like him. He has a very, very strictly neoliberal idea of governing a urban space, a city.
01:06:01
So, his idea, two or three weeks ago, was to put barriers, I don't know if you read, was to put some barriers at the main entrance of Venice, at Piazzade Roma, in Piazzade Roma. Basically, to stop tourists or to stop the fluxes when they become too strong.
01:06:20
So, apart from the fact that it's a ridiculous idea, it's not effective, it doesn't work. But, at the first glance, we were tempted to see it as a sort of, say, okay, this mayor is surrendering to the idea that we are living in a theme park. That this is not anymore a real city,
01:06:41
this is only a touristic department, and that I have to show my idea to get into the town, which is my own, into the city which is my own. Where I live, where I work, where I pay my taxes, where I fall in love, et cetera. It's my city, the city I love. I have to show my idea like a checkpoint to get inside.
01:07:01
But, this is not the right way to see it. Actually, this is not the fact that the current administration surrendered to this idea. These turnstiles, these barriers, really showed what is their program of governance. So, they want it. We are in a moment in which our mayor,
01:07:21
those who should be in charge to get our city more inhabitable, to get the city repopulated, are just wanting to get more profits out of it. And this is actually the problem, what they want to do. This is completely crazy. It's not just say, oh, everything is lost, Venice is dying.
01:07:42
Also, this idea of Venice as a dying city is a kind of a stereotype, which is also sellable on the market, on the touristic industries. Because if a city is dying, we will run to see it even only for a couple of hours before it disappears, before it sinks, before it dies. So, I mean, this is a stereotype.
01:08:02
But now, we are far beyond it. We are already in a moment in which those who should be in charge who give to the city that is in dramatic need of free space, more shareable space, more social housing, more council estates, it is totally the opposite.
01:08:22
It was, I suggest you read, for example, Wolfgang Scheppe's essay, which is also featured on this Art Plus issue, because it's completely, I think it is very, very relevant. I've been living here for the last 19 years, and I think his essays really
01:08:43
focuses on many of the main issues, the urgent issues of the city now. So, by the way, what did we do? We, together, our social movements, people from other social movements, realities in Venice,
01:09:01
we went to the barriers and we dismantled the barriers for at least like a couple of hours. We were there. So, I also want to say that Venice is not hopeless. But the point is that from the urban point of view, it really takes a revolution. There are 53,000 residents, and the historical center is losing 1,000 residents per year.
01:09:23
So, if something does not change, if the tendency remains as such in 53 years, probably this place here is gonna really become an actual theme park for city users and not for inhabitants.
01:09:42
So, it's definitely necessary to reverse these kind of processes. And also, there's another paradox, and then I stop here. I mean, there's another paradox. Venice is the city of the Biennale, which I think it's a resource for the city,
01:10:00
because it keeps it with its lights and shadow, but it keeps the city at the center of the global cultural world. So, I think it is a resource. But we are facing a paradox. The most the Biennale, what happens around the Biennale focuses on social issues.
01:10:20
The most, apparently, the Biennale fuels this process of fuels the ground rent in the city. Fuels this idea, and this mechanism of Venice has been a city for rent, has been an event city. And this is very dramatic.
01:10:41
That's why I think, even if we are a very small experience, we are a laboratory. That's the point. We're not just a space that is usable if you have financial resources, but we are a permanent laboratory, and we try with our small resources to work as such.
01:11:00
Because I think that the only way really to save Venice from its testing, or at least to reverse this process, is to give Venice, again, new, let's say new spaces for production by subtracting spaces to the rent
01:11:20
which are monopolizing the city. Let me just give you a final example of how also kind of ambiguous the art event economy is in Venice. For example, yesterday, we did organize in front of the gates of the Arsenale entrance, a protest, together with the ask,
01:11:40
which is the social assembly for rousing. It is a network of more than 60 occupied apartments in Venice that really helped, especially after the financial crisis broke out, it really helped lots of Venetian families to remain in the city that otherwise they would abandon because they didn't have enough money to pay the rent.
01:12:02
And we were protesting against what you probably saw yesterday, the Victoria and Albert Museum operation of showing here at the Biennale a chunk of the Robin Hood Gardens estate that was recently demolished in London to make space for a, let's call it
01:12:22
for a real estate speculation operation for luxury or at least middle class apartments. So I think also it's not enough anymore to say that our institution provide a free space for debate, provide a free space for discussion
01:12:42
because while we are discussing very compelling political issues, the effect, the actual effect of many art institutions on the European tissue that surrounds them is a deeply ambiguous or negative effect and linked to gentrification.
01:13:01
Of course, we all know this. Institutional critique was something that happened in the 70s, so it's not something new. But I think that today we really beside criticizing, besides never forgetting that when we are here debating we are also part of the problem. Of course, the free space is necessary.
01:13:22
I mean, I like to discuss, I like to debate. I think your work with this property issues was tremendous. So of course, it's always a matter of negotiating, not being stupid in refusing the contact with the art system because the art system kind of captures you anyway. Even if we were like a punk space
01:13:41
with a middle finger on the door, it would probably be even more easy for the art system to capture us and we could become the off space for party, for the artists afterwards they showing their things to the, at the Biennale. So I think that now beside criticizing,
01:14:00
it's always, it's also very, very urgent that together like social movements, activists, existing official art institutions discuss and try to think, to imagine, and to put in place together alternative models of art institutions which are driven by different economic logics, different social logics,
01:14:25
and I think this is one of the things that at least in Venice is truly, truly needed. Yeah. Thank you very much.
01:14:42
I think what Marco just said and what Wolfgang Sheppard wrote in his essay on the ground round and the art economy and tourism, et cetera, and also what Harit Rupp and Robert Toome dealing with their capital architecture
01:15:01
shows up a bigger problem. You were referring to the system. So the question is if everything is being financialized, so you are in danger of being evicted for, I don't know, hosting weddings or whatever is a need for the space,
01:15:22
how do we react as citizens, as producers in order to keep these kind of spaces of resistance not only in a marginal role but as being part of the producer side?
01:15:41
How do we manage to make it more permanent? Well, I have no answer, but I think that it is also a matter of perspective. So this year Biennale is titled Free Space. 2012 Biennale was titled Common Ground. So and we did a sort of counter event
01:16:02
which we named Common Battle Ground. I really think that's the point. As people working in our institutions or in architecture, as people that we meet internationally meet in this type of spaces and we are organizer of event,
01:16:21
I think we should be aware at least of the fact that the art system actually provides no free space. There is no free space. I mean, this is a lie which was fueled, for example, by the one of the major, I think one of the most,
01:16:41
yeah, major curatorial discourses of the last decades. If you read even like very interesting art curators like Hans Ulrich Obrist, Okuyenwezor, and many others, but just to name a few, they are all, Nicolas Buriot with relational aesthetics, they are all kind of stating
01:17:00
that the art system is a sort of interval, is a sort of free space within a world totally colonized by capitalism, by capitalistic capture, by capitalist valorization. I think that this is not true. If we believe this, we will end up
01:17:22
by believing our own lies. In a way, I think it's a work on the self that we must seriously consider, because we are talking, we are speaking in no free space, and beyond our best intentions,
01:17:41
the effect that the art economy is having, again, on how the city are shaped, on how the cities are developing, and your issue really is very clear on it, our effect as people involved in culture, I think, at least in Venice,
01:18:01
is more on the side of neoliberal profit than on the side of commoning. So I would say that it's a matter of perspective. Art, like any other space, is a battleground. To engage this space in a certain way is probably one of the difficult choices
01:18:23
that we have to think about. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, are we having the next intervention, or are we skipping it and making no longer in the end?
01:18:44
What do you think? You are coming? Okay.
01:21:48
My machine. 2,000 hertz.
01:22:02
And I am my machine. 4,000 hertz. And I am my machine.
01:22:30
8,000 hertz. And I am my machine.
01:23:02
And I am my machine.
01:30:48
From the inside to the, who's is it, then? I'm just asking.
01:31:00
Questions are, oh.
01:36:33
Very short last panel with Monika Ginterstorfer and Knut Klassen.
01:36:40
Monika is a theater director, and Knut is a artist who founded Ginterstorfer, Klassen, and was responsible for this performance part in this event today. And what's interesting is, by coincidence,
01:37:03
that they have been working with a performance a few years ago in this new town in Paris called Evry-sur-Seine. And you see here an image of the performance.
01:37:24
And it's not the project we presented in the issue by René Galuste, but by Renaudie, but still it's in the same ensemble. And it's interesting that we were talking about
01:37:40
the freedom of the public sphere in our issue, and this was captured very much in the architecture of René Galuste and Jean Renaudie. And maybe we just start talking about and weaving a few things together why you were interested in this kind of architecture,
01:38:02
which was only possible by the very strong public domain that there were communist mayor who reinforced this kind of social housing estates back in the 60s and 70s.
01:38:22
And maybe Florian can join in later because he did the interview with René Galuste who still live in this ensemble in her own house. And Knut, why were you interested in Evry?
01:38:43
Yeah, we started some years before in La Cornue and we played for people for the really big houses and we tried to get people on the balconies and to play contact plays for them. And then later when we came back to Paris,
01:39:02
we asked ourselves different kind of houses and systems how people live together that they are not looking on one side of the building and on the other side that they have more space, they are sharing. And also we were very interested in
01:39:20
like basic premier geometric forms and kind of like in this Bauhaus way. And later we found this René Galuste, Jean Renaudie. They have a lot of triangles and geometric forms, but it's so many difference in it.
01:39:41
And so that we found it kind of good that you build with primary forms in the end, yeah. But it's not only the form and the geometry, but the way they weave public spaces and private space, it would allow you to do this kind of performance.
01:40:01
You were there and talking to Renee. Renee, is she still thinking that it's a success looking back, having built this kind of architecture from the perspective of today? First of all, you have to say
01:40:21
that she's renting her flat still. She's, I think, 88 years old and she's still renting the flat she has designed originally. So this is quite interesting. But I think what is interesting when we interviewed her, what she said, that Paris is a city,
01:40:41
is a very enclosed city. You know, you have always those enclosed blocks. I mean, I've been living more than 15 years in Paris. And when you are invited for dinner to see somebody, you always need the door code. And you cannot access to the courtyard of those blocks without this code.
01:41:00
And then you have often a second code, sometimes a third or fourth. And their ambition was to create, I mean, today we know the notion of porosity, of the porous city. And I think their ambition was really to create a porous city where you can access everywhere. And this idea of, let's say, public topology
01:41:22
stops, of course, in the door of your private dwelling. And that's, I think, what's still important. I think that we have to fight for this kind of accessibility. Thank you. And will your experience that it's still accessible
01:41:40
or are there new fences? First, there were no fences. So we could really go in and immediately start to make photos and perform. We went later again there and then we found some doors, but not so much.
01:42:00
Yeah? Maybe for our group, it's not just about if there's a code or not to get in. It was very much the question also like we are a mixed group. So there were some Germans with us, some Ivorians with us, some of them living in Paris, others traveling.
01:42:22
So also going with us to a banlieue and like what does this group mean? What does it mean to go there if you don't live there? I also like, in the last days, I called ourselves like tourist artists because we come into places
01:42:41
and sometimes an art is not so different from a tourist because he goes to a hotel, he's looking for his way, he doesn't know where to eat well, et cetera. So most of the time he's like spending like a tourist also when you stay short time. So like we go into banlieue where we do not live in a mixed group with some Germans,
01:43:01
some white people, some black people. They said we do not feel so comfortable. What are we doing there? Are we spying out? If we visit our friends there, it's fine. But like this mixed group, what does this mean? Are we observing how people live? Are we questioning social questions? Because they are our friends, not objects to be observed by.
01:43:22
So what is this mixed group we don't feel like so happy about it going there? And then we said, yeah, but Knud said it's really like an interesting architecture concept in a way and it would also think of the way because Frank just said in the performance, maybe it's the person who makes the house,
01:43:41
not the house who is giving the conditions because he said, I'm not looking so much how the architecture is constructed. If Knud said we liked it because it says geometrical forms, it was him who liked it because it's geometrical forms. And the others maybe till that day did not observe that so much, but later on when you tell it could you dance it,
01:44:00
they can really transform it better than us. So in a certain way, there's a director link and before it didn't play a role because if you're within a house of nice people, you're cooking, you're on the phone, all the things coming up, it's this and it's not if it's shaped like this or this. So he stated very much that it's more like dominating to the outside codes.
01:44:22
But finally, we had a strategy how to go there without this group being shameful. And it was like- Now. And it was like we did a performance with a material that also Knud choose and so we would like not take the photos
01:44:41
of the houses or the people there, but of our own performance. And as they are also like stars, one says, well, they're doing clips once in a while. So there was a certain pretext and later on, we re-contexted that in a play that we showed in Cologne, but we were talking about this architecture there and that we have to make up a strategy for not feeling that uncomfortable.
01:45:02
So it's, let's say, when one says the architecture is open, you can access everywhere, but it's also about which relationship you have and why do you go there? What are you looking for? So some days ago, I was with Frank in La Maladrie in Aubervier, which was also built by Rene and before we were going through the streets from Aubervier
01:45:22
and it's this highly security architecture and also a rotten buildings, like the Aubervier is changing very much at the moment. And then we really experienced that it was just a joy after all these really high security buildings, but which are housing buildings,
01:45:41
which are the newest ones and then rotten buildings, et cetera, to go in and see that it's still all these connected and we could really like pass in a huge area and we were feeling happy and not like traitors. Another theme you've mentioned already,
01:46:01
the mix group coming from Africa, from Germany, et cetera, brings up another notion of the issue we were dealing with that the question of fences, of borders, of territory, we cannot only deal with in terms of the urban land, but in a more global context.
01:46:26
And we have a short cut by a talk with Reke Roenig who is a planner, but also a special rapporteur of the UN
01:46:41
for the right to adequate housing. And she, well, let's hear what she has to talk about. Now you have much less a close tie between an individual and its property because property became fictitious, dematerialized.
01:47:03
The idea of the social function of property, the responsibility of the property holder regarding the public good and the public interest cannot be managed anymore because there is no one responsible.
01:47:21
The shareholder is a very abstract entity which is floating over the planet, has a dark cloud made of investments and pieces of papers. The main link between individuals, a property uses
01:47:42
and interests are broken. So the question Frank Rose is that the people make the house, not the form, somehow also a question which is broken. So the use value and the exchange value
01:48:00
is somehow not correlating anymore. But what I think is most important in her statement was that it somehow has become fictitious and also fences and borders have become fictitious in the sense that we have fences built
01:48:25
like at the Mexican border we see here in the issue between the US and Mexico, but also in Europe on the Balkan route, et cetera. But what we see and observe today
01:48:41
is that the borders are becoming pictures in a way also that they are not materialized but they are pushed on another continent towards Africa in order to prevent people to migrate. So you've been talking and working a lot on this thinking
01:49:01
because it relates also to the German pavilion which says we can learn somehow from the fall of the Berlin Wall, et cetera, et cetera. So it's a kind of positive way of looking at it. But what's your experience working between the continents and those problem we are facing?
01:49:23
Well, in the last years, there has been really a change in German engagement and politics. Well, we all know that after 2015,
01:49:40
the refugee question was the highest discussed question, the media question, so governments had to react. Angela Merkel got under great pressure. And suddenly she was starting to travel to African countries such as Niger and Chad and others
01:50:01
and Angela Merkel and also Macron together are now like visiting a lot of countries and making concrete deals how this border observation or how to do that, people will not migrate anymore.
01:50:22
Sometimes, not a long time ago in Abidjan where many of our performers are coming from, Metropolis in Ivory Coast, there was the European African Summit and it was called something like to discuss about youth empowerment, but actually deals are made
01:50:41
how already on the African continent, people can get stopped and there was this idea of hotspots of Macron. So this is a topic which we are following and which makes us very angry because there is no big resistance because in a certain way, European governments try to decide
01:51:04
where European borders are on the African continent, on the African continent, which means on land which does not belong to them and they encourage with money and pressure that these borders will be highly surveyed
01:51:25
with more technical stuff than it was before because it's inner African borders and this is a real scandal. It's a second colonization. It's not called like this. Even newspapers like the site say that it's fenunftig
01:51:41
to finally talk to each other, to find solutions and it's not sad with the words that it's, what it really is that Europeans try to decide on inner African borders to do this and that's what going on daily
01:52:00
and it's advance and advantage, there is not enough resistance against it. It's not discussed at that shop and that's why when I did not visit the German pavilion that when I heard that they said one could learn to unbuild walls and the example from Germany, how to deal with a European African border,
01:52:21
I think it's real bullshit that it's not something that should be compared and that's a really, really different historical situation, really different power balance and I think that to state this, it was an interview like easily compare this or to Israel-Palestine conflict or something, come on
01:52:41
and I think this is unpolitizing thinking. It's not that you can learn something. It's such a different historical situation that it should not even be compared, I think. Thank you very much.
01:53:04
Well, I mean you will have the chance to see and visit the pavilion but I think that's a strong statement which we can leave it and do you have something else to tell about the peace we are seeing today, the local beat principle,
01:53:25
what you are doing here during the Biennale and then afterwards we will have the final interventions, the final performance. Yeah, we are doing contact pieces on the street in the city. We have different contact pieces prepared.
01:53:45
Tomorrow we do it on a high resolution. We start on a big place. When you go over the bridge on the other side, Santa Stefano tomorrow at five. No, it's 15 o'clock so it's three p.m.
01:54:03
and we really try to understand the situation in Venice as we are tourist artists and we are working about that. So the contact pieces they gave in but they are taking also out information
01:54:22
and we will see what happened tomorrow. Thank you very much. It has been a long event today but I think this kind of mixing up the debate with other means of engaging within the discourse
01:54:41
is quite important and I'm very happy that you stayed and now it's time for the last intervention and afterwards I just have a few words of thanks to say. So thank you, Frank and no, they've gone, Richard.
01:55:03
Ah, they're here. Okay, it's your turn.
01:57:03
I feel like I've been yelling a lot. I've been really using my voice in a way that I don't like. I have to admit and my body too for that matter. It's just too violent. It's all too little, hard, it hurts.
01:57:30
It literally hurts and there's a pain on the inside and it changes everything, everything.
01:57:50
The problem is that I can't thrust. There's no more thrust.
01:58:06
Thrust is life. Thrust is forward.
01:58:23
Thrust is the desire to be enveloped by the space, the desire to be held by the world and it goes away.
01:59:21
I don't think I believe anymore in the conservation of energy, Newton.
02:00:02
Oh endless, endless
02:00:28
There's more than enough for everybody There's nothing to worry about people Let them have it
02:00:41
There's plenty out there And there's plenty In here too Don't forget
02:01:01
It's endless We're held by it all the time You're floating in it right now
02:05:39
We've got to stay
02:05:40
This time, we've been gone We are being gone
02:06:01
This is our time For some of you, I'm sure
02:06:24
That this is being decided
02:06:40
Thank you very much
02:13:40
Richard Segal and Frank Atman Yau for these performances It was tremendous having you with us today And I would like to end with a few words of thank you Of course, first of all The Goethe-Institut, Mr Bernauer Thank you for having this collaboration Thank you Performing Architecture
02:14:02
Zunner Traub And Isabella Vedana And also the entire Goethe-Institut team of Milan Without them, without you Would have not been possible And I think we've strained your attention Your time a lot
02:14:21
But I think it's also important Not only to make it compatible To other venues Where you have like half an hour talks But we are tourists We are part of the problem So let's stay a bit together To discuss the problem We call, so thank you very much For staying that long with us today
02:14:40
Thank you also Thank you for helping us stage this event Thank you Andrea Rumpf Who came a bit late Because of an interview with the ZDF
02:15:01
At the Luxembourg Pavilion She created together with Florian Hedwig Thank you for taking part in this event And talking a bit about the problem And that we are restaging away our problem From the past So thank you very much
02:15:20
Monika Kinterstoff and Knut Klassen For this collaboration It was beautiful And it was a really special event Because of Richard Segal and Frank So thank you again
02:15:41
For your engagement And also your kind of discourse intervention Today And of course The entire ARC Plus team With various people I just want to name Nora Dunzer Alexander Sturm And Angelika Hinter
02:16:02
Brandner who helped us Setting up the whole Travel to Venice And the organization But there are a bigger team behind it I won't go into detail But thank you all for helping As doing these kind of things
02:16:21
And of course Last but not least Without the help of Zidler And our initiative partner But also Auroborn This would not have been possible For the fourth time So I hope there will be another time In the future And that's not our past today
02:16:41
But we have a future Before us And with that I would like to hand over to Ms. Traup For the last words Thank you I let you go But I just announced The performances we have the next two
02:17:00
And three days in the Public space here in the city of Venice And this is And how mentioned already They start So that you find them Tomorrow at the place Sebastian San Stefano
02:17:21
So this is The mistake I fear to make San Stefano It's very close by here And from there They move into the city So if you might Miss them So please be there At 3pm tomorrow There are other performances Not performances
02:17:41
Intervention in public space And this you might Just find or come across Or maybe miss This belongs to This way of artwork And the other thing I really Invite you if you have time For our experimental panel Led by or moderated
02:18:01
By Avin Avanesyan tomorrow In this place on a big round Table at 11 o'clock in the Morning with a coffee And a little aperitif So there might Be create new knowledge Or new Courage for activism
02:18:20
So you are invited And otherwise you can follow up Our program This you might do on the website Or if you just get informed On the flyer Thank you for your patience And the time Performance is always time forcing And I hope it was not time wasting
02:18:41
And therefore have a nice evening Chatting around Being on parties And thanks for coming
Recommendations
Series of 101 media