Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Cronocaos exhibit by Rem Koolhaas and OMA at the Venice Biennale in 2010, is a modern and potentially controversial approach to preservation.

Because Cronocaos is not an accessible published work, my review is pieced together through various online reports. I think Cronocaos is incredibly important and incredibly relevant because it is the preservationist manifesto of one of today’s most influential architectural figures. This doesn’t however mean that I need to whole heartedly agree with Koolhaas, but I value the fact that he is talking about the subject and allowing it to be critically discussed.

Panel from Cronocaos (image source: http://bemyarchitect.tumblr.com/post/1071127977/rem-koolhaas-has-his-say-in-the-most-heated)

‘as the scale and importance of preservation escalates each year, the absence of a theory and the lack of interest invested in 
this seemingly remote domain becomes dangerous. after thinkers like Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc, the arrogance of 
the modernists made the preservationist look like a futile, irrelevant figure. postmodernism, in spite of its lip service to 
the past, did no better.’ says Rem Koolhaas (1)

At face value, and according to Koolhaas, 12% of the world is preserved. This means that 12% of land has been protected whether for architectural reasons, environmental reasons etc. Koolhaas is concerned that with this numbered expected to rise, that architects will be unable to design and redesign buildings, cities etc. Koolhaas questions this need to preserve, especially buildings like his own through OMA, ‘mason à bordeaux’ (1998),
which earned preservation status three years after it’s completion. (1). While arguing that preservation is quick to preserve, he also points out that preservationists also seem to be subjective. Koolhaas points out that much of the modern works of the 60’s and 70’s are being demolished because they are seen as a failure. Koolhaas argues that these are important projects, the last time that the architect truly designed for the public good (post war housing etc).

I agree that preservation should not be subjective. What is considered a failure today, may not be tomorrow, and if we destroy it today, tomorrow will never have it. Cronocaos mentions the Nakagin Capsule tower. No matter what you think of that building, that is a realized design idea and for me, and for Koolhaas demolishing it would be a great architectural loss.

It does however appear that Koolhaas is in his own way declaring himself the new subjective compass to preservation. He has a clear idea of what to preserve (the 60’s and 70’s) and yet is raising the alarm that we are preserving too much too fast. To control preservation, Koolhaas suggests preserving entire neighbours as time capsules, but then creating a tabula rasa outside to allow architects the ability to once again be the great creators of cities. As someone who enjoys studying classics, art history and history in general this sounds beyond destructive. Cities grow, develop and change over there entire area and important cultural and historical monuments can not be contained to particular neighbourhoods.

According to Designboom’s reporting, OMA:

developed a theory of its opposite: not what to keep but what to give up, what to erase and abandon. It calls forth and aims to distill what exactly, as a society, we should consider of cultural significance, at the same time paving ground to reveal a liberated slate under the thinning crust of our civilization. (1).

Alexandra Lange and Mark Lamster, writers for The Design Observer Group attended Cronocaos and seemed very critical in their response to Koolhaas’ positions. As Lange writes:

Koolhaas is right that we need a wholesale reconsideration of what preservation means for the 21st century. But that we are now considering the preservation of artifacts closer and closer to our own time is not a problem — it is an opportunity. (2)

I agree with this statement based on my current interest in the industrial typology of the twentieth century. These are the buildings that are falling into ruin because there seems to be no recognition of their historical contribution. This will likely happen when it is too late, when now is the time that would allows us to preserve them if we wanted to.

Lange continues:

I am always optimistic about the potential of new architecture, but the idea of cleansing Chicago’s Loop by eliminating the last 50 years of architecture in order to give today’s practitioners more to work with is terrifying. Architects: I love you, but I don’t trust you. In his New York Times review, Ouroussoff makes it sound as if the equal and opposite point of this exhibit were the selective destruction of one generation of new architecture, that of the 1960s and ’70s. I agree this is a problem. Preservation, like architecture, operates within cycles of taste, and Brutalism currently looks “ugly,” as “Cronocaos” puts it, to many people and many cultures. But it might look very different in 20 years, and the disappeared work of Paul Rudolph might be mourned like Penn Station. The very name of this exhibition, nowhere exactly defined, suggests a fear of timelessness or time-jumping. It seems to me that preservation could as easily be the solution, not the problem. (2)

I will close by reinforcing that my understanding of Cronocaos is based off of secondary sources, however I think Cronocaos is an essential part of the preservationist discourse, whether or not one agrees with Koolhaas.

(1) http://www.designboom.com/architecture/rem-koolhaas-oma-cronocaos-preservation-tour/

(2) http://places.designobserver.com/article/lunch-with-the-critics-cronocaos/

Other sites:

http://www.oma.com/projects/2010/venice-biennale-2010-cronocaos

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/arts/design/cronocaos-by-rem-koolhaas-at-the-new-museum.html?_r=0