Real-Reality

Description

Opening Exhibition of Centro Cultural de Belém

The natural condition of architecture is always an “exhibited” state. It may be its only real exhibition. Buildings are built in full size, with real materials, they are experimentable (usable) and they draw contexts. Exhibiting architecture in a museum is necessarily another work. A literal aproach would suggest to build once again the same houses, schools, developments inside the museum. It would be certainly missing the important aspects that constitute its context (light, smells, surrounding buildings people and habits). Without all these faces the project reveals itself as “ungrounded”.

Traditionally, architecture exhibitions are samplings of representations of architecture. Drawings, photographs and three-dimensional models are shown, always in scales distinct from reality. They are exhibitions of codes, and as such, of a restricted communication, accessible only to those who had a previous introduction (architects) and posess the hold of these codes. The experience of architecture lays here on an abstract mental decoding.

This method of exhibiting closes architecture onto itself, leaving outside its major fructuary-users, that is, the non architects.

The project real-reality  is not meant as a sequence of representations (of a self-referenced activity) of a singular individual. There is a displacement towards the outside of this particular “self”.

We are not proposing a new order nor a disorder; we look only at a possible universe within a diverse universe of available possibilities, an architecture, that works contaminated in the interstices of styles and ideas. Receiving, re-reading and re-framing.
Another notion of context, not strictly physical (spacial) of the gallery of the CCB, has opened the project to other areas of the “making” “Making” becomes context itself.

The choice of the others intervenients (literature, music, painting and informatics) has as only criteria their closeness to art, as well as internal relationships between the act of making, of representing it and the final object. We seeked to expose the notions of distinction/imitation between the representational and “being” as well as the sharable and lonely aspects of their particular creative processes.

The task proposes a relationship that shares the formal(izing) on some hypothesis of content. The object is eventual and subjective.
The exhibition proposes the opening of a temporal texture, reads in the space of the Center, restoring it as a momentary of hypothetical reading, weakening the “utopian” permanent nature of its euclidean space. In other moments, the readings are other, in permutations from present to absent-presence and vice versa of its longitudinal line, to the rhythmic progression of structural porticos, eroding each other trough that succession.

The object becomes undetermined, revealing itself either as space, objects, or represented.
In that passage the observer undergoes alternate scale changes (relative to the objects) and relation to perception (from passive to active, from observer to observed).

The models are elements that “resist” that erosion. They are real objects, since there are no other codes (or system) to make them read as codes themselves.

The optigraphs provide a vew displaced referential system, spacial and experimentable. Their interiors give access to the real images of some already built projects. They work as windows outside of the space, inside of a perceptive field that exposes the manipulative (non-real) nature of the image. The experience/play of the sights is spacialized and the image is “staged”, inhabiting the space between the frame and the view. The observer (voyeur) is objectified and activates architecture.