Arkitektnytt

Point one! What is risk?
In everyday usage risk is about every­thing and anything in which any action may result in an outcome that is not known. It is a broad term that covers everything from exposing oneself to physical danger to venturing out on a cloudy day without an umbrella; there is risk when you propose a new way of doing something and risk when you try some food you have never eaten before. So to speak of risk in general is articulate very little.

For risk to be meaningful, we need to place it into a context and ask what is at risk. Is it life and limb, money, reputation time or reputation? And how do we calculate risk? It may be less risky for someone trying to find a niche within design to act in new ways, to set out audacious proposals; indeed it may be riskier to work conventionally in a corporate firm. If I am single or independently wealthy, my risk is significantly less than if I have a family and can call on little in the way of monetary support.

All of this though is beside the point. What I find most intriguing is that my experience with those who I believe have taken significant risks is that the issue of risk is not something they dwell on, indeed if they think of risk at all. They take the risks they do because of something they believe in, something they feel that needs to be done.

I picture here an older friend who fought in Spain for the loyalists, risking job and life. He then went on to volunteer to fight in WW II after which he became a union organizer on the New York docks and risked the wrath of the Mafia. He never spoke of risk; it wasn't an issue for him. If his endeavors were risky that was a downside of his efforts, although it was not a particularly interesting downside. It was not interesting because it was simply a part of life as it was for everyone in one way or another. He once told me that had he not acted in the way he had, he would not have been able to live with himself. That. Although he did not say it, is also a risk.

And I think of an architect I know who took on a project in Atlanta that was opposed by the most powerful figures in the city because it gave to the community a site of great value to bankers and developers. Working with the community, he created a design that eventually won the day and led to its being built. As a result, he won many architecture awards and the gratitude of many in the community. Also, as a result the powers that be froze him and his firm out of any major or even minor work in the city for over ten years. He never spoke of the risk or even thought the issue of moment. Rather he spoke of what he did with pride because it was the right thing to do, and resulted in well used and well appreciated building.

Point two! What does it mean to say as the brochure for the Triennale does: «History shows that if we avoid taking risks then we risk losing a lot?»
Who is the «we» here? Is it the designer seeking a name, is the client taking a gamble on something new, is it a civic authority seeking some­thing potentially fraught with political vulnerability or is it the average person confronted by new designs and cultural productions on the streets s/he inhabits over which s/he had no control. How we answer this says a lot about the values we hold about the role of design.

We are told by the brochure is that if we do not take the risk of going beyond the safe and predictable, we will most often produce mediocre results. What does this mean; does taking risks guarantee quality? Is making something that is safe and predictable the opposite of quality? It is clear that for example that Renaissance painters took few risks more often than not did their patrons bidding. Is that a loss of quality? And what of Bach, who we know worked within a very conventional and rigid musical structure and often responded to the demands of his patron’s desire for this or that musical mood or form. So what? Quality was certainly not forfeited. And, what of Palladio who worked within a received canon but in interesting ways. Is his work mediocre?

We need to be bold, we are told by the Triennale’s organizers. We should be innovative. But, is bold necessarily better? Is innovative necessarily interesting? The work being done in much of the Arab Emirates is certainly bold, and in many ways it is innovative, but is it something admirable? Not to me.

What makes something good, important, transcendent is the thing itself not whether it was bold, innovative or even particularly risky. To the extent one thinks in terms of bold for its own sake, of risk as a cultural statement, and innovation as an imperative probably says more about self branding and niche making than it does about quality.

Point three!
This leaves me perplexed about the Triennale. Its graphics were tame and rather conventional. Its format of seminars and speakers lecturing 500 or more people in a large auditorium was totally unadventurous. Its two major attractions; speakers from OMA and Foreign Office, represent firms that are rather conventional and indeed in the present design milieu one might say «overexposed». If anything was bold or risky it was the no-show without even notice of one of the speakers.

What left me most in despair is that OMA represents what I would argue is a bogus boldness and artificial risk taking. What is bold about providing a signature skyscraper to one of the most repressive and corrupt regimes in the world or designing high rise buildings in arid conditions to help countries that deny equal rights to women brand themselves and receive world wide attention. The issue here; and it may be risky to say this, is not whether undertaking such jobs is right or wrong; it is the stuff of any large corporate architecture firm’s survival. No, the question is where is the risk, where is the boldness?

In essence the Triennale in its form and in its practice failed in its own terms before it began.