Following on from last week’s reflection and unpacking Venice Biennale 2020’s topic ‘How will we live together?’ it certainly begs the question on whether we are attempting to come up with a solution of Utopia.
As an avid Y.A. fiction reader, I have read enough books to understand the general rule of thumb that utopia is a mask of dystopic nature. As architects (or in my case, architecture graduate), wanting to create a harmonious community can be disguised in the forms of renders – but because we lack the ability to communicate with every possible user to understand and predict how their physicality and mentality will evolve over time, the idea of utopia can only reach so far in time.
I want to believe that we are somewhat living together, we all breathe the same air, share the same sun, ocean, etc. in the poetic sense. However, when we have such a complex mind and emotions becomes involved – it is very hard to define an on point solution to understanding the future of sharing this space together.
There’s this saying that I feel sums up my concept of utopia: a Japanese proverb Juninjuiro (十人十色) ten people, ten colours. I’m very curious about what kind of angles other countries are proposing – maybe we will be adopting lessons from each other, or realise some are serving as cautionary tale.
“Don’t even think about running away-”
1. Looking at the future of the global context – what if it is too late?
Continuing on from my previous points last week, after witnessing the outcome of the Global Climate Strike last week, the window of my phone gave me a very strong and powerful message about our protection on the future of the planet.
Recently, while unpacking the exciting areas of her project, my friend and I wondered about being precious about the relics we have on planet earth today. Witnessing the devastation of the coral reef bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef; mourning at the ongoing crisis of the Amazon Rainforest fires; and even contemplating on the what ifs should the future of our planet resembles the likes of Pixar’s Wall-E.
So perhaps unfortunately, we do need to consider the future of the planet if we can’t save it? I feel that in some ways, we need to be prepared to face the consequences of the possible negative outcome of our planet. How do we live together when our environment is in ruin (without going to space)?
While the prospect of going to another planet is exciting, it still doesn’t help in the sense that we have left another place to be destroyed and rot over time. Even if we may be more considerate of the new place we are staying at, we are still producing waste to suit our means. No matter how sustainable we try to be, there will always be other factors that could sway us to producing items that are harmful to the environment we inhabit in.
Confronting? Definitely. However, it is something we should discuss to keep it as a motivation to prevent this outcome from manifesting.
Wall-E? Are we in a movie?
2. Removing the technological dependence, when we have to assist each other with physical communication and human interaction
Technology is perhaps one of the hardest topic to pin point specifically in understanding what we want to achieve. Efficiency, productivity, accuracy are all extremely important and valuable. Albeit, while these advancements are wonderful – it has also shifted our attitudes towards many industries and prone to becoming ignorant of understanding the hard work each person has placed.
Looking back at Pixar’s Wall-E film, it really begs the question about the impact technology has on our attitude towards our relationships with each other and the environment. Hence this is what has spurred this current train of thought.
Perhaps we need to perceive it to understand that technology is an umbrella term, and sub-categories may range from social media, robots, medicinal technology, etc. Currently, these are just some of the opinions I’d like to consider under Venice Biennale’s overarching theme:
i. The obliteration of social networking in the technological sphere
The reliance and dependency on technology is rather overwhelming and becoming important in marketing, networking and identity-shaping for many. Thinking back to the impact of the Global Climate Strike that occurred on Friday last week – I was truly impressed by the power social media has had in the build up of the audience.
While the application of technology is helpful, the help in increasing efficiency makes me questions our attitude shift in society. From increase of broader communication, increase of various character-crisis one would like to portray themselves in the digital realm – what if all of that was removed and obliterated.
If we go back to a time before Instagram, Facebook or even Myspace was the main social network, how did we manage to spread our knowledge efficiently? Were thee ways we could remove ourselves from being overly competitive in displaying who has achieved the most otherwise declare that they made a presence at certain places.
Looking back at my brief experience in the marketing and digital sphere – technology and social network is another manner of leaving a certain legacy behind. Considering that the human psychology and our fear of being forgotten – the social network somehow acts as another form of legacy box. Similar to the theme of Jordan Munns’s artwork – he replicates that fear in comparison to buildings, their somewhat immortal-esque existence is a ghost of who the designers and builders of the architecture were.
Removing that layer of social communication via the digital sphere is something I’d love to see on a larger scale – that itself removes a layer of those who enjoy attacking others behind the screen, otherwise forcing many to have honest and open conversations.
A far-fetched idea however, plausible?
ii. The obliteration of technology that manufactures, produces, anything that relies on some advanced technology
We can simply draw out all the science fiction films for reference and turn it into an anti-manifesto in relation to this proposal. Sometimes, I’d like to consider the what if one day all technology ceased to function? I can’t imagine where I would be if my computer refuses to type (although going back to a typewriter wouldn’t be all bad), otherwise thinking if we had to revert to increased manual labour because our machines refuses to work for us.
If this happens, does that mean that we begin to appreciate things differently? Perhaps we might witness great craftsmanship that appeared in many temple, sculptural and fine art designs from eons ago. Definitely will take a toll on our health however, it may allow us to shift our attention to focusing on what we have been given rather than constantly thinking forward in terms of dependency of another design.
Of course, one may argue that it completely disregards our mind that has gloriously invented these amazing machines. While I agree with the possible counter statement, I feel that we need to appreciate the hard-work through tactile work, understanding texture, materiality, atmosphere. Thinking beyond occularcentrism and being aware of our other senses – removing ourselves from dependency of technology may revive our other skills that we may have left behind over time.
Respect for each other improves our well-being
3. Communal living, community living, self-sustaining communities – where it takes similar mindsets to reunite
Ah, last but not least – the classic living together in a self-sustaining manner. In the past couple of years, the Nightingale model from Breathe Architects has served as a precedent for many to work themselves towards a self-sufficient model. This concept has always been proposed, yet to see it manifest today is definitely a sight to behold.
The main question about self-sufficient models is considering the attitudes that makes up the community – understanding the similarities these residents have in terms of their aspirations, beliefs and goals while living the in the community is important.
Considering how do we live together, perhaps we need to examine what if we lived together in clusters? The relationship between each community, if there were disagreement in principles and beliefs, it threatens the fine line of respect with each other. Then we may need to consider filling the gaps in-between these differences, finding the right compromise and valuing each member.
Otherwise it might as well result in J. G. Ballard’s High Rise, where disparity in hierarchy resulted in a quick dystopia.
Although, that’s just an extreme possibility.
‘How will we live together?’: Part I, II
References:
Jordan Munns, “Long after I am gone”. Art installation displayed at Art Express 2012. More information about the work can be found here
Andrew Stanton, Peter Docter. “Wall-E”, Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. Released 2008
J. G. Ballard, “High Rise”, first published Jonathan Cape, 1975.
Breathe Architect’s Nightingale Model, for more information about the model/ housing, see here
About the Venice Architecture Biennale
The Venice Architecture Biennale is a bi-annual festival that invites countries to create an installation in response to a singular brief. Each installation’s response can vary in scale or presentation medium.
The 17th Venice Biennale’s topic will be focusing on the question of ‘How will we live together?’ and is curated by Hashim Sarkis, Principal Architect of Hashim Sarkis Studios. More information can be found on the Venice Biennale’s website.