Brod / The Ship / La nave: a floating pavilion for Croatia at the venice Biennale Commissioner: Leo Modrin architects: Saa Begovi Marko daBrovi igor Frani Tanja grozdani peTar Mikovi SiLvije novak veLjko oLui heLena paver njiri Lea peLivan ToMa pLeji goran rako Saa randi idiS TuraTo pero vukovi Toni arni SuMMer, 2010

T a b l e www.paviLion.hr La BiennaLe di venezia 2010 12. Mostra internazionale di architettura / 12th international architecture exhibition / 12. meunarodna izloba arhitekture MoSTra / exhiBiTion / izLoBa: people meet in architecture kazuyo Sejima, direttrice artistica 29 agosto 21 novembre 2010 / kazuyo Sejima, artistic director august 29 november 21 2010 / kazuyo Sejima, umjetnika direktorica 29. kolovoza 21. studenoga 2010. eSpoSizione CroaTa / CroaTian paviLion / hrvaTSki paviLjon TiToLo deL progeTTo / projeCT TiTLe / naziv projekTa: La nave / The Ship / Brod: un padiglione galleggiante per la Croazia alla Biennale di venezia / a floating pavilion for Croatia at the venice Biennale / plovei hrvatski paviljon za venecijanski bijenale progetto del Ministero della Cultura, repubblica di Croazia Boo Bikupi, Ministro della Cultura / a project of the Ministry of Culture, republic of Croatia Boo Bikupi, Minister of Culture / projekt Ministarstva kulture, republika hrvatska Boo Bikupi, ministar kulture CoMMiSSario / CoMMiSSioner / povjerenik: Leo Modrin arChiTeTTi parTeCipanTi / parTiCipaTing arChiTeCTS / arhiTekTi SudioniCi: Saa Begovi, Marko dabrovi, igor Frani, Tanja grozdani, petar Mikovi, Silvije novak, veljko olui, helena paver njiri, Lea pelivan, Toma pleji, goran rako, Saa randi, idis Turato, pero vukovi, Toni arni organizzaTore / organizer / organizaTor: Museo dellarte moderna e contemporanea, Fiume / Museum of Modern and Contemporary art, rijeka / Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti u rijeci

o f

c o n T e n T s

inTroduCTion, p. 11 by Leo Modrin BiographieS, p. 18 diagraMS #15, p. 26 TowgraM, p. 42 Meeting protocol, Marchaugust, 2010 inTerviewS, p. 66 by Marko golub Saa Begovi, p. 67 Marko dabrovi, p. 74 igor Frani, p. 79 Tanja grozdani, p. 86 Silvije novak, p. 91 petar Mikovi, p. 98 helena paver njiri, p. 102 veljko olui, p. 106 Lea pelivan, p. 111 Toma pleji, p. 118 Saa randi, p.126 goran rako, p. 130 idis Turato, p.135 pero vukovi, p. 142 Toni arni, p. 147 diagraM #6, p. 155 TeChniCaL deSCripTion, p. 161 projeCT CrediTS, p. 184

P. 10

P. 11introduction

P r o v e n B y L e o

W R O N G M o d r i n

a group of leading Croatian architects, responsible for the strong presence of Croatian architecture on the international scene in recent years, has accepted a task to design a floating exhibition structure to present Croatian art and architecture at the venice Biennale. Towed across the adriatic Sea, the structure is based on an existing barge with approximate dimensions of 10 x 20 x 3 meters. For Croatia, a floating pavilion seems to be an obvious solution. Since 1991, the year of Croatias independence and the dissolution of yugoslavia, a permanent pavilion at the giardini is no longer an option. as the closest maritime neighbor of venice, a land of seamen and shipbuilders, Croatia is well positioned to establish a direct link with the city across the bay. a floating pavilion could be interpreted as a straightforward answer to a very simple issue of having an own exhibition venue and bringing cultural assets to the water-locked island city. yet, both of these concerns might be challenged as irrelevant. a pavilion as a space container for presenting art and architecture in the times of land and performance art, sitespecific installations, web art, holographic and cinematic ultrarealistic simulations of what are to be built works of architecture might not be a relevant medium for communicating and sharing cultural assets, while the transport of these non-material artifacts frequently turns into a pushing of the send button. For this years Croatian participation, we are transforming these and many other issues into an architectural proposition. we have secured an existing barge with the floor area of 200m2 and visited the shipyard in kraljevica, still in continuous activity after 280 years; we have consulted with maritime specialists and naval architects and have met in more then 15 formal work sessions and innumerable other meetings and conversations to design the pavilion. we went back to the shipyard to have the pavilion built, and have arranged for the tow ship to bring the vessel to venice. we have worked with the authorities in venice to enable us to anchor it there. The project did not start that way. The floating pavilion was presented as a conceptual proposition, an assignment for a group of architects working in different formats of architectural practice, some more concentrated on the academic path, while others focused more on building some of the most important projects of the recent Croatian architectural renaissance. at this point of a building slow-down, they accepted a challenge to participate in a symposium of ideas, a programmatic assignment preparation for the real pavilion project to be built when the good times return. But two main departures from the initial concepts occurred and were indeed dramatic. The first was in the architects decision to forgo the suggested format where they were asked to offer their own, speculative proposals for the pavilion on the barge. These proposals would have been exhibited in the Croatian space at the Biennale as a classic exhibition of projects with no bells and whistles, just architects with their straightforward projects. My colleagues immediately jumped on the implicit paradox

P. 14

l e o

M o d r i n :

P. 15introduction

P r o v e n

W R O N G

contained in the very premise of the exhibit: we do not have our own space, and propose to bring the entire pavilion to venice and yet we are going into the space and exhibit in it. For this group of architects, that would not be acceptable: regardless of all the logistical unknowns, we are finding a barge and we are taking it to venice now. The second major premise i.e. the collection of projects as a cumulative expression of what the pavilion might be was simply rejected too. instead, they decided to work together, as a team and on a single project to be realized. The two initial premises of the project were simply rejected as wrong. in the course of the teams work, several other interesting shifts happened. For the architects focused more on the academic and theoretical approach to architecture, the palpability of the real, constructed artifact and the event of its towing to venice became an irresistible motivation. For those battered by the decade of the unprecedented building boom in Croatia, the search for meaning, even the theoretical foundation of the project, such as the issues of instability, extraterritoriality, permanence vs. transience, social responsibility as in the concern for spending public funds sparingly, performative aspects of architecture vs. the conceptual ones became the main focus. when the budgetary concerns jeopardized the execution of the given mooring site in venice, the young ones were pragmatic in seeking the plan B, and the more mature ones were devastated by the prospect of not making it to the shores of venice. The design-by-committee process, no mater how contrary and diverse form the usual modus operandi of the participants - even when you work in a team nothing can match the chaos of 14 architects making decisions together - has triggered the discussions on architecture which, when recorded and analyzed, could have become the projects statement, the essence, a manifesto. yet, even a slight suggestion of a common manifesto provoked uproar among the team and was rejected outright. i was wrong, no manifesto here. The personal dynamics and the psychological web of relations and situations (like in a situation comedy or better a reality Tv show) propelled the process forward in a slow, yet forceful way. after a number of concepts and decisions were made, there was the seminal moment in which a model was interpreted in a wrong way, a mesh mistaken for water jets and the whole design took the final turn. and then there was the point in which the inevitable constrains of time and money took over, but the construction of the pavilion structure energized even the worse of skeptics among the group. all this creative drama is not that important after all, eventhough it might be interesting to some researchers in the future when the archives are opened. The hesitant project management approach by the commissioner, who might have been be a wrong person for the task (and was told so by the team from the get go), and who never even imagined that he would be assisting the real construction of a floating pavilion destined for venice, resulted in a self-organizing process of work in which the three aspects of the project the barge structure itself, its presentation at the space of the artiglierie, and the project .publication are all synchronized around the common theme. no, not the vessel. This meant that even the project title was

wrong: this is not a ship, they said, its all about the cargo it carries. The structure on the barge that would deliver the cargo of Croatian arts and architecture is itself a cargo, a 1000 cubic meters mass to be filled with architectural and artistic content and with a void carved for visitors. apart from the real pavilion on its way to venice, the project documentation and the barges itinerary are presented in the form of a cargo load full of information but they are no load as such. The book conceived by Lana Cavar and narcisa vukojevi is not really a book, but heaps of loose printed matter, just a cargo ready to be assembled and bound by the visitors. at the point of this writing, it is still uncertain when the pavilion will reach venice after touching the home ports on the Croatian coast of the adriatic. not to accomplish the full circle and reach the final destination after this extraordinary effort by its creators and the numerous members of the local maritime industry would be simply wrong. in our usual ways of architectural spin masters we could justify the process of design itself without the final materialization as a valid and as the most literal of responses to the theme proposed by Ms. Sejima. it is a meeting of great architectural minds, completely realized as accomplished architects, who have accepted the uncertainty of the unusual project and now generously share this profound personal experience of working in an unstable group setting with the general public. yet, without the actual construction and navigation to venice, we would have never been able to gather all the parameters of the project and prove the feasibility of the whole premise that a floating pavilion was a possible way to go. For this group of architects there was simply no alternative. The construction on the barge has been a monumental task in itself. designed by 14 authors, it is fabricated by a dozen welders who put in a countless number of welds in order to build the structure. it consists of 42 layers of Q385 weeded wire mesh put together by welding each layer on vertical rods spaced 50 cm in either direction. it is a fragile construction despite the 32 tons of steel, perhaps just a fraction of material expected to conquer such a volume of space. The solid part is everything but solid and it fully disappears when viewed from a distance, only to reappear as a heavy shield of steel when inside. entering it somehow feels like entering a wire frame drawing, a raw armature of space before it is rendered into a full glory of a simulated, complete rendering of architecture. But here you are the rendering device. This must be architecture. and you want to meet in it and share it. especially when the 32 tons of welded wire mesh start shimmering as the waves bounce the entire structure as if it were a gull feather in the breeze. Some might try to prove it wrong to think that it is appropriate for an art and architecture pavilion to be a bit shaky, unstable, and even dangerous at times. But i am saying without any hesitation that the group of Croatian architects has produced an exceptional work of architecture. as it leaves the shipyard, it only now starts unloading its meanings, problems, beauty, thruts, inspirations, aspirations please follow its maiden voyage at pavilion.hr

P. 18 Saa Begovi was born 1967 in Bjelovar, Croatia. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb. he was guest lecturer at the Technical university in graz and now he is guest lecturer at the Split Faculty of architecture. he regularly lectures at universities throughout the world. he was editor-in-chief of the Croatian architectural magazine Man and Space. he is a founding partner and principal architect of 3Lhd architects. 3Lhd is an architectural practice focused on integration of various disciplines architecture, urban planning, design, and art. projects, such as the Croatian defenders Memorial Bridge in rijeka, Bale Sports hall, the Croatian pavilion at expo 2005 in japan, Split waterfront, and zamet Centre in rijeka are some of the highlights of the practice. The work of 3Lhd has been presented at important universities, exhibitions, and institutions all over the world. it received important Croatian and international awards, including the waF 2008 award at the First world architecture Festival, ioC/iakS award, ar emerging architecture award, id Magazine award and all most important Croatian professional awards: drago gali, viktor kovai, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards. Marko daBrovi was born 1969 in dubrovnik, Croatia. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb. in 1991 he founded the rna Computer visualization Studio. Since 2002 he has been a member of the Caa professional Council, since 2003 a member of uMar, and since 2005 a member of the europan Croatia national Committee. he is also a licensing expert of the Croatian Football association in the ueFa. he is a founding partner and principal architect of 3Lhd architects. 3Lhd is an architectural practice focused on integration of various disciplines architecture, urban planning, design, and art. projects, such as the Croatian defenders Memorial Bridge in rijeka, Bale Sports hall, the Croatian pavilion

w h o

i s

w h o ?

P. 19BiograPhies architectural juries. She is a founding partner and principal architect of 3Lhd architects. 3Lhd is an architectural practice focused on integration of various disciplines architecture, urban planning, design, and art. projects, such as the Croatian defenders Memorial Bridge in rijeka, Bale Sports hall, the Croatian pavilion at expo 2005 in japan, Split waterfront, and zamet Centre in rijeka are some of the highlights of the practice. The work of 3Lhd has been presented at important universities, exhibitions, and institutions all over the world. it received important Croatian and international awards, including the waF 2008 award at the First world architecture Festival, ioC/iakS award, ar emerging architecture award, id Magazine award and all most important Croatian professional awards: drago gali, viktor kovai, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards. Leo Modrin is an architect working in rijeka, Croatia and new york, uSa. he is the architect of the acclaimed 59e59 Theaters building in new york City, which was awarded the viktor kovai award in Croatia. he also designed a subsidized housing project in kraljevica, Croatia. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in 1984 and obtained a Masters degree at pratt institute in Brooklyn, new york, in 1988. he taught in the graduate architecture department at pratt and was a visiting professor at the School of architecture, Suny, at Buffalo in 2006. in 2008 he became adjunct professor at the Faculty of architecture in zagreb. his work was recognized in a number of architectural competitions, including the first prize at the 11th Membrane design Competition in japan in 1996, the second prize for the public Library in rijeka in 2006 etc. his projects and essays on architecture have been published in numerous architectural publications. SiLvije novak Silvije novak was born 1971 in rijeka, Croatia. he graduated from the Faculty

w h o

i s

w h o ?

at expo 2005 in japan, Split waterfront, and zamet Centre in rijeka are some of the highlights of the practice. The work of 3Lhd has been presented at important universities, exhibitions, and institutions all over the world. it received important Croatian and international awards, including the waF 2008 award at the First world architecture Festival, ioC/iakS award, ar emerging architecture award, id Magazine award and all most important Croatian professional awards: drago gali, viktor kovai, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards. igor Frani was born in zagreb 1963. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb. after the graduation he worked in London. he runs an independent architectural practice in zagreb and since 1996 he has been working as associate professor at the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb. he received an award for his competition project of the pharmaceutical and Biochemical Faculty at the 35th zagreb Salon 2002. his major built projects are: kindergarten in Ston (1995), Museum of Contemporary art zagreb (2009), and Mercator residential and commercial building, zagreb (2007). his major unbuilt projects are: competition project for a sports complex with a swimming pool, pula, 2nd prize (2003), pile, dubrovnik competition, 1st prize (2003), competition project for the Music academy in zagreb, 2nd prize (2004). his most important participations at exhibitions are: Magazzini del sale, MCa, venice, iT (2007), Croatian Contemporary architecture, Turin, iT (2008), new Trajectories: Contemporary architecture in Croatia and Slovenia, harvard university, uSa (2008). he has held a series of lectures on his work. Tanja grozdani was born 1968 in zagreb, Croatia. She graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb, Croatia. She was a guest critic at different eu universities and workshops and a member of several national

of architecture, university of zagreb, where he now works as guest lecturer. he is a member of the Caa professional Council. he was the executive editor of the Croatian architectural magazine Man and Space. he is a founding partner and principal architect of 3Lhd architects. 3Lhd is an architectural practice focused on integration of various disciplines architecture, urban planning, design, and art. projects, such as the Croatian defenders Memorial Bridge in rijeka, Bale Sports hall, the Croatian pavilion at expo 2005 in japan, Split waterfront, and zamet Centre in rijeka are some of the highlights of the practice. The work of 3Lhd has been presented at important universities, exhibitions, and institutions all over the world. it received important Croatian and international awards, including the waF 2008 award at the First world architecture Festival, ioC/iakS award, ar emerging architecture award, id Magazine award and all most important Croatian professional awards: drago gali, viktor kovai, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards. heLena paver njiri born in 1963, graduated from the Faculty of architecture in zagreb in 1989. Since 2002 she has her own practice hpnj+ in zagreb. She works on projects concerned with research and planning of urban space, landscaping, residential architecture, sustainable re-use and reconstruction, as well as modalities of planning and construction in natural or rural context of transitional conditions. She has received several national and international awards and competition prizes.She has organized several solo exhibitions and participated in numerous international selections. She was included in the Shortlisted 40 of the Mies award 2009 (jasenovac) and 2007 (rovinj). She was the Commissioner for the Croatian pavilion at the venetian Biennale in 2004. Since 2008 she has been associate professor at the Faculty of architecture in zagreb and was a guest lecturer at the kTh Stockholm and Tu Berlin from 2001 to 2003 and at the universit di Camerino

P. 22 in ascoli in 2005. From 2006 to 2009 she was a member of the gestaltungsbeirat in Salzburg. Built projects: Moire time-specific installation, Maxxi, rome, 2010 / permanent display of the Memorial Museum jasenovac (2007), Stanga housing, rovinj (2004), Mcdonalds, Maribor (2000), Baumaxx, Maribor (1999). her works were published in The phaidon atlas (2008 and 2005), 10 x 10, phaidon (2000). a monograph issue of el Croquis was published on her work in 2003. Lea peLivan was born in Split in 1976. She graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb. in 2003 she founded STudio up with Toma pleji a zagreb-based architectural practice focused on contemporary architecture and city-planning. She was awarded the grand prix at the 38th zagreb Salon 2003, and received the viktor kovai (2008), vladimir nazor (2008), and drago gali (2009) awards. She also received a Special Mention of the Mies van der rohe award for emerging architects in 2009. She participated at the exhibitions Mare nostrum and power Lounge, which were part of the second and the third editions of the international architecture Biennale in rotterdam, Balkanology in Basel, peacebuilding in rome, and new Trajectories: Contemporary architecture in Croatia and Slovenia at harvard university. in 2004 she represented Croatia at the venice Biennale. She was guest lecturer in vienna, Boston, essen, Leuven, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Split, and zagreb. veLjko oLui was born in Bjelovar 1954. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in 1979. he has been working at the Faculty of architecture in zagreb since 1980, since 2010 as Full professor. he is the author or a co-author of a series of architectural designs (reaching from initial sketches to execution projects) and built projects. he won a number of prizes in architectural competitions and awards, e.g. at the youth Salon (special mention 1987, with

w h o

i s

w h o ?

P. 23BiograPhies architectural office. Together with idis Turato, he founded randi-Turato architects in 1993. They received the viktor kovai award for the extension of the Technical Faculty in rijeka in 2004, for the pope john paul ii hall in 2008 and for the dvkF kindergarten in 2009. The elementary School in krk received the piranesi award in 2005 and the Croatian state prize vladimir nazor in 2006. The same building was included in the selection of the 2007 Mies van der rohe award. in 2006 they represented Croatia at the 10th international architecture exhibition at the venice Biennale. goran rako was born in imotski 1952. in 1977 he participated at the competition for the Museum in jablanica (with M. pecoti). in 1978 he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in zagreb and designed the periscope house. From 1990 to 1998 he worked with B. radoni. in 1991 he participated at the competition for the nara Congress Centre, in 1993 he designed the projects for den Bosch residential settlement and the hospital in nova Bila (with a. kuzmani and d. Marasovi). in 1994 he participated at the competition for the Southern arcade of Mirogoj. in 1997 he received an award for his project at the zagreb Salon. in 1999 he designed the residential building B. in 2000 he became a lecturer at the Faculty of architecture in zagreb, 2001 he won the competition for the narona Museum in vid, and 2003 he received the viktor kovai award. in 2004 he founded his practice radionica arhitekture (architecture workshop) and participated at the competition for a kindergarten in Sesvete. in 2005 he participated at competitions for a building in Tkalieva Street and a school in pansko. in 2007 he participated at the competition for the vukovar watertower, received the vladimir nazor prize, and became president of the Caa. in 2008 he designed the archaeological Museum in vuedol. Since 2009 he has been teaching the course Tourism Structures at the Faculty of architecture in zagreb.

w h o

i s

w h o ?

Toni arni) and zagreb Salon (project award and the grand prix of the Salon 1994, with T. arni); viktor kovai award for the best built project in 2005 (with T. arni); second prize at the 41st zagreb Salon 2006 (with T. arni). he participated at many exhibitions in Croatia and abroad. his selected built projects are: industrial and Crafts School in zadar (with T. arni), pavilion 6 of the Faculty of agronomy in zagreb (with h. auf-Frani) and a family house in kustoija. ToMa pLeji was born in rijeka 1977. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in 2001. in 2003 he founded STudio up with Lea pelivan a zagreb-based architectural practice focused on contemporary architecture and city-planning. he was awarded the grand prix at the 38th zagreb Salon 2003, and received the viktor kovai (2008), vladimir nazor (2008), and drago gali (2009) awards. he also received a Special Mention of the Mies van der rohe award for emerging architects in 2009. he participated at the exhibitions Mare nostrum and power Lounge, which were part of the second and the third editions of the international architecture Biennale in rotterdam, Balkanology in Basel, peacebuilding in rome, and new Trajectories: Contemporary architecture in Croatia and Slovenia at harvard university. in 2004 he represented Croatia at the venice Biennale. he was guest lecturer in vienna, Boston, essen, Leuven, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Split, and zagreb. Saa randi (born 1964 rijeka, Croatia) graduated from the university of zagreb, Faculty of architecture (1990). in the following period he joined the post-graduate program at the Berlage institute in amsterdam, where he received his Ma in 1992, being among the institutes very first generations. From 2003 to 2007 he was president of the Croatian architects association. in 2009 he started the architecture blog pogledaj.to that operates as a research studio of his

idiS TuraTo (born in rijeka 1965) graduated from Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in 1991. he received his Ma at the same faculty in 2004. Since 2007 he has been lecturing at the Faculty of Civil engineering and architecture in Split. Together with Sasa randi, idis Turato founded randi-Turato architects in 1993. They received the viktor kovai award for the extension of the Technical Faculty in rijeka in 2004, for the pope john paul ii hall in 2008 and for the dvkF kindergarten in 2009. The elementary School in krk received the piranesi award in 2005 and the Croatian state prize vladimir nazor in 2006. The same building was included in the selection of the 2007 Mies van der rohe award. in 2006 they represented Croatia at the 10th international architecture exhibition at the venice Biennale. pero vukovi born 1989, is a student Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb since 2007. he has attended different architectural and art workshops. he received the Chancellors award for 2010. he participated at architectural and city-planning competitions and won several prizes, two of which were first prizes. at the Faculty of architecture he participated in the courses design studies 1 and 2 and architectural design 1 and 2, in the capacity of Teaching assistant. Toni arni was born in 1956. he graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb in 1981. he has been lecturing at the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb since 1988. he is currently a professor at the architectural design department, teaching the courses architectural design 1 and 2, and architectural workshop 2. For his architectural work he received several national awards. he lives in zagreb.

d i a g r a M

#1 cluster a 3Lhd cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster a1 a2 a3 a4 B1 B2 C1 C2 d1 d2 e F g h i T Saa Begovi Marko dabrovi Tanja grozdani Silvije novak Saa randi idis Turato Lea pelivan Toma pleji veljko olui Toni arni petar Mikovi helena paver njiri goran rako igor Frani pero vukovi Saa Begovi Marko dabrovi igor Frani Tanja grozdani petar Mikovi Silvije novak veljko olui helena paver njiri Lea pelivan Toma pleji goran rako Saa randi* idis Turato pero vukovi** Toni arni

C L u S T e r o F C o M p L e x r e L a T i o n S Fifteen authors (+commissioner) seeking a solution

cluster B randi-turato cluster C studioup cluster d olui-arni

cluster a

cluster B

cluster C

cluster d

cluster a1

cluster a2

cluster a3

cluster a4

cluster B1

cluster B2

cluster C1

cluster C2

cluster d1

cluster d2

cluster e

cluster F

cluster g

cluster h

cluster i

cluster T

*left the cluster on july 25th, 2010 **joined the cluster on july 26th, 2010

cluster T

d i a g r a M

#2 : B a r g e o n T h e w a T e r

d i a g r a M

#3

B a r g e o n a C L o u d no construction vs. construction

e M B a r g i n g Transformations of the barge in the creative process

a concept: transformer b concept: cage c concept: room C1 C2 C3 d concept: cargo/load d1 d2 d3 d4

water water enigma wood earth waste welded

garden room yard room room

wire mesh

d i a g r a m

#4

S A I L A W A Y Wandering from mooring to mooring and back

z o o m #1

V e n e z i a

Mooring possibilities: 1 Punta della Dogana di Mare 5 2,3 Giardini della Biennale 4 4,5 Arsenale di Venezia 1 2 3

z o o m #2

r i j e K a Mooring possibilities: 1 Peine Suak 2 Delta Rijeka-Suak 3 Luka - skladita, lukobran 4 Petrolejska luka - INA mazut 3

4 3

2

1

Venezia 4526' 1220'

opatija 4519' 1418'

rijeka 4514' 1426' Kraljevica 4515' 1434'

rovinj 4504' 1338'

Pula 4551' 1350'

d i a g r a m B U D G E T

#5 B A L L A S T

B2) Second budget distribution - authors version

exhibition set-up authors fees brochure and web venue lease/Arsenale

45,3% : 15,5% 15,5% 124.000,00*+40.000,00*+5.000,00** available funding B1) 124.000,00 + 40.000,00 *from the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia **donated by the City of Rijeka (+) (-) (-)

logistics mooring/Venice 23,7% 100% 100% barge lease pavilion construction towing exhibition set-up authors fees brochure and web 17,4% venue lease/Arsenale logistics mooring/Venice 7,1% 100% barge lease pavilion construction 100% towing exhibition set-up authors fees brochure and web

exhibition/Arsenale barge/pavilion mooring/Venice

B3) Third budget distribution - ideal version 8,2% 10,9%

B2) 124.000,00 + 40.000,00 + 5.000,00

exhibition/Arsenale (-) barge/pavilion (+) mooring/Venice (4 months) (+) exhibition/Arsenale (+) barge/pavilion (+) mooring/Venice (4 months) (+) exhibition/Arsenale barge/pavilion mooring/Venice (1 day) (+) (+) (+)

19,1%

B3) 220.000,00 + 40.000,00 + 5.000,00

B4) 130.000,00 + 40.000,00 + 5.000,00

B1) First budget distribution - the organizers and the commissioners version

exhibition set-up authors fees brochure and web venue lease/Arsenale

17% 20,3% B4) Fourth budget distribution ongoing version (about Aug. 1st, 2010; status of the Venice mooring unknown)

20,4%

28%

logistics mooring/Venice

39% 12,5% 10% 24% 100% 100%

venue lease/Arsenale logistics mooring/Venice barge lease pavilion construction towing

12,9% 38,7% 100%

barge lease pavilion construction towing

14,5%

t o w g r a m :

P u s h

P u l l

m e e t i n g

# 1

m e e t i n g

# 2

m e e t i n g

# 3

m e e t i n g When: April 19th, 2010 6.309.00pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

# 4

M E E T I N G P R O T O C O L , M A R C H A U G U S T , 2 0 1 0 La Biennale 2010 Less than 4 months ZagrebRijekaKraljevicaVenice 16 architects, 15:1 / 1 commissioner, 1 resigned, 1 joined in More than 20 meetings Ca. 900 hours Several concepts One barge Mooring? Some wanted to define the concept as soon as possible, in order to leave enough time for its elaboration. The others kept questioning each set concept. Still, the idea of mooring in Venice was unanimous. For months, meetings have begun and ended with the same discussion: How do we moor at the Biennale? In spite of all efforts and time that we had in abundance, the status of mooring has remained unknown. There were different dilemmas. One remained unsolved until the very end: is the Pavilion a container for further content or is it a content in itself? Four months later, the time ran out... At the moment of conclusion of this document we do not know if the pavilion on the barge will sail and moor in Venice. We know that on August 21st the construction will be finished and that it will be towed into the Rijeka harbor to be presented to media and photographed for this book. ABBREVIATIONS: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. FA STUDIO UP KS Saa Begovi Marko Dabrovi Igor Frani Tanja Grozdani Petar Mikovi Leo Modrin Silvije Novak Helena Paver Njiri Veljko Olui Lea Pelivan Toma Pleji Saa Randi Goran Rako Idis Turato Pero Vukovi Toni arni University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture, Kaieva 26, Zagreb Studio UP, City of Mainz Street 18, Zagreb Kraljevica Shipyard, City of Kraljevica

When: March 24th, 2010 3pm5pm Where: FA, Small Assembly Hall Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: First official meeting Announcement of the concept First mention of the idea to build a pavilion and tow it to Venice How do you organize mooring in Venice: through the Biennale or through harbor authorities? Highlights: Instead of the supposed 9 projects, there will be 1 collective project!

From: Leo Modrcin To: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:37 PM Subject: Saturday

When: April 5th, 2010 1.002.00pm Where: FA, 5th floor

Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. Greetings, L.M. All agree to meet this S.N. Saturday morning, I propose H.P.NJ. to meet in the shipyard at V.O. 9 so the travel is not too L.P. early. I confirmed the rest T.P. of the day/ the space to S.R. meet at the Frankopan G.R. castle, also the recording I.T. equipment. Reading all the P.V. responses there is a wish to T.. stay extra day so I propose we do that. We have the Subject: space to work, and internal Concepts of the and external floating pavilion accommodation. Highlights: Oak wood from From the mailing list you Velebit can see that Hrvoje Njiric Note: declined the invitation. Ad hoc meeting, gathering of people For now, who were at the Leo FA at the time

When: April 10th, 2010 10.00am10.00pm Where: KS, Frankopan Castle, Kraljevica Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Live contact with the shipyardthe maternity ward of the project Highlights: Rotation of the barge, Transformer concept; Bargemat / slab /tower Is the barge going to Venice? Guests: Vlado Droi Igor Goli

Subject: Location of the mooring in Venice, the canal next to the Arsenale discussed Highlights: Barge as accidental Passer-by; Barge as a bridge(shortcut) Barge as interpolation; Barge changes the plan of Venice; Is the barge one of the interpolated vaporetto stations? Note: L.M. at a meeting in Venice

...There are Two media, one is earTh and The oTher is waTer; They boTh supporT someThing, buT we canT keep our objecT on earTh, and musT Therefore keep iT on waTer...

...iT musT be everyThing a ship is noT and a house is noT... ...why is a barge beTTer Than enclosed space? This is also a quesTion ThaT has To be answered...

...we should noT do anyThing opposed To The barge as such... ...The aim is ThaT you give up archiTecTure in some way...

m e e t i n g

# 5

m e e t i n g When: May 05th, 2010 5.007.00pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

# 6

m e e t i n g

# 7

m e e t i n g

#8

When: April 24th, 2010 11.00am8.00pm Where: Rijeka Architects Society, Rijeka Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Viewing of the JPS barges at the Rijeka breakwater: the first encounter of architects and barges Barge: development of possibilities The Transformer conceptthe barge is not a barge any more, now it is a buoy or a dock Is it possible to inhabit a barge without building on itinhabited space as a negative of space for all gravitational states? Walls on the barge The Room concept Highlights: Concepts: Cage or Room Guests: Miljenko Gralja, naval engineer Lorka Mirkovi, naval engineer

From: Leo Modrcin To: Rosolen Roberto Cc: Micol Saleri Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:01 PM Subject: 12th International Architecture Exhibition - Barcone di CroaziaDear Mr. Rosolen, sorry for being so persistent in asking about bringing the barcone to Venice. I am now under lot of time pressure, just like you are I am sure, to define the parameters of our project and my team is truly anxious about the details so that we can continue with the project. I would kindly ask you to give us an update with your estimations on possible decision schedule. To that regard we would be very happy to meet with you in person this coming Tuesday, 11 May, in Venice, together with Idis Turato, an architect in our group. We could also use this occasion to find about other issues of this scenario with other relevant agencies that are outside of your organization. I again appreciate very much your help with this, best regards from all, Leo Leo Modrcin, architect Commissioner, Croatian Participation 12th International Architecture Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2010

When: May 12th, 2010 5.008.00pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

From: Leo Modrcin To: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:11 PM Subject: Status, barge, meeting

From: Leo Modrcin To: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:30 AM Subject: bargeI visited the 3rd of May shipyard and spoke to the sales director who showed me the barge. First I did not think so but this indeed is the one 3LHD used for the bridge. It is excellent, exactly what we need, see the attached pictures and plans. The shipyard will send us a rental proposal. The barge is available in the period we need. After a respond on the mooring site in Venice, the main component remains to be the towing. We still count on Jadranski pomorski servis. Although we do not have a response from Venice, this seems to be an important step forward as we eliminate the need to alter the previous barge. This one is ready for the journey. Thanks, Leo

When: May 19th, 2010 5.307.00pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: The Room concept Elaboration: Water Garden room, Water Yard room, Enigma room Highlights: The solution depends on the budget; We have a budget for the execution of the pavilion if we can get the money allocated for the lease and realization of the exhibition at the Arsenale ...i find inTeresTing ThaT everyThing builT in venice corresponds wiTh waTer very liTTle, The Typology of These sTrucTures is To a very small exTenT based on The facT ThaT They are noT builT on solid ground...

Subject: The Room concept The Room has only walls, what is the relation between walls and the barge? Are we building a floating pavilion as a permanent solution?

...yes, This is a room ThaT sTands horizonTally for a monTh, verTically nexT monTh, and Then for a monTh like This. where should iT have connecTing poinTs in order To change posiTions every monTh?...

...could we Turn This barge by jps inTo an advanTage or a problem in builT environmenT? leT us puT iT, say, here on The map and we can see ThaT venice funcTions differenTly, because we have puT This There...

Sorry for not sending minutes of our last meeting earlier. At the meeting instead of giving up on the barge going to Venice, we found out that we could get answers from the Biennale organization with the help of Natasa Radovic, a Venice based event and arts organizer. I immediately Subject: named her as my on site Position in Venice? assistant, notified the We need a coordina- Biennale about that decision tor in Venice for a and asked Natasa to send mooring contract a proposal for services. Does the Ministry We also determined possible know that we dont mooring sites based on her want an exhibition experience. at the Arsenale, but a pavilion moored Greetings, in Venice? Leo Note: The authors assert that they cannot go on without a clear status of the mooring in Venice. The Commissioner says that they have to go on with the concept. The Commissioner lays out a strategy: We have to hold a reservation for an exhibition venue at the Arsenale until the confirmation of the mooring location. The authors protest, they wonder if the strategy is right.

m e e t i n g When: May 25th, 2010 3.007.30pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

#9

m e e t i n g When: May 30th, 2010 11.30am6.00pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

#10

m e e t i n g When: June 2nd, 2010 4.00pm7.30pm Where: FA, Leos office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

#11

m e e t i n g

#12

m e e t i n g

#13

m e e t i n g

#14

When: June 7th, 2010 5.00pm8.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Elaboration of the Room concept Highlights: Broken floor topic Variable floor inclination topic: stands / plaza / belvedere / bookshop Perforated floor topic

From: Leo Modrcin To: Sanaa@sanaa.co.jp Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:27 PM Subject: For Ms.Sejima / Croatian participation at La Biennale / from the CommissionerDear Ms. Sejima, firstly congratulations on the most deserved Pritzker. I am writing as a commissioner of the Croatian participation at the People meet in architecture exhibition, to describe the project and to kindly ask for your support. I have proposed a project to design a floating pavilion to showcase Croatian architecture and art in Venice and have assembled a team of 8 most notable architectural practices to work on the project. We have located an actual barge with approximate dimensions of 10x20x3 m and have gotten a firm commitment by the shipping services company to provide the barge and to have it towed away to Venice. What started as a conceptual project to explore the possibilities and use that as vessel for a meeting between the diverse practices of architecture and arts, and to include the public in the dialogue, became a true project. We are convinced that to bring the actual structure to Venice would be a strong contribution to the whole exhibition, and that it touches the very premise of your call to architects for this years Biennale. For us it presents a logical choice on how to bring things to Venice across the bay, as a neighboring maritime country, in many ways a redefinition of the historical nautical ties between Venice and Croatian coast. It also touches upon the very nature of the ability of our small cultures inventiveness to do more with less and to express the very essence of things. It is also about making architecture with different means, different set of knowledge related more to ship-building then to architecture. I have approached the officials at the Biennale with the request for support to bring the barge to Biennale. For the in progress, your endorsement of the plan to moore the barge in the area of Arsenale would get a special importance and would greatly influence the effort to realize it.

When: June 14th, 2010 6.0011.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Recapitulation of costs; Exhibition space at the Arsenale vs. barge Are we building or are we designing an exhibition at Arsenale? Highlights: Provisional bill of quantities The Room concept is abandoned The Cargo/Load concept is adopted Final concept: cargo as a medium, a room carved in the load and tunnels / observation points Gantt chart

When: June 28th, 2010 11.00pm4.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: The pavilion is the barges cargo This cargo can be anything, it changes every year; space emerges by subtraction Dimensions and form of the subtracted volume depend on characteristics of the (towed) material and the need for exhibition space Highlights: - Welded wire mesh as Cargo/Load

Subject: The offered location has no pier, but a wall! How do people enter the barge? The relation of the Room concept and the pier, are we striving for a universal or a sitespecific solution? Highlights: Engagement of the engineer Ferrari, who will solve the technical problem of mooring at the quay Location: mooring at the Giardini

Subject: Working models Highlights: The Room concept or the RoomWater Yard concept? Recapitulation of all models: Mat, slab, tower room with four walls Ring (tube)with inner yards Meandering walls Pavilion as a fluid formed by water streams: by mistake this model later on turns into a matrix/model for further development of the project Guests: Students model-makers

Subject: Models Highlights: The Room concept with the sea and the sky

...our demands are noT high; we demand 20 meTres of quay in venice, which has several kilomeTres of quays...

...in all This i lack The Technical momenT ThaT would achieve This same effecT abouT which we Talked; however, The original idea of Transforming The sTrucTure from indusTrial inTo arTisTic conTexT shouldnT be losT...

...on The ouTside This should be an absTracT, from The inside a concreTe room wiTh four walls...

I thank you in advance for your attention to this particular matter. I remain respectfully yours, Leo Modrcin, architect Commissioner, Croatian participation

...These grids, like cages, can be up or down and change dimensions, This is feasible...

...we have a friendly cage; fish can swim in and ouT... ...as if The barge swam in a cage for sharks...

m e e t i n g

#15

s t u d i o

#1

C o n s u l t i n g When: July 8th, 2010; 11.00pm1.00pm Where: Omialj Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Consulting the expert in regard to the stability of the construction, the problem of horizontal forces at heavy seas Guest: Zvonimir Sabljak, Professor

s t u d i o

#2

m e e t i n g

#16

m e e t i n g

#17

When: July 5th, 2010 1.00pm3.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Final bill of quantities A book Highlights: With how much cargo can the barge be loaded? What is sustainable for the budget? The barge can carry 300 tons, but we can hardly buy 30 tons of wire mesh The maximal depth at the Giardini mooring location is 60 cm!

When: July 6th7th 2010 Where: Studio UP Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Rationalization of the pavilion; Construction project: mind the balance!, mind the weight!, mind the draught! Highlights: Alterations in the geometry of each wire mesh layer Space defined by changeable edges

When: July 9th-11th, 2010 Where: Studio UP, FA Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Elaboration of the room A new diagram: a room with changing wall quality, observation holes Highlights: Introduction of a library, benches / useful elements

When: July 13th, 2010. 5.00pm11.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Breakdown / turnback Highlights: Reverting to an earlier model, space defined by changeable edges Is the form expressive? Note: Rako lost his patience and quarreled with the rest of the team

When: July 14th, 2010 6.00pm10.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Elaboration of blueprints for the beginning of construction Wire mesh units are counted, the volume is reduced to cut the costs Highlights: Is the pavilion a content in itself or is it a space for hosting content? Note: L.M. and I.T. at the meeting in Venice Rako treats everybody to cevapcici Guests: Lana Cavar, Graphic Designer

From: IDIS TURATO To: Leo Modrcin; Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako; Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:03 AM Subject: report from veniceAt our meeting with Roberto Rosolen, he specifacally pointed out his personal involvement to have the barge in Venice (we are the only exhibitors to have an intervention outside pavilions on a very visible site) which certainly gives us a great deal of importance. But he is adamant that we present ourselves strongly at the Arsenale..otherwise his role will be inetrpreted as partial in the eyes of his organization and other participating nations.. therefore the room is unavoidable and important assignement with a budget. We need to find a sponsor right away. In addition, Mr Rosolen would not take lightly if we left with the barge after 7 days, that would be an abbandoment of the project and a sort of provocation from our side.. I have sensed his strong feeling that we the Croats somehow provoke the Venitians.. he does not want us to simply sail through the canal and leave right away We need to think what the activities on the barge would be in these three months so that the project gets the additional story..perhaps an exhibition by our artist friends who would not ask for additional funds..a concert by some friends.. poetry reading and books by some friendsdance performance by some friends.

...we should say ThaT we need more draughT... ...This draughT is 8000 euro deeper...

...i like The waTer, ...we goT jusT a parT TerriTory, heighT; of The sky, sea, and iT has The sea and land... The depTh...

...i Think ThaT we should design someThing concreTe...

m e e t i n g When: July 16th, 2010 11.00pm15.00pm Where: STUDIO UP Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. (via Skype) T.P. (via Skype) S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

#18

m e e t i n g

#19

m e e t i n g When: July 19th, 2010 6.00pm9.00pm Where: Studio UP Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. L.M. (via Skype) P.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. G.R. S.R. (via Skype) I.T. (via Skype) P.V. T..

#20

C o n s t r u C t i o n When: July 20th, 2010. Where: Kraljevica Shipyard / The beginning of construction

When: July 17th, 2010 11.00pm14.00pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. (via Skype) T.P. (via Skype) S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T.. Subject: Concept of the exhibition at the Arsenale Highlights: Welded wire mesh again

From: petar miskovic Date: Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:34:24 GMT+02:00 To: Leo Modrcin; Cc: lana cavar; Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako; narcisa vukojevic Subject: MEETING: TIME/PLACEsince yesterday the barge is moored to the shipyard quay. it is rather high in relation to the quay. wire mesh arrives today. the wooden sills will come off and the verticals are welded directly to the deck, without grillage. this means that it wont be possible (or it will be difficult) to take the pavilion off the deck with a crane in one piece. welds can be grinded down neatly. today we should start with verticals and and the first layers. the verticals will have a 12 mm diametre. i propose that by the end of the day we check on the timing of the collective arrival, depending on the on-site situation. it seems to me that it would be better to shift the arrival for one or two days. pack your long trousers, because you cannot enter the shipyard in shorts (or any kind of beach sandals etc.). there is no camera yet, because we are waiting for approval. best, petar

From: Leo Modrcin To: Rosolen Roberto; Micol Saleri Cc: Natasa Radovic Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:04 PM Subject: Croatian participation/progressDear Mr. Rosolen and Ms. Saleri, after our meeting and discussion with our Ministry of culture we have regrettably realized that due to the time and budget constrains we are not able to realize the towing and anchorage of the pontone. We are continuing with the construction and will have a presentation of the pavilion in the Arsenale space via documentation, projection and live streaming. We are convinced that this new format of presentation will be equally attractive and interesting for the public to share. I also attached a text with a more detailed description of the exhibition concept. I thank you very much for your support to this complex project and your continued patience, best regards, Leo Modrcin Leo Modrcin, architect Commissioner, Croatian Participation 12th International Architecture Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2010

From: Leo Modrcin To: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako; Sent: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:19:48 +0200 Subject: budgetGreetings, Attached is the budget presented at the Ministry of culture on Wednesday reflecting the decision to show the towing, renting and morring of the barge at the mooring site in Venice as separate budget items for which there is no funds at present. On Friday we got approval for the revised budget from the Ministry, with some modifications and clarifications for which I dont have the spreadshit as of yet. All the items are accepted but without enlarging the original budget. In other words, we are building the barge, we are exhibiting in the space and we are making the publication, but all within the original amount. I am sending to all FYI, Greetings, Leo

Subject: Do we have to exhibit at the Arsenale? Who will do what? Highlights: The Arsenale exhibition becomes the info-point for the barge, but the barge must go to Venice!

Subject: Budget / what and how? Our budget is too limited, giving up the Giardini mooring, we have to find a new location with much lower mooring costs Highlights: Splitting in teams The decision to build a barge, print a publication, and exhibit at the Arsenale Note: The Commissioner would like a comprehensive book that documents the process of the project, but cannot focus on it, as he has to purchase wire mesh and welding electrodes! Guest: Lana Cavar, Graphic Designer

...i personally Think This is a mess; if you wanT To build iT, everyThing will become so complicaTed ThaT iT is beTTer if we seek for oTher soluTions...

m e e t i n g When: July 26th, 2010. noon10pm Where: KS Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

#21

m e e t i n g

#22

f i n a l

n o t e s

From: petar miskovic Date: Tue 27 Jul 2010 23:32:15 GMT+02:00 To: Leo Modrcin; Cc: lana cavar; Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; pero vukovic; Goran Rako; narcisa vukojevic Subject: tuesday

today the same crew was working, six of them. the crane is out of order from early morning, the second one was available from time to time, thanks to nikola (chief of the production to the shipyard). they should Subject: have worked until seven, Work on the barge but they stopped in the Exhibition at the afternoon because of the Arsenale and the book rain. by the end of the day, What is the title we had two incomplete rows of the project? The on the barge. there should authors want Cargo, be ten workers tomorrow. the Commissioner has the new verticals are ok filed the name a long for the time being. the ago: Brod/The Ship dimensions of grids vary, so /La nave that we have relative shifts. Highlights: The authors are trying to coanvince the Commissioner that the barge must be in Venice despite the costs and the circumstances Not a ship, but Cargo/Load Guests: Professor Sabljak, Construction Engineer Lana Cavar, Graphic Designer

When: July 31st, 2010 11am3pm Where: FA, Petars office Who: S.B. M.D. I.F. T.G. P.M. L.M. S.N. H.P.NJ. V.O. L.P. T.P. S.R. G.R. I.T. P.V. T..

July 25th, 2010 S.R. sent an email from Boston that he is withdrawing from the project July 26th, 2010 - Thanks to his exceptional contribution to the project, the group has decided to treat the architecture student Pero Vukovi as one of the authors of the project on equal footing with the others.

From: petar miskovic Date: Sun 1 Aug 2010 16:09:21 GMT+02:00 To: Leo Modrcin; Cc: lana cavar; Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; pero vukovic; Goran Rako; narcisa vukojevic Subject: Work/first indications of spacestatus: 9/43, a room is becoming visible, dangerous points everywhere, looks good both when you walk on the wire and from the distance. the photos are from yesterday, today we shot them from the crane, from above it looks just like in one of the renders, well send them later.

From: IDIS TURATO Date: Wed 4 Aug 2010 17:01:04 GMT+02:00 To: Leo Modrcin, Lea, Igor Frani, Leo Modrin Hr, Goran Rako, Tonci arni, veljko oluic, Helena Paver Njiri, Idis Turato, Toma Pleji, 3lhd@3lhd.com, petar miskovic, pero vukovic Cc: Lana Cavar, narcisa vukojevic Subject: WEB / BARGE TEG-19 RIJEKAhey... its me again... we met the contractor yesterday and we agred that until sunday the posts will be built and since monday the roof is on... the contractor has grasped the complexity of the work on the roof, because it is supposed to be made like concrete formwork, which is taken off after the whole roof is done and has taken over the load... i personally expect a lot of possible problems here... thats why we have to get to the roof asap... today we must pay the contractor a part of the bill to motivate him. i would not give up one-day towing to punta della dogana... well find the money in these two months after we present the project well. Status: 15/43 , scaffolding along the perimeter of the barge. No photos, reason: camera does not work, so much from me...

From: petar miskovic Date: Sat 7 Aug 2010 23:32:16 GMT+02:00 To: Leo Modrcin; Cc: lana cavar; Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; pero vukovic; Goran Rako; narcisa vukojevic Subject: SHIPYARD REPORTwe inscribed additional dimension lines on blueprints to make them easier for the construction workers. the number of layers is reduced from 49 to 43 tonci (zg) was in charge of the final pavilion geometry in collaboration with pero (manchester), who drew the blueprints and dimension lines and kept sending them to me (ri), so that leo and i could write additional descriptions on them and take them to the shipyard (kr) in sets of five layers, day in, day out status in the morning: 20/43, more in the afternoon

From: Leo Modrcin To: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran Rako; Pero Vukovic Cc: Lana Cavar, narcisa vukojevic Sent: Sat 14 Aug 2010 16:30:20 GMT+02:00 Subject: today:the roofstatus: 43/43 no choosing, as is, holiday special*

July 31st, 2010 After this date all consultations and discussions were Subject: continued by email, Who does what in most of the this project? architects scattered Highlights: along the coast, The barge is some remained in the present at the Kraljevica Shipyard. exhibition at the There were a couple Arsenale YES or NO? more meetings at From Aug. 1st we the shipyard, so are on holidays, can that problems a the designers draw up the stability of the exhibition? construction, transport, and safety precautions could be solved. Subjects after July 31st: Introduction of new safety elements and measures for protection of visitors Concept purity Budget Mooring in Venice how much sTupider a group is Than an average individual, This is beyond comprehension!

From: veljko oluji Date: Sat 14 Aug 2010 19:17:45 GMT+02:00It looks very good, unreal, it should be illuminated from the inside as well, so that the void, inner space can be felt

From: Sasa Begovic Date: Fri 13 Aug 2010 14:18:36 GMT+02:00We hail the Steel Nebula!

From: Marko Dabrovic Date: Sat 14 Aug 2010 18:09:43 GMT+02:00Very good, is it waterproof :)

From: Silvije Novak Date: Sat 14 Aug 2010 17:02:02 GMT+02:00Leo, tell the guys to get a flag, they didnt realize that they were under the roof!

From: Toma Plejic Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 4:45 PMslab! roast lamb! gild the mesh! lion! *The Feast of the Assumption is a national holiday in Croatia

P. 66

1 : 1 5 m a r k o g o l u b i n c o n v e r s a t i o n # # # # # # # # # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 S M I T P S H V L T S G I P T A A G A E I E E E O A O D E O R O N T L L L A M R I R N A K R J A V E J A A A S O B E D F R A G R M I J E N A K O P E L P L R A N R T U V U I O G A A R I P O I E N A R K A O B N O N A L V I D K A O R V R I Z K O V U A I O T V N I O D O V E J N O I I V I A V A R I N I I K N J I R I w i t h :

P. 67INTERVIEW

1 : 1 5

# 1

S A A

B E G O V I

# # # # # #

the series of interviews before you was recorded in july 2010 as a documentary enhancement of the floating croatian pavilion project for the venice biennale. my position in individual conversations with participating architects was that of an outsider; i was not involved in any way and had no direct insight into the collaboration dynamics, joint considerations, and the work within the team. however, some of the external effects of this dynamics did affect me at the very beginning: uneasiness because of the tight deadline, decisions that constantly had to be made between many involved authors, great enthusiasm, and general uncertainty and instability that marked the project on all levels. instability was often deliberately mentioned in interviews and you will notice that it cropped up in very different contexts reaching from the physical to static and metaphoric. the concept defined by the commissioner leo modrin seemed to me powerful right away, because it contained neither a monumental biennale-typical glorification of privileged knowledge, nor marketing rhetoric that packed weak, rather meaningless and uncritical messages into well-sounding phrases. architects are going to venice to solve the problem of the exhibition pavilion so simply, concise, and pragmatically set, but still an extremely powerful gesture. i was also motivated by the chance to clear up my

own attitude and feelings towards the project through interviews, because i was surprised by the almost complete turnover of some of its priorities at the moment when the architects, contrary to the commissioners opinion, decided to build a real architectural and art structure this year. it seems to me that this was the reason why the commissioner tried to revive the discursive and dialogical dimension of the project with these interviews, crucial in the process of the pavilions emergence, but partly lost with its execution. in the interviews i tried to trace the architects decision to subdue their authorial ego and sign their joint work as a collective, without stressing individual contributions to the design. thus there is no reference to previous achievements of individual architects or teams, except where the interviewees referred to them in order to shed light on some elements of the work before you. as one of the interviewees said, it is true that in these talks i did not interpret the project directly. fifteen voices gathered around a single jointly filtered idea is schizophrenic enough, so that my interpretation could be reduced to discreet guiding of the voices and their minimal editing. Marko Golub was born in Split 1978. He graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. Today he is a Zagreb-based critic and journalist.

it seems that the crucial question of the project, to which you have soon given an unambiguous answer, was to build or not. which elements were decisive here? between a simple and clear barge concept and a display in a room, there was actually no dilemma. as architects involved in practice, we all said right away: lets make a pavilion! the concept bringing a temporary croatian territory to venice has immediately been recognized as very powerful. 3lhd had one experience with a barge, because we used the same kind of vessel to transport the croatian defenders bridge from the shipyard to its final destination. we knew therefore that this operation was relatively simple and that everything could be realised in the same year. besides, the conceptual impact is much stronger if you make the actual barge and bring it to the location then when it remains a fictive object on paper. leo first wrote ship, but we

P. 70

S A A

B E G O V I

P. 71INTERVIEW

S A A

B E G O V I

said right away no, its a barge! it carries cargo and within this concept we this cargo can be varied every year: different exhibition and presentation concepts, different materials like wood, metal or canvas, its openness or self-containment. leo primarily demanded that each of us fifteen should make a model of his or her vision of the pavilion on a smaller scale. we did not like this, it seemed absurd to waste time on models instead of showing something that in the end will remain a pavilion. it is possible to bring the barge in every year, equipped with a different content. its cargo is culture. the culture that croatia exports to venice is the barges cargo. how useful was to you personally the experience of joint work with authors from other disciplines, and to what extent does this introduce new models of presentation and display as a consequence? it seems to me that we are talking about a different representation model as well. our experiences with temporary projects (expo 05 and 08 and other) are very useful. i think that architectural biennales are becoming increasingly absurd, with all those installations approaching the art zone. at the same time, artists are increasingly, sometimes even in a cleverer way than architects, entering the zone of architecture and space. in this case, the most important circumstance is the fact that you have no pavilion and that you lack exhibition space, but then you bring something that is also part of our maritime tradition. leo says ship and we say barge, which points to this tradition. this relocated, instable ground is in a certain way also a cultural project, a social project, and a social context. the initial statement has provided us with an impulse, so that from that point onwards the main problem was only the fact that we have a crew of fifteen people, who will find it difficult to work without a real captain. we had beautiful daydreams, a very extensive exchange of ideas and a lot of interaction maybe everything has been functioning too slow and with too many difficulties but this maybe showed all the differences between us, which is also very interesting if put in a context. some of the other interviewees have stressed the importance of the social aspect of this project. on the other hand, you are to a considerable extent concerned with its para-theoretical aspect, i.e. the notions of easiness, instability, temporariness etc. what is the relation between these two aspects from your position? everything a house is not, everything a ship is not that is a pavilion! we have always contemplated theoretical issues when we did temporary things like pavilions or exhibitions. i can illustrate that on the example of the expo. doing the expo in japan, we considered it stupid to place people into a space resembling a cinema theatre, start the screening and say look, this is croatia. why should we do that if today everyone can upload these contents onto the internet? people keep forgetting that at the expo you effectively have only fifteen minutes on disposal. people maybe have just a day for the entire exhibition, so that first you have to draw their attention and then focus on

your story. naturally, in such a case both the concept and the theoretical part are extremely important. we started with the movement. we wanted the viewer to move through our pavilion, we wanted to encourage him to move with all means we had on disposal - sound, light and scent and explain him the basic topic. the result was transitory and architectonic, because the content could be experienced from different angles, through movement, and interchange of activity and non-activity. in this case, everything is really entirely unstable again from the time in which the project is created to its execution and medium. the question is if we shall be there long with the barge or make just a short visit? it is like that with venice every time shall we make it, will the costs be approved, will the ministry transfer the money... the entire context we are in is absolute instability. do you think that the negotiating processes and the tedious paperwork are also some kind of this projects capital for the future? certainly! at the beginning leo maybe did not even believe us when we told him how persistent he would have to be as a commissioner, if he wanted to push this through. he thought it would be easier just because this is the biennale and just because we are dealing with the state. we did croatian pavilions in japan and spain with the state; helena, pero, toma, and lea had the same kind of experience, and you cant believe how difficult that is. you must do everything alone and nobody is willing to help. you design alone, organize and transport alone, the catalogues cross the border in your cars boot, you are the only person who believes in that particular idea. this is a typical situation. is the collective spirit then something that makes stress-management easier? id say yes. for us (3lhd), team work is daily routine. the idea to which we committed ourselves was powerful, it did not come from just one of us. leo said right at the beginning: i am the commissioner, i shall help you in everything you need and you will realize the project. in this way we create a good common platform. as for the collective, we talked about exat 51, new tendencies, the Zemlja (earth) group... at some point leo mentioned a manifesto. one cannot say that the idea of collectivism is unfamiliar to us, because for fifteen years we have been functioning through team work, with suppressed egos; however, manifestos as such are history. to write a manifesto of something like this now would be absurd. for the work we are going to create, the idea and the documentation of the process of collective work are very important. yesterday rako summarized some things very well in just one sentence: we shall agree to meet tomorrow, so that we can decide tomorrow. postponing is always a topic of collective work and you can imagine how it is when there are fifteen of us. in a collective you must check every decision with everybody and each answer must be positive. it is a result of many brilliant thoughts, but also of strenuous and long negotiations. communication is our most precious asset.

P. 74

1 : 1 5

P. 75INTERVIEW

M A R K O

D A B R O V I

# 2

M A R K O

D A B R O V I

in what way was the social context of this project important to you? despite the final product, it is not easy to ignore the fact that shipyards, workers and the state in this branch are also part of the story about the barge pavilion. we learned what was happening there, but after you see all that, you understand in what poor state the entire thing is. knowing the situation with shipyards, you begin to understand that people keep working there, that their history is fantastic, but that there are almost no ships there, everything is practically deserted; at the moment they are designing a ship for a rich client, who in the meantime said that this was the last time that he commissioned something in croatia. nobody knows what will happen with that place and those people. we considered the collaboration with them in the construction of the pavilion, but we cannot save them in that way. in financial respect is this a minor commission, but it may turn out helpful if it manages to give the people the feeling that they are worth something. we had a very similar issue with the croatian defenders bridge in rijeka, built with the help of the 3. maj shipyard in rijeka. the social aspect has been treated in a film by nicole hewitt; she interviewed the people from the shipyard who had built the bridge, being themselves true croatian defenders. this was beautiful; we realized that this project deserved to be continued, so that vlado kneevi contributed his part and ana human too.

since we are talking about the process of the emergence of this pavilion, can we say to what extent it reflects the current state of architectural practice in croatia? many of you have participated in a massive construction wave with your work, with all the good and bad sides of this phenomenon. however brilliant and successful on the surface everything seemed until recently, because many projects could be built, objectively speaking architecture has always been in the state of instability, not only here, but everywhere in the world. everywhere the start is ambitious, and then, when policies change, projects simply become obsolete. architecture is a slow medium, large projects are usually realised through several years of some politicians term of office. this means that already under this first presupposition they cease to be interesting, because politicians want to erect monuments to themselves and not construct useful buildings. the construction wave three or four years ago presented us all in truly great light. however, we all actually originate from a bad period, especially our older colleagues. towards the end of yugoslavia not much was built, during the war not at all building in croatia began in 2000 and it lasts until today. there was much insecurity, shifting of completion dates, unbuilt projects, and many great visions that have been stopped. i am speaking about reality and our reality is instability, also metaphorically speaking. the fifteen of us have been working under the circumstances of which we do not know whether they will survive croatias joining the eu. our slovenian colleagues tell us that we still have great architecture just because we still have balkan conditions in which we can negotiate. in this sense is this ten-year flash maybe a little unrealistic picture, but it has really shown many quality things, as a continuation of our very good architectural tradition. it is interesting how in the new context the younger generation, now recognized on the international scene, very successfully found its way. we are persistent in every project, we are very stubborn, maybe even traditional. even in this case we were very eager to really execute the pavilion. i am not talking just about the instability of this concept and the instability of a pavilion on water, but also about the instability of execution. you mentioned your experience with a barge, its physics and possibilities. to what extent has this knowledge and the experience of such an object helped everyone to form some initial ideas and transform them in the process? once you do something, maybe just one move, this is already a mastered experience. once you set a 150-ton object on the water, push it through the entire town of rijeka, pump the water in and out of the tanks in order to lift or lower it, then you understand that with all accompanying excitement such an action is not comparable to launching a space shuttle. this is just a basic cargo loaded on a barge and transported in a way used in shipyards at least thirty times a day. there has also been the question of ethics how moral is it to make something that costs, but will not be used a number of times. we have declined to make a fixed pavilion, because it would be unable to answer all the programs that might appear as its content in the future. what will you

P. 78

M A R K O

D A B R O V I

P. 79INTERVIEW

1 : 1 5

do if someone comes up with a wish do display a giant sculpture in venice? i have considered this as well, but do not see it as a problem. a pavilion, in any form, is just a pivotal point. however you use it, to a certain extent your work still communicates its relation to the pavilion.exhibiting in fixed pavilions, the kind we rent, is also subject to limitations and in a way spatially specific; the only question is to what extent you are aware of this as a creative professional. this project seems to me much more questionable regarding the uncertainty of its outcome. yes, but this is a risk worth taking. we have the amount of selfconfidence necessary to think that at this moment that decision might be the right one. the concept is leos and not ours and we said right at the beginning thats excellent, there is nothing to add to this. we have already mentioned instability, as well as cultural, social, and other contexts. today, with the collapse of dubai, the question of building is a big question in the world of architecture, even if you work in an environment that is still very active in construction. this kind of instability must then be reflected on our cargo. maybe it will be possible to really bring back these grids and use them for something else. talking about biennale, we often returned to aldo rossi and his Teatro del mondo, but we must not forget that this was a typical postmodern topic. he set his typology on water, similarly to our concept, and in this respect we are neither the first nor the last ones, but instability is conceptually still an excellent topic. our territory in venice is unstable, in the same way building today is generally an unstable thing. i would like to return to the question of installation. installation is something that architecture can always be, but only if it is useful, if someone can display his work within it. we are trying to imagine how it would be if dalibor martinis displayed his video work within it, and we adapted to it with a black canvas, electric installations etc. whatever cargo we load on the barge, it must contain a room, because architecture is just that. another interesting topic is also the fact that we are still in the phase of negotiations on where exactly we can moor in venice. we have a lot of problems. all right, which problem are we talking about? the italians have at first given us a completely useless place, a pier with billowing sea caused by the ships in the port, not by southern or northern winds. the shallower the sea, the higher the waves and at that location the depth is about two metres. with such a large object it can happen that, when inclined, it might touch the bottom. this is tsunami effect. in the ocean it exists only in the form of shallow energy, but when it reaches shallow seas, this wave of energy is compressed and a large wave emerges. the location primarily assigned to us has almost led to impossibility of realization. the position was utterly wrong, mooring was impossible, the access to the barge was almost impossible due to some low walls that must remain intact. we are still waiting for the answer on where we can moor the barge and if this is going to be possible at all.

# 3

I G O R

F R A N I

in the end, so many things related to the pavilion remain open and undefined. you are constructing a pavilion, but there are no directions how to use it or to use it at all. practically everything is left to the interaction and decisions of future exhibitors, commissioners, and organiZers. maybe nothing is defined in the way that someone tomorrow, if he intends to display paintings, has everything prepared to do so. this was not our aim. the interaction between the emergence of the pavilion and that which will be actually displayed has to be repeated and conceived in its final form every time. i think that such interaction also means greater potential for items on display. any artist who succeeds us has the possibility to manipulate and interpret everything we have made as he likes. how did the communication between all of you function? you are one of the members of the team who have previously worked mostly individually. some are more experienced in collaborations, even interdisciplinary ones. in comparison with some regular teams i really am a lonely wolf. i have conceived the majority of my works in the conceptual phase alone. concerning the structure and organization of my office, things are somewhat different today. but even when you work entirely alone, you work within an environment. the closest environment is the place where you work, but only a bit further away is the circle of people you associate with and talk to. this situation is maybe just an intensified form of such social interaction, exchange of ideas, and our sporadic conversations. in some moments i truly enjoyed it, in really promising moments, charged with energy. the less you mention the word i in such a dialogue, the faster everything goes, free of tensions. an unbelievable diversity has created unexpected, completely new mutations, sometimes entirely useless and absolutely inefficient.

P. 82

I G O R

F R A N I

P. 83INTERVIEW

I G O R

F R A N I

a large part of work on this project was related to attempts of joint conceptualiZation of problems you are trying to solve and the message you wish to communicate. is there a final joint statement? or is the pavilion that statement in itself? the statement was signed at our first meeting, later we had no problems with that. it is hard to say that the pavilion in itself is a statement, but the entire invested energy, team dynamics, discussions and talks are maybe valuable content. i think that the publication we are preparing, including these interviews, will function as a certain interpreter of the project, not of its final appearance, but of its procedure. therefore i am not sure if a statement, as a rounded-up closure, is necessary at all. there was much discussion about the naturalness of the approach to the barge as a medium, about shipbuilding and technology. to what extent has technology influenced the way of thinking? steel has remained, construction steel that is to say, in the form of cargo, which is entirely different. we had several meetings in kraljevica and from the beginning we were inclined to actions oriented towards metal sheets, welding, and metal plates. this was a normal way; however, its aim was not to stress the barge, but to get away from classic construction. we did not intend to build a house on the barge, but to transform it into something else with some elements, to turn it into something different from a mere barge for towing on water, a ship. this shift towards construction cargo is the continuation of this story on transformation. you have considered many ideas, proposals, and variants. which of them, or what kind, you found most interesting? i liked the variants that included the least interventions on the barge as such. i liked the ideas of choreographing its movement or rotation, like a sea dance in completely unexpected positions. at some moments i suggested almost minimal interventions on it and concentration on the situations it generates. as we had problems with the location, we even considered towing it from one place to another all of the time. should it cause panic somewhere, we could tow it to another place. it seemed to me that thus the story of search and struggle for ones place might be tackled in an interesting way. we examined many variants, and of this final one i can say that it carries certain visual elusiveness it can hardly be entirely visualised with certainty before it is realized. we still do not know what it means to be inside that grid and how much light it will let through. according to rendered simulations, it seems that each visitor creates his own horizon when you look out of the pavilion. i have the feeling that this is going to be an interesting visual attraction, which maybe does not need anything else; elements will emerge that cannot be drawn or depicted, but we can still sense them. it also interests me if the steel grid will create an agreeable microclimate, without strong wind and draught. it should become a pleasant environment, regardless of the character and appearance of the material used for it.

the opposite might happen as well. yes, it could be rainy and waves could overturn us, but this is the uncertainty we have agreed to from the beginning. there is a relatively simple system of protection from rain, but this is nothing we should be worried about in this case. i have no experience of being in such space, i cannot foresee how pleasant or not that will be, but the entire dynamics of the grid, light, shadows, and the sea seems very attractive in the way it is conceived. it looks a bit like a wireframe of a structure before rendering. yes, it leaves the impression of being unfinished and that is true. there are a few renders i find splendid: an illuminated horizon that dissolves into a broad stretch of light towards the corners and the end of the wall. i am so interested what that will look like in reality. how is the inner space formed? does it, more like empty space, just demonstrate the potential of a pavilion built in this way or is it designed as a framework for a certain kind of exhibition and other contents? it rather demonstrates something, of course, because we do not have a concrete task and did not tend to define what should come inside. with the pavilion we just want to show what it means to build with a grid, what this means for the floor, the walls, and the ceiling. we wanted to create different effects in such circumstances, which means not to leave all four sides alike, but achieve different relations by the thickness and density of the grid. because of that, the opening towards the outside is in some places directed upwards, and in other places downwards. through such dynamics and the flickering of light generated in that way, we are trying to demonstrate different possibilities. the form of inner space should be understood in informal and non-obligatory way. it is not the final shape. there are, of course, some other technical elements that should be solved, so that usability is ensured. it is important that visitors cannot sustain scratches and that the wire mesh can be normally walked on... how important is interaction with people? what do you think about the idea that within the pavilion there are occasional organiZed events? the human element will be added there. by viewing and their presence, people will set up a scale. leo was constantly worried with the question what we can do if nothing happens. however, knowing how the biennale functions, i am not so sure how necessary it is to insist upon permanent events. people come to venice for a day or two, visit what they can and go away. therefore i think that it is sufficient that the pavilion is just one exhibit or a station for a short visit, without something else being produced inside. this entire sexy atmosphere with the light penetrating through the grid, the wind blowing and the changing views is sufficiently impressive. it is not necessary to introduce other events along with that one, especially within the framework to which we are limited.

P. 86

1 : 1 5

P. 87 87INTERVIEW

T A N J A

G R O Z D A N I

# 4

T A N J A

G R O Z D A N I

i am interested in the term of cargo/load that almost all of you keep mentioning. what does it mean and how did it emerge? we do not build archite