Loading
the architecture of light
Glass talks to Ricardo Gomes, architect at Studio Olafur Eliasson
Contemporary art and architecture have a symbiotic relationship. They converse, overlap and become interdependent, not unlike religions transmitting belief systems through cathedrals, temples and mosques, or governments projecting power from monoliths. Art filters through architecture into everyday life, and endows relevance to artistic gestures, whether grand or soaring, idiosyncratic or ephemeral.
Art and architecture, in a sense, manifest a Burkean sublime, entrancing the public with their monumentality and materiality. Artists employ architecture – and architects create artworks – to cast their projects in an intellectual context, and enable them to participate in a broader artistic discourse. Wolf Prix of Coop Himmelb(l)au said at the 2008 Venice Biennale that “if an architect doesn’t want to change the world or society with his building, he stays a builder.”
When art and architecture fuse, the result can be transcendental. Olafur Eliasson, the Danish artist who manipulates nature to conjure murals, is a master of this dialogue between art and architecture, and of channeling his “immaterial” art through architecture. His installations are a form of protest art, interfering with the prescribed path in built spaces, distracting people from their mindless march. But unlike conventional activists, Eliasson doesn't chain himself to buildings or organize sit-ins, he simply dazzles.
In October 2009, Eliasson completed his permanent installation at Hara Museum ARC, “Sunspace for Shibukawa,” a stainless steel observatory with glass prisms embedded on its cupola to form light designs on the concave wall inside the space. As Project Architect at Studio Olafur Eliasson, Ricardo Gomes traveled to Japan to oversee the installation of the Hara pavilion. Born in Portugal, Gomes studied architecture at Universidade Técnica de Lisboa before moving to Marfa, Texas, to work at Donald Judd’s Chinati Foundation. In 2005, he joined Studio Olafur Eliasson in Berlin, Germany.
Glass catches up with Gomes to discuss the interplay between art and architecture:
As an architect, what do you bring to Studio Olafur Eliasson, and how do you collaborate with other members of the studio?
Aside from bringing technical skills of drawing, visualizing, detailing and organizing a program, I believe an architect – in the context of the artist’s studio – may introduce a certain structure and rigour relevant to tasks as varied as researching possible subject matters to the development of projects.
Often departing from a self-referencing universe, we experiment with different ideas in parallel with conceptual development, which is very much the artist’s capacity. Several iterations eventually result in a traditional design development process, which is nevertheless incredibly dynamic as it often incorporates a multitude of competences with different perspectives - not only that of the artist, but also of the various studio members.
How has working for the studio affected your work as an architect, and influenced you as an artist?
My interest in art came from my disillusionment with contemporary architectural practice. I found, when among a group of artists, a conceptual freshness and brightness that came from discussing and operating with the concept of space outside of the traditional field of architecture.
I have since recognised that realising works of art presents many of the same challenges as architecture, and in some cases is a very similar process, particularly when we are working with ideas of inhabitable space. This has given me a renewed sense of purpose as an architect.
Working at the studio has meant an incredible opportunity for me to explore elemental ideas that are often engulfed by the many constraints particular to architecture.
More generally, what is “architecture” to an artist and “art” to an architect? And when is architecture art and art architecture?
Both practices have for too long been separated, not only by prosaic differences of time and scale, but mostly by their contexts and frames of reference. This has resulted in a naiveté that can at times become productive, but also emphasizes how two distinct traditions often disregarded each other.
Regarding your question, I’m not sure how I can efficiently categorize when “art is architecture” and when “architecture is art,” but in the context of the studio I find delight in discussing the importance of originality and singularity, as well as the idea of functionality and utility in both areas. In the debate of our subtle differences in heritage, we struggle to continuously seek mutual understanding.
Is the debate of sustainability v. aesthetics in architecture relevant in art projects?
There are obvious concerns that may come from a genuine interest in sustainability, or from the fact that the environment is a mainstream issue, and such a strong part of our world, both in art and architecture.
Architects almost universally accept sustainability as an admirable ambition whereas artists may consider themselves effectively outside of the realm of environmental responsibility. Perhaps in this respect, the architects’ aim for sustainability is honourable, and the apathy shown by many artists is at least authentic.
I would like to believe that sustainability is bound to an idea of utility and permanence that requires every action affecting the environment to be carefully considered, and aesthetically meaningful: this is true for both art and architecture.
Does Eliasson seem more like a client in his own studio as suggested in Philip Ursprung’s book, Studio Olafur Eliasson?
Ursprung’s essay also refers to Eliasson’s capacity of engaging and inspiring a number of people to participate in his pursuit. This idea may be more relevant: indeed we join the studio because of our specific skills that are either necessary to a particular project – or thought to be important for the studio’s structure. Eventually we encounter within Eliasson’s oeuvre our own specific interests that we invariably try to elaborate upon where possible.
I find this idea more involving than that of a client relationship, certainly more complex and productive, and perhaps not altogether unlike the traditional artist-assistant relationship.
Eliasson also has a solo show of new works at the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa, “Your chance encounter,” where he engages and interacts with the museum’s SANAA-designed building.
Peter Yeoh
For more information, visit www.olafureliasson.net
Posted: 22 December 2009
WINDOWS ON A FAMILY COLLECTION
Architecture meets never-seen 20th century art at the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art
Latest Blog Posts
Roberto Cavalli Backstage Video Releasedwanderlust
Memories of romance and misadventure
Latest Forum Posts
Ending Soon
The Tightrope Walker (Le Funambule)
GROUP SHOW Gallery artists review
Francis Alÿs
Maison Martin Margiela '20' The Exhibition
Big Scenes