Brod / The Ship / La nave:a floating pavilion for Croatia at the venice Biennale

Commissioner: Leo Modrčin

architects: Saša Begović Marko daBrović igor Franić Tanja grozdanićpeTar Mišković SiLvije novak veLjko oLuić heLena paver njirić Lea peLivan ToMa pLejić goran rako Saša randić idiS TuraTo pero vuković Tonči Žarnić

SuMMer, 2010

T a b l e o f c o n T e n T s

inTroduCTion, p. 11by Leo Modrčin

BiographieS, p. 18

diagraMS #1—5, p. 26

TowgraM, p. 42Meeting protocol, March—august, 2010

inTerviewS, p. 66 by Marko golubSaša Begović, p. 67Marko dabrović, p. 74igor Franić, p. 79Tanja grozdanić, p. 86Silvije novak, p. 91 petar Mišković, p. 98helena paver njirić, p. 102veljko oluić, p. 106 Lea pelivan, p. 111Toma plejić, p. 118Saša randić, p.126goran rako, p. 130idis Turato, p.135pero vuković, p. 142Tonči Žarnić, p. 147

diagraM #6, p. 155

TeChniCaL deSCripTion, p. 161

projeCT CrediTS, p. 184

La BiennaLe di venezia 2010 12. Mostra internazionale di architettura / 12th international architecture exhibition / 12. međunarodna izložba arhitekture

MoSTra / exhiBiTion / izLoŽBa:“people meet in architecture”kazuyo Sejima, direttrice artistica29 agosto — 21 novembre 2010/ kazuyo Sejima, artistic directoraugust 29 — november 21 2010/ kazuyo Sejima, umjetnička direktorica29. 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/ ploveći hrvatski paviljon za venecijanski bijenale

progetto del Ministero della Cultura, repubblica di CroaziaBožo Biškupić, Ministro della Cultura/ a project of the Ministry of Culture, republic of Croatia Božo Biškupić, Minister of Culture/ projekt Ministarstva kulture, republika hrvatskaBožo Biškupić, ministar kulture

CoMMiSSario / CoMMiSSioner / povjerenik:Leo Modrčin

arChiTeTTi parTeCipanTi / parTiCipaTing arChiTeCTS / arhiTekTi SudioniCi:Saša Begović, Marko dabrović, igor Franić, Tanja grozdanić, petar Mišković, Silvije novak, veljko oluić, helena paver njirić, Lea pelivan, Toma plejić, goran rako, Saša randić, idis Turato, pero vuković, Tonči Žarnić

organizzaTore / organizer / organizaTor:Museo dell’arte moderna e contemporanea, Fiume / Museum of Modern and Contemporary art, rijeka / Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti u rijeci

www.paviLion.hr

P. 10 P. 11——introduction P r o v e n W R O N G

B y L e o M o d r č 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 Croatia’s 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, site-specific installations, web art, holographic and cinematic ultra-realistic 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 year’s 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 P. 15——introduction

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 barge’s 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 vukojević 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

l e o M o d r Č i n :

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 team’s 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 project’s 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

P r o v e n W R O N G

P. 18 P. 19——BiograPhies w h o i s w h o ?

Saša Begovićwas 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 galić, viktor kovačić, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards.

Marko daBrovićwas 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

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 galić, viktor kovačić, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards.

igor Franićwas 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 grozdanićwas 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

w h o i s w h o ?

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 magazineMan 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 galić, viktor kovačić, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards.

heLena paver njirić 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 università di Camerino

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 galić, viktor kovačić, Bernardo Bernardi, and vladimir nazor awards.

Leo Modrčinis 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 kovačić 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 Master’s 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 novakSilvije novak was born 1971 in rijeka, Croatia. he graduated from the Faculty

P. 22

Tonči Žarnić) and zagreb Salon (project award and the grand prix of the Salon 1994, with T. Žarnić); viktor kovačić award for the best built project in 2005 (with T. Žarnić); second prize at the 41st zagreb Salon 2006 (with T. Žarnić). he participated at many exhibitions in Croatia and abroad. his selected built projects are: industrial and Crafts School in zadar (with T. Žarnić), pavilion 6 of the Faculty of agronomy in zagreb (with h. auf-Franić) and a family house in kustošija.

ToMa pLejić 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 kovačić (2008), vladimir nazor (2008), and drago galić (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.

Saša randić(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 institute’s 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

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), Mcdonald’s, 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 peLivanwas born in Split in 1976. She graduated from the Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb.in 2003 she founded STudio up with Toma plejić — 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 kovačić (2008), vladimir nazor (2008), and drago galić (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 oLuić 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

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 randić, idis Turato founded randić-Turato architects in 1993. They received the viktor kovačić 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 vuković born 1989, is a student Faculty of architecture, university of zagreb since 2007. he has attended different architectural and art workshops. he received the Chancellor’s 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.

Tonči Žarnić 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.

architectural office. Together with idis Turato, he founded randić-Turato architects in 1993. They received the viktor kovačić 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 rakowas born in imotski 1952. in 1977 he participated at the competition for the Museum in jablanica (with M. pecotić). 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. radonić. 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. kuzmanić and d. Marasović). 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 kovačić 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 Tkalčićeva Street and a school in špansko. 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 vučedol. 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 ?P. 23——BiograPhies w h o i s w h o ?

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

cluster a

cluster a1

cluster a4

cluster B

cluster B1

cluster B2

cluster C

cluster C1

cluster C2

cluster e

cluster d1

cluster F

cluster g

cluster h

cluster d2

cluster i

cluster d

cluster a2

cluster a3

cluster T cluster T

cluster a 3Lhd

cluster B randić-turato

cluster C studioup

cluster d oluić-žarnić

cluster a1 Saša Begovićcluster a2 Marko dabrovićcluster a3 Tanja grozdanićcluster a4 Silvije novakcluster B1 Saša randićcluster B2 idis Turato cluster C1 Lea pelivancluster C2 Toma plejićcluster d1 veljko oluićcluster d2 Tonči Žarnićcluster e petar Miškovićcluster F helena paver njirićcluster g goran rakocluster h igor Franićcluster i pero vuković cluster T Saša Begović Marko dabrović igor Franić Tanja grozdanić petar Mišković Silvije novak veljko oluić helena paver njirić Lea pelivan Toma plejić goran rako Saša randić* idis Turato pero vuković** Tonči Žarnić

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

d i a g r a M #1

d i a g r a M #2

B a r g e o n a C L o u d : B a r g e o n T h e w a T e rno construction vs. construction

d i a g r a M #3

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

a concept: transformerb concept: cagec concept: room

d concept: cargo/load

C1 “water garden” roomC2 “water yard” roomC3 enigma roomd1 woodd2 earthd3 wasted4 welded wire mesh

d i a g r a m #4

S A I L A W A YWandering from mooring to mooring and back

Venezia45º26'12º20'

z o o m #1 V e n e z i a

1 Punta della Dogana di Mare

4,5 Arsenale di Venezia2,3 Giardini della Biennale

1

23

54

Mooring possibilities:

rijeka45º14'14º26'

Kraljevica45º15'14º34'

Pula45º51'13º50'

rovinj45º04'13º38'

opatija45º19'14º18'

z o o m #2 r i j e K a

12

3

3

41 Pećine Sušak

3 Luka - skladišta, lukobran2 Delta Rijeka-Sušak

Mooring possibilities:

4 Petrolejska luka - INA mazut

d i a g r a m #5

B U D G E T B A L L A S T

124.000,00€*+40.000,00€*+5.000,00€**

available funding

exhibition set-up

brochure and web

authors’ fees

venue lease/Arsenale

mooring/Venice

pavilion construction

logistics

towing

barge lease

28%20,4%

12,9%

38,7%100%

*from the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia**donated by the City of Rijeka

B1) 124.000,00€ + 40.000,00€ → exhibition/Arsenale (+) barge/pavilion (-) mooring/Venice (-)

B2) 124.000,00€ + 40.000,00€ + 5.000,00€ → exhibition/Arsenale (-) barge/pavilion (+) mooring/Venice (4 months) (+)

B3) 220.000,00€ + 40.000,00€ + 5.000,00€ → exhibition/Arsenale (+) barge/pavilion (+) mooring/Venice (4 months) (+)

B4) 130.000,00€ + 40.000,00€ + 5.000,00€ → exhibition/Arsenale (+) barge/pavilion (+) mooring/Venice (1 day) (+)

B1) First budget distribution - the organizer’s and the commissioner’s version

:

100%

45,3%

15,5%

15,5%23,7%

100%

17,4%

8,2%10,9%

19,1%

17% 20,3%

7,1%

39%

12,5%

14,5%24%

10%

100%

B2) Second budget distribution- authors’ version

B3) Third budget distribution- ideal version

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

exhibition set-up

brochure and web

authors’ fees

venue lease/Arsenale

mooring/Venice

pavilion construction

logistics

towing

barge lease

exhibition set-up

brochure and web

authors’ fees

venue lease/Arsenale

mooring/Venice

pavilion construction

logistics

towing

barge lease

exhibition set-up

brochure and web

authors’ fees

venue lease/Arsenale

mooring/Venice

pavilion construction

logistics

towing

barge lease

100%

100%

100%

m e e t i n g # 2 m e e t i n g # 3 m e e t i n g # 4

When:April 5th, 2010 1.00—2.00pm Where: FA, 5th floor

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.Ž.

Subject:— Concepts of the floating pavilionHighlights:— Oak wood from VelebitNote:Ad hoc meeting, gathering of people who were at the FA at the time

When:April 19th, 20106.30—9.00pmWhere: FA, Leo’s 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.Ž.

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

When:April 10th, 201010.00am—10.00pmWhere:KS, Frankopan Castle, KraljevicaWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Live contact with the shipyard—the “maternity ward” of the projectHighlights:— Rotation of the barge, “Transformer” concept; — Barge—mat / slab /tower— Is the barge going to Venice?Guests:Vlado DročićIgor Golčić

From: Leo ModrcinTo: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran RakoSent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:37 PMSubject: Saturday

Greetings,All agree to meet this Saturday morning, I propose to meet in the shipyard at 9 so the travel is not too early. I confirmed the rest of the day/ the space to meet at the Frankopan castle, also the recording equipment. Reading all the responses there is a wish to stay extra day so I propose we do that. We have the space to work, and internal and external accommodation.

From the mailing list you can see that Hrvoje Njiric declined the invitation.

For now, Leo

...There are Two media, one is earTh and The oTher is waTer; They boTh supporT someThing, buT we can’T 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...

— La Biennale 2010— Less than 4 months— Zagreb—Rijeka—Kraljevica—Venice— 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.

m e e t i n g # 1

When:March 24th, 2010 3pm—5pmWhere: 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.Ž.

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!

Saša BegovićMarko DabrovićIgor FranićTanja GrozdanićPetar MiškovićLeo ModrčinSilvije NovakHelena Paver NjirićVeljko OluićLea PelivanToma PlejićSaša RandićGoran RakoIdis TuratoPero VukovićTonči ŽarnićUniversity of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture, Kačićeva 26, ZagrebStudio UP, City of Mainz Street 18, ZagrebKraljevica Shipyard, City of Kraljevica

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.Ž.FA

STUDIO UP

KS

t o w g r a m : P u s h — P u l l

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

m e e t i n g # 7

When:May 12th, 20105.00—8.00pmWhere: FA, Leo’s 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.Ž.

Subject: — Position in Venice?— We need a coordina-tor in Venice for a mooring contract — Does the Ministry know that we don’t want an exhibition at the Arsenale, but a pavilion moored in Venice?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.

From: Leo ModrcinTo: Veljko Oluic; Tonci Zarnic; Sasa Randic; 3LHD; Petar Miskovic; StudioUP; Igor Franic; Idis Turato; Helena Paver Njiric; Goran RakoSent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:30 AM Subject: barge

I 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

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

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 named her as my on site assistant, notified the Biennale about that decision and asked Natasa to send a proposal for services. We also determined possible mooring sites based on her experience.

Greetings,Leo

m e e t i n g #8

When:May 19th, 20105.30—7.00pmWhere: FA, Leo’s 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.Ž.

Subject: — The “Room” concept— Elaboration: “Water Garden” room, “Water Yard” room, “Enigma” roomHighlights:— 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...

m e e t i n g # 5 m e e t i n g # 6

When:May 05th, 20105.00—7.00pmWhere: FA, Leo’s 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.Ž.

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?

From: Leo ModrcinTo: Rosolen RobertoCc: Micol Saleri Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:01 PMSubject: 12th International Architecture Exhibition - Barcone di Croazia

Dear 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, architectCommissioner, Croatian Participation12th International Architecture ExhibitionLa Biennale di Venezia 2010

...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...

When:April 24th, 201011.00am—8.00pmWhere: Rijeka Architects’ Society, RijekaWho: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.Ž.

Subject:— Viewing of the JPS barges at the Rijeka breakwater: the first encounter of architects and barges— Barge: development of possibilities— The “Transformer” concept—the 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 it—inhabited space as a negative of space for all gravi-tational states?— Walls on the barge– The “Room” conceptHighlights:— Concepts: “Cage” or “Room”Guests:Miljenko Gržalja, naval engineerLorka Mirković, naval engineer

m e e t i n g #13

From: Leo ModrcinTo: Sanaa@sanaa.co.jpSent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:27 PMSubject: For Ms.Sejima / Croatian participation at La Biennale / from the Commissioner

Dear 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 year’s 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” culture’s 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. I thank you in advance for your attention to this particular matter. I remain respectfully yours,Leo Modrcin, architectCommissioner, Croatian participation

When:June 14th, 20106.00—11.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Recapitulation of costs;— Exhibition space at the Arsenale vs. bargeAre 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

m e e t i n g #14

When:June 28th, 201011.00pm—4.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — The pavilion is the barge’s 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 spaceHighlights:- Welded wire mesh as “Cargo/Load”

...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 #12

When:June 7th, 20105.00pm—8.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Elaboration of the “Room” conceptHighlights:— Broken floor topic— Variable floor inclination topic: stands / plaza /belvedere / bookshop— Perforated floor topic

m e e t i n g #9 m e e t i n g #10 m e e t i n g #11

When:May 30th, 201011.30am—6.00pmWhere: FA, Leo’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: – Working models Highlights: — The “Room” concept or the “Room–Water 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

When:May 25th, 20103.00—7.30pmWhere: FA, Leo’s officeWho: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.Ž.

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 site-specific solution?Highlights:— Engagement of the engineer Ferrari, who will solve the technical problem of mooring at the quay — Location: mooring at the Giardini

When:June 2nd, 20104.00pm—7.30pmWhere: FA, Leo’s officeWho: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.Ž.

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 shouldn’T be losT...

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

m e e t i n g #16 m e e t i n g #17

When:July 14th, 20106.00pm—10.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

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

When:July 13th, 2010.5.00pm—11.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Breakdown / turnbackHighlights: — 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

From: IDIS TURATOTo: 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 AMSubject: report from venice

At our meeting with Roberto Rosolen, he specifacally pointed out his personal involvement to have the bargein 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 friends……dance performance by some friends…….

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

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 6th—7th 2010

Where: Studio UPWho: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.Ž.

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 layerSpace defined by changeable edges

When:July 5th, 20101.00pm—3.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Final bill of quantities— A bookHighlights:— 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 8th, 2010; 11.00pm—1.00pmWhere: OmišaljWho: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.Ž.

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

When:July 9th-11th, 2010

Where: Studio UP, FAWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Elaboration of the room — A new diagram:a room with changing wall quality, observation holes Highlights: — Introduction of a library, benches / useful elements

...we should say ThaT we need more draughT...

...This draughT is 8000 euro deeper...

...we goT jusT a parT of The sky, sea, and land...

...i like The waTer, TerriTory, heighT; iT has The sea and The depTh...

From: Leo ModrcinTo: Rosolen Roberto; Micol SaleriCc: Natasa RadovicSent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:04 PMSubject: Croatian participation/progress

Dear 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, architectCommissioner, Croatian Participation12th International Architecture ExhibitionLa Biennale di Venezia 2010

From: petar miskovic Date: Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:34:24 GMT+02:00To: 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 vukojevicSubject: MEETING: TIME/PLACE

since 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 won’t 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 ModrcinTo: 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 +0200Subject: budget

Greetings,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 don’t 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

m e e t i n g #18 m e e t i n g #19 m e e t i n g #20 C o n s t r u C t i o n

When:July 16th, 201011.00pm—15.00pmWhere: STUDIO UPWho: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.Ž.

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!

When:July 19th, 20106.00pm—9.00pmWhere: 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.Ž.

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 ArsenaleNote: — The Commissioner would like a compre-hensive 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

When:July 17th, 2010 11.00pm—14.00pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Concept of the exhibition at the ArsenaleHighlights: — Welded wire mesh again

When:July 20th, 2010.

Where: Kraljevica Shipyard/ The beginning of construction

...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...

From: petar miskovic Date: Sun 1 Aug 2010 16:09:21 GMT+02:00To: 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 vukojevicSubject: Work/first indications of space

status: 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, we’ll send them later.

From: IDIS TURATO Date: Wed 4 Aug 2010 17:01:04 GMT+02:00To: Leo Modrcin, Lea, Igor Franić, Leo Modrčin Hr, Goran Rako, Tonci Žarnić, veljko oluic, Helena Paver Njirić, Idis Turato, Toma Plejić, 3lhd@3lhd.com, petar miskovic, pero vukovic Cc: Lana Cavar, narcisa vukojevicSubject: WEB / BARGE TEG-19 RIJEKA

hey... it’s 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... that’s 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... we’ll 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: Leo ModrcinTo: 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 vukojevicSent: Sat 14 Aug 2010 16:30:20 GMT+02:00Subject: today:the roof

status: 43/43no choosing, as is, holiday special*

From: veljko olujićDate: 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 BegovicDate: 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 NovakDate: Sat 14 Aug 2010 17:02:02 GMT+02:00Leo, tell the guys to get a flag, they didn’t 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

From: petar miskovic Date: Sat 7 Aug 2010 23:32:16 GMT+02:00To: 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 vukojevicSubject: SHIPYARD REPORT

we 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

m e e t i n g #21

When:July 26th, 2010.noon—10pmWhere: KSWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Work on the barge— Exhibition at the Arsenale and the book— What is the title of the project? The authors want “Cargo”, the Commissioner has filed the name a long ago: “Brod/The Ship/La nave”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 EngineerLana Cavar, Graphic Designer

m e e t i n g #22

When:July 31st, 201011am—3pmWhere: FA, Petar’s officeWho: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.Ž.

Subject: — Who does what in this project?Highlights:— The barge is present at the exhibition at the Arsenale – YES or NO?— From Aug. 1st we are on holidays, can the designers draw up the exhibition?

From: petar miskovic Date: Tue 27 Jul 2010 23:32:15 GMT+02:00To: 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 vukojevicSubject: 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 have worked until seven, but they stopped in the afternoon because of the rain. by the end of the day, we had two incomplete rows on the barge. there should be ten workers tomorrow.the new verticals are ok for the time being. the dimensions of grids vary, so that we have relative shifts.

f i n a l n o t e s

July 25th, 2010S.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 Vuković as one of the authors of the project on equal footing with the others.

July 31st, 2010After this date all consultations and discussions were continued by email, most of the architects scattered along the coast, some remained in the Kraljevica Shipyard. There were a couple more meetings at the shipyard, so that problems a the stability of construction, transport, and safety precautions could be solved.

Subjects afterJuly 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!

P. 66 1 : 1 5

m a r k o g o l u bi n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h :

S A š A B E G O V I ĆM A R K O D A B R O V I ĆI G O R F R A N I ĆT A N J A G R O Z D A N I Ć P E T A R M I š K O V I ĆS I L V I J E N O V A KH E L E N A P A V E R N J I R I ĆV E L J K O O L U J I ĆL E A P E L I V A NT O M A P L E I ĆS A š A R A N D I ĆG O R A N R A K OI D I S T U R A T OP E R O V U K O V I ĆT O N Č I Ž A R N I Ć

# 1# 2# 3# 4# 5# 6# 7# 8# 9

# 10# 11# 12# 13# 14# 15

P. 67——INTERVIEW 1 : 1 5

S A š A B E G O V I Ć# 1

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: let’s 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

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 modrčin 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 commissioner’s 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 pavilion’s 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.

P. 70 P. 71——INTERVIEW

said right away – no, it’s 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 barge’s 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

S A š A B E G O V I Ć

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 project’s 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 can’t 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 car’s 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?i’d 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.

S A š A B E G O V I Ć

P. 74 P. 75——INTERVIEW1 : 1 5

M A R K O D A B R O V I Ć# 2

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 knežević contributed his part and ana hušman too.

M A R K O D A B R O V I Ć

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 politician’s 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 croatia’s 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 P. 79——INTERVIEWM A R K O D A B R O V I Ć

do if someone comes up with a wish do display a giant sculpturein 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 self-confidence necessary to think that at this moment that decision might be the right one. the concept is leo’s and not ours and we said right at the beginning – that’s 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 post-modern 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.

1 : 1 5

I G O R F R A N I Ć# 3

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 P. 83——INTERVIEWI G O R F R A N I Ć

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 one’s 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.

I G O R F R A N I Ć

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 P. 87——INTERVIEWP. 86 1 : 1 5

T A N J A G R O Z D A N I Ć# 4

P. 87 T A N J A G R O Z D A N I Ć

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 architecture directly; we create a material volume and than produce space out of it by subtraction. this is the final concept that we have adopted and set out to realize. in four months of meetings, a series of concepts have emerged, developing in a rather linear way. the first was the one where we understood the barge not as an underlying structure to build upon, but as a separate mass whose inner space has to be activated in some way. then there was a concept that approached the barge as artificial territory in the sense of enhancing public space – something which is, i presume, characteristic of all coastal towns. here the barge was regarded as a possible event platform, maybe a small square or a playground where you initiate certain content and let everything develop without further interference. the third concept, almost accepted, was a room on the barge, which was interesting, because its immediate environment under the given circumstances is water. in the end, we selected the concept connected with the notion of cargo/load.

this proposal, to inhabit the barge, without erecting a structure (or load/cargo in this case) on it, was interesting.this was a good idea, but the givens of the barge did not permit the execution, because it has its static balance. we soon understood that it would be impossible to make it inhabitable and simultaneously retain its functionality, stability, and safety. we are talking about very delicate balance. the idea was very good, but to carry it out we would have to build a new barge with precisely determined properties. we would not be able to take over an existing one. each barge is built for specific needs, the volume of air in it determines how much cargo it can carry and the like.

have maybe the visits to the shipyard or the communication with engineers directly helped to see some ideas in a different light?visits to shipyards are not really a novelty for us. one of our earliest built projects, the croatian defenders’ bridge in rijeka, was entirely made in a shipyard. the shipbuilding technology and assembly techniques in that environment are familiar to us. also the entrance part of the rebuilt lika cinema theatre was made with the help of a naval engineer, exclusively with the technology of the shipbuilding industry. we had our first encounter with the barge at that time, because it was used for towing the bridge to its location. accidentally, the barge now destined for venice is the same one that was built for the assembly of the croatian defenders’ bridge ten years ago. this is pure coincidence.

has some part of that experience with shipbuilding practice influenced this project in a purely technical sense?in classic architectural work you are actually never concerned about a structure’s centre of gravity. on land it is entirely unimportant if a part of a house is heavier than another part,

P. 90 P. 91——INTERVIEWT A N J A G R O Z D A N I Ć

while in shipbuilding this is the first and the most important thing to observe. everything is related to the centre of gravity. the entire load must be completely symmetrical and balanced. this is the first and the basic condition for any construction on a barge, for example. we regard the shipbuilding practice even with some envy, because it is much more sophisticated than architecture we build on land. accuracy and error tolerance are a much more delicate question when you build at sea, so that naval engineers have developed software and other precise design tools a lot before the construction industry. as for the pavilion, apart from a few basic physical and technical properties and limitations, we can hardly speak of serious influence.

there were many connotations, references, and inspirations from local narratives, but in the end you managed to filter it all and come up with an idea that in itself does not communicate any story.when you work in a group of fifteen people, what happens is a process of purification. each thought has its lid. you just filter and purify, until you reach the elementary level. of course, there have been different ideas and discussions, now hard to reproduce literally, but purification has resulted in what we now have. there are very many connotations that would be easier to communicate. one of the first things a croat in venice will tell you is that the city was built on foundations made of croatian logs, which resulted in some ideas that we should build our pavilion of oak. this might perhaps function as croatia teasing venice, but in a large team of people you can hardly be content with an idea that banal.

how do you interpret this year’s biennale topic proposed by kaZuyo sejima in the context of your project?her sentence, “people meet in architecture”, can be interpreted in very many ways. if we understand it literally, then each house you use, i.e. which is not self-contained as an object, meets the set topic. we all hope that we create architecture that matches this description, or that we at least have the tendency to work in this manner. on the other hand, i think that sejima wanted to say that architecture was not important in itself, but that the moment of encounter was important. in other words: when people gather, they create architecture. in that case, our concept includes the topic of the island and enhanced artificial territory, so that it can also be read as a direct answer to sejima’s question. so, let us take the barge to venice and provide it with content there – devise a program that runs all the way through the biennale and gathers people. if that is so, then we do not have to create any kind of concrete architecture, because the content is what makes a place special and different. this was also one of the variants taken into consideration, that we do not have to make anything tangible, but maybe turn to some other profession that can help articulate events or assets that will attract people.

1 : 1 5

S I L V I J E N O V A K# 6

one of the major characteristics of your previous work was the openness to input by creative individuals from other disciplines. how much have you considered this here?we have previous experiences from the expo in japan and saragossa; all participations of that kind, where architecture is just one component of representation, are based on a multidisciplinary approach. this means that you meet like-minded film, video, and design artists in order to generate a particular

P. 94 P. 95——INTERVIEW S I L V I J E N O V A K

the material as our point of departure and examined and paraphrased the possibilities of subtraction within a pre-set mass. in a way, architecture has become the content of this project. but the same concept, executed in a different material and context should not be like this at all. it could really become a venue for future exhibitors at the biennale. in the work on the pavilion you are concerned with some general topics, for example what kind of space is today necessary for contemporary art. this is similar to a discussion if something we call a museum of contemporary art needs an exhibition venue in traditional sense. it is hard to determine exactly what kind of venue contemporary art today needs, because its field of activity is actually unlimited. why do we then build a house at all costs, as if this were self-explanatory, if we know that the most important question is not if a structure can fit into an exhibition venue or not. museums that preserve any kind of heritage are a different thing, but if we speak about contemporary art, the question is if it will always be packed in architecture in the same manner. i do not know what kind of building is necessary if in one year you have, for example, an artist who decides to intervene with yellow tape in the entire city of venice.

what you are saying is true, but an exhibition venue, or specifically a pavilion, is always needed as some kind of anchor point, no matter what the project at hand is like. this would be like abolishing some principal notions connected with art, because they have become obsolete, but at the same time you would thus, if nothing else, deprive it of some of its referential mainstays. i agree. at any case i find art biennales more amusing then the architectural. architects take themselves too seriously and this has become tedious.

let me return to the last topic – i am not sure that from such general concepts of space, necessary for contemporary art, it is possible to derive a specific new form, a function or a new architectural task. it seems to me that things should be left as open as possible.in most other cases, the task suggests the form; as a rule, with architecture you determine the ways space is used. let me return to the biennale and sejima’s topic. biennale will always remain a place where people meet. we can have a debate on the venue for contemporary art, but such a place of encounters and exchange of experiences cannot be replaced by the internet or any other contemporary technology. we still believe in this when we speak about social contacts. we are physical beings, after all... in that respect the biennale certainly has a perspective, as well as our pavilion, which has a great desire and will, despite all difficulties, to be moored to the quay in front of the giardini for at least a short period and then move on to some other exhibition or task. to the croatian side of the adriatic, for example.

S I L V I J E N O V A K

idea together and finalize your exhibit. for us in 3lhd this is usual methodology, because the process of creation in architecture, and even its result, is often too rigid, too hermetic... in a project like this, we need creative input from different disciplines to make it succeed in the end. here it was almost impossible to apply that model, because there were already too many architects – together with leo there were fifteen of us! had we brought in further 33 collaborators, that would have been chaos. even as it is, we always needed a couple of days to coordinate and meet. however, generally speaking, i am convinced that each project requires a multidisciplinary approach. not even a good structural engineer should just realize the architect’s idea, but create it together with him.

leo modrčin was not entrusted with the task of organiZing a design competition by the ministry of culture and you were not entrusted with the task to build the project. i kind of like this spontaneity with which all of you have approached the project together.at a certain point of our discussion, there was certainly a mention of responsibility. what responsibility is there if no one has entrusted you with a task? we consider ourselves as achievers in our profession and have no need to use every occasion to additionally prove our abilities. the biennale is not an event that serves the promotion of an architect, but it is rather a platform for examining certain topics that cannot be explicitly addressed in everyday architectural practice. the positive effect of this project is the feeling that we get to know each other anew every day. the fifteen of us, including the commissioner, thought that we knew each other really well. some are close friends, some not so close. we know each other’s work, but as persons we got to know each other only now and with each new meeting this knowing acquires a new dimension.

how relevant is the biennale today in the context of contemplating contemporary architectural practice?i shall answer this question personally. this event is today very questionable and it seems to me that it has in a way turned into a bad rerun of the art biennale. every year, architects – suddenly liberated of all kinds of limitations, obstacles, and complexities of their everyday activities –get a chance to become great artists and theoreticians for a week. i am very reserved towards all that.

i understand why, but it seems to me that it is still a pity for an architect not to try to use this space he is given in order to make some, even modest contribution. we would not be part of this if we thought that we could not make this contribution. we are occupied with the execution of leo’s idea about a floating pavilion, because we think it is good, but we take it as a fact – we are not examining the problem whether croatia needs a pavilion at the venice biennale or not, but we are concerned with the topic of a pavilion on water.cargo/load on a barge is therefore a very specific project with somewhat altered rules. in order to acquire space, we have taken

P. 98 P. 99——INTERVIEW P E T A R M I Š K O V I Ć

realization of a concrete structure. Do you still see this floating pavilion primarily as a form of aDvocating anD Demonstrating a long-term concept or maybe as a finisheD, functional exhibition venue?it is somewhere half way between installation and pavilion. it is less important whether it will be used on several occasions or be a lasting solution or just one in a series of possible materializations. however, this year we are thus presenting architecture live to the visitors, and not in a mediated way as this is custom in architectural exhibitions.

i presume that some of the team members rather tenD towarDs acaDemic architectural Discourse, while the others are closer to practical realizations. has this brought an interesting Dynamics into your common consiDerations?i would say that, although in different formats, all work in the same discipline. in this sense i do not see this task as something out of the ordinary, but rather as a continuation of our everyday activities. we went the way from brainstorming, through misunderstandings and misinterpretations to acceptance of circumstances and this specific situation.

i was somewhat surpriseD with the ambition with which you approacheD this project, the more because the commissioner’s iDea seemeD to me very gooD right away, but too ambitious for executing it in reality. you brought upon yourself much more work than expecteD, even in the context of the biennale.we chose this unsafe path ourselves, while we could have, and maybe should have, followed the commissioners less ambitious initial idea. we accelerated our activities, but it might also happen that a good idea burns down too quickly.

how DiD you solve the insiDe of the pavilion?although this is not a usual interior space, it will be inhabitable. it is carved out from gossamer-like tissue. it will activate different senses and it will also be a little bit dangerous.

Do you agree that a place so specific will require equally answers from future artists or users?if this model is accepted, every future artist, exhibitor, and user will have the chance to achieve added value. the user is the one who will decide how ready he is to abandon his usual practice in order to use this specific space optimally.

how much DiD the communication with people from shipbuilDing inDustry mean to you?many of us are familiar with the context of the sea and ships, as well as shipbuilding industry. for leo it was part of his childhood and youth, because he was born in kraljevica. this was a unique chance for us to build a floating structure using shipbuilding technology. the irony is that in the end we are building with steel welded wire mesh, an element so characteristic of construction industry.

1 : 1 5

P E T A R M I Š K O V I Ć# 5

how important was the role of the structure’s Design in relation to the concept anD the set anD DiscusseD topic?more important was the initiative of tackling the issue of a long-term solution for the croatian pavilion and then of solving this question not in political and administrative, but in authorial and creative terms. we have decided to support and serve leo’s idea. in this respect the design is less important.

how DiD the Decision-making Dynamics within the team Develop?we made collective decisions in our meetings, by consensus; only in the later phase smaller groups took over the responsibility for a certain segment. the most interesting, but also the most demanding part was the work in a large group. although we know each other very well and are well acquainted with the work of others, it is difficult to subject so many people to one single idea. in this sense, this is a multiple experiment. both the idea and the work model were constantly re-examined. we were in a constant search for best ways of functioning together.

Do you think that the experience of work in this collective was something new anD Different even for the architects who usually work in teams?3lhD work as a group, most of the others work in pairs. i have experienced work in different collaborative formats, but this has proven more complex than anything before. the ones who have learned to work in a collective had enough time to run in their practices and define their roles within these collectives more precisely. here we have a group of fourteen individuals who have to find the right way to build a part of each one of them into a common project.

the project of a floating pavilion went the way from an almost conceptual proposal to the iDea of simulating a moDel of usual architectural competitions anD to

P. 102 P. 103——INTERVIEW H E L E N A P A V E R N J I R I Ć

i have unDerstooD that the floating pavilion is in a way a statement in itself. in what relation are the Design anD this statement?the very idea that the barge should go to venice and that a country which otherwise has no pavilion in this way takes some kind of its own territory to the biennale, is a clear statement. elementary is also the idea that the barge carries a load, which is again a statement. its shaping has emerged from the fact that a group of fourteen architects can hardly form one single space – so some have designed it, some have given their consent to this design or at least had nothing against it, because the points of departure – barge and cargo/load – are very clear. in croatian context, design is a complex process in itself that implies a clear concept that gives a project a certain direction. the indeterminacy of a project in the sense of material, spatial organization, and appearance is present until the construction is finished. this indeterminacy is the result of flawed laws and political changes on the one hand and a too large number of new entrepreneurs, who wish to carry out their spatial visions.

Do these limitations have any aDvantages?absolutely, i am actually speaking about the advantages of this context. as individuals and as a group, we must be completely open and be entirely adaptable towards the investors’ wishes, which are often unusual, as well as towards different problems and obstacles. seeking a way to transform all those limitations into advantages is our task that we exercise every day.

from the very beginning you coulD count on particular narratives as points of Departure or inspiration. there was a mention of oak, leo’s personal connection with kraljevica, but also a certain historical burDen, then the story about shipyarDs anD workers... none of these elements, however, got a Direct vote in the final phase; they were neutralizeD anD reDuceD one by one. why?we have selected the clearest concept, because of the experiences in the already described context. the concept of a floating pavi-lion materialized by the cargo/load, which alters the perception of the city, venice, was stronger than individual signatures. the idea has surpassed the authorship. our experience of designing in a context without set rules, with strong personalized interests, leads to this conclusion.the current speculations about the right to plan cities could maybe bring us, as a community, to a similar conclusion – only a clear strategy can protect public interests.

are you afraiD that potential exhibitors might be repelleD by the iDea to make a work of art within an artwork? of course, things are the same with every architectural work with recognizable iDentity, but this case is aDDitionally specific.national pavilions are spatial messages and the displayed artworks are part of that same message. artists are also often concerned with spatial atmosphere like olafur eliasson or ivana franke. vjenceslav richter’s national pavilions are conceived in the same way.

1 : 1 5

H E L E N A P A V E R N J I R I Ć# 7

in the conceptualization of the barge pavilion, you all refer to the notion of cargo/loaD. what Does this mean to you?cargo is expected on a barge, it is interchangeable and temporary, same as the barge itself – an exterritorial part of croatian mainland, croatian “territory” that makes a voyage to be displayed at the venice biennale. we have chosen welded wire mesh, which, set on the barge, organizes space.

what is this space like from the insiDe? in what way is it DesigneD anD with what iDeas?the design also formally follows the logic of the material and the desire that very clearly imposes the mass of the load. this mass is determined by the dimensions of the barge from the outside and gives the impression of stacked wire mesh. it seems to me interesting that entering that space opens the possibility of a moiré effect. this is a flickering effect that makes the boundaries of space unstable, another instance of temporariness. through the grid you can see venice from other and different perspectives than the ones we are used to.

in the virtualizations i have seen so far, this griD somewhat reminDs of a pile of stackeD plates.the reinforcement meshes are determined by some characteristics that we use and highlight in order to stress their stability, because if they are set in any other position, they are unable to carry even their own weight. horizontal mesh layers, connected with vertical rods, provide rigidity; they create a spatial grid or truss work. the presence of layers of wire mesh disappears by highlighting the moiré effect.

P. 106 P. 107——INTERVIEW V E L J K O O L U J I Ć

to what extent Does the biennale toDay encourage the Development of Discourse on contemporary architecture?it is certainly in the nature of an event like the biennale to at least try to achieve this goal, but during the last decades there have not been many editions that had an echo like the strada novissima 1980. the exhibitors were the same architects who are the promoters of contemporary architecture today – rem koolhaas and toyo ito. they presented the new wave in architecture at strada novissima and it really had a great impact on twentieth century architecture. During the last decade, the stress is increasingly on the presentation of individual opuses or current works of architects and there are less new themes that could be interpreted as a manifesto.

if i exaggerate things a bit, i might say that here you are turning a curatorial iDea into practice, although in architecture this has much less questionable connotations than in art.a curator can interpret his idea in many ways. leo’s idea emerged from the fact that we do not have a permanent pavilion in venice and that we wish to create such a venue. at the beginning it was not clear if eight teams would design separate projects from which we would select the best one, or if we were going to take advantage of this special situation and create a common work by joint effort. i think that this second solution was more appropriate to the situation, much more than leaving things at the level of simulation of an ordinary competition. besides, it is more interesting to direct individual energy and sensibilities into a new asset.

is there an element that you especially felt as matching all your sensibilities?if we all were alike or if there were no clash of different opinions and mentalities, our work would be boring. the barge, as a pre-set element, introduced micro-rules that we had to observe: dimensions, characteristics of a body on the water, almost the properties of a ship, but maybe rather of a ground able to carry a heavy load. this was the common denominator that helped to even out our differences. and of course, one should always show a portion of tolerance and readiness to yield.

many of your colleagues spoke about the notion of instability. this instability is, as it seems to me, a kinD of leitmotif of the entire project; among other things, it emerges from the character of the barge anD its cargo.more or less, we have all analysed the character of the barge as a structure. instability, as one of its properties, does not refer only to the barge, but also to everything it will carry, the persons standing on it and experiencing its cargo. in one of the phases of our meetings we had the idea of over-exaggerating this instability. because the barge contains chambers that help regulate balance and stability, we asked ourselves if by some intervention we could disrupt its stability and bring the barge in unexpected situations and relations. there has, however,

1 : 1 5

V E L J K O O L U J I Ć# 8

P. 110 P. 111——INTERVIEW 1 : 1 5

L E A P E L I V A N# 9

the initial intention of the project was somewhat shy in respect to the construction of a concrete pavilion, at least in this year. you wanteD to stay within the bounDaries of conceptual thinking anD elaboration of some iDeas. what was your personal reason for persisting that it shoulD be built?according to leo’s initial idea, each of us had to individually propose a project of a croatian pavilion on a barge, but already at the first meeting we agreed that it would be a much greater challenge to work together. i was interested in a shift out of the everyday situation we all know, in which we compete with each other. the budget was also too large for that which was envisaged by the initial plan and it seemed to us that within that budget much more can be made than some sketches and small models. models could never convey the impact of our basic idea.

V E L J K O O L U J I Ć

always been the awareness that what we are doing must not be a performance, but architecture, so that we gave up some of the ideas. if it is a room, which properties does it have on a barge? in the end, the cargo/load theme emerged. in this case, the cargo is the medium in which space is created by “subtraction” and can be altered for each upcoming biennale. the barge without cargo is like a house without people. its entire anatomy, form, and statics are derived from this, same as the anatomy of a tanker that carries oil or a ship that carries containers depends on their cargo. it does not have maritime characteristics, because it does not have to cut through the waves. because this time it is exclusively a group of architects in question and that this is a biennale of architecture, we knew that the first pavilion on the water would be an exhibit in itself.

to what extent have external influences anD limitations formeD the project?financial means played a very important role; to some extent they determined the quantity of the steel welded wire mesh, its thickness and size. the last location assigned to us was in shallow waters, which limited the weight of the cargo. external factors always participate in architectural design. when you work on projects, you keep encountering different limitations that hinder you and lead into the unknown, but at the same time they lead you to unexpected solutions, making architecture an interesting work. take, for example, the erechteion – why are there caryatids and not columns? because the temple is built on two levels, the classic columns would lose their real proportion and seem too thickset. had it not been for that fact, there would have been no erechteion as we know it. we should not oppose limitations; they should be embraced and included.

what about aDministrative limitations anD processes? are they also architectural content?they are content, under the circumstances. all our predecessors at biennales had to go through the same procedure, but the next one could never profit from that. this is a topic that should be of interest to the ministry of culture. the biennale is certainly important for croatia, and it should be promoted at this kind of event.

let us not forget that the exhibition moDel in venice is still the traDitional moDel of national representation. what Does this project in that sense communicate about the current moment of the croatian architectural scene?the clarity of ideas is something that determines croatian architecture through a longer period. if we try to analyse everything that is truly valuable in croatian architecture – from the chapel in nin to vitić’s and planić’s buildings, novakova street etc. – we shall see that it is always very simple, elementary, with a clear spatial concept and without superfluous details. the essence is always in space. this is what the new croatian pavilion should be like, elementary and with a clear message: barge – cargo/load – space = croatian pavilion.

P. 114 P. 115——INTERVIEW L E A P E L I V A N

reverse, as you say, virtual quality. this has maybe helped us to avoid the traps of sculptural, gehry-like design. the iconic function of the pavilion is thus eliminated, so that we could move more freely, at the same time avoiding the expression of individual authorship and personality.

architectural exhibitions often borDer with Design anD also with the meDium of art installation. where is your project in relation to these coorDinates?what you say is true. today artists and architects often collaborate on such projects, not only one-sidedly. for example, olafur eliasson has twenty architects employed in his office. these two disciplines are definitely converging, although we still always clearly feel the border when architecture becomes installation and vice versa. in that sense, our barge will definitely be architecture.

i finD this rare situation intriguing, in which aDvocating a realization or maybe a future practice starts from unDerneath, from architects.the point is maybe in socialist heritage, in the period when architects were interwoven with city structures and city-planning institutes. at that time they were initiators of spatial concepts, while today this role has been taken over by investors. what we are doing is a negligibly small space within the framework of an event that involves a large, but limited number of people. it is interesting how we at the biennale tend to retain the position that belongs to our profession by definition and its logic.

how Do you see the role of the biennale toDay?maybe the biennale has become too similar to expo, maybe it has turned into a circus, maybe it is too large, but it is still a necessary event. through topics that are sometimes well, sometimes not so well chosen, commissioners still examine the reality of our work, which is in principle good. if i am expected to be critical, i can say that what maybe bothers me most is that it problematizes things less and less and that it keeps turning into some kind of architectural expo. art biennales have retained more freshness.

which moDifications woulD this project require in case that next year it is useD for Displaying of some other cargo in venice? there are two levels of adaptation. there is a possibility of adapting the pavilion in the way of adding a sliding roof and dimming the light. the other system we count on is a radical reaction to the idea of cargo/load. we do not exclude the possibility that the next time this cargo is not welded wire mesh, but something else. our colleague randić has proposed the idea of empty plastic bottles as cargo, which would directly introduce social themes. future authors are invited to intervene, i.e. to create their cargo, which also means a new environment on the barge. the barge is just an empty platform, easy to transport. it is a platform that can accommodate many different ideas. we do not feel too strong emotional ties to the pavilion that will be built as a structure. we needed it just to communicate a good idea.

L E A P E L I V A N

if i remember well, leo was rather surpriseD with such pressure on your siDe to construct something. he saiD that from the position of his acaDemic experience, as well as practical experience from the us, he was somewhat surpriseD with that persistence to builD..maybe we got the upper hand there in some way. he probably expected that the solution would go towards conceptual investigation, because his personal attitude was that in croatia critical thought in architecture is underdeveloped. apart from that, most of us are established builders, so that we do not desperately need to construct such a pavilion. i still do not know what to think. maybe the fact that we all are practical builders really is a kind of handicap. we do not want to indulge in theory and investigation too much, the more because this year’s biennale topic is the relation between people and architecture. kazuyo sejima has set things simply and clearly – people make architecture, personalities and events under its roof, and not bare walls, glazing and beautiful elevations. it seemed to us that, in comparison with the continuation of an academic discourse in which in the end architects address other architects, it would be better and more interesting to make something tangible.

in the context of your worDs, i finD it interesting that the structure you will be towing to venice looks almost virtual. it seems to me as if it were somewhere half way between a representation of the iDea of a pavilion anD a finisheD, functional pavilion.we are aware of that. in our discussions we often asked the question of the pavilion’s functionality. the budget and the time frame were definitive limitations, so that this is only the beginning of the idea of the pavilion; it will, however, within this budget plus additional sponsor supports that we hope to activate, provide us with a starting point for the future. we did not think that this would be an entirely functional house, but a structure that leaves the possibility of further interventions and additions by future authors. in the current phase of the project, it can be regarded as a concretization of a diagram or a sketch. at any case, it is just an outline, a scheme; it is abstract, inhabitable, at the same time concrete and elusive. we should not forget that we are talking about fourteen or fifteen architects. the cross-section of all our clusters of interests and reflections is a very small, narrow field. the scheme contained in the pavilion is, in my opinion, this narrow field. if anyone of us worked alone, the result would be radically different. a rope pulled from both sides always shows very little movement along the line. i don’t know how clearly this depicts the situation, but this is my personal experience of this workshop. architects actually like to work with limitations. the problem here was that we had very few limitations, apart from the budget. but the budget is normally always low, so that we do not count that as a limitation as well. the barge as object makes sense only if it carries a load. carrying a load is its basic purpose. welded wire mesh is the principal synonym of construction in architecture, but on the other hand also of “pure” architecture that has its

P. 118 P. 119——INTERVIEW

thinking, and contacts with lebbeus woods. it is nevertheless a visionary, academic circle, for us here almost a parallel world. our entire group is a group of people who attained recognition through built structures. that is what we all do. however, conceptual reflections on architecture and its execution are not so far apart, they are the same thing. our project also features this conceptual level.

it seems to me that one of the principal characteristics of the proposeD form is its neutrality. it can not only absorb many meanings, but now it is on the borDer between something that is only a structure representing a certain iDea anD something that in its final form coulD become a functional pavilion.the result is in a way a reflection of the budget, time, and all those joint circumstances. this is a situation with a maximum amount of conditions, which is probably the best characteristic of the project that caused its openness and the possibility to bring different kinds of art and events to affirmation. it is maximally neutral, it can be transformed into many things, and it can be concretized in different ways.

how much of your previous practical anD other experience have you built into this project? which previously learneD aspects were familiar to you, useful, anD applicable? the collaborative model was very familiar to us, because in our office we work with young people, and apart from that we had a couple of projects in which we invited visual artist to collaborate with us. we worked together with ivana franke on the mobile pavilion for the venice biennale in 2004. our recently finished building on radnička road is also a collaboration project with ivana franke and the artist silvio vujičić. we are very familiar with the topic of the relation between architecture and art installation. we have actually invited the two of them into our team to work with us as if they were architects. we have treated some specifically architectural topics together and in consequence they constructed their installations within the structure of the building. i really must stress that the artists have made architectural decisions together with us during the entire process.

is this approach to work not a kinD of luxury, attainable to only a limiteD number of architects?i think that this is to a large extent a question of choice. the most challenging side of our work is that every task is completely new, with new problems, joys, and experiences. architectural work should never become routine.

how Do you see the question of responsibility in this case?this is at the same time a question of added value, because responsibility is always connected with added value, and architecture differs from construction work in that added value. this entire project and its manifesto, expressed through

T O M A P L E J I Ć1 : 1 5

T O M A P L E J I Ć# 10

the initial intention of the project was somewhat shy in respect to the construction of a concrete pavilion, at least in this year. you wanteD to stay within the bounDaries of conceptual thinking anD elaboration of some iDeas. what was your personal reason for persisting that it shoulD be built?it is interesting that the commissioner has invited mostly architects engaged in practical building, although the topic was set in a somewhat utopian way. maybe he did not think himself that his idea could be materialized. in some other case, fourteen people and eight teams could hardly consolidate into a single working group and produce a result. this is neither a common, nor simple situation, but the work in a so complex, heterogeneous group is always interesting and the result is unforeseeable and every time probably different. the group is actually a cross-section of us all – the places where we overlap lead us to a result. we have approached the project as a kind of editorial board. the concept was in itself very interesting and provocative, simply motivating us to offer a concrete solution for a concrete pavilion. we thought it was worth investing money into something useful, what will be developed further and inhabited.

if i remember well, leo was rather surpriseD with such pressure on your siDe to construct something. he saiD that from the position of his acaDemic experience, as well as practical experience from the us, he was somewhat surpriseD with that persistence.During his stay in the us he succeeded in building a structure in manhattan, which is an exceptional situation. however, his past in the us is also characterized by education, conceptual

P. 122 P. 123——INTERVIEW 1 : 1 5

S A Š A R A N D I Ć# 11

what kinD of structure is the floating pavilion? to what extent is this version of a pavilion something neutral that shoulD host some other work(s) anD to what extent is it a work in itself?

construction, seem to me as a major added value. within the budget and the brief, we are infiltrating some values into the project that nobody expects or intends to additionally pay for them. this is where responsibility lies, because if you build, if money is spent, if something happens, then this must surpass the expectations.

the Delicate part of the story is the link with shipyarDs in a crisis, which emergeD from some of the initial iDeas of the project. how important or interesting was that iDea to you personally?at the start, there certainly existed that romantic, moving component. leo is from kraljevica and in some way wants to support a branch that is now in huge problems, prone only to very negative connotations. he hinted that it would be good to include shipbuilders as partners, but we did not go into that topic further, at least not directly. we like this as a basis, which probably provided the project with its initial power, but had we given it more room, the entire project would have gone into a different direction.

how Do you see the role of the biennale toDay?it is to a large extent a very old form, which is maybe not really contemporary, but still very popular, so that all architects and artists are trying very hard. however, the problem with architecture is always that it cannot be displayed in a proper way; it cannot be unambiguously translated into the exhibition medium. national presentations within the biennale framework are a chance for transferring certain topics from certain contexts into a salon format. maybe that is the reason why we are still doing this. maybe these small national pavilions can reflect something special from a particular environment...

what Do biennales mean in builDing up a Discourse on contemporary architecture?biennales are no reference in that respect.

but is the biennale not a gooD meDium for communication of particular iDeas at international level or at least among a large number of colleagues?yes, maybe it is sufficient that people communicate, even during that short time. i am very interested what the biennale will be like this year, because i have learned that many countries have cancelled their participation.

i finD it interesting that all architects have stresseD the importance of consistence with the meDium in these interviews, while on the other hanD you actually work with an object, a barge that is not architectural as such.in our current situation, the medium is building material. this medium is interwoven with space. we manipulate space, and space is delineated by some concrete elements. this means that we simultaneously have a medium and space that form and define (but also not define) each other. the relations between them are fluid.

T O M A P L E J I Ć

P. 126 P. 127——INTERVIEW S A Š A R A N D I Ć

keeps inclining all the time. it is incredible how little we use that knowledge in architecture, the more because modernism and its aesthetics have inherited a lot from naval aesthetics. this cut is physically visible in the shipyard: the wire fence of the shipyard clearly divides two parallel worlds; the structures on its perimeter have nothing to do with that which is going on within the shipyard, not even one is made of metal sheets for shipbuilding, they are all built from concrete blocks. this merger simply never happened, however characteristic this era is for different crossover concepts.

it is interesting that the first iDeas that generateD your initial Discussions were focuseD on the barge itself, without special extensions or a loaD. was it out of romantic fascination of architects with shipbuilDing?it is less the fascination with shipbuilding, but rather the wish to stress the non-standard context of architecture and to see what can happen within it. actually are these discussions rather a result of ignorance in regard to shipbuilding than of fascination with it. one of the ideas was that the barge should turn over and around, which, through changes in geometry, would provide its inner space with a different character. after sincere amazement, naval engineers have even devised how such a vessel might be made, but that idea does not correspond to the barge or the budget. an interesting idea was the changing deck height, which in extreme case would descend to the sea level. this would be possible, again not with a barge, but with a dock. a barge would simply sink. both these concepts played with instability and lack of balance, but in the end it became evident that the barge did not offer such possibilities.

in what relation are the final form of the pavilion anD conceptual consiDerations you haD gone through until you reacheD the present form?the final form is actually a result of a mistake. the pavilion is defined by delineated space which is not necessarily roofed-over. when we started to make simulations of such spaces that neither turn nor sink, each model looked rather as a shoe box then as an exciting structure. so, in the end the most interesting model was the one that should have simulated a space created by streams of water. because water is not easy to depict, our assistant made a model with a series of grids. after long discussions on the meaning of the barge, its extraterritorial properties, and other things, the group chose one solution, because of its interesting form. the simplicity of this decision speaks about the work process, as things usually take their definite course accidentally. we talked about a fluid and ended in welded wire mesh. but on the other hand, the topic of load into which a pavilion is carved is a natural feature of the barge, which helps us to avoid unnecessary comparisons to other projects, like the teatro del mondo, which would unnecessarily burden the reading of the floating croatian pavilion.

Saša Randić was involved in the project until July 25th 2010

S A Š A R A N D I Ć

a book on that topic has recently been published; it is connected both with the director and the topic of this year’s architecture exhibition. i am talking about olafur eliasson’s book entitled Your Chance Encounter. the book speaks about his exhibition in sejima’s building, 21st century museum of contemporary art, in which eve blau in her text, among other things, treats the topic of the neutrality of exhibition space. eliasson’s approach has turned the traditional understanding of exhibition space upside down: instead of architecture creating a neutral framework for art, a work of art presents architecture. it is this kind of installation that brings the idea of a floating pavilion to recognition. by the way, the first barge proposed by leo was much more interesting in the context of linking different realities. it is the barge that belongs to the adriatic maritime service that collects waste waters from holding tanks at open sea in order to avoid the pollution of the coastal area. i was interested what it would mean to bring an ecological working vessel to venice as exhibition venue, which the rest of the year serves an entirely different purpose. we always return to the question of how far architecture and the biennale have gone from reality and if we should direct them back to the dialogue with everyday life. in this sense, this barge was in a dialogue both with the topic of a floating pavilion and the topic of the biennale.

you playeD with an entire series of references that were set at the beginning, or that emergeD from your Discussions. which were the most important or interesting ones to you?there is a number of important references; as this is national presentation, for me it was primarily about the relation to the sea, very important for the determination of the croatian region. the fact that we are a maritime country should logically also mean active relations to the sea, which we do not have in croatia today. it is enough that you go to savudrija and you will clearly see the border between the slovenian and the croatian sea: half of it is cramped and the other half is empty. of course, their sea is full, because it is small, but our people use the sea much less than the slovenes, who are historically not connected with the adriatic. as regards shipbuilding and the kraljevica shipyard, it is rather leo’s personal attachment to it that plays a role here than its real importance for the barges from this story – neither the first nor the second barge has been built in this shipyard. but here we come to a different topic, which is accumulation of immense shipbuilding knowledge, which is now completely scattered and might soon vanish, but can still be seen in kraljevica. building large ships looks impressive, their superstructure, as large as a six-storey house, when finished, is lifted by a crane and simply welded to the hull. it is incredible that this knowledge was never seriously applied in civil engineering; there were such attempts by the 3. maj crew, but things were left at that. shipbuilding technologies are somewhat different from standard construction technologies; even the steel structures have different forms, but on the other hand these two situations are quite similar: in addition, a house on a ship

P. 130 P. 131——INTERVIEW

pavilion, but the costs were immense. This here is more appropriate for us. Let large and rich countries build pavilions they can afford or rent expensive venues – this is our way, to build a pavilion at sea that would be more attractive than all other ones, at a relatively modest price and a good cost/benefit ratio. As for suppressing egos, I think that this was possible because we are a specific group of people. This is a group of people that has done Croatian architecture throughout the last twenty years, some of us maybe a little longer. We all know each other and we know how strenuous and tiresome this work can be. We all respect each other and value the efforts of others.

To WhAT exTenT, In your opInIon, does ThIs projeCT CommunICATe your vIeWs of The CurrenT ArChITeCTurAL prACTICe – In CreATIve And soCIAL sense?To me, the social aspect is certainly extremely important and I also think that our work should adequately reflect the country we live in. I believe that this project might be an indicator that a good idea does not need gigantic funding or a mega-echo. We have entered the age of architecture, but also of art and culture in general, which I would call the anti-Dubai age, after things had gone too far in the opposite direction, towards universal branding of nothing. These were enormous packages, huge boxes without real content. I think that these periods interchange in cycles. our current period could be likened to malevich’s painting White Square on a White Field, in the sense that this white square covers the existing background and offers a new surface for panting anew, starting from the ideas based on reality. our generation is the generation that stands with both feet on the ground again. our concept is not to wait for the “scandinavization” of Croatia, but to do what can be done under the existing circumstances, whatever they are.

IT Is InTeresTIng ThAT ThIs WhAT you CALL WeLded WIre mesh CAn on The one hAnd funCTIon symboLICALLy, As An InsTALLATIon In spACe, And on The oTher As The reInforCemenT bAsIs ThAT In CombInATIon WITh oTher mATerIALs CAn be TrAnsformed InTo A neW objeCT.That is right. next year, an additional element can also be a common bed sheet, paper, or cardboard, depending on who our representative will be. This representative will interpret the pavilion in accordance with his understanding of it. screening is also possible, in the most banal case oils on canvas can also be displayed and treated with good lighting etc. We are primarily architects who want to design a venue where during the next few years artist might offer their own concepts.

The IdeA of WeLded WIre mesh WAs preCeded by The IdeA of CAge, WhICh, IT seems To me, As A form even more LITerALLy Addresses The quesTIon of spACe And TerrITory. WhAT hAve These dIfferenT ConCepTs Added And TAken AWAy In The proCess?different situations have directed us towards different conclusions. on the one hand, we are constructing a pavilion as if it would be done in the Arsenale, and then we relocate it onto

g o r a n r a k o1 : 1 5

g o r a n r a k o# 12

WhICh ConCepTuAL dILemmAs dId you hAve To fACe AT The begInnIng of ThIs projeCT?Leo’s initial idea was to organize an exhibition in a hired pavilion in the Arsenale, where we would have displayed eight or nine models that would have represented our view of the Croatian pavilion on a barge next year or in near future. When he entrusted us with the task that our eight groups, or fourteen people, should each present his/her idea of the pavilion, to all of us this gesture seemed marginal if compared to the idea that the barge should really set out from Croatia and be towed to venice. To suppress so many egos in one place for the sake of one project seemed to me a huge effort, I almost could not believe it. To be honest, I expected great problems, but after a number of sessions with the present crew, egotism ceased to pose a problem (or at least we hide it well) and the operation develops fine. When we came to the conclusion that we are really going to venice with a real barge, this was almost the end of our initial problems. Later on we had problems of a different kind.

LeT us foCus on The probLem of TeAm Work. WhAT Is IT ThAT heLped, As you sAy, To suppress The egos? I fInd IT InTeresTIng ThAT your joInT efforT InITIALLy emerged from The deCIsIon To buILd A reAL pAvILIon.I think that in the primary concept we were encouraged by the awareness that Croatia does not have a possibility to buy a land lot in venice and really construct a pavilion there. This would be so horribly expensive, that it is out of the question as a possibility. As far as I know, one country managed to buy a parcel after many years and difficulties, and construct its

P. 134 P. 135——INTERVIEW 1 : 1 5

I D I S T U r a T o# 13

do you ThInk ThAT Work on ThIs projeCT, WITh so mAny peopLe, hAs ChAnged you As A person And As A professIonAL?I think that after these few months of meetings and discussions I am a much better person than before. This project really helped me to sort out some things in my head. but what will happen in the end, I really don’t know. This process enabled me to experience different and for me new work methods, even to compare how I function in relation to others or how they function in relation to me, however schizophrenic this process may seem to some. I would also like to include the emails into the documentation of the project, so that we can look upon everything that has happened as a kind of big brother. once I even brought the dvd with the film about metallica, Some Kind of Monster, to inspire my colleagues. I am not the band’s fan, but...

...buT you sAW someThIng InspIrIng In A doCumenT of TheIr Inner CLAshes And group TherApy?yes, exactly that! When this film was made, they were already in the phase when they had more than enough money, all the best songs were already recorded, they had attained recognition as authors long time ago, so they reached the moment at which they must ask themselves – what now? This film recorded an honest experience of a serious catharsis. Their new songs are not better than the ones before, but I am certain that they emerged from that process as better persons. That is the exact reason why I wanted to show this film.

a barge. on the other hand, we work in Croatia and we will take it to venice over the Adriatic as a part of our country. We have not yet made it completely clear which of these two concepts is healthier, but I believe that both will be represented in some way.

The quesTIon of feAsIbILITy And responsIbILITy for The fuTure ArIses As very ImporTAnT. hoW do you AnsWer IT?If we speak about money, I think that this pavilion is cheap enough that next year a different one might be made. however, the presumption we depart from is that the structure, which this year represents the architectural message “here, this is the pavilion” could really be useful during the years to come. It will make me sad if it is not be used for that purpose. It should not end in: after us, the deluge! And now this final draft of the pavilion has almost returned to the point that we have one large room, which is not built of brick, but tailored from welded wire mesh.

A serIes of our CommIssIoner’s noTes AT The begInnIng of The projeCT InCLuded The meTAphor of CuLTurAL And CommerCIAL exChAnge, A refLeCTIon of The sITuATIon In shIpyArds And oTher CuLTurAL And poLITICAL And hIsTorICAL referenCes. hoW muCh of ThIs WAs reTAIned As pArT of The reperToIre of possIbLe InCenTIves from InITIAL meeTIngs unTIL TodAy?We have considered this, we have even considered oak that might be bought there and symbolically returned to Croatia. but we did not want to reduce a situation like this to the level of a joke that lasts five minutes. We treated this oak wood situation rather as an anecdote than as a serious possibility.

InITIAL IdeAs WenT InTo The dIreCTIon of undersTAndIng The bArge In ITseLf As A medIum, ITs mAnoeuvrIng CApAbILITIes, roTATIon, mAnIpuLATIon...These aspects were involved, too. maybe someone will, at concept level, retain the opinion that this idea was better than something else, because we did have different opinions on that matter, but in the end we reached a solution nobody was against. I did not like this turning the barge around and the focus on the barge as such. from the beginning I thought about a pavilion we would build in the Arsenale if we had the necessary money, so that now we are building it in this way, which is in the end more interesting and better.

In ThAT sense The bArge Is The ground?for me the barge is just a foundation: an ordinary, banal foundation slab.

hoW dId you dIsTrIbuTe desIgn TAsks?There was no distribution, we all do everything all the time. We shall split only now, when we are in the phase in which we have accepted the last sketch. now some will focus on the book, the others will focus on events and contents in the pavilion, some will supervise the construction site, and some will draw and solve this kind of problems. up to now, we all did everything.

g o r a n r a k o

P. 138 P. 139——INTERVIEW

a certain group of people is the right architecture. Its appearance, the way it is designed, as well as the material used for construction are secondary. Let me repeat: the first and most important thing in architecture are people and all other things everyone learns at the university.

WhICh AddITIonAL CrITerIA WILL The pAvILIon hAve To meeT To beCome usAbLe AgAIn AfTer ThIs bIennALe Is over?I do not think that architecture has to meet all physical and technical criteria to be usable. st. mark’s square is the most beautiful public place on earth even when it rains.

CAn We TALk AbouT An exhIbITIon venue As pubLIC spACe?someone’s church, a shopping mall or a museum are private places, but without public they cannot fulfil their function. on the other hand, every architecture that gathers people and enables them to enjoy certain space without imposing on them fixed rules of behaviour can be public space. In this sense, public space can be even an apartment on the twelfth floor of a building. speaking seriously, responsibility towards public space is an increasingly important question. I think that the Zagreb block must be opened and rebuilt by all means, but not in a way in which that is done now. Wrong methods are to blame.

hoW dId The IdeA of WeLded WIre mesh emerge?The primary idea was to work with steel sheets used in shipbuilding. We wanted it to be locally specific and by all means low tech; at a certain point we had some ten models before us on the table. one of them represented an idea by Tonči Žarnić’s and two other architects from the group, to make a pavilion whose form would be determined by thin streams of water. one student made a model of this, executed as a kind of net. When I saw it, it seemed to me excellent, but I did not recognize that the material in question was actually a fluid. The others laughed, of course. This means that we reached an even better idea of steel mesh, which contains almost mathematical precision and liberty. Then we started to interpret that as a cargo/load similar to the one when reinforcement mesh is transported to a construction site. silvije had the idea to carve that load inside and generate space. I even thought of corrosion. This year, we well have to let the mesh corrode for a couple of months and then we’ll either have to freeze the corrosion at some point or let the structure die away, like a dandelion. I am privately very fond of the theme of dying away, so close to life, although some interpretations of it can be very dangerous.

you hAve InCLuded sTudenTs of ArChITeCTure, Who do The drAWIng InsTeAd of you. Why?I did not like the idea that we draw ourselves, because drawing is also a personal act and we wanted to suppress personalities. Tonči Žarnić and petar mišković introduced students into the project; their work should neutralize the artist’s hand. It is a similar procedure to that which you are now doing with the interviews. you are trying to reveal some of the project’s characteristics, but you are not interpreting it directly.

I D I S T U r a T o

yes, ThIs WAs probAbLy one of Those “bACk To The rooTs” ATTempTs. your Workshop meeTIngs Are someThIng sImILAr In ThAT sense.yes, but this is even worse than workshops. It reminds me of post-war volunteer works and their enthusiastic collective spirit! We are all recognized enough and have nothing to lose, and you can truly get rid of your ego when you really have nothing to lose. When young people work in a group, they in principle kid themselves. They are not strong enough to work alone, so they found a group and split after some time. I think it happened this way with all groups in art. both exAT 51 and Zemlja (earth) were founded out of the need to be on the safe side and stronger, but after the individual authors attained recognition, they decided to go their own ways. here we have the opposite case. We are not young, we have achieved professional recognition earlier and now we are actually taking a step back. We are examining if we can work even better in a collective or not.

ALL rIghT, mAybe The mosT InTeresTIng ThIng Is ThAT some bAsIC pArAmeTers Are dIfferenT, so ThAT you found yourseLf WITh fresh ThoughTs on fresh ground.That is possible. you know, I am really glad that you talk to everybody separately, without others knowing what you talked about. from the catalogue you must be able to read both the collective and the individual aspect. similarly to art, architecture has become somewhat hermetic and within its own scene also very foreseeable. And architects are much worse than artists. They are actually split personalities – they create fancy things for money and then at biennales they fake to investigate architecture. please, don’t play me for a sucker.

I sTILL ThInk ThAT ThIs bIennALe frAmeWork Is good for ArChITeCTs. IT requIres from peopLe To refLeCT on TheIr professIon And ITs broAder ConTexT. mAybe ThIs Is someTImes phony, As you sAy, buT I Am CerTAIn ThAT ALL ThAT Is In The end very usefuL If done properLy. This is true, but the question is what kind of authors we are talking about. I felt rather provoked by the previous biennale, when Aaron betsky invited some architects to reflect on the idea of architecture beyond building. What does that mean if we speak of Zaha hadid, who has designed everything – from shoes to airports – and everything looks alike. What does such an architect have to say on the topic beyond building, if he/she designs a sofa that looks like a model of a building or a designer shoe, and then replicates this without any detachment or irony?

WhAT do you ThInk of kAZuyo sejImA’s ThIs yeAr’s ConCepT?I like that topic. I am personally interested only in architecture that connects people and generates togetherness. I do not believe in typologies or pre-set scenarios – only the architecture that has the potential to generate togetherness in

I D I S T U r a T o

P. 142 P. 143——INTERVIEW

and meetings I acquired excellent insight into the way such a major project functions, as well as into an infinite number of crucial factors that determine it.

WhAT Were you ACTuALLy WorkIng WITh – IdeAs, deTAILed skeTChes, InsTruCTIons, bLueprInTs? hoW muCh room hAve The TAsks you Were enTrusTed WITh LefT you To InTerpreT, desIgn, eLAborATe, And Improve Those IdeAs? I worked with ideas, sketches, and instructions. The basis of everything was conversation, like in tutorials, which left some room for interpretation. of course, everything that I have done and that I am still doing I tried to do as well as I could, so I cannot speak about elaborating or improving an idea, because we all strive in that direction. I felt an unlimited amount of confidence the team set in me, which created a very pleasant work climate. All ideas, sketches, instructions, and plans, as well as the produced objects, were studied critically, so that the entire process functioned in that way.

do you see ThIs kInd of Work As dIfferenT In some respeCT, neW or speCIAL In reLATIon To your prevIous experIenCes AT The unIversITy And eLseWhere?every kind of work connected with architecture communicates its projects through ground-floor plans, cross-sections, visualizations, models, and similar generally accepted forms. The designing of the pavilion for the biennale sets architecture into a different framework and leaves much room for experimenting. pavilions are often think-tanks for many ideas that later on live in different typologies. The demands of a pavilion are different from any other typology. I cannot compare this with the experience at the university or elsewhere, but I can find points of intersection. This kind of work is in many respects specific, new, and special. especially interesting is the medium the pavilion works with. 35 tons of welded wire mesh make many decisions hard, while the medium, which is normally invisible building substance, hidden in concrete, here becomes the principal and only one.

hoW do you see CoLLAborATIve dynAmICs In suCh A LArge ArChITeCT TeAm? hAve you feLT sIngLed ouT AT ALL? In WhAT WAy Were IdeAs And demAnds fILTered ToWArds you, ConCernIng The fACT ThAT There Were so mAny voICes?Collaboration of a large number of persons always brings advantages and disadvantages. The dynamics was constant and fluent. This is best seen from the production of project-related material and solution variants, which deserves respect if we take into the account everyone’s other tasks. everyone always had his task and did his part of work, so that there was no feeling of being singled out. We are all here with the same goal. Ideas and demands, towards everyone and thus also towards me, were filtered at the end of the meetings and through conversation. As something was needed, the work on it was done.

your modeL WAs essenTIAL for some of The mAjor deCIsIons ConCernIng The form of The pAvILIon, ALThough AT The begInnIng TheIr reAdIng of your Work WAs ACTuALLy A

p e r o v U k o v I ć1 : 1 5

p e r o v U k o v I ć# 14

CAn you TeLL us hoW you joIned ThIs projeCT And WhAT Were The InITIAL expeCTATIons of boTh sIdes – yours ToWArds The TeAm of ArChITeCTs And TheIrs ToWArds you?I joined the project following the invitation of professors Žarnić and modrčin. The initial expectations were different, primarily because the discussion was entirely project-oriented, which did not include its execution. because I knew the entire team through some previous experiences or I was at least acquainted with their work, I expected an excellent project; I was positively anxious and honoured to work on this project and with these people. I can hardly say anything about their expectations, I think that they were primarily set within the framework of architectural production, which was excellent for me as a third-year student, 21 years old, and the very fact that I was accepted on equal footing I consider a great compliment and great support that will encourage me in my future work and development.

WhAT WAs The sCope of your Work? WhAT dId IT InCLude, Where dId IT sTArT And Where dId IT end?I wouldn’t call it work, but activity. The scope varied. It started as interpretation of some ideas through models, blueprints, 3d visualizations, discussions, sketches, and the like. It included production, meetings, designing, blueprints for the execution, mock-ups (1:1 models). Actually it was related to almost everything concerning the making of the pavilion. I tried to help in every possible way. This is still in progress, in the form of making the plans for the shipyard, later on in the form of the work in venice on the set-up of the room, and I do not know where it will end.

To WhAT exTenT Were you InvoLved In meeTIngs And dIsCussIons AbouT The fLoATIng pAvILIon?I could not determine the level of involvement and I would not like to try. I was present at a number of meetings. I had no desire to take part in discussions about the financing, which was a major component of this project. Through email correspondence

P. 146 P. 147——INTERVIEW 1 : 1 5

T o n Č I Ž a r n I ć# 15

mIsundersTAndIng. CAn you brIefLy desCrIbe WhAT you TrIed To sImuLATe WITh ThAT modeL And In WhICh dIreCTIon dId IT TAke The ConsIderATIons of The TeAm In The end?We are talking about the series of models made by hrvoje spudić and me. I would not say that they were decisive, but that they were helpful in the interpretation. At the beginning we made 16 barges and 14 interventions on them, based on some sketches and different ideas set before us. We interpreted them considering the given conditions and the time we had on disposal. saša relić helped us by letting us work in his model workshop equipped with a new laser cutter, which increased our production. This generated the first wave of materialization of ideas, still created for the exhibition of projects. The pavilion, today in the shipyard, combines almost everything from those 14 models. The model maybe closest to the final decision showed a water mass with a passage. It was made from several layers of translucent grille. The crucial decision was that the barge should carry a load. models were a means for thinking about things.

WhILe you Worked on sImuLATIons, dId you rATher ThInk In ArChITeCTurAL or sCuLpTurAL Terms? hAve you experIenCed The pAvILIon And ITs dIfferenT versIons As An exhIbIT or As funCTIonAL And CompLeTeLy defIned ArChITeCTure?I consider sculpture and art in general very important in correlation with architecture. In my reflections I did not focus on terminology, but on an entire series of images and experiences that appear here. The key thing is that a pavilion of this kind is possible only in welded wire mesh and that it does not function in a different material. here a series of especially poetic images appear, which everyone interprets and experiences differently, like a breeze blowing through the pavilion, lapping waves, refractions from the waves and many others. I think that it would be absolutely wrong to make the pavilion an exhibit in itself. It is rather an exercise area, one that our architecture and art at the biennale did not have, because the yugoslav pavilion became property of serbia. Its functionality as a pavilion must be enabled, but its final definition is not necessary. What’s more, the possibility of dismantling it and the presumed polyvalence accept different reactions.

WhAT Is your reAdIng of ThIs projeCT And The pAvILIon In generAL for The bIennALe?The entire area of giardini and the Arsenale, as well as the biennial exhibition are a special place and event. The majority of pavilions are architectural masterworks of their time. The concept of a floating pavilion on the barge has an enormous impact. This project follows the topic of the biennale and creates its context that corresponds to the one in venice, but also elsewhere. The cargo/load is interpreted in a way that creates architecture. There are many more layers of the project than there are layers of the wire mesh.

Due to his exceptional contribution to the project, the group decided to list architecture student Pero Vuković as an equal an author of the project.

P. 150 P. 151——INTERVIEW

hoW muCh of ThAT WAs buILT InTo The projeCT?This is where the danger was that the project might become some kind of lamentation, which we wanted to avoid by all means. We were rather interested in the aspect of heterotopia, because that de-territorialisation also creates a special place. I personally found much more interesting the possibility that the forming of the pavilion on an unstable base like a barge might alter the attitude to exhibiting for all participating countries. Can we imagine the lagoons of venice featuring an entire urbanism of barges? And also, why should this exhibition remain bound to venetian islands and the giardini, why could we not change that as well?

mAybe here We Are TALkIng AbouT severAL pArAdoxes. IT hAs been sAId ThAT The InTenTIon of buILdIng A reAL sTruCTure WAs fAvoured, beCAuse IT seemed ConTrAdICTory To speAk AbouT The LACk of spACe And dIspLAy modeLs AT A pArTICuLAr venue. The CurrenT pArAdox Is, hoWever, ThAT you hAve A projeCT WhICh remAIns ConCepTuAL In A CerTAIn sense, ALThough ITs Core Is A fInIshed sTruCTure.That is right, but contradictions create ambivalence and multiple meanings. That which we are doing now, I rather see as a blueprint. I see it as an art-specific pavilion that changes in accordance with the building substance conveyed by the barge. I also see re-use potential and a possibility to utilize thus formed pavilions again, creating a small urbanism.

hoW dId you reACh The IdeA of WeLded WIre mesh?There was really not much pre-meditation; it was rather a genesis of a concept. As a grid, a cage appeared in the design process, at a certain point this grid took on a form, not in the sense of a surrogate, but as a kind of analogy to architecture and modularity, not because of welded wire mesh being a constituent part of reinforced concrete, but because from this simple pattern – however primitive, generated by welding – certain analogies with new Tendencies, exAT, and other interesting occurrences could be drawn.

hoW dId Those referenCes And AnALogIes emerge? In The proCess, subsequenTLy, prevIousLy...?references always emerge afterwards. each artwork, even the architectural one, is justified by a reconstruction of its genealogy; not in advance, but later. When you make something once, then you interpret what you have created. The origin of this can be sub-consciousness or intuition, but when you later on look back and reconstruct, you can discover an entire mental pattern within which this can logically be placed. In that way you are sure that the idea is anchored, enabling you that something new emerges from it. At any case, a previously set referential framework didn’t actually exist.

IT seems To me ThAT some ChILdIsh pLAyfuLness WAs ALso AT Work durIng The joInT refLeCTIon on And TesTIng of IdeAs. WhAT WAs ITs drIvIng forCe?There are not so many other professions and disciplines that

T o n Č I Ž a r n I ć

Through prevIous InTervIeWs, In The opInIon of The projeCT pArTICIpAnTs some noTIons hAve emerged As ImporTAnT And InspIrIng. 3Lhd CreW, for exAmpLe, spoke mosTLy AbouT The noTIon of InsTAbILITy In reLATIon To spACe, ConCepT, And perspeCTIves, buT ALso To The sTruCTure on The bArge. WhAT Were your poInTs of depArTure?I was primarily fascinated by the fact that all traditional and conventional architectural means were excluded. each variant that included traditional understanding of architecture at the relocated place and on the unstable ground of the barge was pointless, because it produced a “house” in the context in which a “house” cannot be anchored. Therefore, this could not be a house, but it had to be something that manipulates building material. In this case is building material alone the barge’s cargo/load, which has architectural effects, i.e. this is altogether some equivalent to architecture. The principal question is can we achieve architectural effects by means that do not belong to architecture? In the first place, the barge is not solid ground; it cannot carry a house. This is an interesting manipulation with perception, because the barge transports cargo, it is a kind of usable platform; so can this barge with a load become a form of building substance? In this way, we drifted further towards instability, or actually the impossibility of one solution, which is that every time the barge and its cargo can be set into new space. Instead of a single pavilion, or a fixed venue, you have the possibility to make an art-specific pavilion every time. on the other hand, each cargo carries some characteristics with it. In this case, this is welded wire mesh, but some other time it could be earth. each time the cargo/load will become building substance and can be interpreted through its physical, chemical, or sensory properties. The welded wire mesh can be interpreted through its modular grid, its spacing, its specific density, the change of specific weight, the wind it lets through... With all these properties it has a potential to become space. IT Is InTeresTIng ThAT The pAvILIon As CArgo/LoAd WAs noT The onLy IdeA. As fAr As I knoW, The fIrsT IdeAs In our meeTIngs even deCLIned ThIs eLemenT of LoAd In The sense ThAT The bArge WAs regArded As A Core of A CAge ThAT deLIneATed CerTAIn TerrITory.I think that we were all into this because we were intrigued by the process that included fourteen people and in whose course things radically changed. In design, it is always important to make a certain step in order to be able to make the next one. This does not mean that at that moment you have to freeze your thought, but this emerging idea certainly helps you to construct the next, sometimes even continually, sometimes as a thesis – antithesis, depending on the situation.

To WhAT exTenT Is The projeCT formed by some InITIAL nArrATIve InCenTIves, LIke LosIng The exhIbITIon venue AfTer The dIsInTegrATIon of yugosLAvIA or even The WIdeLy ACCepTed myTh ThAT venICe WAs buILT on CroATIAn oAk.

T o n Č I Ž a r n I ć

P. 154

1 sAšA begovIć:“Cargo/load on a displaced, temporary territory has become an elementary, ethereal and blurred room. The idea of balancing our instable reality has been materialized in a room in which you hover within tons of welded wire mesh. my wish is that our Architecture might sail to venice—this year!” 2 mArko dAbrovIć: “It is amazing how rea-lization (materializa-tion) restores the ene-rgy in us architects that you can feel at the very beginning when there are no limita-tions. This confirms the decision not to leave the project just at an idea, but to focus the energy of all individual architects on the product—the barge— through construction.”3 Igor frAnIć: “In the end we are not interested in structures and words like barge, house, pavilion, ship, space.., but have a process in the form of sincere expression, a creative mutant that emerged from a synergy of a vast variety of differences and circum-stances through improvi-sation, understanding, and tolerance of different approaches.”4 TAnjA groZdAnIć: “I did not believe that we would find a way out of this, out of that thing: too many people, too many possibilities, directions, variations, solutions...What we went through was a process of purification, of losing and finding... What hap-pened in the end is raw, strong, tender, translu-cent, fatal, real, unreal steel nebula...”5 peTAr mIškovIć: “one to two hundred is the ratio of built-in material to the volume of the completed

pavilion. This unusualratio successfully il-lustrates the airy ar-chitecture of the pavili-on, as well as the equally unusual condi-tions of the paviion’s design and constrution.”6 sILvIje novAk: “An incredible project! The Commissioner has set absolutely everything: the topic, and even the title. We just had to give that idea some final polish and do the logis-tics without the boss. Impossible! There were many good suggestions, the cargo/load won. I want to believe that it will make the voyage to venice. I got to know people whom I knew before.”7 veLjko oLuIć:“Although the idea that we must create archite-cture/space and by no means an installation/art continuously domi-nated, it seems that the materialized pavilion, in its elementary clari-ty and suggestive build-ing substance—welded wire mesh—left some room for much more than that. We can be glad that the final product, the pavili-on/barge — cargo/load emerged from the group’s synergy, through its own, authentic creative process.”8 heLenA pAver njIrIć: “There are two facts more important than the formal expression: a platform, pontoon or barge represent a tempo-rary part of Croatian territory, created for the venice biennale 2010. In the same way the tem-porary cargo/load cha-nges and adapts to cur-rent needs. The planned changing locations pro-vide the project with a contemporary dimension. Its stainability is not guaranteed; it is moreover contextual—transitional.”9 LeA peLIvAn: “The idea about the

barge emerged from thebalance of the utopian/pavilion and everyday/cargo; at the clash point of these extremi-ties a fragile and ro-mantic idea was born about the replacement of solid ground with a fluid medium and a con-struct with scattered material. The process of work on the develop-ment of the idea/project has repeated all the characteristics of the idea, from its lucidity to banality. The life/future of the barge is uncertain, which is all right.”10 TomA pLejIć: “just load.”11 gorAn rAko: “And finally, a question: can we, from one image that we have adopted, infer that it was created from a hundred other images that we have rejected?”12 IdIs TurATo: “The barge and the pavilion are entering the final, most exciting and most important phase of the project, where they will meet people and unselfishly produce togetherness and events. I would like that at the end of the journey we all meet at the punta della dogana.” 13 pero vukovIć: “ A barge loaded with cargo, cargo loaded with meaning.”14 TončI ŽArnIć: “here space and function are by-products. space has not emerged from the description of functi-ons. This is topography of airflow, of specific density, rays of light, and sharp cuts. This is a confrontation with the art of others; 40 tons of welded wire mesh in action.”15 sAšA rAndIć: “The barge project started with the Commis-sioner’s concept that the selected architects should participate in

the dialogue with theirprojects of barges/pavilions and that among them one would be selected by consensus as the future Croatian pavilion. but the group of invited authors agreed by consensus that they would make a joint project instead of the initially conceived competition of small barges.The result of this work is the decision that the barge is not a finished floating pavilion, but that every year it should carry a different load, which would bring the idea of dialogue to affirmation: on the one hand between architec-ture and the presentati-on in the installation and on the other between the public at the inter-national exhibition and the floating instal-lation. It should also bring the idea of a floating pavilion to re-cognition by presenting the first cargo/load moored in venice. An essential part of this decision is that the floating pavilion should include an opera-tive barge, which fulfils its everyday tasks throughout the rest of the year. The experience of work in a group has also shown that the idea of consensus is not op-erative and that we should speak of dialogue as the key word of the project, which does not proceed automatically and has to be moderated. When the course of events led up to the de-cision that the barge be constructed albeit not towed to venice, I saw no further purpose in my subsequent involvement in the project.

15 c o n c l U S I o n S / c a p T I o n S T o D I a g r a m #6T o n Č I Ž a r n I ć

have retained ideals. such is architecture, maybe because it is connected with creation. secondly, it has its certain anchor points. In architecture, the effort is always collective; you are surrounded by a large number of people, who out of your desired 100 per cent always produce less, so that you continuously struggle to preserve those 100 per cent. Things have a childish form, which enables you to create and see things innocently and naively. I hate the adjective “playful”, because I do not think architecture is a game; however, it has to be something aleatoric, because when you create, you keep turning your brain in all directions – like in Alice in Wonderland.

one of The ConTexTs you Were supposed To pLAy WITh Is The bIennALe’s TopIC, seT by The ArChITeCT kAZuyo sejImA. hoW fAr dId The ThInkIng go In The dIreCTIon of gIvIng An AnsWer To IT And CAn A pArT of your ConCepT be reAd As ThIs AnsWer?I would say that her topic had very little influence, but I think that each topic set at the biennale is always one of the notions that define architecture in the way that good architecture also contains that notion. In that sense the Croatian pavilion on the barge as a generic term also encompasses the term set by sejima.

CAn We, And To WhAT exTenT, sAy ThAT suCh A projeCT CommunICATes A CommenT on The CurrenT momenT In ArChITeCTure?yes, on several levels. The first level is defying the star system, because it is about abolishing vanity. The second is that with a low budget you can create a valuable space with pronounced characteristics. In architecture, manipulation with perception is always interesting – the question is can you with some cheap building substance, accessible to everybody, relocate the viewer into a new world where everything will fall short of his expectations; they will be altered or an unexpected experience will be made possible. At the beginning we did have certain ambitions that we lost on the way. In the whole process it was important to discard what is superfluous and to reach the true substance.

WhAT WouLd be The ConTenT CommunICATed by ThIs projeCT? IT Is on The one hAnd A represenTATIon of A CerTAIn IdeA, buT on The oTher hAnd IT Is seemIngLy sTILL ConCeIved As A funCTIonAL sTruCTure.It should not be read as a building, it has no scale. The project attempts to avoid the terror of the visual, to include other senses and in that way bring architectural space to recognition. sensory properties like the sharpness of the elements that emerge by cutting, the wind that you feel penetrating the structure – all that introduces you to some form of topography that is not created through three spatial dimensions, but emerges on the complex scale of welded wire mesh. Architecture is always making and meaning, but in this second part we let it not represent anything. I think this is a valuable asset. We are not trying to reach a meaning that would represent anything except maybe a sum of personal poetics.

34 1 12

14jelsa, Island of hvar

jelsa, Island of hvar

korčula, Island of korčula

rijeka split, Tivat

7

6

8

5

njivice, Island of krk

jadranovo dubrovnik rijeka

15

boston, new york,(u.s.A)

D I a g r a m # 6A n d f I n A L L y ( A b o u T A u g u s T 1 s T , 2 0 1 0 )The unbearable lightness of 33.9 t

11

2

13

9 10

dubrovnik splitLondon,manchester,(u.k.)

podgora

B B

+000

+100

+325

+450

+600

T R A N S V E R S A L S E C T I O N

A A

A A

+000

+100

+325

+450

+600

T R A N S V E R S A L S E C T I O N

B B

22

+000

+100

+325

+450

+600

11

+000

+100

+325

+450

+600

L O N g I T u d I N A L S E C T I O N

1 1

L O N g I T u d I N A L S E C T I O N

2 2

p A R A L L E L p R O j E C T I O N

n e

p A R A L L E L p R O j E C T I O N

s w

+015

+030

+045

+060

+075

+090

+105

+120

+135

+150

+165

+180

W E L d E d W I R E M E S H L A Y E R S

+ 0 1 5 m — > + 6 4 5 c m

+195

+240

+210

+225

+285

+255

+300

+270

+330

+345

+315

+360

+555

+570

+585

+600

+615

+630

+645

+375

+390

+405

+420

+435

+450

+465

+480

+495

+510

+525

+540

p A R A L L E L p R O j E C T I O N

s e

p A R A L L E L p R O j E C T I O N

n w