The 1932 Museum of Modern Art show "Modern Architecture: International Exhibition" highlighted—or, according to some critics, created—a split within the practice of architecture in America. The exhibition was conceived by Henry Russell Hitchcock, Philip Johnson, and Alfred Barr, and presented modern architecture simply as a representational style that had evolved from new materials and contemporary notions of habitation. Arguably, the position espoused by Johnson, Hitchcock, and Barr represented the architectural profession in North America at that time, and has remained dominant through the 21st century as well.
It is interesting to note that Lewis Mumford, who had visited European housing projects throughout the 1920s, was asked to participate in the exhibition’s section on housing. His argument that modern architecture had evolved out of social welfare concerns such as the movement for decent housing for all segments of society was in direct conflict with the exhibition’s more formalist position. Mumford, however, continued to make his ‘social’ argument about architecture through the 20th century; it would be too simplistic to conclude that he lacked adherents and followers, but his approach remained the minority view in architecture as it evolved.
Indeed, it could be argued that the split between these dueling positions remains one of the most important and pressing problems today in the profession. Into the Open: Positioning Practice, our exhibition for the United States Pavilion at this year’s Venice Biennale for Architecture, clearly enters the fray and takes Mumford’s side, highlighting contemporary formulations of public engagement, analysis and design.
In a milieu characterized by territorial and institutional deadlock, architects, urban researchers, and community activists increasingly must intervene in situations by questioning traditional architectural methods and "going beyond building.” This does not mean dispensing with the value of architecture per se, but rather acknowledging each situation's unique complexity. Our exhibition explores the original ways that these actors are taking up the challenge of designing the conditions from which new architectures can emerge. They are becoming activists, developers, facilitators of a more inclusive urban policy, as well as producers of unique urban research.
These new practitioners are notable for the emphasis they place on inventive, interdisciplinary economics of development that reach creatively across institutions, agencies, and jurisdictions to negotiate hidden resources in the private, public, and non-profit sectors.
In the absence of large-scale public infrastructure projects in the United States, local initiatives are becoming newly empowered and dynamic arenas for the exploration and generation of new forms of sociability and activism. Through this expanded concept of architectural practice and its responsibilities, seemingly intractable problems and conflicts–such as changing populations, shifting borders, and uneven economic development exacerbated by the explosion of migration and urbanization—can be addressed and mitigated with an altered perspective.
With our exhibition, we are also proposing that social, cultural and spatial boundaries be understood as a new framework for defining architectural problems. Accordingly, we have identified a heterogeneous and dispersed series of sixteen practices—ranging from researchers such as the Center for Land Use Interpretation to pedagogical programs such as Rural Studio and the work of designers such as Estudio Teddy Cruz and Gans Studio—that are empowered by the inventive ways they work and with whom they engage. The curatorial logic behind this project highlights the ways that architects, urban researchers, and activists reclaim the ability to shape community and the built environment. It is our hope that this taxonomy produces a new understanding of American architectural practice and potential forms of social participation.
To remain relevant, architecture must find ways to respond to the cultural fluidity, socio-economic challenges, and environmental rifts that define our times. In so doing, we hope to conceive of architecture as a generator of new forms of sociability and activism that move us beyond ideological polarization.
