Romuald Demidenko: I am interested in the status of architecture in modern culture and the relationship between spatial design and art. In the past, there seems to have been a strong link between the two disciplines—art and architecture—but what does it look like today?
Marcin Szczelina: At the present, the boundaries between art and architecture are blurred. I think everything that is happening on the boundary between these two areas is incredibly interesting. New situations are being generated which help us reinterpret reality. Situations in which, through his or her actions, the artist becomes an architect and situations in which the architect, in executing his or her projects, becomes an artist, are very common. However, the need to provide a theoretical framework for expanding this common ground is noticeable at many modern art exhibitions and architectural reviews. I think exhibitions themselves may serve as a good barometer for measuring the relationships between art and architecture. The status of architecture in the modern context is accurately described by Keller Easterling in his ExtraStateCraft project statement: "Some of the most radical changes to the globalising world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the languages of architecture, urbanism and infrastructure." This is true, particularly in light of Martin Heidegger's words, that one of the basic processes of modern times is the conquest of the world as image. Architecture contributes substantially to this process. In short, Heidegger wrote about the image as visual culture. This issue is developed by Easterling, who writes that, particularly in modern times, architecture generated as an image has enormous impact on the modern culture. I should also mention the series of works by Zbigniew Libera, Pozytywy, which are based on "staged photos," which were popular in the 90s. Photographs of military actions are often staged to make them more moving and suit convention. Libera develops these schemes and manipulates them, revealing the manner of manipulation. Pozytywy parodies famous conflict photos. This is the force of the image.

We have established the ideological frame—architecture as an element of visual culture. But how does this translate into the world of art and culture—where do these two merge? Maybe this happens during exhibitions?
As I said earlier, visual culture plays a key role in modern reality. An image, particularly one displayed at an exhibition, is an attempt to represent this reality. However, as proven by numerous exhibitions on architecture, the attempt is rather futile. The "Andrea Palladio: His Life and Legacy" exhibition held last year at the Royal Academy of Art in London completely misunderstood the subject. How can you present Palladio in an exhibition?
The curators decided it should be done in the usual way—with projections and pictures displayed in a dark room, since the original precious drawings should not be exposed to light. But in turn, showcasing projections and models makes no sense. Le Corbusier said that we should look at a thing itself; we should approach the essence of the object. So if you want to see a Palladio work, go and see it with your own eyes, experience the buildings. This is why we have problems presenting architecture. I often hear questions such as, What is the point of making exhibitions about architecture, and, Why should we separate exhibitions into ones about art and ones about architecture? I think it is crucial to establish a proper terminology regarding exhibitions about art and architecture because there is a fundamental difference between the two. When you present a work of art, you are presenting the very object, whereas presenting architecture is merely a representation. The fundamental error made by several exhibitions is bound up in the limitation of architecture in regards to its visual representation, which tends to flatten the object, like in Photoshop (laughs).
The language of architects—not all of them, of course—is limited, and even distorted, I would say. In this context, I appreciate the words of Aaron Betsky: "I don't believe in showing pictures, models or drawings of buildings created somewhere else. I don't believe in displaying the records of the process of creation. In both cases, I am convinced that, if you came to an exhibition, you came there for the objects or spaces worth seeing—and not to read texts or watch movies. There are much better places to do that. A museum or a gallery should be places of fetishization, understood as an opposition to popularization." In simple terms, it is about the true and full presentation of architecture, just as with Palladio—the exhibition should only have discussed the philosophy of the Renaissance and its contemporary worldview, which would encourage people visiting the exhibition to experience the world Palladio lived in.

What, in your opinion, should an architectural exhibition look like? Could the Venice Biennale be an example of that?
I have recently read interviews with the former directors of the architectural Biennale (Aldo Rossi was the only one missing). Basically, everyone except Hans Hollein claimed that it is impossible to exhibit architecture. Two exhibition scenarios can be found: the theatrical approach, based on sets that try to imitate building spaces, usually urban ones; the other approach, of course, displays representations of architecture in the form of architectural drawings and models. It also illustrates problems linked to architecture, which are sociological, economic, geographical and political factors, presented in the form of diagrams, charts, texts and models. Can we invent something new? I don't think so and, besides, it is probably not important. What is important is the choice of the proper exhibition medium. Malwina Witkowska recently lent me a book by Beatriz Colomina which defines architecture as a medium. She says that, according to the modern principles of representation, architecture is a medium, and the representation of architecture is a medium in itself. The Venice Biennale is a completely separate issue. Let's be honest, the Biennale is a big undertaking. The organisers want something different every time, sometimes something more intellectual, other times they want big names, as was the case of last year's presentation overseen by Kazuyo Sejima. The show has to be a success in the end, a financial success.

In the beginning, working on the concept of my exhibition, which opens next month, I was interested in the gallery housing the exhibition—the BWA building in Zielona Góra, Poland. I wanted to draw the visitors' attention to this interesting example of Polish Modernism which retained the spirit of the period, despite numerous reconstructions and renovations. The exhibition was to be on the process of designing, and I see architecture as designing on a macro-scale. Of course, they are two different disciplines, design and architecture, with different origins and destinations but do you agree that we should be thinking about them together—as spatial design?
This is about building an image of some sort and understanding what architecture really is, you know. Exhibitions always imitate space and situations created by architecture. They tend to create a kind of temporary para-architecture which exists briefly and may be authentic to varying degrees. We could talk for hours about this but, in the most general terms, the creation of exhibition space is about feeling, living and experiencing... the essence of objects themselves, as Le Corbusier said. This is what is missing in spatial design and it causes a lack of authenticity. Anthony Giddens once said, "Language is the main and basic tool in understanding time and space, which raises human activity above the immediacy and directness of the animal experience." So, if the language of architecture is space created by electronic means, then exhibitions should present space through the language of space or discuss global issues that influence the nature of space.

Could you provide some examples of successful cooperation between architects and artists?
In my opinion, a great example of such cooperation is the WuWa (Wohnungs und Werkraum Exhibition, 1929). It was really fascinating how architects cooperated with representatives from several fields to design interiors, e.g. the kitchen design was preceded by consultations with housekeeper's clubs, which provided the architects from the National Academy of the Arts and Handicrafts with valuable guidelines based on their experience. I am fascinated most by what is happening on the boundaries of various areas, particularly between art and architecture. That is why I like to compare them and that is why all the exhibitions I have particiapted in or organised were multidisciplinary. I particularly liked the "Architecture is Art"/"Architektura to Sztuka" festival I organised with a group of friends about seven years ago. The festival was only held twice and was quite a small event but, even then, we stressed the interdisciplinary nature of architecture. We invited architects, artists and art curators who discussed the relationship between architecture and art. Monika Sosnowska, Krzysztof Nawratek, Marcin Kwietowicz and Jerome Jacqmin from Philippe Rahm were just a few of the speakers at our exhibition. I deeply appreciate the curatorial practice of Henry Urbach, both in his galleryof contemporary art and architecture in New York – the first of its kind and a singular venue for the presentation of experimental architecture, as well in his SFMOMA practice. One of the greatest examples of the merging of art and architecture is the design practice of New York's Diller Scofidio + Renfro and Mésarchitecture in Paris. I think principal Didier Fiuza Faustino is one of the most talented and creative modern architects, and he works with artists, acoustics, sociologists, philosophers, critics, fashion designers etc. I think the most inspiring architects generating new phenomena in modern architecture and adapting to the changing needs of modernity are those working in interdisciplinary teams e.g. the Spanish firm Grupo Aranea, with whom I recently worked. They employ botanists, biologists, sociologists and landscape architects; . this model of practice makes sense today.

Is this model of interdisciplinary work popular in Poland?
I doubt it. I haven't heard of any Polish architectural practice that works with an interdisciplinary team all the time.

Maybe architects were more open and creative in the past than they are today. I lived opposite Witold Lipinski's house for two years. It was an igloo-house.
The igloo-house is an icon of Polish architecture! Polish designers Aleksandra Machowiak and Daniel Mizielinski recently remembered Lipinski in a funny way. They wrote a highly original book entitled D.O.M.E.K.) which presented the igloo-house, among others. I can still remember the great Oskar Hansen exhibition at the Foksal Gallery Foundation in Warsaw, which presented the "Warsaw Dream" installation. The exhibition was in 2005 but if it were held today it would still be very fresh. There are too few of such exhibitions. Lately, the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw reminded us of the work of Stanisllaw Zamecznik. It was a very good exhibition. I'm glad we are finally starting to revive outstanding and original yet forgotten creators.

I remember browsing through old architectural magazines and reading in one of them that we are a country of great architects and very bad architecture. It referred to the problems of the long duration of design/build, shortages of materials etc. Very little seems to have changed since then.
Architecture is in a very specific place in Poland. Architects are usually preoccupied with their own profession and rarely seek the advice of artists, curators, sociologists and representatives of other disciplines. It is getting better, though. The situation is still bad but young architects and curators are slowly trying to introduce international practices into Poland. However, architecture in Poland is still the art of building, entirely devoid of any intellectual sphere. I wonder how many architects or theoreticians take part in international exhibitions or conferences, initiating new creative processes or working in interdisciplinary teams?... Still too few.

Attempts are being made to achieve a balanced architectural development. But shouldn't architecture be constantly redefined?
This is happening as we speak! I recently had the chance to see the partial effects of an urban experiment centred on 19 cities in Saxony, one of the regions most affected by the population slump triggered by political and economic changes after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The result was depopulating cities, large, empty housing estates, closed factories and enterprises, and deserted and ruined houses, which all led to a deterioration of the social, economic, urban and cultural infrastructure. That is why, in 2002, the authorities in Saxony decided to launch an experimental project called "International Building Exhibition Urban Redevelopment Saxony—Anhalt 2010." The results of this experiment are really astonishing. A long-term architectural and urban project was developed in response to the growing crisis and it was inspiring to see the actions initiated under this project, from ephemeral artistic interventions (murals and artistic installations in Aschersleben) to larger, urban works such as putting green squares in spaces left after buildings were demolished in Dessau-Rosslau. I mention this for a reason. As architecture is greatly affected by the passing of time, it must constantly be redefined. However, in order to introduce these changes wisely, we need to draw from a huge intellectual pool and to work with experts from other disciplines.

This discussion is taken from the Selected Projects exhibition catalogue. "Selected Projects" Exhibition, 4–27 February 2011, BWA Gallery, Zielona Góra, Poland projektywybrane.tumblr.com