The Work of “Mmw” or Towards an Introduction of Motion in Architecture
Raf De Saeger
Rethinking the architectural morphology
Recalling the way architecture could be understood as interplay between the environment and the created space, we read architec-tural creations in terms of walls, .oors, ceilings and columns. [...] At least that is the way architectural history teaches us to regard buildings. But what happens when the edge between ceiling and wall, between wall and .oor disappears in an endless structural movement called “a membrane”? We can no longer even refer to the certainty of well known materials that lead to a superposition of geometric surfaces in which every part has its own well de.ned role: The wall bears the roof, the roof covers the space, the col-umn bears the beam, etc. In the minds of people, the tasks given to various parts implied a natural connection between a speci.c material and a speci.c part. Walls were supposed to be made of bricks, concrete or wood. Roofs had to be made of wood, steel and tiles…. Tradition has handed us the methods developed by so-called craftsmanship. When somebody used a material that could not naturally be linked to a speci.c building part, he con-structed a fascinating architectural masterpiece. We can think of brickwork vaults in mediaeval townhouses and cathedrals, where these bricks become de-materialized “.oating” pieces. Or of the houses in clay and loam you .nd in some desert countries, where villages become natural parts of the surrounding world and where shapeless earth becomes a tangible secret wall, giving shade to the resting place. All these examples are silent witnesses of the crafts-man’s understanding of his material.
But what happens when the reference to a well-de.ned mate-rial disappears? What happens when the material is no longer graspable and we have to talk about the “bearing-power of air”? Or further, when the bearing-power is linked to the abstract “force” of a “shape”.
Membrane, air and shape are all part of the architectural vo-cabulary, but up until now they have mainly served as historical references linked to a primary structural system as recognized in the morphological elements of .oors, walls, and ceilings…. Magne Magler Wiggen and his team understood how imperative it was to rede.ne these words. However, their re-de.nition was not a result of gratuitous “play with space and emotion” in search of a form that would lead to the next architectural “-ism”. Not at all, MMW has understood the basic “task” architecture has to per-form. What are we talking about? Let us look at some creations of his o.ce, trying to grasp what it is all about.
Motion as structuring guide
We can start with the most elementary object Moebius, a seat fur-niture. With this object they really bring the elementary desire of the verb “to sit” to life. Although sitting could be understood as a passive position of the human body, resting with the support of the curved skeletal frame around which a “skin” is woven, here sitting is no longer reduced to a passive “way of condition”, but is introduced into the world of “motion”. It reminds us of traditions we can see in many masterpieces of furniture, but at the same time it blows life into the challenge of the new human condition. Sitting is no longer something we do unconsciously, the furniture connects the resting body to its next act of movement. In this way “expectation” is introduced into man’s behavior.
When this piece of furniture connects the elementary notion of “motion” to human patterns, we can assume that this act might be a “keystone” in the work of MMW. This is even more evident in the use of Moebius in the stage set Family Stories. A picture shows us how two persons are accepted by the intimacy of a curved sur-face. They are not sitting, neither they are lying or standing, their bodies are in a “guided motion”, a presentation of how surfaces can awaken human emotion. It reminds us of the dreams of a young child remembering how a wooden wall forms the protecting skin “in” which he was falling asleep. The curved surface is not only an extension of the human body, but also of the human emotions translated into a “form of desire”. Pure poetry arises with this ex-ample of movement, translating the elementary human desire into a spatial condition.
We have to ask how this basic concept can be continued? And if it can be continued, how could the emotional world be linked to the practical conditions of “hard functions”?
Motion and expectation
In the project Inferno emotion, function, expectation and motion are brought together. Here MMW introduces the story The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri from around 1308. It is the reference par excellence in which the transition from one world into another can be projected. Expectation as a projection of a future condition guides human motion and behavior. At this point a total world arises in which the di.erent spaces are no longer fragmentations, understood in terms of separate boxes, but are connecting, emo-tional membranes. What happens in this space?
Without repeating the conceptual ideas Dante’s work is based on, we shall con.ne ourselves to reading the space as it is pre-sented to the user. Within the framework of an existing building, the architect created an open landscape o.ce where the di.erent activities of a .rm could be brought together. “Landscape o.ces”, it is an idea of past decades, popular in the democratic move-ment of a time when participation and equality were magic words with the power to situate economic processes in a new human condition. But was this, in fact, the .nal and optimal solution? People learned from that experiment. In those days, open .oors were created that excluded any “embodiment” of the private world. What happens, for instance, with the private atmosphere every in-dividual member is entitled to? Communication between people became almost compulsive.
In the concept of Inferno the architect has learned from the past. In this o.ce building, work desks separated by glass walls and structured as well-ordered units along the exterior walls function as guiding rooms for the open central space. In this way, the architect creates an open landscape o.ce, but at the same time he introduces “a path” along which he places four dynamic spaces. The .rst one is the reception desk, named Vergil, a curved cupboard, curled like a black deconstructed glory around the re-ceptionist. Next on this path are three meeting rooms, She Wolf, Panther & Lion, covered by pneumatic membranes. These spaces are not secret “refuges” where people disclose the secrets of the .rm. They are rather open spaces that “accept” the dynamic inten-tion of conversation. Again, this is a basic concept of motion in which persons are invited into a surrounded world where open-ness permits the closeness of a meeting.
It seems that emotional contradictions of openness and close-ness are brought together, but that bringing together is a basic human act and becomes part of the experienced environment. It reminds me of the very existential translating ability of architec-ture: namely its ability to gather human desires. This also happened in the classic architectural world. In Ancient Greece philosophers taught sitting under a tree in the open landscape, while the world of the gods was strictly ordered by means of temples.
The introduction of the concept of time
Besides this invitation of motion, the pneumatic shapes give an extra dimension to the notion of “time”. This notion of time is rarely linked to the concept of human behavior in a spatial con-dition. Time, not in terms of duration or of the hours needed to pass through a room or a landscape. Not at all, but as the projec-tion of aspects like expectation, fascination and exploration, and this happens in the o.ce building Inferno. People come together in these “air bubbles” as if they were some sort of tents. They func-tion as “spaces of transition” in which people are accepted in order to spend some time together. It refers to Zaha Hadid’s “labyrin-thine dynamism” where human motions and the created spatial interference result in new architectural dimensions. Inferno works as a choreographic masterpiece where the programme of “working together” has been extended to the dimension of Heidegger’s no-tions about “being together”.
From architectural objects towards an architectural exploration
This concept of transition, supported by the basic function of mo-tion also seems to be the guiding theme for the architectural an-swers given in the private house Villa Bakke and the spatial link in the open space along the National Museum in Oslo. Especially in this last proposal, a very pronounced organic landscape of dy-namic forms arises, bringing the surrounding classical architec-tural world into a confrontation with itself. To be clear, we are not talking about a confrontation between the classical architectural world and the apparently rare organic forms, but we are talking about the way this new organic shape provokes the qualities of the existing historical architecture. What has been evoked with this proposal? The existing buildings represent a certain static world. Although the public character of this existing building is that of a museum, the rooms in which people are invited to move around and look at the masterpieces of art, in fact reduce those people to static observers. With this new proposal, motion is brought into the program. The open space is not .lled in with a traditional building that “provokes” a predictable discussion of “integration”, “style adjustment”, and so forth. What in fact happens is that the new shape reveals the qualities of the pre-existing built environment. This is a result of the architect not having created a building, but a spatial condition integrated as a landscape. MMW creates a world of transition where the existing buildings no long-er can be seen as mere objects in the town, but become parts of a new architectural exploration. MMW creates a new sort of inte-riority, not only inside the building, but, particularly outside the building. Public spaces reveal their “interior attitude”.
MMW creates a landscape, a piece of land-art, in which the ex-isting architectural environment becomes the scene of a new mo-tion. The town is no longer the blueprint of a geometric division of spaces where people are supposed to walk along. Instead the town becomes a platform for human exploration. MMW connects rather than excluding and hiding.
This connecting capacity is also present in the very tactile in-stallation The Connector presented in New York for an exhibition on international contemporary furniture. Here, MMW invites people to pass through this space, not as a mere link between two halls, but as a “passage of rite”, an invitation to explore another world. Again, it is motion that leads people. It is no longer a world of static elements, but of projection and expectation. No wonder that MMW looks for inspiration in Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. Expectation and projection as existential attitudes spring to life in this small object as architectural, touchable conditions.
The fourth dimension
What can we learn from this work by Magne Magler Wiggen and his team?
We have learned to understand architecture in terms of inter-play between morphology, typology and topology, but MMW is searching for a fourth dimension in architecture.
The dimension of motion. Motion, no longer seen in terms of a guiding movement along the streets and squares of a town. Nor seen as part of a ritual sequential development, where movement becomes the con.rmation of a building’s condition. Motion be-comes an essential supporting part of spatial growth, which is why MMW needs new materials and new shapes. But there is more. While in architectural terms the so-called “Stimmung” evokes qualities of space as a sort of con.rmation of how space “touches” the human soul, this work turns around the process where space touches an emotion.
Emotions are no longer provoked as the result of a built envi-ronment, but rather they become the exploring and challenging guiding force in itself around which space grows.
Emotions lead to expectations and thus they connect di.erent worlds. Therefore we also have to re-think the notion of durability, which in architecture often has been understood merely as a ma-terial “solidity” in terms of measurable units of days, months, years and centuries. In this work, durability becomes a dynamic con-cept, con.rming the creation of possibilities instead of con.rming a static fact. I am not sure where this static fact will lead us, but with the dynamism of expectation dialogue-guided atmospheres are certainly connected. MMW presents an invitation to man to move in this new world and to explore new “times”.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/INTRODUCTION – Kari J. Brandtzæg
The National Museum of art, architecture and design signals its presence on the Norwegian and international public art scene with the exhibition — Kiss the Frog! The Art of Transformation. As chief curator, I have had the pleasure of developing this very spe-cial event with the museum sta.. Together we have been ambi-tious: The exhibition has been developed around four di.erent stories or aspects of the general theme “the art of transforma-tion”.
One of the most important aspects of transformation in our time is closely linked to the national state in a period character-ized by increasing globalisation and cultural complexity. For Nor-way, this theme is particularly relevant in connection with the centenary jubilee for the dissolution of the union between Nor-way and Sweden. The meaning of place, borders and belonging is also re.ected upon and confronted in the arts.
The second aspect is connected to the transformation of the place where the exhibition will be held: Tullinløkka — the city’s ugliest and most centrally located parking lot — has been wait-ing to be transformed for some time. With this exhibition, the National Museum takes possession of the space, demonstrating for all that this is the beginning of a transformation that will con-tinue in the future.
The third transformation has been brought about by the Mu-seum itself: The new National Museum constitutes a strategic transformation of several formerly independent museum institu-tions. The exhibition is the .rst demonstration of how such an organisational change can have artistic consequences.
The .nal aspect concerns the transformation of art itself. The exhibition explores artistic endeavours in what is often described as the broader aesthetic .eld. It looks at the way in which bor-derlines between the visual arts, the decorative arts, design and architecture seem to become increasingly less important.
Combining these four themes of transformation into one ex-hibition has been a fruitful and exciting challenge: Together, they will cover a .oor space of 3000 m2.
Ten years ago, I completed a thesis on the status of art in Russia and the Nordic Countries at the beginning of the 20th Century. In the countries on the northern periphery of Europe, questions of national identity a.ected the development of art. This hap-pened in a period during which the .eld of art was undergoing change. The in.uence of the English Arts & Crafts movement was important for an earlier testing of the borders between art, archi-tecture and design. There is much that supports today’s crossing of boundaries within the aesthetic .eld viewing in light of this speci.c art historical period. Our understanding and interpre-tational perspectives regarding contemporary art should not be limited to the idea of an unequivocal break with the past. It is more interesting to open up the .eld, to study the continuity and variation of artistic positions in di.erent art historical contexts.
This has been a long and challenging working process: The .rst, tentative initiative in planning the exhibition took place in 2002. The directors of the four former museums — The National Gal-lery (Anniken Thue), The Museum of Contemporary Art (Per Bj. Boym), The Museum of Decorative Arts (Martin Biehl) and The Museum of Architecture (Ulf Grønvold) — discussed various ways of marking the forthcoming amalgamation of the institutions. The working title Norway in the World, the World in Us was launched as a general concept. Tullinløkka was suggested as an appropri-ate venue and the centenary of the dissolution of the union with Sweden was obviously a suitable time. Discussions with Norway 2005 were initiated, and they agreed to provide .nancial support for such an event.
In November 2002, I was given responsibility for a prelimi-nary project group. During that winter meetings were held with prominent representatives from the various museums. The Na-tional Gallery was represented by former Assistant Director Sidsel Helliesen, the Museum of Decorative Arts was represented by Chief Curator Randi Gaustad, Henie-Onstad Art Centre was represented by former Director Gavin Jantjes and the National Touring Exhibitions, Norway was represented by former Director Marith Hope. This group played a central role in the production of the .rst project description. One of the elements suggested was a temporary exhibition pavilion, designed by the architect Magne Magler Wiggen.
The project description was put before the new Board in May 2003, and the development of the project was adopted. During the autumn of 2003, Sune Nordgren took up the Directorship of the new National Museum, and over the course of the winter we had many exciting and thought-provoking conversations.
His enthusiasm for the project had several consequences: there would not only be one exhibition pavilion in Tullinløkka, but two! The architect Magne M. Wiggen took up the challenge, and drew another pavilion — a Kunsthall. The .rst .oor of the National Gal-lery would also be used! Suddenly, the size of the exhibition had increased from 1400 m2 to almost 3000 m.
Wiggen’s temporary pavilion stretched right into the National Gallery. The architectural drawings of the pavilion began to look more and more like a frog, and the title of the exhibition — Kiss the Frog! — was born. Can an exhibition really have such a title? The more we thought about it, the more appropriate it seemed: To kiss a frog is to be open to the unknown, to contribute some-thing and perhaps stimulate and encourage change. It is certainly an open and perilous project: One never knows whether one is kissing a real frog-prince. A transformation may never take place, or the transformation may be into something else — not something one was hoping for or expected. But then: nothing ventured, nothing gained. This might be the motto for a direc-tor, a curator or an artist participating in the exhibition. The ti-tle is also an open and humorous invitation to the public: Come and kiss the frog! The other part of the exhibition title — The Art of Transformation — has been the most important aspect of my work. I hope the public will discover the four transformation themes, and be able to use them as navigational aids in the vari-ous parts of the exhibition.
Many people have been extremely important for the develop-ment and realisation of the project. Some have already been men-tioned, and unfortunately it is not possible to thank everyone by name. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize the good collabo-ration we have had with the architect Magne Magler Wiggen and his team, right from the earliest days of the project.
Of course, I would particularly like to thank all the artists and designers who have o.ered their time and talent to make the ex-hibition possible: Ana Laura Aláez, Vanessa Baird, Tracey Emin, Michael Elmgreen & Ingar Dragset, Tone Hansen, Petter Hepsøe, Vidar Koksvik, Yayoi Kusama, Irene Nordli, Norway Says, Ole Jør-gen Ness, Jorge Pardo, Lars Ramberg, Pipilotti Rist, Julie Skarland, Børre Sæthre, Kara Walker, Magnus Wallin and Katrin Petursdot-tir Young. Special thank also go to Cornelia Providoli/Hauser & Wirth, Irene Bradbury/White Cube, Galleri Riis, Galleri Wang, Isao Takakura/Yayoi Kusama Studio, Brian Armbruster/Jorge Pardo Sculptures, Tim Neuger/Neugerriemschneider and Brent Sikkema Gallery.
My work as project curator has been multi-faceted, and I have had support from many quarters. An exhibition that explores a broad aesthetic .eld requires the help of individuals whose ex-pertise lies outside the traditional boundaries of the visual arts. Right from the start it was necessary to put into place an extensive programme of events with concerts, performance art and .lms. I would like to extend special thanks to the (multi)artist, Kjetil Skø-ien and Sven Åge Birkeland, artistic director of BIT Teatergaras-jen. They have each developed a performance programme with respectively Nordic and international artists. A big thank you to Marit Paasche, too. She has produced the .lm programme enti-tled Society of Mind.
One of the most important aspects of my work as project cura-tor has been the sense of belonging to and working with a profes-sional team at the National Museum. First and foremost I would like to thank Widar Halén who has been my closest collaborator in developing the part of the exhibition that deals with the deco-rative arts. Thanks are also due to Ulf Grønvold, Anita Kongssund and Eva Madshus who have put together an important part of the exhibition — Proposals, battles and transformation, which looks at the history and future of Tullinløkka. It will be shown in the Kunsthall.
During the development of the project I have had many fruitful discussions with colleagues from the National Museum. Øystein Ustvedt’s thoughts and comments have been particularly useful. I am also grateful for Gavin Jantje’s important ideas about the con-tent matter of the seminar programme. A special thank you to the technical team at the Museum and their leader Jon Geir Placht. Without their positive attitude and courage, this exhibition would have been very di.cult to carry out. A heart-felt thanks to Harald Solberg who took up the job of project coordinator during the winter, 2004. His contribution has certainly lightened the load during the .nal months of the project.
No exhibition can reach the public without information and mediation. Marianne Yvenes” competence and untiring e.orts have been particularly important for the catalogue production.
As editor of the catalogue, I believe it is important to invite international writers and theoreticians to re.ect upon and share their ideas and thoughts about the broader aesthetic .eld. The cat-alogue will be an important document for the future. It is aimed at both a Norwegian and an international public. Hal Foster has written a new essay for the catalogue entitled A Little Dictionary of Design Clichés. Alex Coles has examined the relationship be-tween art and design in the essay Art’s Romance with Design is no Crime. Marina Warner’s essay Out of the hell-broth onto the pillow: The frog’s metamorphosis is a re.ection upon frogs, fairytales and transformation seen from a cultural/historical perspective. Widar Halén has written knowledgeably about Gerhard Munthe is the essay The Fairytale world of Gerhard Munthe. In the last essay Raf de Saeger writes about Magne Magler Wiggen’s architecture and the temporary pavilions at Tullinløkka.
I would like to thank Erikka Fyrrand who has been project assistant — her work with both the exhibition and the catalogue has been indispensable. This has been a hectic year, and I cannot praise her enough for the e.ort she has put into her work. I would also like to thank Tore Slaatta at the Institute for Media and Com-munication, University of Oslo. As always, he has been my best interlocutor and support.
Whilst I write this introduction, public debate has .nally be-gun regarding the role of the National Museum and its exhibition practice. This should be regarded as implicitly positive for society — it is important to be able to dispute such things as the role of art, aesthetics and the role of the museum in public. Far too of-ten, society’s relationship with art is characterized by indi.erence and unfamiliarity. This exhibition is intentionally spectacular and seductive, but at the same time it invites dialogue and re.ection from a broad-ranging, complex public. It is my greatest wish that Kiss the Frog! The Art of Transformation will result in a migration to Tullinløkka.