The phenomenal impact made by Frank O. Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao marked a change in the field architecture. Now over ten years later, this change towards an architecture that has to produce itself over and over again as spectacle is becoming more and more desperate. With every new attempt, fuelled by global market economy and the loss of political initiatives, the lack of ethics, conceptual drive and future is obvious. Is there really so much difference between the overwhelming (though extraordinary fabulous) kitsch in films like the Lord of the Rings compared to the Science Centre Wolfsburg, TATE Modern and Milwaukee Art Museum?

Paradoxically, this search for more and more elaborated forms of architectural expression instead produces a homogeneous architecture of spectacle. This obsession with external attributes and style goes hand in hand with the medialisation and packaging of spatial experience. It focuses on what architecture looks like and very little what architecture does, narrowing the field of architecture rather than expanding it in a time were the competition for space and modes of spatial production are fiercer than ever.

Instead architecture needs to expand as a field and architects should rethink their practise so that they work on producing something that makes production of content more complex and critical, rather than the other way around. Instead of thinking that changing something means doing the opposite, like simply reversing the image in the mirror and continuing doing the same, it is all about changing the way things change. The practise of architecture, as more or less all fields of cultural production do, follows very strict methodologies and modes of production. Basically some architects decide to work together; they rent an office space, paint it white and wait for the phone to ring. This is of course totally OK and for many it works out very good, but for the development of architecture it's maybe not the most fruitful and inspiring situation. Because it means that architecture has to be continuously reproduced as the same in relation to strategies, materials and traditional concepts of originality.

When architecture becomes preoccupied with itself as spectacle the performative side of architecture is being pushed to the background. With performative I mean the way we inhabit space, how specific spaces make us perform. For example the theatre, what we experience when we are going to the theatre is a totally controlled situation. We as an audience perform ourselves through protocols of convention, the artists on stage are professionals inhibiting a specific situation which they have rehearsed for months, and technology is everywhere to ensure that the experience becomes homogeneous. This is a point where strategies for architecture, which fundamentally deals with concepts of control, and theatre as operation, meet. This set-up has served architecture and theatre alike throughout history, producing specific situations of control that can be adapted to serve different political, economical and cultural goals. The other side to this is of course that it cancels out multiple ways of being together.

So what if we instead think architecture through performance? Where the understanding of architecture would be of something permanent and mono enabling and performance would be something passing, temporary and differently enabling. The way architecture is represented, in the profession and as it is communicated to a wider audience, follows two main principles. Before the actual building of a project there is architectural drawings and different kinds of images explaining what it will look like. These images are full of people, showing architecture as a container for activity. After the building is finished the images we see in magazine, daily press and even television lack any presence of life. What are the logics behind this? Is it only aesthetical conventions or could it be that architecture is against activity, since activity implies multiplicity and is difficult to control. When you come across old photos from cities, you discover that people up until the 60's subscribed to very strict conventions when it came to clothing. This was a perfect situation for architecture, and especially modernist strategies of universalism. Producing architecture as integrated and aligned with its surroundings. Today when you look at photos of tourists in front of famous architectural projects, people seem to be out of tune, in endless shorts, baggy t-shirts and Birkenstocks. If architects want to change architecture they also have to come to terms with how representation of architecture influences the production of architecture. So what could architects be influenced by, and architecture look like, if it was informed by performative concepts, everyday activities and mainstream tourist fashion?

The Bubble Gum Alley can serve as example for an alternative production of architecture. The alley is located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco in the town of San Luis Obispo. In the early 1960's a few wads of gum appeared stuck on a wall in the alley, then more and more. By the 1970's the shop owners complained and demanded the gum to be cleaned off but it was too late, because the gum just kept appearing. Today over forty years later this back alley has become a tourist attraction; it has been reproduced in other cities and has large followers on flickr, blogs and web pages. Another example could be the activities that occur with the release of the latest Harry Potter book. Outside of book stores all over the world devoted fans gather to wait for the books to arrive. They often wait in the streets, sometimes for days, camping on the sidewalks. This can of course be seen as a marketing strategy but it could not happen without the community of Harry Potter fans that temporarily inhabits and changes urban space. Much in the same way as political protesters are using strategies of squatting houses up for demolition, or protecting trees from being chopped down. If we use traditional definitions of architecture as the science of designing buildings and structures, from the macro-level of town planning to the micro-level of creating furniture, then a temporary event organized by laymen could not pass as architecture. We could all agree that fireworks are normally perceived as an event, but if an architect produced a firework that went on constantly for a year this would be understood as architecture. So what is the territory that would be neither architecture nor event?

Today many upcoming architectural offices have started to develop alternative ways of working, where the interest is rather on the structures behind architectural practise than coming up with new design solutions. The work by offices like Platforma 9.81 (CR), Raumlabor (D) and Testbedstudio (SE) all point towards a different approach and understanding of architectural discourse. In Zagreb Platforma 9.81 have been working on a project called Invisible Zagreb. Out of a need to facilitate space for the independent art scene they mapped possible sites for cultural events in abandoned factories, offices and unused strips of green throughout the city of Zagreb. Working as something between real estate agent, negotiator and producer they helped connect artists from different fields to figure out the permissions and logistics whilst providing material and design solutions. Generating projects where architecture produces itself as pro-active, highlighting architecture as event and container rather than manifestation.

Raumlabor often work with temporary structures, emphasizing research and strategies for collaboration and interdisciplinary modes of production. The 'Kuchenmonument' is a moveable structure made up of one zinc plate structure containing two large inflatable halls. In Duisberg the halls were used to host a large dinner party and in Mulheim they were used for ballroom dancing. In Stockholm, Testbedstudio has developed a strong reputation with several projects for urban renewal, exhibitions, lecturing and organizing conferences on shrinking cities. Their project Malmparken Allstars, with students from the Royal institute of Technology, introduced alternative tools to research urban situations. The students engaged people in the neighbourhood to take part in soccer games, temporary playgrounds, movie projects etc. The involvement of the local community produced understanding of architectural conditions on the bases of activating relationships rather than simply observing through conventions of architectural practise.

These examples all point towards the potential of architecture becoming pro-active, through the interaction it promotes, relations instead of representations, and by emphasizing the actualisation of architecture it pushes performativity to the foreground, becoming multi enabling and connecting architectural strategies to the everyday. Architecture produced as the Olympics but in reverse. Lonely gold medallists stepping down form their tribunes, multiplying through finals, semi-finals and qualification rounds. In the end all participants are gathered, marching around the stadium, and full of confidence and enthusiasm they walk out into the world. Together, or as we say in Sweden; Allihopa.

Tor Lindstrand
International Festival