Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Open Call Residensi di Portugal 2018



Bagi para Seniman di Indonesia atau seluruh dunia yang berminat untuk mendapatkan pengalaman kreatif di Lisabon, Portugal 
Disciplines: Concept & Theory, Digital, Experimental, Film & Video, Fine art, Installation, Media Arts, Performance, Photography, Research, Sculpture, Visual Arts.
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Duration: 1-3 months 
Eligibility: Contemporary Artist 
Support: All residencies are self-funded 
Costs: €750.00 - €1000.00
Program Description:
The Residency program at Hangar encourages dialogue, exchange and experimentation. 
The program is non-prescriptive and process-based, allowing visiting artists to develop projects in response to their new environment, or to conduct research benefiting from Lisbon´s resources.
The Residencies Program is firmly established in the Lisbon arts scene, promoting diverse cultures and practices through international and experimental projects.
Hangar develops several International Residency Programs that give non-resident artists in Portugal or Lisbon the opportunity to live and work in Lisbon for a period of one month to three months (longer periods can be arranged.) The program aims to facilitate the international exchange and the exchange of ideas through artistic practice in the areas of visual arts, performance, photography and video.
Through strategic partnerships in the international art world and institutions linked to cultural production and artistic research in various countries, mainly through the Triangle Network, Hangar program aims to strengthen the existing exchange between Portugal, Europe, Africa and South America.
Duration of Residency
Disciplines, work equipment and assistance

HANGAR invites artists who practice the visual arts, with special focus on those who work in filmmaking, photography and performance. The special equipment HANGAR provides includes: D.Y.A. tools, studio space, photo laboratory, library and access to the Internet.


Hangar offers 7 living and work studios for residency in a private format. There are 4 studios with private bathroom and kitchenette facilities and 3 private studios that have a co-working format with shared kitchen and WC facilities.

Studio/ Workspace

The accommodation and studio are located within the same space. Artists also have access to shared studio space, which is to be used in a co-working format.

Expectations towards the Artist

Artists are expected to partake in Artist Talks, Workshops and Open Studio events at Hangar. This is a valuable opportunity for artists to promote and raise awareness about their work, because it gives them the chance to create a dialogue of exchange between themselves and the diverse audiences that attend the events, thus working to raise their artist profile.
Application Information

Potential artists should apply to HANGAR by email, and selection is decided by a jury that determines the most promising candidates.

Please email us at residency@hangar.com.pt with ONE PDF document with the following information:
- A brief description of the work you intend to create during your residency
- Bio/ CV
- Artwork Portfolio
- The dates which you intend to stay at Hangar
Once we receive the application, we will get back to you with our decision.
Artists are subject to approval and to space availability. If accepted, we will assist residents with funding applications if needed.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Bagaimana kelanjutan studio ZHA Tanpa sang Diva Zaha Hadid ?

Talk: Patrik Schumacher on Fierce Debates, Facebook and the Future of Zaha Hadid Architects 
Patrik Schumacher interviewed by Paul Keskeys for Architizer, December 2016

Paul: That's great. I really appreciate that. That's a really [crosstalk 00:16:05] in-depth answer. You kind of answered the following question a little bit, I think. I was just interested in your thoughts and how you differentiate between being a kind of thought leader in the profession, like an independent thought leader but also representing your firm. Obviously they sent out an email afterwards trying to calm people down and do you think ...

Patrik: Well, this email also caused some kind of confusion. It was a mishap to some extent. The email was misunderstood in the press and engendered speculation about a potential rift in the firm, as if the firm wanted to distance itself from me. None of this was the case. There is full solidarity and loyalty here to my leadership. Most of our staff, like indeed the larger part of the WAF audience seem to agree with many of my positions, especially with respect to the super restrictive housing standards that are imposed on developers and architects. However, in conversations with me, staff from all ranks have been expressing that they disagree with my proposals concerning social housing and that that they worry about the image of the firm and that our work prospects in London and beyond might be compromised due to my highly unpopular ideas on social housing. I had a Q&A session here discussing my ideas and the press backlash. We discussed exactly what we are discussing in this interview, i.e. that I have to be mindful of my position and that it’s hard to separate a general thought leadership from being the figurehead of a prominent firm and that for me this is a new reality since Zaha’s passing. 
I have to and want to respect the concerns of my staff about my public discourse and will be more circumspect in the future, out of respect for the interest of the firm and the sentiments of other members of the firm.

Paul: Great, yeah.

Patrik: This does not meant that I’ll altogether give up on my political ideas and their urban development implications. I have been arguing politically in arenas outside of the architectural discipline, i.e. at the ‘Battle of Ideas’ event organized annually in London by the Institute of Ideas, at the European Graduate School, at the Liberland conference, or at the Adam Smith Institute. In the architectural academic discourse I have been less political but I also started here to lecture on a ‘Market-based Urban Order’. If I'm giving a seminar at the European Graduate School, or at the AA or at Harvard’s GSD, where you don't have media snapping up phrases and spinning them, I am arguing my positions and trying to show how these positions link back to that shared humanist compassionate underpinning which always must be the premise of entering such a debate in the first place. In the context of a seminar I am able to articulate that my ideas are not self-serving in any sense, nor elitist in any sense. People who know me know the way I live, communicate, the way I engage, and that I'm not an aloof, elitist person. Far from it.

Paul: Yeah, sure. I feel like the media will do that thing and probably the issue here as well [inaudible 00:19:45]. The context is never complete in any kind of edited article.

Patrik: Of course.

Paul: Actually, that kind of touches on one other question I had about this kind of idea or debating in architecture. You use Facebook more than any other [inaudible 00:20:07] I know I think in the public way which is pretty interesting. How did you begin to use that platform and what kind of benefits do you see from kind of speaking directly to people through Facebook and do you think other architects can utilize it more maybe?

Patrik: Facebook is not the general public in an undifferentiated sense. Although I have sometimes set my posts on public, mostly it’s aimed at my Facebook friends only, which means 4500 friends, many real friends and acquaintances among them, and generally mostly architects. My audience on Facebook is thus different from the audience of the Guardian where my WAF talk was reported and received a lot of very bad comments, or from the indiscriminate audience of the Evening Standard where I got a front page headline. We have to keep that in mind. My Facebook posts are sometimes also stirring controversy, although they are never tying to just generate agitation. They're serious propositions and reflections. Social media like Facebook and Twitter often bring on tough responses, but I have a thick skin, and I'm happy to see pass the invective and don’t mind coming back with answers and counter-comments, if there's at least a hint of an argument. I'll pick up the argument and oftentimes this puts me onto a nice learning curve. To get feedback and to work through some of the objections I encounter on Facebook is very useful for the development of my ideas. Also, if I come back to engage with comments that's usually respected and the initial hostility recedes somewhat in favor of a more constructive exchange.
Oftentimes my posts engender some vile and harsh ad hominem comments. However, as I said, if there's a shred of an argument in there somehow, I might come back constructively. I guess that comes as a surprise to those who spewed the invective. Usually, they shift into discourse mode, when they learn that I am accessible. I find that quite productive and fruitful, to argue across various ideological spectrums, in particular with intelligent and articulate contributors who are also on Facebook, whether it's architectural historians, theoreticians, other architects, or architectural students. I did initiate some quite interesting conversations and debates on Facebook. The extensiveness of commentary and counter-commentary I'm receiving has often been building up to over one hundred comments, much more than you may usually find for instance on Dezeen. That's been encouraging of course. My topics were mostly architectural but I also had some political posts and I touched on planning and gentrification before, but nothing quite as touchy as the privatization of social housing and of public spaces. I never had to feel badly beaten up on Facebook.
Comments in The Guardian were very, very strong and it’s a little bit depressing that this becomes such a vile scene. That's usually not what I'm getting on Facebook. I get the occasional harsh phrase, and as I said, usually I can turn these around. In this case, with the Evening Standard and the Guardian, I just couldn't see myself get into the mud flinging. I came back just with two long statements to clear the air a little bit and to put out my own thinking against what has been reported, but I couldn't get into the trenches. There was no way. I had to pull away from that.

Paul: Yeah, great. Yeah, just bringing it back to architecture [inaudible 00:25:16] politics. Bringing it back to architecture. I just wanted to ask you what's on the drawing board and your current projects and is there any kind of new projects that you're particularly excited about or anything that you're really looking forward to developing in 2017?

Patrik: Yeah, I mentioned the extension of the Berlin National Gallery. We didn't get it. It went to Herzog & DeMeuron by the way. But I am fond of our proposal and I might consider publishing it. We have so many competition wins, commissions and works built or under construction that we haven't actually published any lost competition entries for a long time. So there's a huge pile of projects which nobody has seen which at some point we should perhaps exhibit or publish, all the lost work, all the aborted work. There's a huge invisible part of the iceberg there.
I'm very much looking forward to start Munich concert hall as I mentioned earlier, and we're working on a big mixed use, multi-tower scheme in the center of Frankfurt. That's also a competition we are currently working on. We're always working on multiple competitions. Many buildings are under construction. It's still exciting for me to see how they evolve, like Macau’s City of Dreams, where I’ve recently joined the topping out ceremony, or Beijing Airport, one of the biggest airports in the world, and for us a new adventure.
Since we won Beijing Airport we have also entered a number of further airport competitions. We were in the short list for Mexico City Airport, as well as Chengdu Airport. Airports represent a totally new level of project for us as traditionally more artistically based firm. I'm excited about that. We're also doing a number of large corporate headquarters. This is another new category for us.
I'm very interested in corporate environments. I consider corporate environments to be one of the most interesting domains where the new complexity and dynamism of our civilization challenges architects most directly. I'm conducting a research project in this domain, trying to understand how complex interaction processes are channeled and facilitated by various spatial configurations with a new degree of complexity, inter-awareness and synergetic interdependence. My research project focusses on the agent-based simulation of the interaction- and occupancy processes in a corporate world. I am trying to generalize circulatory crowd modelling into a generalized life-process modelling. We've been pitching for Google a number of times because Google would be a signal client for me and my research agenda. We have won the competition for a very big new work space for Sberbank in Moscow, for mostly creative development and coding work that's going on in many banks. We also designing a major corporate headquarters for a multi-firm Chinese conglomerate. We're investing in new typologies like the mega atrium tower.
This is an exciting new venture for me, a three-dimensional interior urbanism, opening up towers from within. This type delivers a lot of inter-visibility, inter-awareness, and interaction potential within a truly metropolitan interior world.
There are a lot of interesting, fascinating challenges we hope to get involved in and we have our own internal research team which I'm expanding. I am investing more in research than we have ever done before, in a bid to remain cutting edge. We recently opened a show in our gallery which is called “meta-utopia” about exploring new fabrication possibility based on robotics with contributions from our research group as well as from invited outside contributors. We are investing a lot in developing algorithms and design intelligence related to the design integration of various engineering constraints but also in relation to new robotic fabrication technologies.
However, beyond this focus on new engineering and construction technologies I am most keen to enhance our grip on the social functionality of architecture, in particular with respect to complex corporate spaces, via the development of new computationally based methodologies. Overall we are very driven, eager to make our mark.
I would like to see the firm grow, to make a bigger impact, and not least to fuel the research department. I think to progress further we need to invest in research. Each time I had set another intelligent colleague free to focus on research, the result has been very rewarding. Within a few years many researches - for instance our investment into shells and tensile structures - started in the teaching arenas, migrated into small experimental structures, then into small buildings, and are now scaling up to large projects. We're full of energy and enthusiasm about developing the firm forward.

Paul: Wonderful. Yeah, so just to finish off thinking about the A+ award. Are there any particular qualities you look for when you're assessing work and what kind of projects will stand out for you in this year's awards submissions?

Patrik: Well, I expect we're looking for originality, innovation of course, but also excellence and the compelling application of the new ideas. Excellence and originality come together only rarely. Usually ideas have to move across several attempts at implementation by several authors before they reach maturity and excellence. So I think we have to allow for both striking originality and compelling excellency to count as award worthy.
Even at ZHA we must balance the pursuit of originality with the delivery of excellency. We are now very mature and can deliver global best practice. However, we always are also looking for moments of originality, for an innovative aspect in each project.
In each project, even in well-rehearsed project types, we are looking for an element or aspect through which the project can be pointing beyond itself and become a manifesto for things to come. In large projects that can only be a certain aspects, of the project. Small projects – especially in the context of the art world – can indeed become predominantly manifesto projects. That’s why we are still keen to pick up small cultural projects, even if it’s no longer possible for us to avoid running a financial loss on such smaller projects. But such projects can be great R&D vehicles. 

Paul: Yeah. Wonderful.

Patrik: I think awards are an important part of the discursive culture of architecture. Awards are important to pick out the best and brightest of the upcoming generation. Something original with future potential is more than ever the most noteworthy within our discourse and discipline. That's also reflected in the history of architecture. It’s always the original advances that are most remembered and recorded for posterity, but only if they are picked up again and again until they reach the moment of excellence or perfection. Only an avant-garde that ends up delivering a new mainstream will be remembered as an important avant-garde. Again, that’s why awards should honor both originality and excellence.

Paul: Yeah, wonderful. That was all my questions. Is there anything else you would like to add at all?

Patrik: No, I'm happy. I think I said what I wanted to say.

Paul: Thank you so much. I'll be in touch. Thanks, Patrik.

Patrik: Sure. Pleasure.

Learning from Las Vegas wawancara oleh Rem Koolhaas (2)

Wawancara dengan Denise Scott Brown dan Robert Venturi
Belajar Kembali dari Las Vegas (2)
Belajar dari lanskap yang sudah ada adalah cara untuk menjadi revolusioner bagi seorang arsitek. – Learning from Las Vegas, 1972
Wawancara oleh Rem Koolhaas dan Hans Ulrich Obrist

HUO: Hans Ulrich Obrist          RK: Rem Koolhaas

DSB: Denise Scott Brown RV: Robert Venturi

RK: Jika saya ingin menggambar karikatur posisi Anda, saya bisa mengatakan bahwa papan-papan penanda lebih penting daripada substansi fisik bangunan--

RV: Tentu saja, papan-papan penanda lebih relevan/signifikan daripada bangunan.

RK: Bisakah kita katakan: tanda lebih penting daripada massa? Sejak terbitnya Learning from Las Vegas, kota ini menjadi lebih substansial, lebih masif: sekarang lebih terbangun daripada sebelumnya. Apakah menurut Anda pelajaran tentang “papan penanda mengungguli bangunan” masih berlaku?

RV: Ya: papan penanda lebih penting daripada massa. Atau, dengan kata lain, sebagaimana seseorang menulis tentang pendekatan kami baru-baru ini: bangunan, papan penanda, seni—semuanya adalah satu kesatuan. Dan itulah sebabnya kami berpikir bahwa Las Vegas saat ini ironisnya kurang relevan dibandingkan dengan Las Vegas dulu. Las Vegas berangsur-angsur berubah dari sebuah jalur komersial menjadi Disneyland. Dalam “Las Vegas after Its Classic Age,” kami menggambarkan evolusi-evolusi berikut: dari strip menjadi boulevard, persebaran kota menjadi kepadatan kota, lahan parkir menjadi halaman depan yang dihiasi, permukaan aspal polos menjadi taman romantis, gudang yang dihiasi menjadi “bebek,” listrik menjadi elektronik, lampu neon menjadi lampu piksel, elektrografis menjadi skenografis, ikonografi menjadi skenografi, Vaughan Cannon menjadi Walt Disney, budaya populer menjadi gentrifikasi, rasa yang populer menjadi rasa yang enak, perasaan menjadi seorang pengemudi menjadi perasaan sebagai seorang pejalan kaki, strip menjadi mall, mall menjadi pinggiran kota, vulgar menjadi dramatis. Untuk menyederhanakan, yang utama adalah Las Vegas telah beralih dari pola dasar strip dan perseberam menuju ke skenografi Disneyland. Skenarionya tidak selalu buruk—Place des Vosges bersifat skenografis, dan arsitektur, dalam artian, memang melibatkan penataan ruang agar tampak menarik. Bahayanya adalah Las Vegas telah menjadi bioskop yang eksotis dan bukan lagi sebuah tempat dalam artian yang sebenarnya.

RK: Tapi semua karakterisasi dalam daftar di atas relatif dinamis; mengapa Anda mengakhiri daftar tersebut dengan konsep “dramatis” yang terkesan negatif?

RV: Hal tersebut tidak selalu negatif dan, seperti yang saya katakan, banyak arsitektur bagus memiliki elemen skenografi. Tantangannya adalah bagaimana supaya dapat melakukannya dengan baik—autentik—saat ini.

RK: Tapi bagaimana mungkin seseorang yang mengaku populis dapat menyatakan bahwa fenomena populis yang paling sempurna tidak autentik?

DSB: Kita tidak bisa sesederhana itu mengatakan bahwa kita populis; Kami sangat beragam, kami elitis sekaligus populis.

RK: apa Anda sedang menulis sekarang?

RV: Saya selalu menulis. Sebagian besar tulisan saya adalah esai: sejak buku saya terbit, saya telah menulis kira-kira lima belas esai. Banyak sekali manifesto dan hal-hal seperti itu...

RK: Jadi apakah Anda tengah berada pada periode penuh gairah?

RV: Oh, saya tidak akan mengatakan seperti itu! Kami selalu bekerja, sebenarnya kami bekerja tujuh hari dalam seminggu, kecuali pada minggu Natal saat kami bekerja enam setengah hari.

RK: Ada ironi yang menarik dalam kenyataan bahwa Anda menganjurkan penerapan komersialisme Amerika dan energi sementara, saat ini, Amerika adalah negara yang paling buruk dalam penerapannya, karena ada kekhawatiran akan konteks, akan kesopanan, dan akan nostalgia...

RV: Ya, orang Amerika sangat malu karena bersikap komersial!

RK: Sejauh ini, Anda telah mendiskusikan karier Anda dari sudut pandang kontinuitas dan dari sudut pandang perkembangan tema-tema yang ada sejak awal. Apakah ada juga unsur diskontinuitas, perubahan radikal?

RV: Karier saya selalu evolusioner, sebagian besar demikian.

DSB: Kami cukup merasa beruntung jika bisa memiliki sedikit gagasan bagus—bahkan kalaupun hanya satu—di sepanjang karier kami. Kemudian jika kami bisa membangun tema sentral kami, mendiversifikasinya, dan memperkuatnya, melalui pengalaman profesional kami. Namun kira-kira setiap sepuluh tahun sekali telah terjadi perubahan dalam pekerjaan kami karena adanya berbagai proyek yang kami terlibat di dalamnya. Kami menghentikan praktik perencanaan kota pada tahun 1980an karena saya tidak bisa membiarkan perusahaan saya kehilangan uang lagi sebanyak yang hilang pada proyek-proyek perencanaan selama era Nixon dan Reagan. Namun seiring dengan keputusan kami untuk meninggalkan urbanisme, proyek perencanaan kampus membuat kami tidak sadar bahwa kami sedang bekerja sebagai urbanis saat kita menggarap proyek kampus-kampus di beberapa kota kecil. Sejak tahun 1980, kami telah membangun serangkaian bangunan-bangunan dan kompleks-kompleks akademis yang meliputi ruang-ruang kelas hingga tempat tinggal, laboratorium, perpustakaan, dan gedung pusat kampus. Pekerjaan akademis kami mengarahkan kami kepada praktik kelembagaan dan kemasyarakatan perkotaan, terutama museum, dan kepada proyek-proyek pemerintah Jepang dan Prancis. Dan pekerjaan laboratorium kami di tahun 1980an membuat kami beralih ke desain bangunan medis pada tahun 1990an. Jadi ada perubahan dalam subyek-subyek kami, tapi kontinuitas dalam filsafat kami. Proyek-proyek kami membuat kami terus-menerus belajar.

RK: Dan tidak adakah gagasan-gagasan masa lalu yang sekarang Anda tolak?

RV: Tidak, saya kira tidak. Ada dua perubahan filosofis utama. Salah satunya mengenai Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture: Ketika guru saya yang mengagumkan di Princeton, Donald Drew Egbert, membacanya, dia mengatakan bahwa buku itu seharusnya berjudul Complexity and Contradiction in Architectural Form (Kompleksitas dan Kontradiksi dalam Bentuk Arsitektur), karena inti buku tersebut adalah tentang bentuk. Kemudian, Las Vegas pada dasarnya adalah tentang simbolisme, jadi ada pergerakan ini, yaitu dari bentuk ke simbolisme—kita lebih membahas tentang simbolisme sekarang. Hidup papan penanda!