Channebeta - Forum - Ricchi Premi e Cotillon

A number of prizes, or better a number of medals have been recently awarded. And - as it has been the case for some months now - bitter controversy has aroused.

The Milan Triennial has again put on stake the Gold Medal for Italian Architecture, after 21 years of absence and 80 years after its first edition. Forty-nine jury members and advisers have been appointed to award 5 Gold Medals and 7 Honour Mentions (which have turned to 24), as well as a shared medal and 20 finalists, for a total of 50 prize-winners out of 425 contestants. By having a look at the winners' and mentioned names in each category, one is immediately aware of the evidently cautious attitude of the jury. As Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi maintains on PresS/T Letter no. 33, "…[…] It could have been worse, considering the return-to-rigour atmosphere. Of course, every choice is debatable in itself. It goes however without saying that the jury's choices were all in all prudent, cautiously moderate, institutional and, after all, not very bold […]." For sure it could have been worse - for example if the first-project medal hade been awarded to Mario Botta's Mart, or if the medal for the private client project had been given to Richard Meier and his Rome church "Dives in Misericordia". I am a little astonished by the fact that two foreigners participated in the gold medal contest - even if this was provided for by the rules - since I do not think that geographical position means something in terms of national identity, above all in a globalized world. We may have to draw some inspiration from the English colonialist mentality: at the last Venice Biennial, they presented a project realized in Japan to promote their architecture. Certainly, it is not easy to make decisions, as Molinari says answering Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi on PresS/T Letter no. 34: "Thanks for the highlight given to the medal and also for your comment, with which I partly agree; as usual, juries work like a jackpot, but this is a complex jury's work rather than a curatorial exhibition, […] so that I think the choice to be far from cautious and obvious…[…]".

It is worth little agreeing, if the results go into the opposite direction. By referring to a jackpot, Molinari probably wanted to say that personal opinions of the individuals rarely result in a widely shared evaluation, so that the most cautious proposals almost always win because of compromise. After all, the spirit underlying these initiatives should be the will to promote and emphasize those who still have not had the awards they deserve, rather than taking refuge behind the well-established fame of a few who gave their contribution at least 30 years ago… This is what Ugo Rosa affirms in an ironic and sarcastic article published on Antithesi, being critical about the Gold Medal for the critic awarded to Nicolin. Antonino Saggio also expressed his opinion on Professor Nicolin "… in this context, you will excuse me if I do not say much, but you know as well as I do how much time and patience is needed in this case. Nicolin did the damage (or the benefits, depending on the viewpoints) in the 1970s. At that time, who should have awarded him a prize would really have shook." One thing is sure: the Gold Medal had not been awarded for 22 years… one has to wait and to queue for it. Maybe one should watch out for not being included among the advisers and among the finalists, as it happened to Marco Brizzi. My whole personal appraisal goes to him: the critic is not towards him, but rather towards the jury who acted with levity and in doubtful taste. Mara Dolce does not miss this opportunity, attacking Brizzi on Antithesi by denouncing this fact and adding: "Is it a critic he who gives room in order to let others speak about architecture? Is it a critic he who just gives general opinions (on digital architecture in this case), with the good sense of a bar patron?" Mara certainly does not remember - but Antonino Saggio does - that "It is well-known that Marco has held a very important event on Architectural video for a number of years in Florence, alongside with many other exhibitions and a display gallery. With regard to this activity, which strangely enough has not been mentioned, Marco could "also" be defined, among other things, a critic in the most common sense of art curator." Obviously, it is unquestionable that counting an adviser into the finalists is not a great move. However, this and other choices of doubtful taste make up the frame for an unfortunate picture. For example, the Milan and Rome Municipalities who tied, with a shared medal for the new Mendini underground station on the one hand and the bad-looking Auditorium by Renzo Piano on the other hand. The competition rules provide explicitly that the jury's judgement is final and that two projects cannot tie winning a shared medal… on the contrary, this seems to have happened… If we want to be consistent, then, since the jury has assigned a shared medal, the jury itself cannot claim that its judgement is final. What if the medal had not been shared but instead awarded to Metrogramma for their urban densification hypothesis in Bolzano? If the first project medal had been assigned to Cliostraat for their multimedia library and "La civetta" home of cultures in Quarrata rather than to Marco Navarra, whose linear park between Caltragirone and Piazza Armerina (among the finalists in Mies van der Rohe Prize 2003) is probably not even their first project? It is true that there have also been positive presences among the finalists and the honour mentions, like Andrea Viviani's Cinecity movie house near Udine, finalist for the Gold Medal for private projects, and studio BFJ's office tower in Collegno (Turin) which received the Honour Mention in the production area projects section. However, we cannot forget many excluded projects like those by 5+1, Nemesi, DAP studio, Studio Eu and - last but not least - Giovanni Vaccarini who has not been named by anybody and who, despite this, is coming up with projects of a very high architectural quality, though far from the spotlight.

Therefore, the Triennial Gold Medals for Architecture have been another missed opportunity. It is a luck that a competition's result has no objective value in itself, being the evaluation of a jury that has not (in this case) fulfilled its task properly, despite including many illustrious names whom I hold in high esteem for the most part.

Awarding 17 honour mentions more than provided for and a shared medal in breach of the rules, beyond mentioning around 20 finalists, is not "the result of a complex jury's work" As usual, the number of prize-winners has been increased in order to make everyone happy and to avoid the embarrassment of excluding some studios. And I also do not think that the choice of giving Nicolin a gold Medal is "far from cautious and obvious" - on the other hand, counting an adviser into the finalists can be a careless choice

Gianluigi D'Angelo

translated by Michela Lucchini