Representing
Mexican Mysticism: Serpentine Gallery 2018
Rubén Octavio Sepúlveda Chapa / Dear Architects
In most occasions, when the opportunity of
representing Mexico is available through architecture in pavilions of
international exhibitions- exempting perhaps those realized in World Fairs by
Pedro Ramirez Vazquez (New York, 1965; Sevilla, 1992) and that developed by the
Architects García y Favela in Montreal (1967) - these allude to an evident Mexicanism.
Quite often these are filled with clichés that fall
into a mexican curious and evidence a
desperate quest for national identity, acceptance, recognition and sympathy by
other countries. The influence and thrust can be seen in the Mexican pavilion
by Antonio Peñafiel, at the Parisian exhibition of 1889; a pavilion presented
under the codes of Neoclassical architecture, but likewise exotic through an
homage to Aztec culture.
Parting from that famous exhibition, where France
developed the Eiffel tower, Mexico showcased a mystic Mexicanism that has been a common factor in our representation, and
that is accepted and expected from the international community. From that beginning,
and with those expectations, the Mexican allusion has been an element open to
interpretation when presented to the exterior. In seldom occasions, set
allusion has been treated discretely or reinterpreted; like in the case of the
pavilion designed by Agustin Hernandez in Osaka (1970) or, arguably, that of
Ricardo Legorreta in Hanover in the year 2000.
Unlike international
exhibitions, the annual pavilions of the Serpentine Gallery of Kensington
Gardens in London are not representations of countries, but in the case of the
2018 pavilion realized by the Mexican architect Frida Escobedo and her team, it
appears that they drifted towards a safe bet and politically correct interpretation
of Mexican mysticism that would be accepted. It wasn´t an easy task,
the annual edification of the pavilions of the Serpentine gallery has had, since
its start in the year 2000 (which started with one of recently deceased Zaha
Hadid) big names of global architecture who, generally, allude to designs
related to the conceptualization of their discourses and /or spectacular
representation.
These pavilions, which mark the inauguration of
cultural summer activities, are used by people as an encounter place (principally
by people related to design) to have a cup of coffee, admire, analyze and, of
course, take dozens of photographs. It is of great pride that curator
Hans-Ulrich Obrist has had within his agenda the consideration of architectural
and artistical contemporary Mexican talent, represented on this occasion by
Frida Escobedo´s Taller de Arquitectura.
A lot has been written about the pavilion and its
clear references to its Mexicaness.
At first glance, surprises a dark and porous container that, due to its
tonality, its regarded as minor and discrete; this allows the green hues of the
park to be perceived more intensely, and gives the opportunity for people to be
distinguished and stand out. The mystery begins from a distance, with the
filter that the walls create and its indirect accesses. The walls, which take
their form from stacked traditional English roof tiles, create a screen in an attempt
to bind the materiality of the place. The latticework walls form a central
patio that embraces and encloses visitors; a very introverted space, the
difference between being inside or outside is evident.
While being inside, other obligated elements of Mexican mysticism are discovered,
achieved in a very subtle way, without pretention, but quite stiff due to an
attempt of infusing them with meaning. The interior is atmospheric and with a
phenomenological character, hence the constant comparative with the introverted
pavilion conceived in the same site by Peter Zumthor in 2011; the light
filtered through the latticework, adjacent to the characteristic light mist of
London´s summer mornings, create that magic and meditative space. A play of
angles exists in the interior between the screen walls, parallel to the
Serpentine gallery and Greenwich´s meridian, the small body of water and the curved
ceiling covered with stainless iron. The two interior elements create a
reflection between both that blurs the light, broadens the space and reflects
the users above and below, making them feel part of the scenery. The space is
perceived as delicate, sensitive, but simultaneously protective. Unfortunately,
most of the times this sacredness is offended by the turmoil, noise, and people under the
mission of capturing photos with their cell phones without contemplating or
appreciating the site; which makes one wonder if such a poetic, mystic and
introverted concept was the right choice for the program and the amount of
people that dwell within it.
It was a safe and
well executed bet.
Given the enormous names behind previous proposals, it would have been quite
risky to impose a more ambitious discourse. Despite utilizing mysticism and
actual cliché elements from Mexicanity in the architecture, the outcome is
subtle, yet overloaded with content as a means to justify its adequacy to the
site. In this case, unlike other projects from Escobedo´s office, where the
constant motif is to impulse a potent idea, this is not developed to its
potential. It was overcharged with forced elements due to pressure, program and
expectations. Still, how they dealt with the image of the pavilion and the
creating persona were kept impeccably sober, elegant, and, especially, with
mystical character.
The interpretation she realized of Mexicanity in a
discrete manner and low profile, without attempting to compete, was well
developed. It was the strategy to follow. The reduced elements that were
employed perform the adequate labor and intention, making the strategy of how to
address the commission admirable.
It appears as if in Mexico the means for facing the
labor of designing a pavilion is the result of the inheritance and conditions
that we have encountered in Mexican architecture and its influences. Mexico
identifies and represents itself in mystery, magic and the metaphysical. But precisely
these notions convert into a cliché that imposes. We continue to be
pigeon-holed, or we do it ourselves, in an indigenous design to be accepted, in a
third-world categorization, simplistic and exotic.
Mexico must provide
more content but, what is it actually? How can an accepted architectural
representation be conceived without falling into clichés? Is the glorified and
limiting Mexican mysticism a notion that represents and distinguishes us on an
international scope? Are we condemned to accept that the
judgement, criticism and value of Mexican contemporary architecture reside on the
means by which we interpret this mysticism? So far it appears that set
discipline is justified and ruled parting from these principles,
principally in terms of spatiality and materiality.