Curator and educator Lesley Lokko’s comments in the opening keynote of this year’s Venice Architecture Biennale—poised as they were charged in the face of the opening of probably the most significant architectural conclave in the world—were not only indicative of a larger systemic flaw in its somewhat rather closed ecosystems and conception, but also extremely timely, placing a square spotlight on the very event they were supposed to flag. Her criticism arose from the inability of a number of these events and conclaves to address their own (perhaps indirect) ecological footprint, and a number of African nations’ people being denied visas to the Schengen area to be in attendance at the Biennale—both speaking to bureaucratic structuralisms that the Biennale’s curatorial direction seemed to address. The Metaverse on the other hand, as abstract or as specific in definition as it may be for anybody who has engaged with the space, was conceived as precisely a means to overcome constraints in the broadest sense, both systemic and creative. While governed by a selection of emulatory laws from the ‘real’ world, the digital, virtual proponent of it in the Metaverse was governed by its own laws, unencumbered, but also very much designed as a way to bridge these encumbrances. While there is the essential question of access, and whether it is truly democratic and of universal accord, still associated with the Metaverse, it can still be said to be fundamentally more democratic than forums like the Venice Biennale that do depend upon the geography of the region they are held in. The first edition of the Metaverse Architecture Biennale, held in October this year, does hold this ethos at its core.

Source link
#STIR #conversation #Patrik #Schumacher