«An experience-machine: ICC Berlin»
Stella Roos (Monocle) and Thomas Oberender in conversation about the artproject «The Sun Machine Is Coming Down»
Stella Roos: Was this always a space that you had in the back of your mind that you wanted to stage an exhibition in?
Thomas Oberender: Absolutely not. It’s too big, it’s too long out of business as a building, and there is a very complicated debate about the situation politically. Last time I heard about the building was when the refugees were living here in 2015. But there is a whole generation who never entered the building. Also, they don’t appreciate the architecture from the outside, this crazy old aluminium container, but most people like it once they’re inside. I like it also from the outside.
SR: Was it very difficult to get approval for this exhibition?
TO: Honestly not. I think the times are changing. I think the hard time for the building was 1989, the opening of the wall, which made it less attractive overnight. All the focus was suddenly on the east in the old historical centre. The situation was more international than before so the idea that this building was the incubator for the best of the Berlin economy that brings audience and happenings to the city and helps stimulate the event economy, it was not necessary anymore. This old concept of huge megastructures was outdated. There was also a problem with what you are representing in a building like that: what kind of event has the power to fill a 1000-seat hall, what kind of power needs places like that. So, we have conventions from the church, conventions from parties, but it’s never in a human scale, it’s always a big political event. Of course, there’s this old-fashioned way of making parties for thousands of people but this is also not what we do anymore, not because of corona but times change. And so, the building fell in a deep sleep, or maybe the audience fell in a sleep, and it was not a focus of attention. In the last years neoliberalism, gentrification, and all of these phenomena meant that living in Berlin became more expensive, space became rarer, people started to miss the luxury of open and public places that they had had before. One of the biggest was this building, so my intention was to open it for the city again. The former west is also now becoming more interesting for the whole city. People are more curious about what remains of the older west because the older east was so much destroyed.
SR: I know that you’ve been very involved in preserving the memory of these buildings, in the case of the Palast der Republik and many others. Why, according to you is it so important to preserve these old buildings?
TO: A building is never just concrete, or whatever material. A building is a concept of life; a building is a structure that organizes understanding and relationships between people; a building is a concept of power. The most helpful texts and objects are those that contain something that is really different, that is not contemporary, that is a contradiction to the way we live and see the world. I’m absolutely not nostalgic as a person, I felt the West German taking over the East is a shame, it was not good, it divided us instead of unifying us. Sometimes you can use the building as an instrument to think about the way we live and how we design our relations. Palace for the People was the result of a crime. Destroying the former castle of the Prussian kingdom was a crime, it was not necessary and was a political gesture of the Communist system, but to destroy their palace was also a crime and a political gesture. It was a metaphor for a bigger crime, and bigger destruction, so it was interesting to cover the building and make a fake palace in the west, starting a machine that creates narrations that are the opposite to the majority narrative. This building [ICC] is the answer to the Palace for the People, the architects visited it and also the Culture Palace in Moscow, studied it when they created and designed this building, so there is a direct connection also on a technical level. The moveable tribune has been engineered by the same people who made it in the east. It’s funny in the east they used asbestos and here it was too expensive, so they used Cofalite. This is the material that Cyprien Gaillard took out of the building and made it in a special factory into wonderful obsidian-like stones that you can see downstairs as artworks. He took all the toxic thing and made a product of nature again that is not dangerous anymore. That’s what we tried with this system because the building itself was a machine for events, congresses, and it was built for simultaneous symposiums, fairs, and so on, everything at the same time in various places. This is a wonderful structure we could copy and use as infrastructure in our attempt to create a different kind of machine that is an experience machine, that offers to people at the same time various art forms and negotiations of the same problem: the relations between technology and body, nature.
SR: This building is in many ways the complete opposite of the kind of white cubes that are generally built today as exhibition spaces, and congress centres today are also anonymous and as bland as possible. Why is it more interesting to work in this kind of space which dominates so strongly?
TO: It’s a question if it really dominates. If it would be the fifth year after the reopening nobody would say the place dominates. It’s now very strong because it’s the wonder that it’s working again. For me it’s not dominating. Tell me the question again please.
SR: In contrast to, I know that you don’t do that a lot, but working in these contemporary exhibition spaces that are more like white cubes…
TO: Well, as artistic director, I am also responsible for the programme of the Gropius Bau and also work there from time to time…
SR: Yes, but I know you have a special interest in going into these special buildings. So why are you drawn to going into these kinds of spaces, and especially this one, from a curatorial perspective?
TO: There are two very interesting aspects. This is a corpse, this is a dead body of architecture, it is out of function. In this moment it lost all its obligations. There’s no obligation to make money, no obligation to make public, no obligation to make representation of power or whatever. This makes it beautiful. Suddenly it’s in a way what it is without serving. This emptiness of the building, being out of service, is the greatest gift we see being here because we don’t have to fulfil any function. The second thing is that my personal work of the last years is very close to a philosophical concept that I’ve titled Immersion. Immersion means it’s the next level of relation to the world, in a world where everything is based on relations, not anymore on objects or material. Immersion means you give up the border, you don’t construct situations which present objects in such an opposite way. You construct spaces in which relations are fluid, and this is the biggest structure I could find to design such a fluid way of being together, with the art, with the building, with the ideas, the food, and others.
SR: Just a few years ago there were plans of demolishing this building and now that’s out of the question. I think a lot of the newfound appreciation for these older buildings has come through artistic activation of them. I assume you’re very happy about this development. What do you hope will happen here?
TO: I hope it will remain as an open space, but I am realistic enough that it’s so expensive to do that we have to find ways to ensure that it will survive. What does it mean, an open space? It means it shouldn’t be run under the law of a company, but also it should not be the slave of the state, and you have to find a way in between. This means you have to find a new way of reanimating the venue and the building architecture, not in the old style of bringing one billion euros on the table to make everything fresh. If you do that, you kill the patient. But everyone thinks in this way, nobody is open to smart, step-by-step solutions where different actors work together. It could be the state, it could be private, it could be the community. I think the main task at the moment is to develop a scenario, a kind of dream of what this building should be, my suggestion is this is the experience machine of the digital age in an analogue way. Then if you have this mission, that helped me quite a lot to find friends and partners in the reopening process. They all loved it immediately, it was no problem, everybody helped, there was no resistance, it was easy. Expensive, but easy! If you have this mission, you will find the keys, I’m sure, to make things different, not in the old style of the bourgeois west.
SR: In 1979 when this opened it had quite a crucial effect in making West Berlin a centre for international business. Reactivating this space provides an interesting thought experiment, if there is a way to send out another kind of message, not of commerce, but of culture. Do you think that’s possible and what kind of message do you hope that would be?
TO: Culture is a very wild field. It could be that we host here the Berlin film festival or the Berlinale, it could be an art school, it could be a library, it could be a lot. We need to find a mixture. It’s not the time anymore to say this is only for congress, or only for blah blah. It should be a place where every night you can expect a surprise.
16 October 2021
Stella Roos @ monocle