VENICE BIENNALE 2023

My take:
The Australian Pavilion presented exhibits extolling an understanding of Country and what was
over-ridden at European settlement.

I visited the Venice Biennale in 2023, spending much of Wednesday 31 May and Thursday 1
June at Giardini, and Friday 2 June at the Arsenale.
I record the following observations from the exhibit at the Australian pavilion.
The exhibit is focussed on the understanding of country, particularly but not exclusively by
indigenous communities. It consisted of a video projected on a large rear screen depicting
country and a floating frame of copper pipe representing colonial building which was suspended
in front of the video presentation. The material also included several audio presentations and
otherwise a lot of written material and some drawings on the walls.
I generally found the exhibition inhibiting and not immediately digestible or legible.
Helpfully, short notes that reported on individual studies among this written material were
available to take away.
I present my interpretation of certain parts of the exhibition I found more tangible and useful as
case studies below. I also include the written material provided.

Preamble:
A number of ‘Tactics’ are presented which focus on the formative phase of a building when it is
designed and constructed; when it can be understood as the process by which relations between
people, matter and resources are transmuted into built, materialised space. The ‘Tactics’ may
concern: process, heritage, adaptation and memory. Those identified and aimed to invigorate an
indigenous sense of country into the design of places include:
- Un-learning;
- Building trust;
- Co-design;
- “Re-casting typically linear outcome-focused approaches (in favour of) eternally
contingent and incomplete, a series of crests and troughs in a voyage of creative
circumnavigation”.

1 of 5
Impression: If un-learning means putting a current understanding aside to appreciate another, I
agree this and steps 2 and 3 hold value.
As for the fourth, I do not agree. It sounds romantic and well-meaning while offering
inconclusiveness, which I have found results in not much good. Flexibility is one thing,
vagueness another.

1. Alexandria Park Community School:

Linguistic Truth – Place naming and Language.
The school is on Gadigal Land and is learning precinct for 2,000 children between the ages of 4
and 18 years. As a community-based project, it has different meanings to different people.
Tactics to remove and/or reduce the sense of European development include:
a) The site boundary was blurred so that the outdoor play areas merge with the adjacent
public park. The claim is this “decolonises” the approach to enclosure.
b) The use of dual language for naming places and way-finding. The claim is this embeds a
positive approach to social inclusion and decolonises the institutional nature of school.
The note reports that this also created a narrative for the school deeply rooted in the place
and resulted in real community engagement in the process.
Impression: I think the use of dual language was likely most effective. Not only for
inclusiveness, but also for the designer to appreciate a deeper sense of place that can only benefit
the realisation of the design. This is a direct result of a richer understanding of country.
The blurring of the boundary may lead to an understanding of ‘decolonisation’ for some. It more
likely provides a sense of spatial connection and community relationship for many. This is
worthwhile whether or not it relates to an indigenous view of country.

2. Darebin Intercultural Centre:

Non-negotiables.
Site: A colonial era (1893) building was the site and its privatised, cellular interior was “at odds
with the intercultural centre’s ambitions for light, accessibility, inclusivity and diversity”.
Brief: (with assumptions made by MB) In addition to a traditional brief between client and
architect, consultation with external groups such as traditional owners, stakeholders and end
users was undertaken. This process revealed rich and important opportunities. The concept of
‘non-negotiables’ was identified as a way of safeguarding these opportunities throughout
lifecycle of the project. These non-negotiables sat in parallel with a client’s original brief and
offered a new layering.

2 of 5
One such non-negotiable was making a space for ceremony.
This was achieved by remodelling the inherently inflexible interior by demolition and structural
modification.
The outcome was spatial flexibility that accommodates ‘collective narrative circles’.
Impression: I agree that the collaborative process with end users and stakeholders informs an
architectural brief of opportunities and priorities. The process above, including the identification
of ‘non-negotiables’, does no more.

3. TAS
A questioning of Settlement.
The ‘Tactic’ discussed is the enquiry into the myth of European settlement from which new
narratives emerge.
These new narratives emerge by reference to the aboriginal country that was appropriated,
exploited and re-imagined (MB: mis-understood?) as Arcadian and Picturesque places – a ‘little
England’. The introduced land use and buildings that are now prominent across the country,
remain as testimony to a lack of critical understanding of the intrusion their introduction
represents. The concepts of heritage are challenged by the notion of truth.
The ’Tactic’ proposed, which is to re-contexturalise the making of colonial architecture inclusive
of the invasion.
The reported outcome is that these places “are now the places where such truth can be spoken.”
Impression: No manner of manifestation of this ‘Tactic’ is offered and no examples provided.
It would be more useful and ‘concrete’ to:
a) Identify how land is valued by the indigenous communities;
b) Map the claimed settlement intrusions over the country held valuable by indigenous
communities; and
c) Propose re-development: restoration, interpretative memorial, demolition and
repatriation.
Without such proposals, the ‘Tactic’ has little traction.

3 of 5
 4. Community Facility, Redfern Post Office re-use
Subverting the colonial gaze.
The former Post Office building on a prominent corner in Redfern was chosen by the local
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives as the site for a new community
centre.
The prominence of the building and its colonial history was seen as an asset. Rather than being
discordant it was symbolic:
a) It lends its prominence to the new use by indigenous communities;
b) The introduced building components, including the strongly patterned masonry lift tower
demarcates a new entrance, create a counterpoint to the original clock tower. In this way
a new dedicated and celebratory entry space is created, inhabiting the colonial spaces.
Improved visual and physical connections provide a better understanding of Country.
These include removing prominent colonial symbols, new openings to provide improved
air flow and the creation of outdoor spaces.

Impression: I understand the significance of usurping the introduced European heritage

narrative, of dismantling it publicly. I am not so certain that it reclaims the site or that it will
‘subvert the colonial gaze’ because the architecture of the original remains most evident.
I visited the site on Sunday 11 June 2023 and consider the effectiveness of the approach
overstated when the project is viewed externally. The photo below illustrates:

4 of 5
 5. Birrarung, Bulleen, Naarm
The architecture of subtraction.
This ‘Tactic’ examines the post settlement occupation along the Yarra River (Birrabung, Naarm)
which includes industrial buildngs, carparks, sports fields, etc. These seal the ground surface
disrupting/denying the ecosystem functions through the removal of habitat and vegetation.
The process involves cutting out of built form from an aerial photograph – making white space
which makes explicit the occupation and subsequent intrusion and damage.
The example explored was a gathering site for the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung and the few
remaining billabongs in Melbourne (not evident to me in the image provided).
The process moves from recording as ‘white space’ the intrusions to considering:
a) What was there before;
b) What could be reparative in the modified ecosystem;
c) How does the ‘white space’ interrupt systems at a micro and macro scale;
d) What planning tools do we have/need to subtract built form rather than add;
e) Can the facilities removed exist elsewhere in novel ways that might in turn regenerate an
urban area.
Impression: This provides a useful and thoughtful method of effectively identifying issues of
‘Country’ and implementing new values into future urban development.
Such a method is absent from case 3 above.

Mark Bullen
Architect (Reg No. 4359)

***

5 of 5