The initial assumption of this thesis is that the architectural exhibitions are powerful
enough to define a research field in architecture. Beyond architecture’s conventional
way of physical production, exhibitions produce and expose new ways of thinking and
knowledge. They are highly affected on the discourse of architecture in their own
unique way. As a research field, architectural exhibitions contain various paradoxes,
which lead the discussion of this thesis as it is stated starting from the title.*
Before explaining the paradoxes of exhibiting architecture and how it is expanded
within this study, it is meaningful to look at its origins. The word paradox comes from
late Latin from Greek ‘paradoxon’ (contrary opinion) with the combination of the
words ‘para-’ (distinct from) and ‘doxa’ (opinion). The origin of this word, which
means originally denoting a statement contrary to accepted opinion, dates back to the
mid 16% century.! However, today it is defined as “A seemingly absurd or
contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well
founded or true.” by Oxford Dictionary In other words, paradoxes may be true or
possible and express a possible truth, even though they seem strange, impossible or unlikely and difficult to understand because they contain opposite features of
characteristics.
Contrary opinions can be used to explain ideas and deepen discussions on many issues
such as architecture, art, politics and economics including architectural exhibitions
too. The paradoxes of exhibiting architecture are already defined by architects and
critics via various symposiums and publications.
One of the symposiums is the one that was held in Yale School of Architecture in
October 2013 named “Exhibiting Architecture: A Paradox?” The symposium and its
book published by the same name, explores architectural exhibition making and its
effects on the discipline. The existence of a paradox defined within the text of Eeva-
Liisa Pelkonen:
“The ambition to exhibit architecture always entails a paradox: how to exhibit
something as large and complex as a building or a city, and how to
communicate something as elusive as an architectural experience that unfolds
in space and time?
The nature of architecture direct discussions to the well-known issue, architecture is
always exhibited through representations such as drawings, models or photographs in
full-scale or in fragments. Architectural exhibitions always refer to something more
real outside of exhibition space and they always displace the original work. Therefore,
representations of architecture are discussed more than architecture itself within the
issue of exhibiting architecture. This situation is explained in the very first page of the
book named This is not Architecture:
“Architecture is discussed, explained and identified almost entirely through its
representations. Indeed, these representations are often treated as though they
were architecture itself. Huge status is given to the imaginary project, the
authentic set of photographs or the eminent critical account. This is a paradox.
Architecture is fundamentally concerned with physical reality, yet we discuss