Interview with Dan Merta

The exhibition prepared together with Klára Pučerová maps a relatively extensive period of two decades of Prague architecture. How would you describe its concept? Is it meant to represent a critical perspective or rather showcase good examples?
Our intention was to present both positions. With a sample of 51 projects, we want to show how Prague is really developing in both positive and partially negative ways. And because there are also unrealized studies included, we are trying to demonstrate where the development of Prague or even Czech architecture is heading. It is an objective evaluation of the sample of Czech architecture we are presenting, but everyone can take their own stance on it. Because it is our subjective selection. Initially, we considered presenting only 33 houses because we thought that number was interesting. But gradually, as we selected the houses, we realized that - if we want to talk about some standard and quality - which is always also subjective - it becomes complicated... Suddenly we found that there were twenty houses that had already been presented and that we all know: There is no need to discuss Pleskot's buildings or the Dancing House. But what to assign to them? Moreover, at the given quality level, there suddenly were eight or nine office buildings. But you cannot build an exhibition on office buildings and family houses, where the portfolio is large, and the quality is therefore at a different level, because the costs are not that high, and more family houses are being built... Quality in this area is generally going up, especially in the twenty-first century.

However, it occurs to me that both mentioned types are addressed by private investors, while public ones lag significantly behind. If these - according to you more quality buildings - were presented in a larger representation, wouldn’t it portray the image of the post- Velvet Revolution situation in Prague more accurately?
If we were to set the question of quality and interest, we would suddenly have eight office buildings and eight family houses, and that was a problem. So, we created a sort of crutch, which was categories.

Typology...
We of course moved some offices into other categories because there were more of them...
But we wanted to show how the city is developing, what types we can encounter in Prague, and actually evaluate that selection objectively.
There will certainly be disagreements on the selection of buildings. It is simply our subjective opinion. Let’s say that there shouldn’t be a debate about thirty projects, and surely the other twenty could possibly be different. Maybe even thirty.
However, I think our text is quite critical - which the visitor will be able to verify in the catalog that will be published at the end of the exhibition.
The essential point is that it is not a critical selection prepared for Czech experts. The exhibition has been intended from the very beginning as a project aimed primarily at foreign audiences.

If I understand correctly, the exhibition was commissioned by Czech Centers...?
No. This is our own exhibition project that was conceived two years ago. It was originally supposed to take place last year, but there was no funding for it. We thought it could be supported by the city hall, but that didn’t happen... Eventually, Ms. Reed, the Deputy Mayor of the Capital City of Prague, released some money from her budget.
The exhibition is installed at the Czech Centre primarily because the gallery is undergoing reconstruction, and it is also true that the Czech Centres supported the event financially, offered help with promotion, and will also cooperate in the realization of the exhibitions. New Face was originally planned also in connection with the Czech Presidency of the European Union.
It cannot therefore be entirely critical because when we present it abroad, we cannot say that what is happening in Prague in the field of architecture is not ideal.

Really? (Which is of course an interesting question...)
No one should be interested in it. Presenting a country like this would be complicated today. Personally, I am otherwise very critical of Czech architecture.
I recently returned from Munich: how many buildings from our exhibition would, for example, stand comparison with the contemporary architecture there? Maybe ten. But it’s not just a problem of architecture; it is rather a societal problem. How architecture is perceived in our country. How politicians approach it. How international competitions are held - or rather not held. But because the exhibition is going abroad, we didn’t want to do negative advertising for our country. We simply did not want to look for where the shoe pinches us. We want to present this country: Prague is not just baroque, gothic, and Hradčany, but it also has contemporary architecture, and it’s not just the Dancing House. There are various interesting buildings to be found here, of course at different levels. I think that in the context of Central and Eastern Europe, it represents a reasonably good European standard. We certainly cannot compare ourselves with countries like the Netherlands or Switzerland.

At the vernissage, you mentioned that the texts by Zdeněk Lukeš and Petr Kratochvíl, which will be published in the catalog, have a relatively positive tone. In what way is your text critical then?
We criticize the city hall, which should guarantee quality, but according to us, it doesn’t. Prague lacks a concept: both urbanistic and related to the development of specific locations. And in our opinion, the city hall does not support contemporary architecture. There is no dialogue in Prague among conservationists, urban planners, and developers - as we are witnessing beyond the borders.

We must return to the topic we opened: Why do you think this critical moment cannot appear more prominently in the exhibition? Your stance might suggest that you are funded by the government and create something like a political statement.
It is a presentation of things that are here. I have not seen an exhibition abroad that would say: Here, they build poorly. Our exhibition can be understood essentially as a certain enlightenment for the broader public.
And we did not want to create a specifically critical exhibition. A critical opinion should primarily be presented here at home. Everyone involved - both architects and the media - are aware of the issues. But if you don’t have a partner like the city hall with whom to discuss the problems, then you do it for whom?

Not for the citizens? Enlightenment can also point out critical moments and try to involve civil society in the process. And thus help build it.
We are preparing different exhibitions for the Czech public, but someone also has to pay for them.
We primarily wanted to show the current state, including visions. Everyone can form their own opinion.

You have actually explained my next question by referring it to enlightenment. However, if I may be critical, why did you not decide to show more plans?
There was a question of whether the exhibition was meant only for architects or for a broader audience. A building is more tangible for people in a photograph. We are doing exhibitions in this style with the graphic designer Robert V. Novák. In the end, we agreed with him that this way the layout would be simpler and cleaner. The catalog will include more plans.

Which is also an explanation for the absence of urbanistic plans?
Who will provide them to us? We don’t know how the situation will develop or whether these urbanistic visions will be realized.
To fully address the theme, more time would also be necessary. The preparation would have to be more informed and aimed more at the professional public. The exhibition New Face could be a first step towards a discussion on the theme of the future development of Prague.

Let’s try to think: If you indeed had more time and resources and prepared a critical exhibition on contemporary Prague architecture, what would the main criticisms be?
There is no discussion here about urbanism and the development of locations. No one knows, for example, how projects by Sekyra Group in Karlín or the Freight Station in Žižkov will turn out. Specifically, the Freight Station could present a great location for a beautiful international competition, in which various renowned Czech and world architects could project individual buildings... But the problem is that the city districts have no interest in something like that.

If the buildings you selected were distributed geographically on a map, where would most of them be?
In Prague 1, then in Prague 5, and of course further in Karlín.

It would be interesting to see to what extent the local city hall has contributed to that, as well as the ratio of public to private investors among the presented buildings. I believe it would show that city districts significantly lag behind in the selection of quality architecture. In the Netherlands, it would surely be possible to include categories like schools, sports facilities, or social housing without much trouble...
We tried to maintain the categories. Nevertheless, it was complicated in some areas because, for example, there are very few buildings in culture, just as there are few hotels. So we included the design hotel Sax. We simply did not find any other interesting ones. Which is also a problem of interiors: of course, I could include several interiors from Mimolimit, but that is why we agreed with Emporium that we would present their chain, not individual cafés.

In conclusion, one more question: Why does the exhibition have an English title?
Because it caught my attention, it sounds like English songs. And the targeting on the foreign audience also plays a role. Czech is very harsh. Maybe, as I think about it now, I saw an exhibition in Maastricht about young European architecture New Faces in European Architecture...

What do you plan for the future?
The gallery will open in the fall with the exhibition Green CZ about Czech "green" architecture. It will be part of the GREEN ARCHITECTURE project, where we will also present exhibitions like the Zumtobel Group Award, Sunny Austrian Architecture, or organize lectures by Stefan Behnisch or Matthias Sauerbruch. We are also preparing exhibitions of the studios Projektil, DaM, and young Viennese architecture. In spring, we are planning a large project - the Month of Czech Architecture in Berlin, which will include several exhibitions and take place in two of the most prestigious institutions, namely the Deutsche Architektur Forum and the Aedes Gallery. This project will also include workshops and lectures.

Thank you for the interview.