Charlie Hebdo portable pavilion: How architecture can talk about freedom of speech? Is there an architecture that acts against freedom of expression? How it works? Historically, architecture has served as a reflection of social, political and economic structures, acting as support for a point of view of the dominant political program. So, in places under oppressive regimes, the architecture also acts as an instrument of oppression.
For us, the pavilion design should talk about freedom of expression by questioning its own language, the design. So, the pavilion stands both as a revolutionary and critical structure. Revolutionary (or activist) because it is implanted in the urban grid in a transgressive way, trying to be a trigger for social change. And is also critical, because it uses its own language to reveal the contradictions of an oppressive society, by using architectural strategies of control, order and homogenization of space, the pavilion stands as an instrument of oppression.
This strategy is also used by Charlie Hebdo, the magazine is openly left wing oriented, but often in an ironic way, makes use of a right wing speech in order to criticize this position. The pavilion function as a dystopia, expanding and formalizing negative trends that operate even in a free society, in order to denounce the evil effects of designing and planning practices imposed by conservative and authoritarian governments.
trans: a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin (transcend; transfix) with the meanings across, beyond, through, changing thoroughly.; grid: a network of horizontal and vertical lines, a geometric ordering system.
trans(grid): transgressing the grid.