Forget ‘CSI: Miami’, London’s got its own science-based crime investigation unit: Forensic Architecture is basically ‘CSI: Goldsmiths’. The collective of architects, designers, philosophers and artists – based out of Goldsmiths, University of London – uses the tools of architecture and design to uncover global injustices. They analyse contentious events – for example the murder of an immigrant in Germany – and use 3D mapping, audio spectrum tools and complex investigative processes to expose the true narratives at the heart of them.
Sounds incredible, right? And it kind of is. It’s all presented as videos and giant flowcharts. They try to prove that the supposed rubber bullets that killed two Palestinians were in fact live rounds, and that a government agent was complicit in the murder of an immigrant in an internet café in Germany. These things are powerful, the work feels important.
But here’s the thing: I’m explaining this about 10,000 times more clearly than they can be bothered to. All along the opening walls of this show are long, involved, mega-academic essays on the ‘forensics of aesthetics’ and shit like that. Is it a concession to the usual blah-blah waffle of the art world? Or is it simply an inability to condense down all the inward-looking, shoe-gazing academic theory at the heart of Forensic Architecture into something that can really connect with people? Probably a bit of both. The information is tightly packed, most of the text is minuscule, the videos are long, and it’s incredibly hard to approach.
The pieces upstairs let the events and inquiries speak for themselves a bit more. Forensic Architecture uncovers false narratives about the Israeli army’s involvement in an attack on a Bedouin village. It finds evidence of collusion in the forced disappearance of Mexican students. You look at it and you can unpack it compared to the rest, which means you start to get the purpose of the work.
Forget whether or not an art exhibition is even the right medium for this: if this show proves anything it’s that Forensic Architecture really buy into their own bullshit. Everything here is overlong, verbose, poorly written, opaque and unapproachable. And that is profoundly and brain-crushingly frustrating, because what they do is fascinating and important: using architecture and its processes as a means to fight for justice? That’s so great. But what they’ve failed to do is communicate. You end up loving what they do, but hating how they've done it. The potential brilliance of their work is obfuscated by complexity, pomposity and verbosity. Why would they not want clarity to be one of their main weapons?
@eddyfrankel
