by Raíssa Armelin Lopes

The Bienal Internacional de Arquitetura de São Paulo (BIA), today one of the most important events to provoke reflection on architectural culture and the space we inhabit, was born in one of the darkest chapters of the country’s history: the Years of Lead of the military dictatorship (1964-1985).¹ Filled with contradictions and dominated by fear and political coercion, the moment in which the 1st BIA was organized involved various institutions, articulations and a certain amount of resistance.

Before that, the Bienal de São Paulo was responsible for the Exposição Internacional de Arquitetura (EIA), which for twenty years (1951-1971) brought together architects and the public with national and international modern architecture.² It was created in the post-war context, under the influence of the United States and through the actions of an intellectualized elite, mainly from São Paulo, and promoters of modernism.³ From its first edition in 1951, it became internationally known through its collaboration with the Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo (MAM-SP) and the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York.

At the time, Brazilian architecture was being promoted all over the world, but its inclusion in the Bienal program was pioneering.⁴ The EIA accompanied⁵ the growth and consolidation⁶ of the Bienal de Arte, promoting competitions between architecture schools, bringing the theme to the general public, highlighting modernism, facilitating exchanges with other Latin American countries, and bringing architects from Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo closer together.⁷

The EIA maintained a similar structure over time. It consisted of spaces for each participating country to exhibit its architecture, special rooms where homage was paid to a particular architect or project, the coming together of students and the competition between schools. It also had an international jury that selected the projects to be awarded in the professional and student contests.

In the 1950s, it promoted international modern architecture and dealt with the relationship between art and industry, as well as issues related to the first International Congresses of Modern Architecture (CIAM).⁸ From the 6th EIA (1961), there was a greater involvement of the Instituto de Arquitetos do Brasil (IAB) and professional representative bodies from around the world, which were responsible for selecting the works to be exhibited. This expanded and diversified the exhibition, which began to express trends in the revision of modern design visible on the world stage.

With the end of the association between MAM-SP and the Bienal de São Paulo in 1962, the organization went through a difficult transition and began to rely on state funding with the creation of the Fundação Bienal.⁹ The difficulties were exacerbated by the 1964 coup d’état and the subsequent interference by the government and its agents. The evolution of the official character of the Bienal and the EIA was remarkable.¹⁰

The setbacks of this period led to the downsizing of the EIA. International participation dwindled and the exhibition was limited to the national student competition, sponsored by the Banco Nacional da Habitação (BNH). The Bienal of that time was bent to the interests of a regime that actively persecuted artists while, contradictorily, sponsoring its most representative event.

As the dictatorship worsened, the crisis deepened. Since the coup d’état, the status of the event as a representative of the dominant power intensified, and the persecution of students, artists, and intellectuals led to an international wave of protests that reached the Bienal de São Paulo. There were those who joined the boycott as a form of protest against the dictatorship, and those who believed in participation as a form of resistance, a way to guarantee space for expression and defend artistic freedom.¹¹

The boycott of the 10th Bienal in 1969 was effective, and the BNH’s sponsorship gained prominence at the EIA. Under the pretext of representing the participation of architects in large-scale national projects, the bank presented the National Housing Plan and projects that served the interests of large construction companies.¹² These were projects of mass production with poor conditions and low quality. The crisis and the boycott were the trigger for the reformulation of the Bienal. Critics were mobilized and, among other things, it was decided to close the EIA and create an event dedicated to architecture, which was officially announced at the 11th and last EIA in 1971.

While the 11th Bienal was dedicated to a retrospective of its twenty years, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the 1922 Week of Modern Art in advance, the last EIA occupied a small part of the third floor of the Palácio das Indústrias and presented certain characteristics that continued from the 1st BIA. Maintaining its characteristic structure, the 11th EIA was coordinated by Oswaldo Corrêa Gonçalves, who was also responsible for the 1st BIA; it presented seminars on the theme of landscape and the industrial city, in line with the theme of the 1st BIA, O ambiente que o homem organiza [The Environment Organized by Man]. Its exhibition space was dominated by works sponsored by the government, highlighting the participation of the BNH.

At the height of the regime’s terror, with many architects and intellectuals imprisoned or in exile, some of them involved in the armed fight, and with the growing demand for projects resulting from the expansion of the construction industry, the field of architecture in Brazil faced complex changes that included questions about its social role,¹³ transformations in labor relations, and reforms in education.¹⁴

Some architects saw the creation of their biennial as an opportunity to debate these issues. From the government’s point of view, a biennial devoted entirely to architecture was an opportunity to emphasize ideological propaganda and to give greater visibility to the large construction companies that were the regime’s main beneficiaries. By occupying the same pavilion as one of the greatest cultural events in the world, it also had the potential to elevate such projects to the category of masterpieces, and by appropriating one of the most representative events for architects, it showed the possibility of emphasizing the artistic aspect of the architect’s work, to the detriment of the technical and social aspect defended by the professionals.¹⁵

The process of planning and organizing the 1st BIA took longer than expected: it was originally announced for 1972, but did not open until 1973. A memorandum of understanding and an agreement were signed between the IAB, the Fundação Bienal and the BNH, resulting in a board of directors composed of one representative from each institution: Eduardo Kneese de Mello (IAB), Oswaldo Corrêa Gonçalves (Fundação Bienal) and Mário Torquato Pinheiro (BNH).

The program of the 1st BIA consisted of five main sections and a seminar: the special galleries, which paid homage to Lucio Costa, Burle Marx, Artigas, Joaquim Cardozo, Flávio de Carvalho, IPHAN¹⁶ and IBDF¹⁷; the International Exhibition of Projects, divided into Architecture, Urbanism, Industrial Design and Visual Programming, with the participation of 22 countries and hors-concours galleries dedicated to Algeria and the Soviet Union; the International Exhibition of Schools of Architecture; the National Symposium of Schools of Architecture; the large exhibition of public and private entities, titled “Major National Projects”; and a seminar on environmental control.

Looking at the exhibition project for the 1st BIA, we can see that it was marked by articulations that led to an exhibition of contradictions: In the midst of a dictatorship that justified itself through the anti-communist struggle, the Bienal Pavilion dedicated special galleries to Soviet and Algerian architecture; the government, which had imposed a minimum curriculum on architecture courses that emphasized the artistic nature of the profession, promoted its own technical side through the Bienal; the country that had so severely repressed its students hosted the event that allowed the first gathering of students since the massacres of 1968; the government that in 1972 denied the impact of industrial and urban expansion at the First United Nations Conference on the Environment adopted the environmental theme at the 1973 Bienal de Arquitetura, while exhibiting images that inevitably highlighted the impact of the construction of the Trans-Amazonian Highway.

The history of the architectural profession, especially in Brazil, is inextricably linked to politics and economic interests, while at the same time being part of the artistic and cultural framework. The EIA and BIA were representative of this broad role of the profession and reflected many of its most burning issues in the country and, to some extent, in the world. The creation of a biennial dedicated entirely to architecture was an achievement for the Brazilian architectural community, despite the impasse at the time.¹⁸

¹ The Years of Lead represent the period of the most intense violence practiced by the regime, coupled with the height of the use of “patriotic pride” as an ideological weapon of control and press censorship. First defined in 1968, with the massacre of the student movement and the decree of Institutional Act No. 5, this period lasted until Garrastazu Médici stepped down as president. See Hélio Gaspari, A ditadura escancarada. Rio de Janeiro: Intrínseca, 2014.

² Due to its relevance and uniqueness, the EIA is often referred to as the “Bienal de Arquitetura,” although it only officially acquired this nomenclature in the 1970s with the 1st BIA.

³ São Paulo’s intellectual elite emerged as a result of the growing metropolitanization and consolidation of the city’s role in the national economy and culture. Related to this group are the Modern Art Week (1922), Casa Modernista (1930), the creation of MASP (1947), MAM-SP (1948), Cinemateca Brasileira (1949), Teatro Brasileiro de Comédia (1948), Companhia de Cinema Vera Cruz (1949), as well as various art galleries and television stations responsible for artistic and cultural dissemination.

⁴ Brazilian architecture was promoted abroad through exhibitions and publications, such as the exhibition Brazil Builds at MoMA in 1943, Brazil’s participation in the 1939-1940 New York International Fair, and in editions of international periodicals such as Architecture d’aujourd’hui, Architectural Review, and Domus. See Lauro Cavalcanti, Moderno e Brasileiro: a história de uma nova linguagem na arquitetura (1930-1960). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2006.

⁵ Despite its high visibility, the EIA faced difficulties in its first editions, due to the fact that it was impossible to keep up with the Bienal because of the different production times.

⁶ The milestone of the event’s international consolidation was the 2nd edition (1953), considered one of the largest exhibitions ever held in Latin America, thanks to its inclusion in the official celebrations of São Paulo’s 4th centenary.

⁷ In 1953, with the project for Ibirapuera Park; in 1957, with the winner of the competition for Brasilia; in 1959, with the tribute to Burle Marx. See Hélio Herbst, Pelos Salões das Bienais, a arquitetura ausente dos manuais: contribuições para a historiografia brasileira (1951-1959). São Paulo: Annablume, 2011. Paulo Lins, Arquitetura nas Bienais Internacionais de São Paulo (1951-1961). Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, 2008. PhD thesis.

⁸ In the 1950s, the EIA showed a certain dislocation in relation to international discussions: while they were drawing up a retrospective of the modern movement, the CIAM meetings themselves were criticizing and reformulating its principles. See Elisabete França, Arquitetura em retrospectiva: 10 Bienais de São Paulo. São Paulo: KPMO Cultura e Arte, 2017.

⁹ See Francisco Alambert; Polyana Canhête, Bienais de São Paulo. Da era do museu à era dos curadores. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2004.

¹⁰ First, it was visible in the creation of the Honorary Commission of government representatives who spoke at the opening and awards ceremonies.

¹¹ See Caroline Schroeder, X Bienal de São Paulo: sob os efeitos da contestação. Escola de Comunicação e Artes da Universidade de São Paulo, 2001. Master’s dissertation.

¹² See Pedro H. P. Campos, Estranhas Catedrais: as empreiteiras brasileiras e a ditadura civil-militar, 1964-1988. Rio de Janeiro: Eduff, FAPERJ, 2017.

¹³ Engineering, consulting, and urban planning firms were growing at an unprecedented rate, and the national and international industrial elite were benefiting greatly, with repercussions not only on the landscape but also on the working relationships of architects. At the same time, as the profession sought to consolidate its place in society, and as its activities continued to expand, it gradually began to occupy multidisciplinary teams in private companies and public authorities.

¹⁴ Architectural education was affected by the dictatorship: funding for education was cut in favor of basic industries, and the demand for qualified professionals increased, requiring more places in higher education. This situation led to a university reform imposed by the government in 1969, which prioritized the quantity of graduates over the quality of teaching, with the introduction of a minimum curriculum that suppressed the social character inherent to modern architecture and limited the activities of this profession to the artistic sphere. See Taiana Vidotto. A indissociável relação entre o ensino e a profissão na constituição do arquiteto e urbanista moderno no Estado de São Paulo. 1948-1962. Faculdade de Engenharia Civil, Arquitetura e Urbanismo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2014. Master’s dissertation.

¹⁵ See Raíssa Armelin Lopes. Para além da exposição: o papel da 1ª Bienal Internacional de Arquitetura de São Paulo (1973). Faculdade de Engenharia Civil, Arquitetura e Urbanismo. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2022. Master’s dissertation.

¹⁶ Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional.

¹⁷ Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal (IBDF), which presented photographs of the work on the Trans-Amazonian Highway.

¹⁸ I would like to thank Unicamp and Ana Goes Monteiro, who supervised me during my master’s degree, making it possible to get to know the Bienal de Arquitetura and the multiple issues that are part of its origin. I would also like to thank our research group for their invaluable contributions.

About the author

Raíssa Armelin Lopes is an architect and urban planner who graduated from the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). With a Master’s degree in architecture, technology and the city, also from Unicamp, her research Para além da exposição: o papel da 1ª Bienal Internacional de Arquitetura de São Paulo [Beyond the Exhibition: the Role of the 1st Bienal Internacional de Arquitetura de São Paulo] (1973) addressed issues related to the profession, teaching, politics and architectural culture under the country’s military dictatorship.