„The 1st Prize winning design by Roland Fuhrmann, entitled Zusammenhalt (“Cohesion”) presents a mixture of finely structured steles and an image that can be recognised as anamorphosis, albeit only from a single perspective, namely from within the security zone, i.e. behind the well-guarded fence. So you have to get inside there to start with! Anyone from outside wishing to enjoy the anamorphosis will have to attend one of the annual open days at the Federal Ministry of the lnterior, or BMI for short.
The winner is one of the few, if not the only design that offers passers-by outside the fence a completely different view from the users of the prohibited gardens themselves. lt makes visiting the garden an event, since each anamorphosis activates within us an iconic joy at a surprising connection between disparate themes, so seldom encountered in real life. But every society that does not wish to become homogenised as a community or nation is also disparate, so the anamorphosis has a special significance‚ since it illustrates to employees and visitors at the BMI the differences in ways of life, backgrounds and appearances of people that are brought together here as if in a random picture. In a way, what can be seen in the garden is an exemplary clientele of the BMI, while living representatives of the same clientele wonder by outside the fence, without seeing more than an appealing arrangement of steles. That not only has a certain exclusivity, but also humour.“
„You might be surprised, but I hate juries. The reason: I’m a bad loser. Twenty years ago, I was unable to prevent the installation of what I considered to be a poor exterior sculpture in Muenster. As a resident of the beautiful city, I endured detours in my car for years to avoid seeing the result. So you can see I bear grudges.
The invitation to this jury was the first I had received as an Emeritus Professor, which allowed me to travel freely, and I agreed to participate as a trial experience. I didn’t regret the decision, although once again, I was on the Iosing side, because I was the only fan of asculpture for which I consistently voted to the very end. However, thewinning sculpture was the one I had tipped to be selected from the outset. So in a jury, you can be a winner and a loser at the same time, which is a thoroughly encouraging experience.
The 1st Prize winning design by Roland Fuhrmann, entitled Zusammenhalt (“Cohesion”) presents a mixture of finely structured steles and an image that can be recognised as anamorphosis, albeit only from a single perspective, namely from within the security zone, i.e. behind the well-guarded fence. So you have to get inside there to start with! Anyone from outside wishing to enjoy the anamorphosis will have to attend one of the annual open days at the Federal Ministry of the lnterior, or BMI for short.
The winner is one of the few, if not the only design that offers passers-by outside the fence a completely different view from the users of the prohibited gardens themselves. lt makes visiting the garden an event, since each anamorphosis activates within us an iconic joy at a surprising connection between disparate themes, so seldom encountered in real life. But every society that does not wish to become homogenised as a community or nation is also disparate, so the anamorphosis has a special significance‚ since it illustrates to employees and visitors at the BMI the differences in ways of life, backgrounds and appearances of people that are brought together here as if in a random picture. In a way, what can be seen in the garden is an exemplary clientele of the BMI, while living representatives of the same clientele wonder by outside the fence, without seeing more than an appealing arrangement of steles. That not only has a certain exclusivity, but also humour.
The second placed design by Barbara Trautmann entitled “Stadtlandfluss” (“Towncountryriver”) planned an imaginary landscape over the terrain of the garden, consisting of flat seating furniture made of red cylindersthat, like the iconography of an atlas, stand equally for German cities and their population sizes, as represented by their measurements. One of the impressive aspects of the design concept was the progressive overlapping of thegarden’s topography by the topographical symbolism of the country for which the building’s employees work, even including usable elements.
The jury selected 10 of the 77 design proposals for the second round: for instance the bicycle monument (Fahrrad-Denkmal) on a plinth with numerous padlocks, which was designed by Fritz Balthaus. It isan ironic reference to monument iconography and provocatively addresses the theme of security, not just of people, but also of bicycles in Berlin, for which the Ministry of the lnterior only carries partial responsibility, however.
The proposal by Dietrich Förster also addresses the theme of security, presenting an alienated BMI perimeter fence (Umgrenzungszaun), which is partially dissolved into a kind of material dance, where in the jury saw both a sculptural and a metaphorical appeal. But in the second round, it quickly became clear that the fence dance prevented free visibility for the many security cameras. Since this was part of the competition rules, the design could not be implemented.
By contrast, the proposal by Karin Sander was debated at length. It conceived a landscape exchange (Landschaftstausch) by maintaining two pieces of circular land segments at great distance from each other and then exchanging them. The detached fragmentof the BMI garden would be relocated to a low mountain range in Germany, while a section from exactly the same place would be planted in Berlin as its counterpart and maintained in its original condition. In this way, the BMI garden would include a kind of inner-German exoticism that plays on the idea of territory.
The three free-standing sculptures by Michael Sailstorfer entitled „Innen wie Außen“ (“Inside as Outside”) had their loyal supporters through out all rounds of voting. The plinthed sculptures made of cast aluminium were to be placed like glued card sculptures in a trompe l’œil fashion on an equally sculptural base design, framing a section of the path from the mainentrance of the grounds to the park. They would have made both a welcoming and an alienating impression there, creating a mysterious, yet attractive walkway.
Entitled Balance, the design by the artist group Inges Idee was intended for a position very close to the location of the Sailstorfer proposal. It represents the enlargement of a plaster imprint of the palm of a hand in painted bronze, as it were an organic form of the inner, rather than the ministerial. The negative imprint of the palm would have had the immediate effect of an unidentifiable low mountain range, its relief consisting of the fine fault lines that would only later inspire the notion that it is the palm of a hand, and thus the alienation of something very natural.
By contrast, the proposal by the two artists known as missingicons (Andrea Knobloch and Ute Vorkoeper) had a very dramatic expression. Entitled „Fünf Gefahrenmuster“(“Five Traces of Danger”), it planned five window-sized images of bullet holes in the ministry’s conference room, there by literally enlarging the theme of security to the point of irony, in a striking, almost traumatic and possibly traumatising manner. “Art in architecture” is always a constant companion to any building for which it is conceived. The five bullet holes would undoubtedly have been a very challenging sight as an outlook on dangerous times.
Compared to that, the proposal entitled „Arena“ by Heiner Franzen is a more user-friendly design, placing unconventional, centred seating isles made of strikingly coloured plasticin the park, on which to discuss internal problems of interior security out in a natural environment. The proposal by David Mannstein and Maria Vill entitled „Interieur“ also played on unconventional furniture, this time in concrete, distributed around the garden park. The exterior representation of a normal apartment interior confronts the external image of the Ministry of the Interior with interior views of exterior furniture – an irritating interplay also for passers by on the path along the grounds, especially at night when some pieces of furniture are illuminated.“ Prof. Dr. Walter Grasskamp
