Barking from Without

cross-posted from barking-assemblage.org

Barking from Without was part of the 2010 Cities Methodologies exhibition and conference organised by the UCL Urban Lab. The exhibition took place at the Slade Research Centre on Woburn Square from 5 to 7 May 2010.

Barking from Without is an interactive installation presenting material from an ongoing case study of the new Barking Town Square in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Part of a broader research project on design in the contemporary public realm, the case study is supported primarily by participant-observer methods that draw as much on ethnographic fieldwork as on Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism. The research is presented in the form of an open dialogue which visitors are encouraged to join by leaving written comments.

All material from the installati0n is posted on barking-assemblage.org under the category Barking from Without. Comments are still very much welcome! Please participate by sending your comments to comment@barking-assemblage.org

“Who rejects design, accepts to be designed”

Critical minds: critical spaces
Cruciform Building, Lecture Theatre Two
University College London
8 May 2010, 
15.00-19.00 hrs

Art historian Giulio Carlo Argan formulated his famous sentence in the nineteen-seventies, when then the modernist grand narrative of “good design” had already long disintegrated, leaving something of a semantic vacuum in the designed object, an empty space that had been promptly occupied by a micro-narrative of immediate satisfaction by indiscriminate consumption. Looking at the ease with which designed objects can be used to carry extremely different meanings and values forces us to reflect on the communicative power of design and its information value. Forms generated by design represent a presence in space that doesn’t end in the fulfillment of its function, but continues in force of their mere existence, in their relationship with the rest of the environment.

“Critical minds: critical spaces” is a one-day symposium organized by a group of UCL research students gravitating around this blog, as Gabriele Oropallo and Wesley Albrecht. The event is conceived of as an occasion to look at the work of architects, planners and designers and its social and cultural relevance in stimulating awareness and criticism of the contemporary. Very often, at the heart of cultural production, there is a practice shaped by a rational or existential response to material, technical or cultural constraints. This practice generates products that are designed as tools to enable the rest of the community to critically understand and question messages, objects and environments, rather than taking them for granted. The colloquium will feature some presentations on current research in design theory and history and on recent design projects. A final panel discussion will follow, with Justin McGuirk, editor of the Icon magazine, and Mark Cousins (Architectural Association, London Consortium). The event also marks the closing of CitiesMethodologies, an interdisciplinary event on innovative methodologies across the arts and humanities at the Slade Research Centre (Woburn Square, 5-7 May 2010). Speakers include Mark Cousins (Architectural Association), Annelys de Vet (Sandberg Institute, Amsterdam), James Auger (Royal College of Art), Jimmy Loizeau (Goldsmiths), Teresa Stoppani (University of Greenwich), Eyal Weizman (Goldsmiths), Jonathan Hill (Bartlett School of Architecture).

The colloquium will be followed by a wine reception in the Wilkins Building Haldane Room. Participation is free and open to all (for information email: g.oropallo@ucl.ac.uk, wesleyaelbrecht@gmail.com). Critical minds: critical spaces is supported by the UCL Grand Challenge of Intercultural Interaction, the Graduate School Research Project Fund and the Department of Italian Studies.

Text and photography © Gabriele Oropallo, 2009.

Human, all too human

Parametricism,” in the words of his main proponent, “is the great new style after modernism.” A design style in which “buildings are developed using problem-solving as the driving force rather than by grouping together architectural objects.” We have seen this in the last years in the voluptuous shapes of Zaha Hadid studio’s computer-generated designs.

But, wait a moment. “Problem-solving is the driving force”. Actually, this sounds quite similar to the old “form follows function”. So, what’s the difference?

According to Patrick Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects, author of the above quotation the difference is in the direction of the design intervention. So far we’ve juxtaposed Eucledian structures in order to create space or harness portions of it into environments. The rationale of the design is in the concept that links these solids. The reader may be familiar with the house Ludwig Wittgenstein designed in Vienna in 1927 for his sister, today seat of the Bulgarian cultural institute. There is maybe this concept expressed at its best, mind you, by a non professional architect. Volumes in Wittgenstein House develop from each other in an orderly albeit ambitious manner, as in a logical deduction. It’s like shedding light in the dark and acknowledge space.

A variation to this deductive way to building was dubbed “deconstructionism,” and consisted in disassembling  these configuration of solids before they were even erected, to show their relations in a more honest way.

Parametric design, on the contrary, is nothing about deduction. It is an attempt to let structures grow systematically, according to their relation with the environment, as a living organism would do in order to survive. Everything is interconnected, and to take into account everything, sophisticated softwares are necessary and do much of the work. Instead of “spaces,” Schumacher actually speaks of “fields,” which fluidly articulate themselves to accomodate the complexity of contemporary life.

Parametric design therefore bears a striking resemblance to organic forms. Curiously, it’s visually very close also to surrealist decoration patterns. Both styles share an oblique, decadent appeal. This is because organic structures are economical: organisms – as also computers if they are so programmed – always try to find the shortest way between A and B. This is why living forms are usually curvilinear and not square, Cartesian or Euclidean. A parametric city would resemble a circulatory system, rather than a modernist grid. Every element would be interconnected and the complexity of functions would lead the growth of the system.

Transition and fluidity are greatly praised by Schumacher. This makes one remember of the “natura non facit saltus” (nature does not make sudden jumps) motto by Lucretius. Also Gaudì’s architectures were supposed to imitate nature – and in the process praise divinity. The Sagrada Familia designed today would look a lot like a building by Zaha Hadid.

I like the idea of an architecture whose form develops according to fractal geometry (the geometry of leaves, plants, clouds and all natural structures) instead of being constrained by platonic solids. And yet, all this organic matter makes me feel like a virus, a parasite, as though I shouldn’t be walking along these circulatory systems. Or, in the best case scenario, I feel like a part of the system, inextricably linked to it and forced to give away some individuality.

I’ve taken some time to reflect upon this, and now I think the underlying reason for this awkward feeling is that this ideal biomimicry in architecture eventually eschews one crucial aspect of design I am otherwise used to. This is: confrontation between built space and human being, borne exactly of the artificiality of the constructed space.

This is a structural confrontation in which one usually develop a critical, informed understanding of things. It may just be premature to say, but parametric architecture to me feels like being sucked back in an ideal utero, in which the spatial sense that characterizes human beings as a species is dimmed and left unripe. No wonder it is actually the favourite style for international airports, the most iconic non-spaces around these days.

Theorizing the ‘sociology of public space’.

The ‘sociology of public space’ is a research area still rather unknown and unexplored. Until recently, most social sciences conventional wisdom was that the public realm was inhabited and asocial (Simmel, 1903, Wirth, 1938). Their essential argument was always that public spaces of the city were densely filled with visual and sounds stimulus overload and as a result our public realm was populated by an asocial human behaviour. In addition, there was a tendency of some scholars to grant the social character of public realm but to think of it as irrelevant and uninteresting.  It was just in the late 1950s that a group of authors came to challenge this social science’s conventional wisdom. They were Gregory Stone, Jane Jacobs, Ervin Goffman and William Whyte. Although they were not all concerned with the public realm per se, they were crucial to recognize the public realm as a social theory and to demonstrate its significance as well. Among these authors, Goffman and Whyte were the first to immerse into its study although their focus differed substantially. Goffman was the first to study it in a social-centred perspective with the focus on the organization of observable, everyday behavior, more in particular with the study of “interaction order”, the everyday social interaction among the unacquainted in urban settings. He demonstrated that what occurs between strangers passing on the street is as social as what occurs in a conversation between two lovers. Later, it was Whyte to make a study but in a spatial-centred perspective with a focus on the use of public spaces of cities, confirming not only the existence of a significant public realm social life but also how indispensable are public spaces for the vitality of the city.

Since then, there have been very few significant contributions, among them Lofland and Gehl are worth mentioning, that came to reassert once again the importance of the field of public-space sociology and to broaden its theoretical and analytical scope. But still a lot more could have been done, specially from a spatial perspective!

For those interested in or already busy with exploring the ‘sociology of public space’, please contact me. I will be very interested in discussing further since I am working in a project for an edited book and i am looking for future collaborators.

Architecture as hard work

Visiting the David Chipperfield exhbition at the Design Museum (”Form Matters”, 21 October – 31 January 2010) and navigating with the camera the many maquettes made and used to research the urban areas on which he was commissioned interventions. The second picture refers to a museum under construction in Naga, Sudan. His forms are solid, euclidean, yet they seem to give way or to adjust to the surroundings, instead of making space around them and offer glossy shooting opportunities for photographers. Others prefer to concentrate on fantastically fascinating roof structures, while Chipperfield is actually concerned with creating space. After all, it’s architecture, but it’s easy to forget what it’s all about.

Jaffa Peace House

A site-specific intervention on the building by a local resident

"3 Km Europe" reads a writing on a house between the Peace centre and the new, gentrified side of Jaffa

The Peace House, whose building began in 2005, is now almost completed

The idea of the Peace House was originally launched by the late Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres. Named after the latter, it’s part of the seafront redevelopment of the mixed city of Jaffa and was designed by Massimiliano Fuksas as a dramatic spacial progression of pale green concrete slabs interspersed by glass panes, which offer an unconstrained view on the open sea – in the words of the Italian architect “a symbol of the state of emergency”.

Text and photography © Gabriele Oropallo, 2009.

Suggested reading: “Art and Answerability” by Mikhaïl Bakhtin

Bakhtin, M. M. “Art and Answerability.”  Art and Answerability : Early Philosophical Essays. Eds. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.

Art and Answerability, written in 1919, is Mikhail Bakhtin’s first published essay. This early text, written when the author was only 24 years old, is usually recognised as significant for two principal reasons. First because the questions it poses will continue to resonate throughout Bakhtin’s subsequent work. Second because it is part of a series of early texts that were re-discovered following the author’s death in 1975 and whose English translations have only been published between 1990 and 1993. These texts have become highly relevant in establishing the philosophical foundations for Bakhtin’s later work which had by then been absorbed outside of Russia into various disciplines, including, to a very limited extent, architecture and design.

The central thesis of the essay states that “art and life are not one, but they must become united in myself—in the unity of my answerability” (Bakhtin “Art and Answerability” 2). What is identified here by Bakhtin is the fundamental split between culture (art and science) and life as it is actually experienced, or in other words, the split between theory and practice. The only possible unification of these two, he argues, occurs in individual responsibility. One must answer to theory for what they have experienced in practice, as one must answer to practice for what they have done in theory. This is what Bakhtin calls “two-sided answerability”. Bakhtin here enters the debate on a contentious issue at the time, namely the debate on “art for art’s sake or art for life’s sake.” Bakhtin explicitly argues for art for life’s sake, saying that art for the sake of art squarely falls into the realm of “theorism” since it negates the actual and real experience of life from which it has inescapably drawn. Indeed, in Bakhtin’s Neo-Kantian critique, there is no pure vantage point within the mind of an individual from which one is able to understand and create. There is rather an “impure” vantage point that is invariably defined by the experience of being and the experience of the other (Bakhtin “Author and Hero”).

As Clark and Holquist have noted, Bakhtin will throughout his lifetime continue to address the same issues as set in his early work (Clark and Holquist “Bakhtin”). His position may vary and be refined over time, but the questions themselves remain constant. His better known concepts of dialogism, carnivalesque, and heteroglossia are all, in a way, derivatives of his early work on ethics, aesthetics, and the architectonics of the act.

Most references to Bakhtin’s thought in architectural studies have drawn mostly on the carnivalesque and also to a smaller extent on his theory of dialogism. These have been relevant in addressing social issues related to space, for example in theorising the subversive act in public spaces (Shields “Places on the Margin”) or in seeing how a construction process involving multiple designers may be negotiated through dialogue (La Marche “Surrealism’s unexplored possibilities”). Still, Bakhtinian concepts, as far as I understand it, have yet to be introduced significantly into architectural theory and practice. Reading Bakhtin’s early texts allows us to address this issue by understanding the ethical and aesthetic philosophical foundations of his later, more well known theories. This may well offer an approach to social issues in the built environment that is more familiar and more relevant to architectural discourse as it may also shed new light on current discussion on the relation between practice and theory in architectural research.

***

References:

Bakhtin, M. M. “Art and Answerability.”  Art and Answerability : Early Philosophical Essays. Eds. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.

—. “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity.”  Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays. Eds. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.

Clark, Katerina, and Michael Holquist. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1984.

La Marche, Jean. “Surrealism’s Unexplored Possibilities in Architecture.”  Surrealism and Architecture. Ed. Thomas Mical. New York ; London: Routledge, 2005. 273-89.

Shields, Rob. Places on the Margin : Alternative Geographies of Modernity. International Library of Sociology. London: Routledge, 1991.

***

See also:

Bakhtin, M. M., Michael Holquist, and Vadim Liapunov. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. 1st ed. ed. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993.

Çaliskan, Sevda. “Ethical Aesthetics / Aesthetic Ethics: The Case of Bakhtin.” Journal of Arts and Sciences (2006).

Habermas, Jürgen, Nick Crossley, and John M. Roberts. After Habermas : New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Sociological Review Monographs. Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing : Sociological Review, 2004.

Haynes, Deborah J. Bakhtin and the Visual Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Nollan, Valerie Z. Bakhtin : Ethics and Mechanics. Rethinking Theory. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2004.

Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin : The Dialogical Principle. Theory and History of Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

Re-thinking Bon Pastor

bonpastor_logo

In a yearning for urban modernization some European cities have been promoting processes of urban intervention and forgetting the existing ways of life and of use of those spaces. Processes of participatory democracy have been reduced to simple information/auscultation not allowing any kind of response to the needs of those who live (and sometime always lived) in the spaces intervened. The case of Barcelona’s ‘Bon Pastor’ is an example of calling for a way of doing things differently…

Here is a challenge for those who like me feel that an alternative is needed:

“In the last years, Bon Pastor’s neighbourhood in Barcelona, has been living a transformation process due to the “Renovation Plan” adopted in 2003. This plan implies the complete demolition of 784 social houses (known as “Casas Baratas”) built in 1929, and the relocation of all the tenants in new apartments. The urban project has generated contrasted opinions, dividing the neighbourhood between those who support the plan, those who strongly reject it, and those who accept it due to the lack of other alternatives.

In this context, the International Alliance of Inhabitants (AIH) calls for a competition of ideas for the neighbourhood. The purpose is to offer /provide new alternatives for Bon Pastor’s transformation, and thus open up the debate on other ways to build the city and the urbanism that prevails nowadays.” (Source)

If you are interest in knowing more about this process and the above cited competition, visit http://repensarbonpastor.wordpress.com/.

Construction and device

The week I spent in Vienna last September was warm and brilliant. One day I was having lunch outdoors at the Kunsthalle on Karlsplatz, a coffeeshop and exhibition space carved in a piece of no planner’s land in the very centre of Vienna, where once the medieval walls stood and I was attracted by the soft-spoken colour texture of the tent cloth as this was hit by the bright sun. It reminded me of the return of figurative painting in the nineteen-twenties, after the war;  painters were then trying to provide some depth to their shapes without relying on perspective, the representation technique they had managed to escape from the decade before. They would superimpose layer upon layer of paint, with a beautiful waxy effect of translucence.

Photographic composition – much like the construction of the city – is still largely based on perspective and reflects the positivist decades in which photographic technique was refined, formalized and eventually embedded in the very devices, with cameras programmed to obtain a certain type or style of image – and thus being the real authors of the photograph. Content is still paramount and prevails over form, and this opens existing perspectives for the future.

Text and photo © Gabriele Oropallo, 2009.

Oush Grab Transitions

A man scrambles up the wall of a derelict watchtower in the middle of a military camp wearing a wading waistcoat and carrying a tripod. He’s a ornithologist, and he goes to the abandoned Israeli military base of Oush Grab (Beit Sahour, Bethlehem region) to study birds migrating from Turkey to Egypt through Palestine. Since the military left the base, the birds have started using the base as a stopover point, temporarily inhabiting the structures left behind season after season. The military camp was established by the British during the Mandate on Palestine, after the First World War, and has since been used, in turn, by the Jordanians and the Israelis. The space had been congealed for decades into the shape of a walled up instrument of control, that had a crucial influence of the life of people who lived next to it, however off-limits it was for them. Today, the site is the theatre for a chess game between the settlers, who want to found a new town there, the army that supports them, the international activists and the NGO’s that try to stop them and the Beit Sahour municipality that tries to make it into a public park.
Alessandro Petti and Sandi Hilal were inspired by the work of the ornithologist and the spontaneous practice of the birds. The artists/architects founded a few years ago in Bethlehem an architectural collective aimed at investigating security/control devices and engaging with the spatial realities of the Israeli-Palestinian in a propositional manner. The collective came up with a proposal that doesn’t aim at re-articulating and thus doing reiterating the function of the site, but at profaning it. The goal of their proposal is to release the energies harnessed when establishing and maintaining the site of control, and at the same time encourage both the birds in their seasonal return and nature in its slow process of dismantling of the man-made structures. This threefold programme is behind the idea of piercing all the walls of the buildings to provide a myriad inlets for the birds and let the buildings happily crumble down – not to be “lost”, but to be “regained”.

Text © Gabriele Oropallo, 2009. Photos © Nina Kolowratnik, Alessandro Petti, 2009.