A 'Game' of Chance by AA School

A ‘game’ of chance 1

Gabrielle Eglen Zaynab Dena Ziari Shalmani HTS3 Submission, Intermediate 10 Term 2 - March 2019

The essay is considered as a second part, an extension to “A Mechanical Ballet”, with the potential to be read alone.

“ … its actuality exists in acts … ”

Leatherbarrow, D. 2009. Unscripted Performances. Architecture Oriented Otherwise. US: Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 43.

The ‘invisible figure’ becomes formalised … The scripting of space through its furnitures creates a fluidity of narrative, space holds the furnitures as a constellation, furniture as architecture. A choreography of space for a projected use.

“The tea trolley was cork-covered, so as not to wake the sleeper with any clinking.” 3 The set is alive (…)

The image of Eileen Gray’s ‘cork-covered tea trolley’ suggests a reading of a particular set of relationships within space. It defines and constructs the interdependency of two layers, the furniture (the trolley) and its position within the envelope of the room and the performance of the furniture in relation to a subtle gesture of occupation. The figure is introduced as a gesture of use, the figure both performs and receives the architecture, scripting a specific narrative within a pre-defined function. The narrative performed through the figure is twofold, the initial figure is introduced as a descriptive element to set the stage. The tea trolley is depicted as isolated, the projection of an intended performance, a secondary figure to perform the narrative. 4 This moment of observation constructs the focus of the essay, the potential friction point between the body and the intended narrative, the live detail. … the figure is formalised, the body enters the space. The body enters the envelope of the room as “a set of possibilities for action”. 5 It is the moment of observation that begins the essay, its entrance is seen to introduce a layer of complexity beyond the established narrative of the room. The ‘entrance’ questions the predefined ‘scripting’ of space and presents slippages in meaning of the reading of the architect as a choreographer. It should be noted that the narrative is always understood as latent, preexisting with the possibility to manifest. The understanding of the architect as a choreographer is established through a question of sequence, both the architect and the choreographer shape the movement of body in space. Through the writings of Merleau-Ponty, movement is defined as the displacement or a change of position. Use presents the interdependence between the body and space, to open up the definitions and potential differences of the architect and the choreographer. The “imprecise and inaccurate form of individual bodily performance”6 is considered through a series of pairings;

accommodation, imposition;

maintenance, acceptance;

interdependence, juxtaposition;

intention, realisation.

A question of control arises and its acceptance as an intrinsic part of the performance of the architecture. How does one understand ‘use’, the architecture establishing a latent narrative (the intended) and the introduction of the body (the performed). Control is considered from the perspective of the space of the interior as a set of conditions within which the body challenges a defined prescription. The body hangs in balance. The event lacks the “sharp definition” of the object. 7

Adam, P. 2009. EILEEN GRAY HER LIFE AND WORK. UK: Thames and Hudson Ltd, pp.102.

It must be acknowledged in this case, the projected/intended use being very specific in terms of the established social relationships within the space itself. Performance in this case embeds itself within a series of wider factors, such factors are treated as separate temporarily to explore ‘use’. 4

Hale, J. 2017. Chapter 2. Embodied Space. Merleau-Ponty for Architects. UK: Routledge, pp. 9.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 25.

Ibid. Leatherbarrow, D. 2009. Unscripted Performances, pp. 53.

A Question of Use

“A Prop” The treatment of the body is initially studied through its collision with the scripted positioning of the furniture (as an architecture), the body is shaped as a conditional element.

The body is “neutralised” as a “prop”. 8

Applied within the context of the envelope, the analogy between the body and the term ‘prop’ implies the body is subject to a ‘certain level of control’. The postposition ‘of ’ implies ‘an other’, the body is in service of an other. Upon the entrance of the body into an interior, a specific set of conditions, its form appears subordinate as a temporary support. Its movement inherently suggestive as a live detail, a further layer to the individual structure of the room. A narrative to the ‘still life’. The body is typically detailed as an abstracted form, ‘bodies customs shape furnishing or furnishing shapes bodies’. In the image of Thomas Ruff, the furnitures (an architecture) are depicted in the form of two low level slanted back chairs placed in the corner of a room alongside a lamp. The body appears to attempt to disrupt the positioning and the evident intended relationship between the body and the furnitures (the other). The stability of the furnitures are at odds with the desire of the movement of the body. The placement of the body suspended upon the chair frames the shoes, respectfully placed on the floor so as not to disobey the embedded customs of the furnitures. The choreography of the space is imposed on the body through the scripting of positions. The body thus appears as another element in the performance of established relationships, however at odds. In theatrical terms, the prop is typically used by the body in relation to the setting, in this reading the body becomes a prop to be utilised by the setting itself. An entrance signifies a use, the body as a prop assumes the authorship and intention of the architect. Use appears a somewhat passive activity in this context, a form of operation, a type of habit. The physical rearrangement of space is enacted through the furnitures rather than through the use of the body. The construction of habit develops as a reproduction of an intention, the repetition of movement. This repetition creates “sedimented skills”9 , a knowledge that is built through an awareness of the possibilities of action in a given environment. In the image, the desire to break out appears charged by the open nature of the space itself. Opportunity presented as a blank.

“A Game” The reading of the architect as a choreographer is reopened through the intended outcome of a use, a physical transformation of space. This intention is read as an action (a push and a pull) exerted on the player (the body) by the architecture.

“We find ourselves thrown into a ‘game’ already under way, where all the players are following rules that have

been established by others before us … by observing … doing best to join in … each player is also gradually

rewriting the rules … the rules only exist in their continual reproduction … through the rather imprecise and

inaccurate form of individual bodily performance.” 10

In the above quote, the concept of use is elaborated upon through an analogy with a game. The term ‘game’ framed as use introduces a set of parameters; the rule(s), the other ‘player(s)’, the defined boundary of the space and the act of play itself. The rules of the game determine a specific set of outcomes, these outcomes develop in relation to a given set of parameters. The parameters

2017. Morphing Realities. UK: Aesthetica Magazine Ltd. Available at: http://www.aestheticamagazine.com/morphing-realities/ [Accessed: January 31st, 2019]. 8

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 15.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 25.

create a set of preconditions that allow for defined possibilities, perhaps unknown perhaps configured. The game presents itself as a ‘safe’ way to script the outcome of use. The body and its presence formalises and enlarges “the canon of available”11 uses. The term “rules” and the process of their “rewriting” creates an opening through which to explore the “apparent mismatch between intention and realisation”. 12 The rules in this case become the stimulus for a creative act, they preexist the live condition of the game. The architect as a choreographer thus appears to script the space in relation to the possibilities of the body within its envelope, beyond solely the scripting of the body in space. The rule affords action. In the quote, the use of the word “others” gives a degree of ambiguity to the ‘before’. The question is whether the ‘other’ is the architect (their assumed authorship transmitted through the specific scripting of space) or the multiple (the prior users with their potential for modification). The multiple in this case provides a reading through which “inaccuracy” positions itself in the foreground. The ‘multiple' resists categorisation through its presence as an unknown. The user (primary) is typically considered isolated and viewed in relation to a ‘number of ’. The user and the choreography of their movement within the envelope of the room is considered through a direct set of relationships that are reflected through the furnitures formalised within space. The diagramatisation of use is a reflection of an intention. The “inaccuracy” lies with intention, the degree of possibility for modification through use. The rule and its “never seamless”13 reproduction, “a creative activity through which each user constructs the building anew”,14 grounds the rule in a process of observation. Use as a process of observation and construction develops a knowledge of the parameters within which to enact a staged space. Knowledge is defined between the “practical experience and the reflective knowledge”, “the in-between realm”. 15 The presentation of architecture as the scripted use of space is observed through two specific entrances, Eileen Gray’s E1027 is placed alongside Le Corbusier’s Villa la Roche.

“A door was an opening to a surprise” (E1027)

“A door merely the entrance to a concept preconceived by the architect” (Villa la Roche)

Gray conceived of movement as a route, the following of a series of “ways”. “In chronological order she traced the steps, from putting down one’s umbrella in a specifically designed umbrella stand to hanging up overcoats and hats”,16 each possible movement in the act of entrance was sketched out. Surprise was conceived of as mystery, the entrance presents two doors, one to the service area and one to the living room. Le Corbusier prescribed movement along a singular route. Movement was considered as culminating at a view, the presentation of a series of visual perspectives. On initial reflection, the architects and their choreography of movement appear at odds through the scripting of chance and of direct action. However, each outcome is scripted through a preconceived set of possibilities, whether visually or physically. The parameters of movement script the outcome. Surprise/mystery is a specific outcome, a choice that appears as a defined set of possibilities. Each space presents itself through a degree of reaction, the realisation of an intention. The parameters of the space control the outcome. The Bêka and Lemoîne film “Koolhaas Houselife” depicts the authoritative nature of the “rule” and the scripted “way”. The film documents the use of the ‘Maison Bordeaux’ by its caretaker Guadalupe Acedo. Placing questions of maintenance and the formation of the image to the side, it presents a reading of use in relation to the body and its movements. The spatial complexity of the

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 26.

Hill, J. 2003. ACTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: ARCHITECTS AND CREATIVE USERS. UK: Routledge, pp. 2.

Ibid. Hill, J. Pp. 3.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 11.

Adam, P. 2009. EILEEN GRAY HER LIFE AND WORK. UK: Thames and Hudson Ltd, pp. 99-100.

envelope responds to its client, its definition provided through a moving plinth. The client is paralysed from the waist down and navigates the space with a wheelchair. The realisation of use through Acedo (in this instance temporary) appears at odds with its intention, a use other than the one choreographed for. The body collides with the established relationships. The continual reproduction of the rules, “you are obliged, more than able, to recreate the space yourself ”,17 is evident as Acedo is depicted scaling the stairs (accessing the children’s room). The handle of the hoover is removed and used as a “mountaineering stick”18 to negotiate the tight open stair case, setting in motion an interplay of “consequence, force and counterforce”. 19 The “reproduction” of the rule as a process of rewriting occurs despite the task of occupation being different, this creates a somewhat scripted subversion of the rules. The emphasis on the production of the rule is embedded within the establishment of the individual and their movement and relationships in regards to the building, the entrance of Acedo as a caretaker presents the scripted choreography as a determining aspect. The typical separation of the services and the occupation collide to present a tension between that of the architecture imposing a use upon the body and an inherent knowledge of the individual constructing their behaviour in accordance to it. The temporary suspension of use creates a moment of subversion through the imprecise actuality of ‘use’.

Bêka, I and Lemoîne, L. 2018. Bêka & Lemoine Interview: The Emotion of the Space. Denmark: Louisiana Chanel. Available at: https:// vimeo.com/272727945 [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019]. 17

Bêka, I and Lemoîne, L. 2008. Koolhaas Houselife. Italy: BêkaFilms and Les Pneumatiques, pp. 161.

Ibid. Leatherbarrow, D. The Law of Meander., pp. 43.

“Misuse”

Use suggests “the potential for misuse”. 20

Jonathan Hill suggests the term “user” over “inhabitant” or “occupant” to describe the use of space. This position is constructed in response to the three different types of use that he presents; “passive”, “reactive” and “creative”. 21 Despite Hill’s understanding of “creative use” as being suggestive of “positive action”,22 the potential for “misuse” within such a context suggests a use labelled as ‘wrong’ (in either way or in purpose). This reading presents a complication in its understanding, if use suggests anything other than the execution of scripted possibilities, could Acedo the caretaker be seen to ‘misuse’ the ‘Maison Bordeaux’? If so, does “misuse” present a creative occupation? The framing of use in relation to a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ creates a reading of space that is grounded in a prior intention. In this respect it appears somewhat difficult not to deem the possibilities of the “user” as passive or reactive. The concept of “misuse” is at odds with clarifying the potential expanse of a “creative” act or series of. The body in space shaped and therefore affected by intention grows accustomed to the “virtual coordinates”23 of its surroundings. This complication of “misuse” can be studied alongside an interview with Neave Brown, which questions the assumed authorship of the architect himself. In the interview, Brown is shown walking through his Alexandra Road estate and pointing toward a sloping wall that sits on the facade of one of the buildings, a child is shown physically sliding down the wall. Brown states that “the whole of the building is a play space”,24 exclaiming with delight that the use was intended for “exactly that”.25 Use is an action, a movement that can be enacted according to a general principle. It has a direction and a form of contact which is opened up and expanded upon. Another clip frames two young boys as they jump over the rail of a stair and walk along a ledge. The two moments in relation to each other question the conditions that allow and/or create the opportunity for the body to add a layer of subversion (the process of undermining a question of control or authorship). The use of the architecture of the stair rail, the steps and the block suggest a reflective knowledge of the space itself through the body that creates a deeper understanding of what the space can do in service of the body. The body demands of the space. It questions whether the intention of scripting a subversive use prompts the construction of further use in an alternative way. It also questions whether the potential for subversion is a somewhat temporal process of negotiation, a use that becomes instilled and overlaid through this developed knowledge of the proportions and boundaries of the space in relation to the body. Use is affected over determined. The question of the scripting of space appears to hang in balance between the body and its use of the architecture. Bernard Tschumi draws a parallel between a literary narrative and the occupation of space, the event (the use) “unfolds”. 26 The level of chance inherent in the nature of human movement and its capacity to disrupt established behaviours “unfolds” the direct scripting. The introduction of the literary as a prompt and the framing of occupation as a gradual process draws a parallel with the concept of space as a syntax and frames use in the same way. The construction of the rules, the use, arranged by the individual. The possibility of a continuous and alternate construction. A question of subversion? The body adds a layer of chance to subvert the established definition of relationships, it questions whether the architecture facilitates

Ibid. Hill, J. Pp. 27.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 19.

2011. REVIEW Utopia London. UK: ICON. Available at: https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/review/item/9148-utopia-london [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019]. 24

Brown, N. 2018. Neave Brown, Alexandra Road. UK: Utopia London. Available at: https://vimeo.com/237158655 [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019].

Tschumi, B. 1996. Architecture and Disjunction. US: The MIT Press, pp. 146.

such a potential or whether the opportunity is taken, sliding down the rail, “a leap into the void.” 27 The body consistently brings an inherent subversion. The creation of the set (defined as the collection of furnitures as an architecture) and the interaction with the set is sequential. The process of construction and modification of the space has a consistent and again inherent level of unknown possibility. As a set of conditions, the understanding of the architect as a choreographer instills a momentary yet significant change. The live moment of the use of the architecture is an unknown with a scripted potential. This is in contrast with that of the live performance, an instilled knowledge which is reactive and prepared for a specific set of surroundings. The live performance sits outside of the game, a prepared model for a specific execution of an ideal. Use as an ‘event’ has to break through the conditions of the model, bringing the possibility of subversion. In the eponymous documentary Rem Koolhaas states “a building has at least two lives - the one imagined by its maker and the life it lives afterward - and they are never the same.” 28 The quote precedes a series of moving images during which a body is shown moving through an architecture doing parkour, from point to point the movement is framed. The movement is under, across, against, upon and through the ‘Casa da Musica’ and occasionally at odds with it. At times the movement, such as when scaling the chairs from front to back cut as a straight line, appears as a disruption of the intended use. At others, as the body pushes off or slides through the space it appears an alternate subversion of use. The conditions of the setting, of course isolated from its typical function, create different understandings of the level of subversion the human body brings to such established norms of behaviour. The potential is taken literally, in the case of the chairs, to subvert both the intended use and that of the embedded direction and relationships both physically and socially within the room. It also appears to build upon a theory of Merleau-Ponty, that

“ … knowing a fact involves more than simply being able to recall it from memory. Crucially it also means knowing how - and when - to employ

it … ” 29

The knowledge and capacity of the body, in relation to the levels, the direction and the material potential of the building provoke an imagination of use. The possibilities of the body in motion and the possibilities of its employment collide with a set of preconditions. The movement is a negotiation, a process of exchange between the body and the use. At its most extreme the body challenges the capacities of use. A change from a ‘use of ’ to ‘to be in use’, a ‘usage’.

The duality of an occurrence and a facilitation, the process of allowing or the chance to take.

The 'Casa de Musica’ building is conceived as a “continuous public route”. 30 It introduces the concept of the gap or a series of gaps within the specific spatial relations of the architecture. “Flexibility is the creation of a margin - excess capacity that enables different and even opposite interpretations and usages.” 31 This appears to embed the concept of the syntax, the structuring according to usage. The moments inside and outside of the margin script different possibilities of movement and a level of subversion. The notion of the margin as a measure for potential use realigns an understanding of use through “affordances; the opportunities for action that spaces offer us and which are partly dependent on our bodily abilities to engage with them”32, a structuring from “within” and “outside in”. 33 This, however, can frame use with an inherent “reactive” element, improvised within a set of conditions. The

Jobey, L. 2016. Hold still. UK: Tate Modern. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/hold-still [Accessed: March 7th, 2019]. 27

Koolhaas, T. 2014. OFFICIAL TRAILER FOR ‘REM’ DOCUMENTARY. US: Tomas Koolhas. Available at: https://vimeo.com/75328510 [Accessed: March 4th 2019]. 28

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 20.

OMA. 2005. Casa da Musica. Rotterdam: OMA. Available at: https://oma.eu/projects/casa-da-musica [Accessed: March 23rd, 2019].

Ibid. Hill, J. Pp. 36.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 18.

Ibid. Hale, J. Pp. 25.

placement of the gap, the pause, is key in the structuring of the syntax. Its mismanagement has the potential to shift the physical use of space to a perceptive one. The chance to leap, the potential to structure, a uniform knowledge.

A moment of completion

“A building has at least two lives … ”

The life of the architecture is considered as pre-existing its use, the use is then subsequently considered as bringing an element of life. The body in itself, a live detail. The subtle gesture of occupation formalised, the fourth wall of the architecture broken. This suggestion of “two lives” implies that the intention predates the use. The chance for a subversion of use is implied as acknowledged and known, perhaps enacted upon, yet treated as a separate element. The control of the architect ends with the formalisation of the figure as the body, beyond its prior abstraction. The unknown predates the known and both are finite. If the use of space is considered as a syntax, a series of constructions through observation, then the ‘life’ of the architecture and its use appears cyclical. The entrance of the body is an act of completion, the conclusion to the sequence. Its motion, the in-between, framed in relation to the intention and the use.

A game of chance, a subverted cycle, an expected disruption.

Use presents itself as the framing of juxtapositions.

Bibliography (concise)

Adam, P. 2009. EILEEN GRAY HER LIFE AND WORK. UK: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Bêka, I and Lemoîne, L. 2018. Bêka & Lemoine Interview: The Emotion of the Space. Denmark: Louisiana Chanel. Available at: https://vimeo.com/272727945 [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019]. Bêka, I and Lemoîne, L. 2008. Koolhaas Houselife. Italy: BêkaFilms and Les Pneumatiques. Brown, N. 2018. Neave Brown, Alexandra Road. UK: Utopia London. Available at: https://vimeo.com/237158655 [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019]. Hale, J. 2017. Merleau-Ponty for Architects. UK: Routledge. Hill, J. 2003. ACTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: ARCHITECTS AND CREATIVE USERS. UK: Routledge. Koolhaas, T. 2014. OFFICIAL TRAILER FOR ‘REM’ DOCUMENTARY. US: Tomas Koolhas. Available at: https://vimeo.com/ 75328510 [Accessed: March 4th 2019]. Leatherbarrow, D. 2009. Unscripted Performances. Architecture Oriented Otherwise. US: Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 43. OMA. 2005. Casa da Musica. Rotterdam: OMA. Available at: https://oma.eu/projects/casa-da-musica [Accessed: March 23rd, 2019]. Tschumi, B. 1996. Architecture and Disjunction. US: The MIT Press. # TOPIE IMPITOYABLE /// ETHICS OF THE VISCOUS BODY (MUNARI, MCLEAN & FAUSTINO). France: The Funambalist. Available at: https://thefunambulist.net/architectural-projects/topie-impitoyable-ethics-of-the-viscous-body-munarimclean-faustino [Accessed: January 10th, 2019]. 2011. REVIEW Utopia London. UK: ICON. Available at: https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/review/item/9148-utopia-london [Accessed: March 22nd, 2019].

Each of the four photographs (in order)

Ibid. Adam, P.

2017. Morphing Realities. UK: Aesthetica Magazine Ltd. Available at: http://www.aestheticamagazine.com/morphing-realities/ [Accessed: January 31st, 2019].

Jobey, L. 2016. Hold still. UK: Tate Modern. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/hold-still [Accessed: March 7th, 2019].

Perez, A. 2010. AD Classics: House VI / Peter Eisenman. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/63267/ad-classics-house-vi-petereisenman. [Accessed: March 24th, 2019].