g n i r e y t h v e
eve ryw here f orev e r
Elsa Jannborg
contents Intro Patterns for Us All The Way is Not to Sit Down in Their Seat Put Soul Into the Body ”refuse to disappear on cue” (p. 177) “In patriarchy men own women and space.” (p. 30) 5000 m2 Interaction Porridge and People Outro Bibliography
Intro It’s about everyone’s right to be valuable treated. We are all precious. It’s about my way to be strong. Like that time in the rowboat out on the windy open sea. We made our way ashore. The panic helped us. Terrified. We were creative. I’m not good at rowing. Now I’m sitting alone in the boat. If I give up? Will I swirl around in the ocean for eternity then? I should drive ashore one day? Some day. Boats should come by. Someone might see me. I had almost forgotten one thing. I may be a poor rower, but I’m an awesome swimmer! svenska:
Som den där gången i roddbåten ute på blåsigt öppet hav. Då tog vi oss i land. Paniken hjälpte oss. Livrädda. Vi var kreativa. Jag är inte bra på att ro. Nu sitter jag ensam i båten. Om jag ger upp? Kommer jag virvla omkring på havet i all evighet då? Jag borde driva i land en dag? Någon dag. Båtar borde komma förbi. Någon kanske ser mig. Jag hade nästan glömt en grej. Jag må vara usel på att ro, men jag är grym på att simma!
Patterns for Us All
i/c = v, or in words: inside / contour = variety.
muf, who work with public realm architecture and art, have their own formula. Their formula is d/s = D, or in words: detail/strategy = DETAIL. We all have our way of doing things. I have my way of doing things. My way of doing architecture. I guess I started to form it when I made a hug. I needed one, really needed one. So, there I had it; a piece of furniture that made it possible for anyone to call me and give me a hug. This is the first part of my formula (i/c = v). I start from the inside of myself: inside (i). The contour (c) is the next step. It’s about taking the inside (i) and translate it to a general idea; a general contour. But the contour itself isn’t much of a useful conclusion. Whom does something general really fit? Not me anyway; I’m too short. Yes, we humans are much alike. Yes, we are all different. I take the contour and modify it to a pattern repeat. The repeat itself is a foundation for variety (v). There are eternal different ways to do the repeat. Different placing. Different colors. Different numbers of repetitions. Different. It creates patterns for us all.
The Way is Not to Sit Down on Their Seat
”Because women historically have been excluded from creative activities, been forgotten or devalued, it is common that women don’t see themselves as creative people. […] Fuck that shit!” (Kvinnors byggforum, Kreativiteten) I have read the introduction of Lori A. Brown’s Feminist Practices: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Women in Architecture (2011). She wants to raise awareness about how feminist methodologies influence on design and our relation to the built surroundings. One motive was to increase the role of the female architects. In America, there are about as many women as men who begins studies of architecture, but there are far less women than men left in the fifth year of architect studies. But the women do increases. As the number of women architects increases the visibility of us should increase in the same proportions, but it’s not. Lori A. Brown means that one reason is that the exposed architecture is not diverse enough (p. 2). There are not enough role models for women and minorities; those who could be are invisible. There has to establish a more diverse exposing of architecture. Feminist Practices: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Women in Architecture is one method. I
think that it also has to come more direct and approachable for everybody. As long as people outside the faculty only sees the starchitect way of doing architecture other ways will have it hard to exist. It’s far fewer women in positions of power in architecture (p. 1), but as long as the power positions are about iconic buildings and people’s hubris I do not want to be in a position of power. They say the earth is a sphere They say it has no corners The pope said that the earth was flat The scientist says that we always known it’s is a sphere I say the earth is a square I say we have to erase the corners
Put Soul Into the Body
I have read The Mutant Body of Architecture by George Teyssot, an introduction to Flesh: Architectural probes, by Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofido. I was struggling through the text and I don’t really know if I completely understand it, but I think I know why I was struggling. To me it felt like a lot in the text was presented as objects. The comparison between the human and the machine made both the human and the machine to appear as objects. A body is an object and a human itself is a subject. To talk about the human body, and not the soul, makes the discussion about objects. To pick off the subject and instead talk about an object made me frustrated. I don’t mean that it was Tessot’s intension to make it about objects, but it was how I perceived it. For most people it’s evident that human beings aren’t objects. It’s the opposite, we are subjects. Unfortunately there are many times when I wonder if people don’t have any respect at all. Time after time. In the media, in the law, etc. people presents as objects. It’s the ones who present that picture that is soulless. You can be an object. What about buildings? Often when I tell people that I’m an architect the reaction is “okay, you’re an architect. Then you’re building houses!”. A reaction that indicates that they mean I create objects. Are buildings objects? Buildings are
just material. Wood, stones, metal, concrete, bricks, plaster. Walls, floor, windows, doors, roofs. Is that true? Could it be someting more? For me it is. Much more. What is it that makes it so evident that humans are subjects but buildings are not? If you look at humans as subjects and buildings as objects it would mean the relationship between them are unidirectional. The human are aware of her/him self and one’s surrounding. Buildings give something back. Even if a building doesn’t think, it affects us more than just giving us protection from weather and wind. It has impact on how we feel and how we act. The relationship is therefore not unidirectional at all. Then, for certain, even the building should be a subject. Just like the human buildings have souls. As an architect you have to be aware of the buildings soul. You must think about it. You must see on every little piece of architecture as a subject. Don’t just look at it as a body. Look at it as a body with a soul. It’s not only about that the rooms around us affect us, it’s also about how we present our work. How they present by others. How we talk about architecture. If one say something over and over, at last it will be true. If one omits the subject too many times it will disappear. In the end it will not only concern the subject of the building, but also about the subject of the human. We can’t walk around on this earth as empty bodies.
”refuse to disappear on cue” (p. 177)
I tend to judge people quite fast. I’m aware of that. I’m judging out people who are different from me. It’s my weakness. It becomes our weakness. We could have been able to come close. We could have got to know each other. We could have saved the world. I start to read the chapter a ‘Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century’ in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature by Donna J. Haraway. “A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction.” (p. 149) The first thing I do is to judge out the text. I don’t understand this. I don’t identify myself with cyborgs. They are not like me. We will not be able to save the world together. I’m forced to getting to know those who I’ve judged out. We have common friends. We work at the same place. We live together. We travel the same daily trips. We work out at the same gym. We shop in the same grocery store. Strangely we have the same weird interests. I continue to read. She writes about dualism. ”they have all been systemic to the logics and practices of domination of women, people of colour, nature, workers, animals – in short, domination of all constituted as others, whose task
is to mirror the self.” (p. 177) I start to see the similarities between us. We have a lot in common. We both are those who nobody understands. We both are run over without getting a chance. We both are the others. It’s the same thing every time; I change my mind. Those who I’ve judged out I’m welcoming back. At first I decide to just don’t understand them by not having anything to do with them. Then, suddenly, I’m deciding that I don’t need to understand them to have things to do with them. We share the same weird interests. We will save the world. Why is it always like this? The same story every time. Meeting a new person. Something is different. Judging it out. Stamping. Unconsciously I pretend to be someone I’m not. Unconsciously I try to step over the line to the other side. I try to be the self instead of the others. We are the others. We will save the world.
“In patriarchy men own women and space.” (p. 30)
You often act superior. You are doing it in every possible way. It’s expressed within all fields. Sometimes it’s about your strength. Sometimes it’s about knowledge. Sometimes it’s just about sex.
The architectural profession encourages us to think of architecture as something only architects do. (p.28)
Mostly I can see the injustice. Mostly I can see how wrong you are. Mostly I know better.
Doing architecture we follow certain rules
(pp. 31, 32, 33)
But there’s times when you fool me. The conviction you have about what you do, think, say, write convinces me that what you do, think, say, write is just as right as you seem to think it is. You are convincing by your conviction. It makes me convinced without even question. You make me think you are superior.
But who was I to speak to them? (p. 34)
You had me doubt myself. I doubted the things I was doing, because it wasn’t the things you did. I doubted the things I was thinking, because it wasn’t the things you thought. I doubted the things I was saying, because it wasn’t the things you said. I doubted the things I was writing, because it wasn’t the things you wrote.
They undo architecture as architecture undoes them. (p. 29)
I stopped doing, thinking, saying, writing as myself. Your conviction in your superiority made me break down into pieces. Disappear. Your way became my way. It’s not my way.
How could these women speak, when my own words were silencing them? (p.34)
I must believe in myself. I must question myself. What is it that I’m doing, thinking, saying, writing? Is it right? Is it me? I must question others. I must question you. Is it right? Is it reasonable? Is it good? Is it true?
5000 m2 Interaction hallway kitchen and living room bathrooms and bedrooms is this the way we live? is this the way we need to live? what do we need? what are our needs? I have to breathe I need shelter water food sex please let me sleep if not I will eventually fail I don’t need to be afraid here inside inside I feel safe a room of one’s own my way to become myself to be able to be to be able to be as long as I love and I’m loved as long as I belong it doesn’t have to be my own it doesn’t have to be you I do what I do you do what you do could we do something together
there is plurality there are possibilities it could be anything it can be everything all over we are building interaction because we need it because we want it it comes with responsibilities it gives us closeness we start to care care about each other we start to cut boundaries boundaries between us all I’m asking is for a little respect yes, it has to be mutual yes, it has to be real we can reach the sky we can do this everything everywhere forever
Porridge and People
I live in the biggest city of this country. People everywhere. We are traveling in the same subway. We are running in the same stairwells. We are standing in the same queue. Still, we are lonely. We don’t need to have anything to do with anyone. No friction. Some people would say it is perfect when there’s no friction. It’s easy. But to be able to live a life free from friction it can’t include interaction of any meaningful amount. It’s empty. The subtitle from a scene in the movie Together: Birger: It’s not so often someone comes to visit. So I have
to confess… I actually unscrewed that. I unscrewed it so you’d come here to fix it and we could talk some more. Maybe it was silly. Are you angry? Rolf: No, but unscrewing it… Are you nuts? Birger: Do you want a beer? Rolf: No, a cup of coffee would be good? Birger: I’ll put it on. Rolf: Bloody fool.
[…] Birger: A lot have improved, that’s true. I don’t have to eat
porridge every day. If I want to I just have to go down and buy a pork cutlet.
Rolf: mmhm Birger: I wonder if it wasn’t more fun then. We had each
other. I think that loneliness is the most awful thing in the world. Rolf: Yes, probably. Birger: Rather eat porridge together than a pork cutlet alone. We have to interact to fulfill our life. My home. A home for us. Where you can find everything. A home for me. A home for you. Private and common. Individual and shared. The individual is found in the shared. The shared is found in the individual. We share the individual. We share the shared. We join the individual. We join the shared. We don’t share everything. Mine is mine. A place which is my own can also be your own. A place which is our own can also be your own. Simultaneously or not simultaneously. Where I am. That’s mine. Where you are. That’s yours. The subtitle from another scene in the movie Together Göran: We are like oat flakes. At first we are alone and dry.
But then we’re cooked with the other oat flakes and become soft. We join so that one flake can’t be told apart from another. We’re almost dissolved. Together we become a big porridge that’s warm, tasty and nutritious. And yes, quite
beautiful too. So we are no longer small and isolated, but have become warm, soft and joined together. We’re part of something bigger than ourselves. Sometimes life feels like an enormous porridge, don’t you think? Sorry, I’m standing around dreaming. Do you want some porridge? Göran is making a lovely comparison but there is one important detail that’s making it untrue; we are still unique individuals. It’s easier to discount something. The world we live in discounts things. We are making it easy for some people to fulfill their life. We all have to fulfill our life. It isn’t easy. I don’t know if it ever will come true. Why? Because it need to be free from hierarchy and it need to be full with specific opinions.
Outro conclusion
this is just a start a glimpse for me a glimpse from me I have never been much of a reader and I haven’t written much for a very long time (everything is relative). Why, I’m not sure. I think there is more than one reason. This course was an opportunity to change these habits. The chapters are written independent from each other but still they are linked to each other. The different chapters have the same basic motive. It’s about everyone’s right to be valuable treated; we are all precious, and it’s about my way to be strong. This was nothing I planned but now, afterward, it feels obvious though that is two important issues. Every chapter is written on a decided theme and with a decided text as foundation. How direct these themes and references has been in my chapters varies. In some chapters I have quotes and used what have been said in the reference. In other chapter the text and the theme have served as a mind opener.
Some weeks I have had other things in mind which shines through in my texts. I see this as a positive thing. Some other weeks I have tried to put in the theme into the studio project, which hasn’t been easy on demand. I hope to be better on that. I have rarely come as far as I have hoped with the chapters, but for me it doesn’t matters that much. I know that there is more to grow in my mind. It’s no hurry. One day I’ll be ready. “See you in the board when I’m 50”.
Comments to peers one thing that I’ve been thinking of a lot is how viewer/reader often searching for a meaning in everything. Like art couldn’t be art without a meaning. (respond to Read Vs. Unread) For the firs: I do not understand why a practising architect has to feel like decisions have to be hard-core. Doesn’t one work with the idea or question to be able to make a logical decision? Well, I have only been working on an office for one year and only at one office, but in that office we worked against a goal and when we had come to the goal the decisions was made naturally. For the second: It may be true that students of architecture are taught to question their ideas. But what is a good idea? And who decides if an idea is good? There is clear that there is an underlying culture, at least at KTH, of different rights and wrongs. It’s hard to work in a different way than the “right” way. One can try to work differently, but mostly one will surrender. Lose. Compare the basic design studio with the critical studies design studio. One of them dose not even exist benefit to the other one. (respond to The cold-headed architect) Sometimes in city-wide strategies, and in other cases as well, it feels like the humanity not even have been considered. It makes me feel sick, and worried about the humanity. “How can you represent a group of people, when you are just one?”, Klara wrote in the begining. What else could we ever do other then base what we do on ourself? Wouldn’t that be to leave out the humanity? Because I’m the part of the humanity that I know about. Yes! We have to remember that WE are a part of this society. As long as we do that there is hope for the humanity. (respond to Who are you?)
Bibliography Patterns for Us All:
Katherine Shonfield, ‘Premature Gratification and Other Pleasures’ in This is What we do: a muf manual, London: Elipsis London, 2001. The Way is Not to Sit Down in Their Seat
Lori Brown, ‘Introduction’ Lori Brown, ed., Feminist
Practices: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Women in Architecture, London: Ashgate, 2011.
Kvinnors byggforum, Kreativiteten Put Soul Into the Body
Georges Teyssot, ‘The Mutant Body of Architecture’ in Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio, Flesh: Architectural Probes, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1994. ”refuse to disappear on cue” (p. 177)
Donna Haraway, ‘Cyborg Manifesto’ in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books, 1991, pp. 149-181
“In patriarchy men own women and space.” (p. 30)
Jane Rendell, Site-Writing: The Architecture of Art Criticism, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010. Porridge and People
Lukas Moodysson (director, writer). (2000) Together [movie]. Sweden: Memfis Film AB Peg Rawes, ‘Introduction’; ‘Touching and Sensing’ in Peg Rawes, Irigaray for Architects, London: Routledge, 2007.