Theory in the Making Katja Hogenboom
acy of Pr g o l o c an E tes on o N y r cto Introdu / s r e g ttari e Sten lix Gua gies e o l F Isabell ( o c m E adig ree tic Par The Th e tices / h t i s r e a t A uat he FĂŠlix G ourriaud / T B s Nicola r etween ls and Powe ) B t r e A c a d l an tua AP ction: Intellec u / d t o l r u t a n uc /I endell chel Fo Jane R leuze and Mi heor y e lT Gilles D man / Letha z elling ei ra, Dw Eyal W o h C , men z / Wo chnologies s o r G te th Elizabe / Container hat Matter a fi st Zoe So tler / Bodie ias rit Bu e Judith imaeus and C Scienc pectives e h T : T dges Pers Plato / Knowle ge of Partial d e t a Situ ivile away / m and the Pr ds Objects r the a H a ar uze on inis e w l Donn o e m T e D s F : ings ation on in Becom Questi mad / Orient s u o u ntin Ah Sarah dotti / Disco ilosophy d in i a Ph nd Min a e r u t Rosi Br -Woman of hitec ing on: Arc n i t c Becom u d tio ntro ing in ann / I nforma and the Liv I m d t n p a u Life ation ah Ha epts of Debor f Communic c n o C he eo the Ag Lazzarato / T ol io Mauriz ties of Contr s of Control tie cie the So leuze / Socie ges e sembla cing the New s A Gilles D f o rodu ency The Ag a Frost / Int / t t e nth enn Jane B ole and Sama o exity Diana C ms Compl l a i r s e li t a Materi eLanda / Ma lD Manue
Philosophies > ResArc PhD course > KTH Stockholm > CONCEPTUAL COLOURING-IN BOOK > august 2013
Theory in the Making Katja Hogenboom, PhD researcher, Ume책 School of Architecture
Philosophies > ResArc PhD course > KTH Stockholm > CONCEPTUAL COLOURING-IN BOOK > august 2013
Table of Contents introduction - Theory in the Making 01 relationality
1 CCTV’s autonomy: aesthetic fluidity as partial object 2 What is critical consciousness at bottom if not an unstoppable predilection for alternatives? 02 Spatiality
3 Performativity in Diller Scofidio + Renfro 4 Situating Koolhaas as a feminist objectivist 03 Materiality
5 Noopolitics quote/image 6 The Possibilities of the Accident Afterword - Empowered Reflection Bibliography/ References
introduction Theory in the Making Right from the start of the PhD course ‘Philosophies’ at the KTH in Stockholm I deliberately wanted to experiment with ‘applying’ the selected theory readings from the philosophies course to my PhD case study, the China Central Television Headquarters in Beijing (CCTV) by Rem Koolhaas. This making theory operational, or as Jane Rendell puts it; a selfreflexive mode of theoretical work (as a tool); as a chance not only to reflect on existing conditions, but also to imagine something different, to transform rather than to describe (text 2 in this booklet), is relevant only when situated, and partial as Donna Haraway explains. Objectivity and the possibility to make rational knowledge claims should be based on partial perspective, location, positioning, situating and the activation of the object. The objectivity in partial perspective ‘situated knowledge’ is about being transparent and clear about ones position (text 4). The questions, observations and associations that emerged out of this combination of specific theory and my project, where guided by my main PhD research question. How can, while engaging with the paradoxical and complex realities of the modern everyday, through different techniques of estrangement (micro-politics), architecture as unique spatial and aesthetic knowledge, in its presence (autonomy) and representation, play a role in transforming reality? How can through techniques of estrangement a questioning, unfinishedness/ imperfection, a situated freedom, or as Harraway calls it the partial perspective, be enacted in a project. In my research I am looking at different ‘practices’ of estrangement, such as laughter, the joke, the error, stammering, the void, silence and other ‘categories‘ that deal with a delayed experience, an altering moment, an activation of the viewer through the aesthetics (representation) and experience (presence) of a work. Or as Guattari in Three ecologies so well puts: A subjectifivization vector, or ’shifter’, capable of deterring our perception before ‘hooking it up
again’ to other possibilities: that of an “operator of junctions in subjectivity”. It has as Guattari defined an ‘aesthetic fluidity’ which cannot be detached from the works autonomy, the ‘partial object’ derives from a “relative subjective autonomization”. (…) Here, the aesthetic object acquires the status of a “partial enunciator”, whose assumption of autonomy makes it possible to “foster new fields of reference”. (text 1) In my research not only looking at the relational aspects, what architecture produces through its participatory (programmatic) potential, is important, but also the way the autonomous object, the imaginative presence and potential of the form (visual), itself produces political effects/ forms/ aesthetics/ images, is essential to take into account, since without autonomous presence there are no relations. (text 1)
Instead of condemning the architectural object as an effect and instrument of overwhelming social forces and ‘rather than repeating that nothing can be done because of capitalism, which demands and co-opts, Lefebvre encourages us to think of architecture as irreducible to the mode of production, state, and social relations: Lefebvre suggests a dialectical understanding of the conflict between specifically architectural imagination and the forces aimed at instrumentalizing it.[1] A building is not simply a reflection of its functions, but is in fact active, constitutes information, behaviour, actions and perception over time, which are expressed both through the materiality (aesthetics) of the building and the image it projects. Architecture is both about presence and representation. It is about space and aesthetics, since every action produces an image. In my analysis of the China Central Television Headquarters in Beijing (CCTV) by Rem Koolhaas I will look further than purely traditional (stylistic) approaches of analysis that primarily focus on the formal aspects of a project. When you like to catch where things are
at work you have to register carefully the forms of agency and the relations that emerge in its spatial constellation and aesthetics effects applied. The CCTV building resists the celebration of the media house as just another icon (brand), and favours a much more dynamic understanding of its representation. The CCTV building as icon represents the power and media in China, but through its changing loop-form is at the same time deflating this image. It does not provide power in China an easy icon. Both on content and on a formal level the conflation of different media (loop, program, construction, tectonics, scale, bigness) produces a fundamental dissymmetry between media, provoking a distortion or destabilisation of identification and representation. The physical build loop, it is a visual effect, no skyscraper, establishing an urban site, rather than a point to the sky.[2] It challenges you to rethink it from every position you see it, its sculptural effect with its constant changing appearance, being a Z, I or otherwise estranging formation in relation to its environment. As audience you become a participant in asking what it is. The representation of the building is not a ‘passively representative image’, the image takes on the role of subjectifivization vector, or ’shifter’, capable of deterring our
dynamic snapshots of CCTV media Headquarters China/ Beijing
1 CCTV’s autonomy: aesthetic fluidity as partial object
01 relationality
Ecologies of Practice
perception before ‘hooking it up again’ to other possibilities: that of an “operator of junctions in subjectivity”[3]. It has as Guattari defined an ‘aesthetic fluidity’ which cannot be detached from the works autonomy, the ‘partial object’ derives from a “relative subjective autonomization”. (…) Here, the aesthetic object acquires the status of a “partial enunciator”, whose assumption of autonomy makes it possible to “foster new fields of reference”.[4] Although paradoxical, autonomous systems (or autopoiesis)[5] can only exist through its interconnectedness with its environment. Autonomy derives through its interactivity with its environment, its separateness is there through its interconnectedness. Our own autonomy, its defined social relations, means nothing without environment, paradoxically, it is necessarily dynamic, and it is stable in time and change. Not only looking at the relational aspects, what architecture produces, is important, but also the way the autonomous object itself produces political effects/ forms/ aesthetics/ images, is essential to take into account, without autonomous presence there are no relations.
Quote by Edward Said: ‘What is critical consciousness at bottom if not an unstoppable predilection for alternatives?
01 relationality
The Theory Toolbox
2
What is critical consciousness at bottom if not an unstoppable predilection for alternatives? Jane Rendell sees the self-reflexive mode of theoretical work (as a tool); as a chance not only to reflect on existing conditions, but also to imagine something different, to transform rather than to describe. Deleuze states theory must be used, and continues that theory is by nature opposed to power. But what about the theory concepts hijacked by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), as Eyal Weizman so thoroughly analyses in Lethal Theory? Taken into the wrong hands, theoretical concepts are transformed not to subvert power but to project it, to improve the ‘art of warfare’ and to project the image of a different, more civilized military force than the Arab militaries and Palestinian guerrilla fighters it opposes (The Least of All Possible Evils). Isabelle Stengers writes (theory as) a tool is never neutral. The director of the Operational Theory Research Institute agrees, but adds ‘(…) theory is not married to its socialist ideals.’ If theory development is to inform practice and even according to Rendell should propose an alternative, through which civic agenda should this be enacted than? Eyal Weizman in his third roundtable PhD research group[1] developed the idea of Forensic Architecture. Forensic Architecture refers to the presentation of spatial analysis within contemporary legal and political forums. The project undertakes research that maps, images, and models sites of violence within the framework of international humanitarian law and human rights. Through its public activities it also situates forensic architecture within broader historical and theoretical contexts. Forensic Architecture is organised in two distinct ways, Fields where the research takes place, and forums[2] where the research outcomes are presented, discussed and even taken to court with Architecture as witness (Elastic Politics) and to be judged as criminal act. Here critical practice is used, clearly with a civic agenda of justice, to excavate, lay-bare the wrongdoing. But as Tony Judt so well puts: ‘As citizens of a free society, we have a duty to look critically at our world. But if we think we know what is wrong, we
must act upon that knowledge. Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.’ Excavating reality is not enough; I believe that architecture should propose, should imagine something different. According to Umberto Eco, in his idea of the Open Work from 1962, just breaking open the cliché, to arrive at a multitude of possibilities, is not enough. Openness, as developed by Eco does not go without directionality. But this openness is not after a sense of truth, we should try to escape the major key, work in minor key, to go ‘through the middle’, which would mean without grounding definitions or an ideal horizon. [3] We have to see, like Leibniz, that we live in the ‘best of possible worlds’ we have to work from within, to identify a micro-politics of change that reinvent the idea of publicness and privacy through an estranging and spatial aesthetic that provide the ground for enactments of new forms of emancipation.
Chora
3
Performativity in Diller Scofidio + Renfro Images no longer merely document buildings but investigate the visual and spatial realities of the present (…) these architects (Diller Scofidio + Renfro) make contemporary space intelligible, playful, and unpredictable by controlling how and what we see and cannot see.[1] Judith Butler proposes that matter is “clearly defined by a certain power of creation and rationality,” so that to know the “significance of something is to know how and why it matters. Where ‘to matter’, means at once ‘to materialize’ and ‘to mean’.”[2] If the body then is clearly matter, how that body comes to materialize, mean, or matter is contingent on its origination, its transformation, and its potentiality. The body’s intelligibility therefore is not a given but is produced. Butler identifies the production of this intelligible body at the site of performativity or its “specific modality of power as discourse.” Sex and gender are both social and historical constructions according to Butler.[3] Working in the spatial disciplines means, to look at how place and gender are performed. On the subjective level on which we perceive objects and the objective level that determines how and what we are able to perceive. As an example of a practice which has experimented with this specific performativity and intelligibility I will look at the work of Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DS+R). Around the 1980s, the focus of architectural theory had shifted from autonomy and linguistic semiotic approaches, towards cultural criticism and critical theory, concerns with constructions of subjectivity and gender, power and property and other themes, came to the fore in it spatial and constructional dimensions. In a project like The withdrawing Room D+S used in a different and higher register of exposition the autonomous working of architecture and its self-referentiality of the 70s, by folding it into
photo of the bookcover Maxwell L. Anderson et al. Scanning the aberrant architectures of diller + scofidio (New York: Witney Museum of American Art, 2003)
02 Spatiality
various discourses of context and exteriority, recalibrated according to what is sayable or thinkable in the idiolects of psychoanalysis, feminism, and other theoretical systems that seek to analyse the hidden structures of domestic life. [4] This, what they called scanning, meant disclosing the extrinsic, ideological structures that contaminate and complicate the intrinsic, supposedly pure forms and techniques of architecture. [5] This intelligibility (in Butler’s terms), a disclosure of ideologies has become central to the work of Diller + Scofidio. Work based on experience with everyday life (…) in their investigations of domestic space, the withdrawing Room (1987). It also introduced a predilection for viewing contemporary culture as a system of signs to be read, performed, and, most optimistically, rewritten. [6] DS+F describe their work as an exploration of vision, vision in the partial sense as Haraway explains, “The “eyes’ made available in modem technological sciences shatter any idea of passive vision; these prosthetic devices show us that all eyes, including our own organic ones, are active perceptual systems, building on translations and specific ways of seeing, that is, ways of life.”[7] Their work explores new materials, shifting definitions of the body, and novel modes of architectural transparency. Or as Diller herself says: our interest lies in interrogating spatial conventions of the everyday. Their work produces connections between different levels of existence, not by presenting us with representation, but rather by scanning for the contradictions, gaps, and occlusions that prevent us from gaining any perspective on our situation beyond the immediate reified moment and its ideological closures. Starting form deconstructing the everyday, as in the folded shirt project, Bad Press (1993) This series of ‘mis-ironed’ men’s white dress shirts examines ironing as one among many household tasks conventionally guided by principles of motion economy, With their abnormal creases and origami-like folds, the Bad Press shirts are the various results of ironing having been freed from the aesthetics of efficiency.[8] Showing how the body’s intelligibility is produced.
Through a creation of displacement, in itself a performance, DS+R question the rationality of the action of ironing. Their understanding of architecture as involved in the display of performers and audiences in space becomes visible in the Brasserie (Seagram Building, Mies vd Rohe, New York), a design in which their concerns with media technology, theatricality, and public space became mainly explicit in the dramatic entering into the dining space. In the theatrical performativity the value system is shown. The aspirations of the studio was to ‘use both architecture and theatre, merged with aspects of performance and art, to celebrate the social aspects of dining’; by the roles played out of man and woman, gender performativity, voyeurism is made explicit. By making subversive gestures at power through speech (architectural syntax). The entrance of every visitor is captured by a camera and displayed with a little delay onto fifteen monitors above the bar, the theatricality is being emphasised in the way you have to make an entrance over the stairs that are jumps into the dining, giving you the opportunity to overlook, but mainly to be seen. The way DS+R are working reminds me besides Butler of the way Donna Haraway described feminist objectivity as it makes room for surprises and ironies at the heart of all knowledge production; we are not in charge of the world. We just live here and try to strike up noninnocent conversations by means of our prosthetic devices, including our visualization technologies. Reflecting on the discipline of architecture engaging with the everyday in the ‘real’ world without becoming self-referential or about any truth finding, instead finding new ways of working for every new project on the way. With an evident visible joyfulness, full of indirect suggestions about how to live in the contemporary world, works as constant reminder of the indispensability of humour and irony. An inspiring reminder, that imagination and commitment to the public realm has the capacity to question commodification. However with their ever-questioning performance it becomes less clear what kind of world they are after, beyond what they make intelligible.
With situated knowledge, feminist objectivity, Donna Haraway develops an alternative for feminist science, instead of the polarizing positions; feminist empiricism or radical constructivism, which remain within the doctrine they critique. Haraway critiques the Western doctrines of scientific objectivity, based on reductionism, describing and discovering the world by means of deconstructing, constructing, and arguing, with the aim of finding universalities and claims to truth. In critiquing this claim to scientific objectivity Haraway aims to develop better accounts of a ‘real’ world, not depending on logic of ‘discovery’ but on a power-charged social relation of ‘conversation’. Objectivity and the possibility to make rational knowledge claims, should be based on partial perspective, location, positioning, situating and the activation of the object. Acknowledging that seeing is not neutral, we all actively interpret and translate all we see and have specific ways of seeing, and that infinite vision, seeing all at ones, or from different points of view at the same time, is an illusion, a God trick, “only partial perspective promises objective vision”, means according to Haraway that we need to clarify from which location, position we are viewing, since we have a specific and particular subjective position we have to be clear about it. The objectivity in partial perspective is about being transparent and clear about ones position. “Objectivity turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment.” Although the marginal and peripheral position, the subjugated position is a favorable one, because they seem to hold the promise of a transformative account of the world, Haraway warns us against the dangers of romanticising and/or appropriating the vision of the less powerful while claiming to see from their positions” Here we also have to be critical, partial and think and act situated.
Haraway believes that in partial perspectives lies the possibility of a rational objective inquiry into the world, but it is not about relativism and an ‘anything goes’, because “Relativism is a way of being nowhere while claiming to be everywhere equally. The ‘equality” of positioning is a denial of responsibility and critical inquiry.” And not just any partial perspective will do, “We are also bound to seek perspective from those points of view, which can never be known in advance, that promise something quite extraordinary, that is, knowledge potent for constructing worlds less organized by axes of domination.” A point of view or vision is always about the power to see, the position of one self in this world is always based on contradictions: contradicting point of views and departure, we have to make dirty hands, but, as Haraway, I see opportunities within the contradictory self “The split and contradictory self is the one who can interrogate positionings and be accountable, the one who can construct and join rational conversations and fantastic imaginings that change history. Splitting, not being, is the privileged image for feminist epistemologies of scientific knowledge.” Vision is also about translation, and “translation is always interpretive, critical, and partial. Here is a ground for conversation, rationality, and objectivity- which is power-sensitive, not pluralist, ‘conversation.’” Understanding subjectification is multidimensional, that it is a about a continuous becoming, a continues constructing and stitching together imperfectly, will leave openings and culture for runningroom for the unexpected, the encounter, and possible emancipations. The partial views, imperfections and unfinishedness, room for surprise and irony as being part of the knowledge production in feminist objectivity, the being part of the world, instead of viewing from a distance, conversations instead of a universal monologues,
photo of the bookcover Maxwell L. Anderson et al. Scanning the aberrant architectures of diller + scofidio (New York: Witney Museum of American Art, 2003)
4 Situating Koolhaas as a feminist objectivist
02 Spatiality
Altering Subjectivities
living with contradictions and opening up the cliché of the binary distinction, by the “activation of the object as knowledge’. I would like to call it a kind of ‘opportunistic optimism’. What I believe Haraway shares with Rem Koolhaas, is what you can call an ‘opportunistic optimism’ approach. What do I mean with that: Prejudice, judgment (from an ideal idea, or critique in advance) is delayed (on hold) as long as possible: you analyse; see what is there without prejudice, map it, operate within it to see its transforming possibilities in situ. And you believe, are convinced, that working from within, the everyday, (including its cyborg, artificial, virtual, media, popular transformations) can give situated freedom a chance to blossom. Not negotiation, but possibilities from within are mobilised. Not the formulation of ideas, that once applied in reality can only disappoint, but what reality has to offer can change the world.
Like what happened in New York retroactively, through a lived experiences, they way the market works and enlightened developers. In fact, polemically stated, Delirious New York is the Cyborg City Haraway talks about. While Diller Scofidio + Renfro deconstruct and make visible, Koolhaas (and Haraway) accept the schizophrenic and paradoxical reality of the modern everyday. They understand that we need to deal with this reality and even that we have to work for it to arrive at possible emancipation.
projects/nike-gold-beijing-2008-cctv-projections/
filmstills of movie: Nike x CCTV - Nike Gold Projections CCTV Headquarter, http://sartoria.com/
03 Materiality
Noopolitics
5
Noopolitics quote/ image
“(…) architectural and urban processes, procedures, and products commingle to form complex systems of recurrent and recursive circuits, which, in the end, help produce novel forms of networks that empower the imagination and constitute the cultural landscape with new objects and subject relations.” Deborah Hauptmann [1] The notorious and much debated China Central Television Headquarters in Beijing (CCTV) by architect Rem Koolhaas is exceptionally interesting on many fronts, and already its representation. The CCTV building (already as assignment, to make an icon) as icon represents the power/ media in China, but through its changing loop-form is at the same time deflating this image. It does not give the communist party in China an easy icon. Rem Koolhaas does not deny Noopolitics but engages with it, through the strange images, which do not have any fixed meaning. Its image is inconsumable. As audience you become a participant in asking what it is. It asks more questions, than it gives answers. Both on a content and on a formal level the conflation of different media (loop, program, construction, tectonics, scale, bigness) produces a fundamental dissymmetry between media, provoking a distortion or destabilization of identification and representation. In the case of the projection of the Olympic athletes sponsored by Nike on the façade of the CCTV building, it conflates the virtual and the real, the presence of the building and the representation of and on the building alternatingly or simultaneously visible, and at certain times even coincide, without ever becoming final or absolute.
A 45.000 sqm choreographed slideshow on the CCTV Central China TeleVsion headquarters in Beijing of China’s best athletes on 4 columns of the building, facing the west side and the south side, using 80 state-of-the-art projectors, special custom lenses to compensate the excessive and obtrusive artificial night lights, the biggest multi-projection system ever created on a glass surface. http://sartoria.com/projects/nike-gold-beijing-2008-cctv-projections/
“Since I have a Judeo-Christian religious background, it is obvious to me that one must link any definition of the accident to the idea of the original sin. The content of this idea is merely that any person has the potential to become a monster. Now, this idea of original sin, which materialist philosophy rejects so forcefully, comes back to us through technology: the accident is the original sin of the technical object. Every technical object contains its own negativity. It is impossible to invent pure, innocent object, just as there is no innocent human being. It is only through the acknowledged guilt that progress is possible. Just as it is through the recognized risk of the accident that it is possible to improve the technical object”. Paul Virilio [1] A rigorous geometrical logic invades the spatial and representational concept without ever finalizing its tectonic effects. An ‘Accidental’ tectonic emerges that is both foreign, strange, provoking and enabling. A tectonic far beyond what Semper, Frampton or other phenomenologist could have imagined. The rationality of its construction (absoluteness, autonomy) does not just affirm power, but also undoes it (contrary to what Mies tried to do).
‘accidents’ in Interior China Central Television headquarters / Photo © Philippe Ruault’
6‘the possibilities of the accident’
03 Materiality
New Materialism
afterword Empowered Reflection The divers, independent, but related, philosophical theory concepts chosen and then offered as a shortlist of readings for this PhD course has empowered my reflection. Associative thinking has been almost automatically triggered through the interesting mix of theory concepts I was confronted with. I have felt challenged to make associations, and think speculative. Which is in fact the original Greek meaning of the word theoria, to “contemplate, speculate�. The close reading in combination with the requested short texts, of only 500 words, to be presented together with an image in the form of a blog-post online helped my speculative action. A method I will definitely continue to use during my research career. The choice to apply the readings directly to my own research topic has been very fruitful, and has given me besides the theory concept discussed in the course, among others to further explore the idea of autonomy afresh (from Cornelius Castoriadis, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela perspectives).
bibliography
references
references 1 CCTV’s autonomy: aesthetic fluidity as partial object Isabelle Stengers , ‘Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices’, in Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2005. Félix Guattari , The Three Ecologies, London: Athlone Press, 2000, (excerpt). Nicolas Bourriaud, ‘The Aesthetic Paradigm (Felix Guattari and Art)’, in Relational Aesthetics, Les Presses des Réel, 2002. NOTES [1] Lukasz Stanek. Henri Lefebvre on Space, Architecture, Urban research, and the production of theory (Minneapolis,: Minnesota Press, 2011) p.250 Stanek speaks about a not yet published book: Lefebvre in unpublished manuscript: Vers un Architecture de la juissance (225 pages, 1973) [2] Sven-Olof Wallenstein. ‘Media Houses, Architecture, Media, and the Production of Centrality’. (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2010) p.168 [3] Nicolas Bourriaud, ‘The Aesthetic Paradigm (Felix Guattari and Art)’, in Relational Aesthetics, Les Presses des Réel, 2002. [4] idem [5] The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela references 2 What is critical consciousness at bottom if not an unstoppable predilection for alternatives? Jane Rendell, ‘Introduction: A Place Between’, in Art and Architecture: A Place Between, London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. (Alternative reading: Jane Rendell, ‘Critical Spatial Practices: Setting Out a Feminist Approach to some Modes and what Matters in Architecture’ in Lori Brown, ed., Feminist Practices: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Women in Architecture, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2011.) Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault , ‘Intellectuals and Power,’ in Language, Memory, Counter-Practice, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1977. Eyal Weizman, ‘Lethal Theory’, in Log 7, Winter/Spring 2006.
NOTES [1] at the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths University of London [2] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/project/ accessed 11 03 2013. [3] Isabelle Stengers , ‘Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices’, in Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2005. references 3 Performativity in Diller Scofidio + Renfro Elizabeth Grosz, ‘Women, Chora, Dwelling’ in Jane Rendell, Barbara Penner, Iain Borden, Gender Space Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Routledge, 2000 Zoe Sofia , ‘Container technologies’ in Hypatia vol. 15, no. 2, 2000 Judith Butler , ‘Bodies that Matter’, in Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, London: Routledge, 1993 Plato, Timaeus and Critias, London: Penguin Books, 1965 (excerpt). Alberto Péréz Gómez, editor, Chora, please select an essay from this series (optional). NOTES [1] Edward Dimenberg. Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Architecture after Images. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2013) [2] Judith Butler , ‘Bodies that Matter’, in Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, London: Routledge, 1993 [3] Jane Rendell. Tendencies and Trajectories: Feminist Approaches in Architecture. In C. Greig Crysler, Stephen Cairns, Hilde Heynen, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory, London: SAGE Publications, 2012. [4] K. Michael Hays. Scanners in Maxwell L. Anderson et al. Scanning the aberrant architectures of diller + scofidio (New York: Witney Museum of American Art, 2003) [5] K. Michael Hays. Scanners in Maxwell L. Anderson et al. Scanning the aberrant architectures of diller + scofidio (New York: Witney Museum of American Art, 2003) [6] Edward Dimenberg. Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Architecture after Images. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2013)
bibliography
references
[7] Donna Haraway , ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives’, in Feminist Studies, pp. 575–599, 1988. [8] Maxwell L. Anderson et al. Scanning the aberrant architectures of diller + scofidio (New York: Witney Museum of American Art, 2003) references 4 Situating Koolhaas as a feminist objectivist Donna Haraway , ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives’, in Feminist Studies, pp. 575–599, 1988. Sarah Ahmad , ‘Orientations Towards Objects’ in Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others, Durham and Londo: Duke University Press, 2006. Rosi Braidotti , ‘Discontinuous Becomings: Deleuze on the Becoming-Woman of Philosophy’ in Nomadic Subjects, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. references 5 Noopolitics [1] Deborah Hauptmann, ‘Introduction: Architecture and Mind in the Age of Communication and Information’, in Deborah Hauptman, eds. Cognitive Architecture: From Biopolitics to Noopolitics, Rotterdam 010 Publishers, 2010. references 6 ‘the possibilities of the accident’ [1] Paul Virilio, “surfing the Accident, “ in The Art of the Accident: Art Architecture and Media Technology(Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1998) p. 30 Quote in: Keller Easterling, Enduring Innocence global architecture and its political masquerades, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press books, 2005 p123