Perception and Production of Space through Montage by Etulan Joseph

PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF SPACE THROUGH MONTAGE by Etulan A. Joseph

UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT MA ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH AND POSITIONING

PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF SPACE THROUGH MONTAGE by Etulan A. Joseph

PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF SPACE THROUGH MONTAGE FINAL ESSAY SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 10TH, 2019 ETULAN A. JOSEPH [STUDENT I.D. 1708803] UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER MA ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH AND POSITIONING TUTOR: DR. KRYSTALLIA KAMVASINOU

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1

“STRAIT” by NEMESTUDIO

[Photomontage] Courtesy of NEMESTUDIO

<http:// nemestudio.com/projects/strait>

[Accessed December 24, 2018]

Figure 2

“Sequences Diagrams for Alexander Nevsky and Battleship

Potëmkin” by Sergei Eisenstein

[Photograph of montage] Courtesy of Socks-Studio

<http://socks-studio.com/2011/04/21/sergei-eisenstein sequences-diagrams-for-alexander-nevsky-and-battleship potemkin/>

[Accessed December 20, 2018]

Figure 3

Poster from “Advertisements for Architecture” by Bernard Tschumi

[Photograph] Courtesy of We-Find-Wildness

<https://www.we-find-wildness.com/2010/12/bernard-tschumi advertisements-for-architecture/>

[Accessed December 29, 2018]

Figure 4

Drawings from “Manhattan Transcripts No.3” by Bernard Tschumi

[Drawing] Courtesy of Uncube Magazine

<http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/15708387>

[Accessed December 29, 2018]

Figure 5

Axonometric of Parc de la Villette by Bernard Tschumi Architects

[Drawing] Courtesy of ArchDaily

< https://www.archdaily.com/92321/ad-classics-parc-de-la villette-bernard-tschumi>

[Accessed December 8, 2018]

Figure 6

Layers Diagrams of Parc de la Villette by Office for Metropolitan

Architecture

[Drawing] Courtesy of Office for Metropolitan Architects

<http://oma.eu/projects/parc-de-la-villette>

[Accessed December 8, 2018]

Cover

[Photograph] Courtesy of Cameron McEwan

< https://cameronmcewan.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/after architect-aldo-rossi-la-biennale-di-venezia/>

[Accessed December 31, 2018]

INTRODUCTION

The

avant-garde

technique

of montage has had an impact on modern architecture as well as the contemporary. The current revitalization of the montage in the architectural sphere has almost possessed numerous

The avant-garde technique of montage has had an impact on modern architecture as well as the contemporary.

poster

boards

design

schools,

architecture

Instagram

posts

and of

students and enthusiasts. They are used as an alternative to computer-based renderings, stepping away from hyperrealistic visuals and producing ones that are more imaginative, abstract and more self-inspired; at times visuals are even more open-ended. The method has been and is still today used by some prominent architects and firms such as Bernard Tschumi, Rem Koolhaas and Fala Atelier. In the OMA project, the Parc de la Villette, Koolhaas and his team produced a montage of different levels of the project from layer diagrams. Porto-based firm, Fala Atelier never uses renderings but montages as a visual 1

Figure 1 “STRAIT” by NEMESTUDIO

visual

description

their

design

outcome, from the bedroom of an apartment

they’re

proposing

room

to a woman walking through a fictive gallery. Through personal observation, the method is increasingly becoming common as a way of perceiving space. However, what I find peculiar is the

How has the technique of montage infiltrated architecture, informing and depicting architectural space as well as used in the articulation and production of such space?

meagre amount of discourse on this method’s history, theory and how it’s been used in practice; even more so on its overlap between the two facets of knowledge production. Furthermore, the method has been common is perceiving space but what about as a research tool in producing architectural space? Can it be done? If so, how? Has it been done before by firms that are known for this method in the architecture field such as OMA and Bernard Tschumi Architects? Thus, the main question being asked is “How has the technique of montage infiltrated architecture, informing and depicting architectural space as well as used in the articulation and production of such space?” This essay aims to fill this 3

aperture, examining montage as an architectural method, its fundamental principle, how it was appropriated by architecture, its value or lack thereof to the field, and how it is used in both the perception and the production space.

DEFINITION

Montage, at its most fundamental

and original understanding sits outside the realm of architecture. It stems from the French language – the verb, ‘monter’, which means to assemble. It is primarily used in cinematography and film, used as an editing style where images,

shots

and

sequences

that

are understood as paradoxical are juxtaposed in order to create or suggest new ideas or interpretations. Essentially, through assemblage, key features are combined and new meanings are born. Even though it may appear as if these elements are arbitrary, they are not; having been strategically selected, 4

It stems from the French language – the verb, ‘monter’, which means to assemble.

curated and represented to have that specific effect on the audience (Todd, 1989, p.1). It wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t until Sergei Eisensteinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early work did the concept of montage find its way into architecture as the concept in which individual elements or fragments are assembled into a new operation or constellation for aesthetic purpose. This definition and notion was further

developed

through

several

historical and architectural figures, prying its way to become a central operation in modern architecture.

THE HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL EVOLUTION OF MONTAGE

This

notion

appropriation

and

collection,

construction

fragments was spread across a spectrum 5

of disciplines, from film to literature to

architecture.

However,

architectural operation, it began to be of profit through modernity. Though this method is primarily known throughout contemporary architectural discourse as a tool of Tschumi and Koolhaas, it was Sergei Eisenstein, a trained architect turned film theorist, who began to explore

and

theorize

this

method

(Deiru, 2007, p. 36). He argued that the method of montage was the essence of cinema, believing that moments can be both expounded on as well as linked through series of images. He then first introduced this avant-garde method to the architectural realm from his work “Montage in Architecture” in 1920, beginning to delve into the links between architecture and film due to the idea of motion in space as well as framing of space (Vidler, 1993). One of the critical moments in the book is his description of the Acropolis, illustrating how each ‘scene’ was framed through architecture. However, it accentuates 6

He argued that the method of montage was the essence of cinema, believing that moments can be both expounded on as well as linked through series of images.

the fact that it is only possible for this filmic experience of architecture through the movement of the observer. From his work, modernists drew out the notion of interpreting space in a sequential fashion; generating the discourse on the filmic experience of architecture.

Essentially, there is an assemblage operation for viewers of the city, putting together or establishing relationships between views that are like fragments, generating entirely new understandings of the city.

Walter Benjamin further developed

Eisenstein’s theories in “Arcades Project”; an unfinished literary work compiled between 1920s and 1940s. His work theorized montage to have the quality of temporality, dealing with time. He also looked at “architecture as an optical instrument;” a tool used by the masses to analyse fragments of their city and expand their vision. (Mertins, 2011, pp.124 – 125) Essentially, there is an assemblage operation for viewers of the city, putting together or establishing relationships between views that are like fragments, generating entirely new understandings of the city.

Henri Lefebvre was another figure

that injected some critical ideas for montage in architecture. He was a 7

Figure 2 “Sequences Diagrams for Alexander Nevsky and Battleship Potëmkin” by Sergei Eisenstein

French philosopher and sociologist who was “best known for pioneering the critique of everyday life, for introducing the concepts of the right to the city and the production of social space, and for his work on dialectics, alienation, and criticism of Stalinism, existentialism, and structuralism,” (Shields, 1999, p.1). He speaks about the city as ‘a series of

What Lefebvre sort of offers to the discourse is the notion of the modern city being a place where spatial qualities overlap and create spatial montage.

narratives’. What Lefebvre sort of offers to the discourse is the notion of the modern city being a place where spatial qualities overlap and create spatial montage. These spaces within the urban fabric hold specific social and historical meanings through habitation as well as motion through these urban domains; thus, new understandings and processes are created and even changed by these social and historical practices. Therefore, visual and spatial montage is conceived by participants of the city.

In retrospect to the contemporary,

Rem Koolhaas and Bernard Tschumi are the two most recognized architects that has used montage in their design work. 9

They

believe

spectatorial

the

montage

movements

within

architecture, which is very much similar to film. Tschumi is even known for his famous poster, as seen in Figure 3, which relates to this spectatorial or cinematic quality of architecture which said, “To really

appreciate

architecture,

you

may even need to commit murder” (Tschumi, 1977); taken from his series of

Advertisements

for

Architecture.

He also explores the method in other works such as “Manhattan Transcripts” and “Architecture and Disjunction”. In “Manhattan Transcripts” he stresses the sequential nature of motion and spaces within architecture. Drawing on some of Benjamin’s idea of time and montage saying, “The relationship of one frame to the next is indispensable insofar as no analysis of any one frame can accurately reveal how the space was handled altogether. The Transcripts are thus not self-contained images. They establish a memory of the preceding frame, of the course of events. Their final meaning is 10

They believe in the montage of spectatorial movements within architecture, which is very much similar to film.

Figure 3 Poster from â&#x20AC;&#x153;Advertisements for Architectureâ&#x20AC;? by Bernard Tschumi

Figure 4 Drawings from “Manhattan Transcripts No.3” by Bernard Tschumi

Figure 5 Axonometric of Parc de la Villette by Bernard Tschumi Architects

Figure 6 Layers Diagrams of Parc de la Villette by Office for Metropolitan Architecture

cumulative; it does not depend merely on a single frame, but on a succession of frames or spaces,â&#x20AC;? (ibid), building on the concepts of predecessors of the method. Koolhaas, with his screenwriting background, also made use of the method in his architectural works in which he seeks to conceive spaces in

Koolhaas, with his screenwriting background, also made use of the method in his architectural works in which he seeks to conceive spaces in sequence, a chain of events.

sequence, a chain of events (Badalage, 2018). He suggests that most of his work is montage, but more specifically, spatial montage; that is, having a more three dimensional quality of the method. However, not only have they both theorized the method in its architectural framework but they have actively sought to integrate it with their practical design work. One of the more known works in which they both used montage is the Parc de la Villette Competition, an international competition between 1982 and 1983 to revitalize land in Paris, France. Both capitalized on the architectural operation, pushing the principles of the method while simultaneously exploring the pros and cons. 15

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MONTAGE

Though

both

Tschumi

and

Koolhaas might have been unintentional faces for the method of montage and its beneficial way of producing contemporary architectural spaces, this did not come without criticism. Many in the field has critiqued the method for being only viable within a theoretical framework; that this tool lacks any ground in the actual production of architectural space. That argument holds some truth as the most significant works of montage as an architectural operation are written and theoretical – Eisenstein, Benjamin, “Manhattan Transcripts” by Tschumi. In an interview with Architecture of Israel Quaterly, Tschumi (2000) himself spoke about his use of the method in his early works, specifically on Parc de la Villette, saying, “I was quite fascinated by montage theory; that is, how you 16

Many in the field has critiqued the method for being only viable within a theoretical framework; that this tool lacks any ground in the actual production of architectural space.

assemble to create certain effects, like Eisenstein’s ‘montage of attractions’. In other words, looking at cinema as other people were looking at paintings, and

trying

derive

architectural

concepts. Later, after La Villette, I understood the strength and the limits of those analogies.” He further explains that transposing the idea in a literal

When elements of the design are fragmented and montaged, materializing the analogy to physical space through construction is a challenge.

manner is quite difficult due to the integration of other frameworks that go towards creating that space such as expenses, labour, time, materials. When elements of the design are fragmented and

montaged,

materializing

the

analogy to physical space through construction is a challenge; for Tschumi, materializing concepts and ideas is what he believes architecture to be. What can be understood from Tschumi is that the possibility to produce space via montage is possible, however, such production doesn’t exist independently; montage is an effective method when used in conjunction with other methods.

In terms of space that has yet to 17

be materialized, space that is generated and

designed

during

the

design

process, montage takes on a different light. Montage highlights aspects of architecture that have been ignored by

practioners

such

narratives,

experience and serendipity. Humans do not experience space in two dimensions, so why not consider the sequencing of what would be seen and experienced? The idea of spatial montage by Koolhaas would make sense in such a situation; the stitching together of spaces that consider the shifts in scale and atmosphere brings a new condition to both space and process. The method also puts the user back into the process, considering how they move â&#x20AC;&#x201C; be it continuous, fragmented,

integrated,

subtle

etc.

These experiences may also vary with time, drawing out the temporal quality of the method expressed by Benjamin in the previous section. Thus, the method allow for space, event, time, and movement to all converge into a sweeping system in which experiences are conceived and 18

The idea of spatial montage by Koolhaas would make sense in such a situation; the stitching together of spaces that consider the shifts in scale and atmosphere brings a new condition to both space and process.

perceived in a cinematic manner.

t APPLICATION TO THESIS

The technique of montage is

very useful when it comes to exploring the notion of narratives, spectatorship, motion and the like within architecture. Within my own thesis, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Eloquence of Emptiness: Architecturally Articulating The Atlantic Slave Tradeâ&#x20AC;?, there are

It is critical that the topic is examined in its complexity in order to extract the most to feed the thesis.

several fragments and elements of not only the intended design but stories, cultures, histories, implications, bodies, theories. There exists a complexity to the thesis topic itself, in the approach, as there is a multitude of layers within the already fragmented discourse. It is critical that the topic is examined in its complexity in order to extract the most to feed the thesis. To be able to use the method of montage towards these very 19

critical aspects of the project to generate an almost new typology of space as well as the representation of such a space, could be very useful, rich and intriguing.

For the thesis, space and narration

are paramount to the essence of the project. The ideas of this sort of mosaic of situations or experiences, that is, spatial and visual montage as theorized by Benjamin and later Koolhaas, could create a composition for the architecture that is also embedded within the aims of the thesis, challenging the contemporary notions of space, time and action.

r t CONCLUSION

The production and perception

of space due to specific operations has varied throughout the field and with time. The ever changing conditions of society along with the field of architecture itself ensures this. With regards to montage as 20

as an architectural operation, the method creates a sort of unique consciousness within its articulation. The consideration of

The consideration of certain structures – operative, programmatic, formal, informal – and their precise assembly, offers a plurality of spaces that are sequenced, hold moments of specific transitions and all interlinked, emancipating preconceived notions of space where events, time, movement and people are either forgotten or removed.

certain

structures

–

operative,

programmatic, formal, informal – and their precise assembly, offers a plurality of spaces that are sequenced, hold moments of specific transitions and all interlinked, emancipating preconceived notions of space where events, time, movement

and

people

are

either

forgotten or removed. The method has its limits though, due to its strong roots in theory, even more so, one that has been drawn from outside architecture. Though perception of space via this method is rich and fruitful, one of the main issues about montage is in its production of materialized space due to construction, finances and labour. It is not impossible but it is an obstacle, nonetheless. However, the possibilities of informing and manifesting space through montage remains, especially when used in conjunction with other design methods and architectural operations. Hopefully, 21

through

further

exploration,

both

theoretical and practical, the method can critically illustrate and materialize concepts and ideas that transcend its

contradictions,

offering

architecture than it ever has.

REFERNCES Badalage, K., 2018. Rem Koolhaas and Son Tomas Talk About The YearsLong Process of Shooting “REM. [Online] [Accessed 29 December 2018].

Deriu, D., 2008. Montage and Modern Architecture: Giedion’s Implicit Manifesto. Architectural Theory Review, 18 April, 12(1), p. 36.

Mertins, D., 2011. Modernity Unbound. s.l.:Architectural Association Publications.

Shields, R., 1998. Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. s.l.:Taylor & Francis.

Todd, J., 1989. Eisenstein’s Film Theory of Montage and Architecture, s.l.: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Tschumi, B., 1977. Advertisements for Architecture. [Online] Available at: http://www.tschumi.com/projects/19/# [Accessed 20 December 2018].

Tschumi, B., 2000. Montage Of Attractions - Interview With Architect Bernard Tschumi [Interview] (May 2000).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Badalage, K., 2018. Rem Koolhaas and Son Tomas Talk About The YearsLong Process of Shooting “REM. [Online] [Accessed 29 December 2018].

Bois, Y.-A., 1989. Montage and Architecture. Assemblage, 1 December, Volume 10, pp. 110 - 131.

Deriu, D., 2008. Montage and Modern Architecture: Giedion’s Implicit Manifesto. Architectural Theory Review, 18 April, 12(1), p. 36.

Hartwell, M., 2013. Architecture Montage: Incooperating the Tools of the Filmmaker in the Design Process of the Architect, s.l.: s.n.

Heynen, H., 1999. “What belongs to architecture?” Avant-garde Ideas in the Modern Movement. The Journal of Architecture, January, 4(2), pp. 129 - 147.

Koolhaas, R., 1978. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. s.l.:Oxford University Press,.

Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. s.l.:Blackwell.

Mertins, D., 2011. Modernity Unbound. s.l.:Architectural Association Publications.

Mulet, T. S., 2014. Strategies of Montage: Postmodernity and the City. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 April, 4(6), pp. 248 - 253.

Shields, R., 1998. Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. s.l.:Taylor & Francis.

Todd, J., 1989. Eisensteinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Film Theory of Montage and Architecture, s.l.: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Tschumi, B., 1977. Advertisements for Architecture. [Online] Available at: http://www.tschumi.com/projects/19/# [Accessed 20 December 2018].

Tschumi, B., 1996. Architecture and Disjunction. s.l.:MIT Press.

Tschumi, B., 2000. Montage Of Attractions - Interview With Architect Bernard Tschumi [Interview] (May 2000).

Vidler, A., 1993. The Explosion of Space: Architecture and the Filmic Imaginary. Assemblage, 1 August, 21(1), pp. 44 - 59.

Wong, S., 2012. Montage in Architecture: A Critical and Creative Perception of Our Space in The Everyday, s.l.: Ryerson University.