Re Actor House ALEX SCHWEDER + WARD SHELLEY
REACTOR HOUSE ALEX SCHWEDER + WARD SHELLEY
Adeline Li
Arch 793 | Wesley Jones | Spring 2019 University of Southern Californ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND The Artist-Architects Schweder-Shelley Collaborations
03-04 05-06
DOCUMENTATION
General Information Technical Drawings Degrees of Freedom Furniture Movement The Hinge
09-10 11-12 13 14 15-16
DISCUSSION + ANALYSIS Architectural Movement ReActor House Movement
19-22 23-24
PROPOSAL Concept Implications Final Scheme
27 28 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY
34
NOTES
35-40
BACKGROUND
THE ARTIST-ARCHITECTS
ALEX SCHWEDER is an artist-architect interested in examining the relationship between architecture and artistic performance. By building installations and inhabiting them, Schweder creates what he coins as “performance architecture�. Swcheder and fellow artist Ward Shelley have collaborated on multiple projects that explore how architecture affects the behaviors of its inhabitants.
WARD SHELLEY is an artist based in New York. Shelley has works ranging from diagrammatic paintings to large sculptural-performance projects. He has collaborated with Alex Schweder on multiple occasions to build and perform in these large performance projects to explore the effects architecture can have on social relationships.
4
SCHWEDER + SHELLEY COLLABORATIONS
2009
2011
STABILITY
COUNTERWEIGHT ROOMMATE
A project very similar to the ReActor House, “Stability” is a project that tilts back and forth according to the movement of its inhabitants. Unlike the ReActor House, this project has only one degree of freedom. This movement is achieved by hanging the wooden structure from a beam.
Counterweight Roommate is a project in which the two inhabitants are tethered to either end of a single rope. Their movements rely on the body mass of the other roommate to act as a “counter weight” to scale up and down the building. The third level is a common room in which both roommates can occupy at the same time.
2014
2017
IN ORBIT
YOUR TURN
In Orbit is a project in which one roommate inhabits the interior of the wheel and the other inhabits the exterior of the wheel. The inhabitants walk in opposite directions to turn the wheel so they can access the furniture.
In this project, the inhabitants occupy opposite sides of a wall structure. Unlike previous projects, most of the furniture and fixtures are shared and the roommates must take turns using them. The furniture pieces are inserted into the wall structure and the inhabitors must collaborate to push the pieces to either side for use.
6
DOCUMENTATION
ReActor House Artist-architects: Alex Schweder + Ward Shelley Location: OMI International Arts Center, Ghent, NY Completed: 2016 (Taken down 2018) Program: Small residence for two as a performance exhibition Size: 44’ x 8’ Materials: Wood, glass
10
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
Elevation 01: Washroom, Storage
Elevation 02: Kitchen, Desk
Cross-Sections
Plan
12
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
Z
X
Y
Six degrees of freedom refers to the ways a rigid body in three-dimensional space moves. These six degrees of freedom are split into two types: translational and rotational movements. Translation and rotation occur along and about each of the three x, y, and z axes. Any movement of a rigid body in three-dimensional space can be described by a combination of these six degrees of freedom. In the ReActor House, Schweder and Shelley have limited the movement to two degrees of freedom: rotation about the X-axis and rotation about the Y-axis. Environmental
x
z
factors such as the wind contribute mostly to the Z-axis rotation whereas movement of the inhabitants are the major factors controlling the tilting about the X-axis. This combination of controlled and uncontrollable movements throughout the day creates a variety of conditions in which the performers (Schweder and Shelley) have to adapt by negotiating with each other.
FURNITURE + FIXTURES MOVEMENT
It is also interesting to note that the rotational movement has also been incorporated into the furniture and fixtures. For the sake of saving space, Shelley and Schweder designed what they like to call “murphy furniture�. As the name suggests, these fixtures and furniture fold up when not in use. Others, like the beds, fold up to become a lounge chairs.
14
THE HINGE
A: Z-axis Rotation
B: X-axis Rotation
The hinge of the ReActor House is an essential piece of the project. It supports the entire building and is what allows the structure its two types of rotational movements. This hinge is fabricated by welding thick pieces of metal and fastening it onto a concrete column with bolts. The entire hinge system contributes to the Z-axis rotation whereas the top piece of the hinge provides X-axis rotation.
16
DISCUSSION ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT - DISCUSSION
Movement
Transformation
MOVEMENT VS. TRANSFORMATION Movement is a change in location, be it location in space or in time. Transformation is a change in state or, in extreme cases, an evolution. Form may change but the identity always remains.
WHICH IS MORE INHERENTLY APPROPRIATELY ARCHITECTURAL?
OR
Neither movement nor transformation is more “inherently” or “appropriately” architectural. Rather, movement and transformation can be applied in such a way that makes it architectural.
WHAT MAKES MOVEMENT ARCHITECTURAL? Architectural Movement What is architectural movement? How does one even being to answer this question? One possible way would be to take a sum-of-all-parts approach. First, architecture and movement would be defined separately. These two definitions would then be combined to arrive at the definition of “architectural movement”. When this approach is chosen, one would soon realize that they would have to take on the daunting task of answering the age-old question: “What is architecture?” And suppose one does manage to answer this question, a logical next step would be to question whether it is enough to define “architectural movement” purely as the summation of the definitions of its words. Could it be the case that when architecture and movement come together, they transform into an entirely new being with its own identity? Defining architecture becomes a cycle of asking, answering, and doubting whether the initial question was even relevant or appropriate. It is as if each question opens a Pandora’s Box of even more questions that one must answer before even beginning to attempt the next. Although this cycle of question and doubt is frustrating, it might be worthwhile to consider that the way to define and understand architecture is to continue to ask questions that may not have answers. Relationships
But of course if one never starts, one would never reach any conclusions. Then where should one begin? To come up with a set definition for architecture by
making a list of qualities that are unique to architecture seems to assume architecture to be an isolated system. But can or should one really think about architecture as their own isolated systems? One could argue that this is probably impossible. For example, since architecture is meant to be occupied, it is inherently something that cannot be thought of as its own object. Architecture is tied to its occupants from conception.
If architecture cannot be discussed without discussing its relationship to other systems, then perhaps one way to define what architecture is is to better understand those relationships. Compare-Contrast
Another approach to consider is the method of comparison. For example, one could compare architecture and engineering. The words engineering and architecture bring to mind two different ideas and evoke two different emotions. This difference is very apparent in descriptions of various projects.
Architectural project descriptions often sound poetic. Their concepts are full of metaphorical and and symbolic gestures. Spatial relationships might be manipulated to trigger emotions and characteristics of certain materials (when carefully exploited) could immortalize the ephemeral. Engineering project descriptions, on the other hand, seem to emphasize process. Their goals usually include producing the highest quality with the greatest efficiency and pushing the line that separates feasible from infeasible. Materials are valued not for their sensory qualities but rather their chemical and physical properties.
20
To overgeneralize, it seems as if one is grounded in reality and the other is suspended in fantasy. Architecture is more concerned with a final product that delivers an illusion whereas engineering is more concerned with the means through which the illusion is delivered. A logical next step might be to analyze architectural movement by comparing it to engineering movement.
Architectural movement might be one that expresses the poetic nature of architecture. The movements of the curtain facade in Foster and Heatherwick’s Shanghai Theatre and the rotating floors of Fisher’s Dynamic Tower could be examples. Much like how a ballerina would use light bouncing to convey whimsy and large sweeping leaps to convey grandeur, it is the generation, trace, and quality of a movement that makes it expressive and potentially architectural.
In contrast, engineering movement might be considered as one that is functional. For example, Invernizzi’s Villa Girasole is designed to revolve according to the view the users want to see. Like a robotic arm that is programmed to mill a block of wood into a sculpture, it is the mechanism and completion of the task that makes a movement potentially engineering. Unfortunately, this logic breaks down when one asks: “What if the function is to be expressive?” MUST MOVEMENT BE FUNCTIONAL?
Not all movements must be functional. Functional seems to imply control but not all movement can be controlled. Maybe the question should not be one that asks whether movement should be functional but whether one has the ability to control it. If so, should the movement be controlled and to what extent?
A functional object can be described as one that serves a purpose or accomplishes a goal. Continuing this line of logic, a functional movement would be one that is programmed to accomplish a goal. In this way, a functional movement is a movement that is controlled. Control
Function differs from control in that functionality ensures the goal is accomplished regardless of method or efficienty. Control, however, dictates how the goal is accomplished.
There are two aspects of movement that should be considered. The first is the movement itself, the second is the boundaries of the motion. The extent of control one has over a movement is correlated to the amount of restraint one has over either or both of these aspects. Consider a farmer who lets his chicken roam freely on his property. The chickens are unrestrained as long as they stay within the property lines. The chickens represent movement and the fence along the property line represents the limits set on the movement. This example shows how movement can be both uncontrolled and controlled in the same system. It is also interesting to note that just because a motion is controlled may not necessarily mean that it is functional. HOW IS ARCHITECTURAL MOVEMENT TO BE JUDGED? The judgment of architectural movement would then depend on whether or not it was intended to be controlled.
Judgment in the case of controlled architectural movement would simply be based on two major criteria: Did the movement achieve the goal? Did the movement achieve it in the prescribed way? If the intended movement was to express grace and the final movement was forceful, then the movement might be judged as unsuccessful. Judgment in the case of uncontrolled architectural movement is trickier. Here, the movement itself may not be a
suitable object of judgement. It might be more reasonable to treat it as a case of judgment of intentions. For example, one could ask if the decision to relinquish control of the movement was appropriate. Whereas certain results are expected from controlled movements, uncontrolled movements produces possibilities and potential. These results could be desirable, undesirable, neutral, informative, or even worthless. It is not until after the observation and analysis of these results, that judgement can occur.
The chickens are free to roam, but only within the boundaries of the fence. This is a way to visualize uncontrolled and controlled movement existing in the same system. Control exists only at the boundaries of the fence.
22
ANALYSIS
Translation of linear movement to rotationalmovement
THE REACTOR HOUSE
Complexity
The ReActor House is a machine that takes linear motions from the users and the wind and translates them into rotational movements.
Consider the following situation:
A user taking a single step or a gentle gust of wind sets off a chain of responses. The series of actions and reactions is an indexication of the negotiation of space and an expression of the dynamic equilibrium between the users, the house, and the environment. Because of their expressive nature, the ReActor House’s movements are probably best described as architecturally dominant.
Occupants 01 and 02 are relaxing at their respective desks, reading their favorite novels. The ReActor House is stationary, parallel to the ground. Suddenly, a breeze comes along and ReActor begins to rotate. The breeze is not strong enough to keep the ReActor in constant rotation and ReActor stops rotating. Occupant 01 is now under the sun and begins to feel uncomfortable from the heat. Occupant 01 stands up and begins to move toward Occupant 02’s side of the house. As Occupant 01 makes his way to the other side, the ReActor tilts in response. Occupant 02 is now disturbed
because he can not sit comfortably. He decides to take his chair and move toward the kitchen area where he can sit more comfortably. As soon as Occupant 02 moves, the ReActor tilts again in response.
It is evident that the movements will get more complex when things start happening simultaneously. Wind, rain, sun, comfort, hunger, fatigue, curiosity, and many more are all factors that induce movement in the ReActor House. Social Relationships
For Schweder and Shelley, having movements that cannot be controlled creates uncertainties and opportunities to learn. By giving the house freedom to move outside of human influence, the users and audience can observe if and how architecture affects human behavior.
The comfort of stability is taken away from the users by the addition of movement. In response to this kind of architecture, the users will look for ways to regain a stable environment. To achieve this, the users will have to enter into a relationship in which balance is negotiated. Changing the number of inhabitants in the ReActor will also change the nature of the occupants’ relationships with each other. If a third user joins, opportunities for
Freedom
alliances rises. The number of occupants could also dictacte where the user(s) will want to spend the majority of their time. For example, if the ReActor housed only one person, the user would most likely spend most of their time around the center of the house. If two people occupy this house, each user would spend more time at opposite ends of the house. Autonomy, Control, Awareness
Schweder and Shelley documented their experience in diaries. In one exerpt, Shelley mentions that the movements of the ReActor greatly reduces their senses of autonomy. Having to constantly adjust for stability breaks their habits.
The users are having to constantly adapt to situations out of their control. It seems as if the environment is the one ultimately controlling the ReActor’s movements. However, can there really be control if there was no intention? The environment moves and changes independent of the ReActor. The wind blows without intention of doing anything to neither the ReActor nor the ReActor’s occupants. The ReActor House demonstrates that simple movements can have significant impats. It shows that movement has the potential to be a critical dimension of architecture.
Negotiation
Alliance
24
PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL - CONCEPT
TYPICAL HOUSE 1. User makes decision 2. User moves
REACTOR HOUSE 1. User makes decision 2. User moves 3. House moves
PROPOSED HOUSE 1. User makes decision 2. User moves house 3. User moves
Initial State
Sliding State
The proposed house uses movement to create situations in which consequences are more apparent and immediate. The sliding movement is a movement that initiates a tradeoff. Access for one user is gained at the expense of the access of the other.
User Movement
Building Movement
A user can not directly access rooms that are in the same row as the one they currently occupy. They must always travel to an adjacent row first.
A box is divided into nine rooms. Each row moves as a unit, sliding back and forth according to users’ needs. With today’s technologies, decisions can be made with a scroll, a swipe, and a tap. What is even more impressive is how easily decisions can be undone with the same scroll, swipe, and tap. As a result, consequences play a smaller role in decision-making processes. The sliding movement of the proposed house symbolizes the swiping motions used for handheld devices.
28
PROPOSAL - IMPLICATIONS
ONE SUNDAY MORNING... I need to use the toilet.
I want to brush my teeth.
Oh no! I’ve been exposed!
But how will I get to the bath now?
Well this is unfortunate.
User X has been thrown into a comprimising situtation because of User O. In order to gain access to the washroom, User O sacrifices User X’s privacy. Though it may seem like User O has won and User X has lost, User O has actually also sacrificed his access to the bath tub and his wardrobe. Much like a game of chess, the players in this game of house will come to realize that each decision may have unforseen consequences. Users will learn to think twice about their decisions before they act.
Strangers:
Siblings:
Friends:
The sequence of arrangements and configurations can inform an audience of the relationships between the users. The example above documents steps User O might take if they wanted to take a shower. In the siblings scenario, User O goes directly to the shower because they are comfortable with walking around in the nude after the shower. Strangers and friends may not feel the same level of comfort and would probably head to the closet first to prepare clothing.
30
PROPOSAL - FINAL SCHEME
Movement has always been a useful tool, one that serves us through pleasure, delight, and utility. The movement in this house, however, does more than just serve. It challenges us and invites us to pay attention, to think twice before we act. That movement can step beyond its role as servant is what makes this movement architectural.
32
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexa, Alexandra, and Alexandra Alexa. “ReActor House: an Exchange between Spaces and Bodies for OMI.” Wallpaper*, Wallpaper*, 15 Aug. 2016, www.wallpaper.com/architecture/reactor-house-for-omi-shows-what-a-living home-can-be. Brillon, James, and James Brillon. “Rotating and Tilting ReActor House Accommodates Two Artists for Five Days.” Dezeen, Dezeen, 24 Oct. 2017, www.dezeen.com/2016/08/15/rotating-tilting-reactor-house-installation accommodates-two-artists-for-five-days-omi-art-center-upstate-new-york/. Hughes, Dana Tomi. “ReActor Rotating House by Alex Schweder & Ward Shelley.” Yellowtrace, 20 Sept. 2018, www.yellowtrace.com.au/reactor-house-alex schweder-ward-shelley/. Neilson, Laura. “Two Artists Built a Spinning House, and Then Moved In.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/ t-magazine/art/schweder-shelley-spinning-house-reactor.html?_r=0. “ReActor House by Alex Schweder Ward Shelley Rotates 360°.” Designboom, 19 Aug. 2016, www.designboom.com/architecture/reactor-house-alex-schweder ward-shelley-omi-international-arts-center-new-york-08-21-2016/. Staff, Inverse. “This Nauseating Rotating Home Is A Feat Of Engineering...And A Test Of Endurance.” Inverse, www.inverse.com/article/36873-spinning house-reactor-house-ghent-new-york. Staugaitis, Laura. “ReActor: a Tilting House That Shifts and Spins Based on Its Inhabitants’ Movements.” Colossal, 20 Sept. 2018, www.thisiscolossal.com/2018/09/reactor/. “Ward Shelley.” Pierogi Gallery, 10 Feb. 2018, www.pierogi2000.com/ artists/ward-shelley/. “Works.” Alex Schweder, 2 Mar. 2017, www.alexschweder.com/works/.
34
NOTES
36
NOTES
38
NOTES
40