URBAN THEATRE 2.5Dimensional Urban Landscape
Bartlett M Arch AVATAR 2008-2009
Student : Yung,En, Lin Tutor :Stuart Munro Email : neo810310@hotmail.com
Introduction This report is dealing with the fragment of spatial experience in vision with 2 . 5 dimensional presentation. When people recall their city travels, the most memorable point may be some impressive places such as iconic building and plaza. Although people view the city as a continuous space, it is quite difficult to remember every street and building they have seen. Therefore, these memorable places are fragments of spatial experience stored in people's memory. Generally, a fragment is part of bigger unit. In this research, however, fragment can be seen as a part of urban image people have seen. The spatial experience focuses on vision, which means people recognise and understand what the city looks like via visual record. The first purposes of this research are to investigate how 2.5 dimensional presentations can describe the experience of people travelling in the city, and also how its presentation can give to people another way to re-interpret the city. In this experiment, 2.5D is chosen as a technique and method to describe urban image instead of 2 and 3 dimensional presentations. The urban theatre as a space of performance could be the final presentation to demonstrate the result of this experiment with 2.5 dimensional models. The report is divided into four sections, which are A, B, C, and D. The section A will clarify the motivation and purpose of the experiment. In section B, three methodologies are going to be described as a progress of the research. The present project will be mentioned in the part C. The conclusion will be presented in section D which will provide a brief about the main points mentioned before, and also it will describe how the project will be developed.
Act
A : Clarification
Scene 1 Spatial Experience in Vision Scene 2 The Naked CityUrban Travel Experience Composed by Fragments Scene 3 Limitations of 2 and 3 Dimensions in Vision Scene 4 Cubist Architecture Scene 5 The Definition of 2.5 Dimensions
Spatial Experience in Vision When people use the underground to move from one point to another one of the city, the physical movement between the two points is real. However, the distance and experience of movement in this journey could be ignored. Indeed, most of the tube stations are so similar that passengers may not be able to distinguish the differences between their departure station and the arrive one. The only difference that they can recognise is the first view emerging in front of them when they leave station. Thus, people can distinguish different places depend on different fragments of spatial experience in vision. As time passes, these fragments give partial recognition of city image in people's memory.
The Naked City - Urban Travel Experience Composed by Fragments The Naked City (Fig 1), which is composed of nineteen fragments of Paris's map made by Guy Debord, shows a presentation of how city could be described and experienced with fraction. Each piece of map is linked by directional arrows which are multiple suggestive conduct connecting together in map. All segments have different ”unity of atmosphere” (McDonough, 2002), which means that each piece of map has its special characteristic. Therefore, travelling from one piece of map to another one seems to jump in between, just in one second. McDonough (2002, p245) argues: “the users could experience the sudden change of atmosphere in a street, the sharp division of a city into one of distinct psychological climate; the path of least resistance – wholly unrelated to the unevenness of the terrain- to be followed by casual stroller; the character, attractive or repellant, of certain places.” Thus, The Naked City can be seen as an unusual urban travel experience including space, such as street, and event, such as casual stroller.
Figure 1 Guy Debord, The Naked City, 1957
Actually, the presentation of The Naked City and McDonough's view reveal how people experience the city. When people journey around the city, the map will guide them as it describes the urban geometry. Usually, map is used partly rather than wholly because often people are interested in exploring a specific part of map which could be the place where they live or where they want to go. They may jump from one place on the map to another, and do the same thing again and again until they finish this journey. To be more specific, people experience city as a composition of series fragments which is quite similar to the presentation of The Naked City. Nevertheless, these fragments of spatial experience have gaps that cannot be filled inserting more fragments. Therefore, people might hardly experience the whole city.
Limitations of 2 and 3 Dimensions in Vision If this is the case, how to be more accurate to portray the way people experience space as a series of fragments? Although The Naked City has been an example to explain how people travel in the city as a piece of fragment, it is a 2 dimensional geometrical demonstration which may not be able to correctly describe what views and spaces travellers have experienced in vision. Because in the definition of three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system,1 2 2 dimensional is an area of plane making by visual lengths and width which may be called X and Y axis. All the things in the 2D have been compressed into a piece of flat plane. Even if 2D series photographs, viewers still needs to use their understanding and sense of spatial experience to analyse what the real space look like. Thus, 2 dimensional demonstration only shows the way how people experience space as a series of fragments while it cannot display 3 the real spatial depth as 3 dimensional, which is the extension of 2 dimensional toward height which may be called Z axis.
1 Cartesian coordinate system specifies each point uniquely in a plane by a pair of numer ical coordinates, whi ch are the signed distances from the point to two fixed perpendicular directed lines, mea sured in the same unit of length. A v a i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / / e n .w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / C a r t e s i a n _ c o o r d i n a t e _ system#C artesian_space (Accessed 28,05,09) 2 Wikipedia Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Dimension (Accessed 28th, May, 2009) 3 Wikipedia Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Dimension (Accessed 28th, May, 2009)
On the other hand, although people experience 3D space in vision during the real travel, physical distance becomes a limitation of switch from one place to another, which cannot change the place immediately as fast as The Naked City. Indeed, distance and time are the limitation that 3D cannot overcome. Both 2 and 3D have their features of description respectively in the spatial experience in vision. Thus, it needs to be found the way which can connect and show up both benefits together.
Cubist Architecture Some concepts between cubism and architecture may help the following research to find the relation between 2 and 3D, and the way of presenting travel experience in city. Cubism breaks the way how people view 2D image or painting always in one perspective, which means, from multiple points of view to see one object, such as from above and below, from inside and outside. The element “time” combining different points of view in one object and then putting into 2D painting and image will make them become describable because view changing following time base is a process of how people view object (Giedion, 1941). In terms of cubism, these fragments of spatial experience in vision can be defined as different points of view in time base if city can be seen as a large complicated object. Thus, they may not be able to just flat image collage when Figure 3 Walter Gropius they are put together. In Giedion's Space, Time and Architecture (1941), he used two illustrations to describe some similarities between architecture and painting. One of those is a cubism painting L'Arlésienne (Fig 2) by Picasso (1911-1912), another one is workshop wing of Bauhaus (Fig 3), designed by Walter Gropius (1926). This comparison can also be seen as 2D painting comparing with 3D architecture. However, there are three features in common between them. Firstly the planarity: both are created from plane surface (canvas and floor). Secondly the transparency: in this explanation Evans (1995, p57) argues: “ the crystalline constitution of the painted image is comparable to the glazed curtain walls around the building” . Finally the simultaneity: Evans (1995, p57) states: “ simultaneity generally means the presentation of multiple impression of a subject in one image.” Actually, L'Arlésienne was painted as if both profile and full face, while the interior and exterior of a building are presented simultaneously (Giedion, 1941). The three correspondences are pointed out as the characteristics of presentation between 2 and 3D in terms of cubism, which may be called the features of 2.5 dimensions. Figure 2 Picasso L'Arlésienne 1911-1912
Bauhaus
1926
The Definition of 2.5 Dimensions 2.5 dimensions, 4 visual phenomena, is actually 2D with 3D looking graphics, which is usually used with computer graphics, especially video games, to make the image more real. It could also be used in relief as the way of resentation. As 2.5D and encompasses both 2D and 3D feature, it may potentially describe more actually how people experience city as a composition of series visual fragments. Eventually, 2.5D can be seen as a technique to simultaneously display something that 2D and 3D cannot reach. Moreover, three similarities (planarity, transparency, simultaneity) discussed before can be seen as methodologies of generating 2.5D presentation to experiment what sort of display can more accurately describe the fragment of spatial experience in city travel. The reason why using them as methodologies is that 2.5D has several definitions and the ways of presentation depend on different purposes. Therefore, in the experimental process, the main aim will be to understand what kind of 2.5D presentation can be more suitable for this research. So, the three methodologies will be applied to form the 2.5D presentation.
4 Wikipedia Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/2.5D (Accessed 28th, May, 2009)
Act
B : Methodology Scene 1 Between Planarity Scene 2 Transparency Scene 3 Simultaneity
This section will provide a new definition of the three methodologies which will be employed in this project. Moreover, in part B planarity, transparency, and simultaneity will be presented as stages of the development of 2.5D presentation.
Between Planarity Experiment : How 2.5 Dimensions Are Made Originally, planarity focuses on the simi larity of cubism painting and architecture on plane. In this research, however, it focuses on 2.5D, which is dealing with the gap between flat and uneven. Hence, the name of the me thodology should be changed to “between planarity”. “ Between planarity” can be seen as a process from 2 to 3D and vice-versa, which may be able to find the needed factors to create 2.5D presentation. In the below paragraph, this process will be explored through pattern, model, and projection.
Autogiro Basically, 2.5D is a kind of 2D which includes the characteristics of 3D. The beginning of the experiment will focus on how to make 2.5D from 2D. In this step of the research, the toy Mikro Man-Autogiro has been used as its main interesting feature is that it can become a 3D autogiro from a folded piece of 2D metal model. The process from 2D to 3D model is shown in the Fig 4 below in five stages from a to e step by step. Especially in the stage d of this transformation, the left and right sides seem to complete 3D models. However, there is nothing behind them. Hence, the stage d can be seen as a 2.5D presentation. One of the significant actions in making 2.5D is to break the plane of 2D with folding or Z axis movement to create different gaps of depth (Z axis) between each piece of pattern and image. Break means to divide the same plane of images into different depths. Therefore, these outlines of pattern and image can be seen as the boundaries to divide themselves and others, and then move into different depths. Consequently, the break, depth and outline could be the significant factors for generating 2.5D presentation. The second step is to create a way of breaking the rationality of space in vision with outline to impact the original status of space and have a new one. The status could be atmosphere, shape, or relation between space and object. The outline of the toy needs to be made as showed in the stage a (Fig 4) to build the 3D Mikro Man-Autogiro. Definitively, it is made for specific reason and purpose. In terms of 2.5D presentation in space, the definition of outline may be different, but it will be discussed in the following section.
a
b
c
d
e
Figure 4 The Process of Folding Autogiro
Three Methods of Breaking and Occupation This part of research started from breaking the shape of autogiro to creating the new forms for changing the status of space. The autogiro as a 3D object is built by many 2D metals, and each piece has a specific function for construction. Hence, destroying the original shape and reorganise again to generate the new and extraordinary shape to occupy space may be able to change original spatial status. It could probably also give the opportunity to break the rationality of space. The occupation focuses on the influence of the impact in space. Then, the method of occupation can be presented in several different ways.
Experiment one - Through Pattern In this step are used some parts of autogiro pattern as the units to organise and extend the depth of 2D image. The purpose of this experiment is to test the possibility after breaking model with pattern in 2D presentation. As can be seen in a, b, and c (Fig 5), each image is made by many pieces of same pattern with geometric series to create the depth of perspective. The other three images below (aa, bb, cc) are organised by two similar images from above but opposite respectively. All of them are put toward the centre to make the depth of perspective. In 2D presentation, using the geometric series with scale and direction can also generate the 2D spatial depth without 3D presentation.
a
b
c
aa
bb
cc Figure 5 Spatial Depth of 2D Pattern
One of the examples is the artist Gabriel Orozco who investigates the phenomenology of structures as the methodology to present his drawing. In the painting below (Fig 6), he uses the symbol of circle as the unit to discuss the form between geometry and organic matter. Moreover, the series of circle and semi-circle are constructed with different types of scale making a spatial depth on 2D painting (Orozco, 2006). Obviously, the combination of scale and sequence could be one of the factors to make visual depth. However, this part of research is still difficult to describe how to break the space. The reason could be the pattern and the way of 2D presentation, which still shows the quite strong and clear geographic images leading to the difficulty of development in space. Thus, the next research is dealing with the 3D model.
Figure 6 Gabriel Orozco Samurai Tree 2U 2006
Experiment Two - Through Model In the second experiment the first step is also to break the model in pieces and reorganise them again. The reason of this reorganization is to create a new extraordinary shape and occupy place to impacting spatial status. 5 Lodder C., Russian Constructivism, 1984, Yale, London, p1. The first non-utilitarian constructions in R u s s i a w e re m a d e b y V l a d i m i r Evg ra fo v i c Ta t l i n in 1913, when he stopped creating two-dimensional compositions of painterly elements on the plane of the canvas and began experimenting with the construction of small three-dimensional objects made from materials such as metal, wood and glass.
The stages from a to d of Fig 7 show the process of transformation out of the fragments of autogiro. The aim of the transformation is to make the form so different that the shape of autogiro cannot be recognised anymore (see stage d of Fig 7). This process wants to take off the meaning of autogiro as a toy. 5 After that, it can be defined like a “non-utilitarian constructions � before given new meaning. Because the image of autogiro is too strong to ignore it as a toy, the process of transformation can release it out from the original meaning.
a
b
c
d Figure 7 The Process of Form Transformation
Use the occupation of model to impact the space may be able to find the new meaning and the purpose of model itself, and the relation between model and space. As can be seen from the Fig 8, Tatlin set up this counter-relief to occupy at the corner. “ The whole construction is strung along an axial wire… ..Two elegantly curving supports, one of which is of thick metal with an arrowhead type of decoration, the other wire, from elegantly intersecting line as they suspend the construction between the two walls of the corner” (Lodder, 1983, p16). This part of description and photo not only display how the structures of model connect with walls, but also demonstrate a new relationship in space between model and walls. The model does not just occupy the corner, its structure also inserts into the wall as a connector between two walls and model, and as a divider to split the corner, which completely impact and change the Figure 8 V. Tatlin status of corner (Lodder, 1983). The second step is to locate the “non-utilitarian constructions” in somewhere, and try to change the status of place. The site is located in front of Anatomy Building, where has a pipeline space between building and street. This pipeline space shows a blur but interesting relation among ground floor, basement, and street. Therefore, the model may be able to make their relation clearer and closer, and also to give more way to use the pipeline space. The pipeline can be seen as an extended structure out from building to divide and link these three places, and also been the stander of model. Therefore, the two points are chosen, as can be seen in Fig 9, to set up the models in for occupying and impacting the situation of site. The models, as the coordinators, develop new alternatives to adjust the original relation between building and street with the extended construction. In the site 1, the model is set to extend a stair connecting with basement and street. The extended structure towards the building is a holder to hang the whole model. The model also set at site 2 as a bridge to link the building and tree across over the street with extend construction to impact the status of site.
Corner Counter-Relief 1915
Figure 9
However, this experiment and model do not really achieve the aim of making outline and breaking space. One of the problems could be the method of visualization. The models seem to be quite weakness in relationship with site in vision. Impact is not enough, which doesn't really affect the site too much. The other reason could be the scale between site and model. The model could be too small to occupy the site. Thus, the site could be not really appropriate for the model. Hence, the following experiment is going to investigate another method in order to solve the problems discussed above.
Experiment Three - Through Projection Although using the occupation of the model could be a possibility to impact the space, the model should be bigger and more complicated, and apply different way to occupy space. Therefore, the similar concept of organization with fragment in model is still applied. The following images will show how the perception of everyday object change, together with the methods of construction and different scale in order to occupy the space, and then impact the status of space. The model a and b portrayed in Fig 10 are composed of many everyday objects, which directly occupy the installation room (Fig 10, a) and the gap under the table (Fig 10, b) respectively with extension of objects and constructions. The two models are developed as well as an imagining micro city which has very huge objects or structures to organise whole model as ground, and also have medium and very tiny different type of objects as buildings or transport. The two models have completely impacted and changed the original status of space.
a
b Figure 10 Imagining Micro City
Due to the concept of imagining micro city in development, the model should not be seen as one big object. The way how the model should be seen is the same of the way how people view the city as a series of fragments. This is why the micro camera is used instead of people's eyes to record the visual fragments in this micro city, and then through the same micro camera the images will be projected on the wall in the studio. Nevertheless, there are two things that change because of projection. One is the scale of the model in vision. Indeed, the model is enlarged for matching the similar scale of real environment that people are used to. Another one is the objects and wall in studio. The following image displays how the real space and view from projector can be blurred together. As showed in Fig 11, the new image is projected to cover the object on the wall with a powerful perspective, which seems to break the wall to extend the depth of studio. Some objects become difficult to be recognized while they also divide the image of projector into several parts. Both image and a part of studio are getting blurry and difficult to be distinguished which one comes from the projection and the other is the real object in studio. Using the white line to redraw both outlines can make their shape much clear, and also much blurs in the distinction between image and studio in vision. The projection seems to be a potential method to generate the outline to divide and break the rationality of space. The overlap of image could break the original status of space in vision. Finally, from this experiment, the process of generating 2.5D produces on overlap of image, drawing outline, breaking plane, and making depth.
Figure 11 The Overlap of Image and Studio
Transparency Experiment : Large Depth, Inserting Image The transparency as a methodology can be divided into two actions. The first one is to create the big depth of gap between the images in the model. The second one is to insert the image between these gaps from the right or left-hand side. The definition of transparency in this experiment is that two or more layers of images can be seen in one perspective. Continuing the last part of making outline with overlapping images, the following images will show a process of dividing studio image with them. The nine fragments of image are portrayed as overlapping on the whole studio image. As can be seen from image a of Fig 12, images are part of a small space close to the studio which can be ignored by students who do not used it very often. The concept of relationship between whole studio image and nine pieces of image is similar to the understanding of known and unknown spaces in city. The perception of the studio image by the students can be the same of the perception of the city by the people. The nine ignored image can be compared to the unknown spaces in the city that people have not seen. Therefore, these nine images are overlapped back to the same points instead of a part of original studio image to break the spatial rationality of studio in vision. In image b, both parts of outline are drawn out as the line to divide plane. The orange lines divide the image into nine different parts and depths base on the distances between the nine images and photographer. The image c of the same Figure 12 is the final flat studio image before transforming into 2.5D model.
a 3 1
9 8 2
4
5 6
7
b
c Figure 12 The Process of Outlining Studio
Although the nine images seem to be quite different from the original studio image, all of them matched together contribute to make the model. Indeed, they need to be adjusted in depth and perspective in order to display a more dynamic presentation. This image shows that the depth of gap between each piece of image is quite large, and it not only makes the 2.5D model more vivid, but also it offers more space to insert other images from other directions.
Figure 13 The Depth of Model
The following sequence of images (Fig 14) shows how the transparency is made by two layers of image. The three images, a, b, and c in Fig 14 are inserted from the left-hand side into the back of studio image. They are photoed just outside the studio. From one point of view the model seems to simultaneously give a partial inside and outside view of the studio which also break the limitation of 2D, planarity, and 3D, switching immediately between different places. That could be one of the most significant influence and change in presentation of transparency.
Figure 14 The Inserted Images
a
b
c
Simultaneity Experiment : Multiple Perspectives and Events
6 Peepshow, Available at: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/ WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa /work?workNumber=Ng3832 (Accessed 9th, June, 2009)
In general, simultaneity means two or more events happen at the same time. In this experiment, nevertheless, it can be defined as a presentation of multiple perspectives and events in one 3D model, so all views and events exist and show up in one object at the same time. One of examples is the Peepshow box made by the Dutch painter Samuel van Hoogstraten between 1655 and 1660. In this rectangular box, the six sides of an interior are portrayed in a 2D house image (Fig 15). On the two shorts sides, there are peep-holes and through 6 them people can see the illusion of 3 dimensional views of the interior. At least three different perspectives in the peepshow box present the vivid illusion of 3 D view simultaneously. Thus, multiple perspectives can be seen as a technique to present model itself and reveal the method through that people can observe the model from different points of view. Event is a construction of programme describing what images are about, and the relationship between each piece of image.
A chosen site to experiment the prese ntation of simultaneity is Tate Modern . As a contemporary museum and exhibition space , which are flexible, changeable and playful, it has many potential to contain a variety of exhibitions. Its show rooms provide the spaces for multiple presentations of artists points' of view . T hese rooms can be seen as the units to present multiple persp ectives and a variety of events composing a different Tate Modern. The following image ( Fig 16) shows how to displ ay the multiple perspectives in one model. As can be seen from the image sequence a to image sequence c of Fig 16, three different perspectives are shown with different points of view . The orange square fram es point out the visual focus in different perspectives . The perspective of image a displays the first layer of interior , which corresponds also to one of the perspective s used by people to identify. Tate . The image b is just the front of model focused on the right -hand side box because it is set to display only in this perspective of angle. There is a series of narrative events as a second layer of model set behind the first layer, which only can be seen by this perspective of angle in image c. In the process of observing model, all the perspectives and events are displayed at the same time, whatever which imag es is first.
Figure 15 Hoogstraten, Samuel van Peepshow 1655-1660
a
b
c Figure 16 Three Perspectives
The process of visiting exhibition can be seen as a process of series events. Therefore, the programme is going to be composed by different exhibitions. The motion of the programme in Tate Modern is how the museum could be different from the way of exhibition. Three quite different events are going to be shown in the following images (Fig 17) to challenge the definition of the modern museum. The first event is a shepherd, shown in image a and b, who represents why most of exhibitions are often immovable and passive. In contrast to stable paintings and sculptures, the sheep moves around the museum creating a sort of dynamic exhibition. The image c represents the relationship between needs and art. The market and food, representing everyday needs, are put into the museum to compare the necessity and the value of art. The last image d is dealing with the value of museum in different circumstance. Vagrant, one of the lowest social classes, is taken as an example putting into museum to question the existence of value museum space and homelessness. All events also have their own perspectives to compose the images, which can be seen as the second layer of multiple perspectives. The, perspectives and the events are mixed together to present simultaneity.
Brief Through the three methodologies, the process of generating 2.5D presentation has be formed in very specific way. The Tate Modern model as a prototype of 2.5D presentation displays the composition of the three methodologies.
d
c
a b
Figure 17 Events
Act
C : Present Work
24 Fragments and Urban Theatre This section of the report will discuss about the present work and how the 2.5D presentation in model can continue to be more accurate to present the experience that people travel in the city as a series of fragment image. The24 photos (Fig 18), which represent 24 places, are chosen as fragment of spatial experience in London to compose the urban theatre locating in Tate Modern. The choice to use 24 images is because the number 24 can be seen as a time unit such 24 hours per day. For instance someone can spend 24 hours in London moving between 24 different places and loving 24 different events or experience. In this context number 24 as a time base can record the process of travel step by step. The urban theatre means to see events happening in city as the performances. In the prototype model, a lot of urban events taking place in Tate Modern can be seen as a sort of performance. The 24 images record the journey from Russell Square to Tate Modern, and they will provide the narrative that will be performed in Tate Modern finally. Thus, Tate Modern will be defined as urban theatre.
The present experiment focuses on how the 24 images/places can have the relationship in vision to compose an urban narrative before locating into Tate Modern. The following diagram (Fig 18) reveals the original and new relationships between the 24 places and events. The purpose is to describe the new order of link differently from original travelling trace with the events and the features of place in images. All the photos are put in the same locations as well as the presentation of the map while the connection of lines and the direction of arrows display a new optional order of travel in vision among Photos. Indeed, these lines and arrows compose a new relationship of places, which is going to be shown in 2.5D model.
Figure 18 The Relative Diagram of 24 Images
The images from a to d in Fig 19 demonstrate how different images connect together through the gaps of windows, doors, and walls, which can reflect the methods of break plane and making transparency. The reason they connect is linked back to the concept of spatial experience travelling in city. These images, as a place and event in city, represent the fragments of people's memory. Reminding memory parted by piece is similar to jumping among these images piece by piece through broken doors, windows, and walls in vision. These architectural elements divide the inside and outside space, which can also be seen as interface connecting both. The image a (Fig 19) is constructed by five different places to present a new relationship among them in vision. The Image b, c, and d present a visual switch and connection from one image jumping to another through the gaps.
b a
d c
Figure 19 The Connection Between Images
Act
D : Conclusion
Conclusion The method of 2.5dimensional presentations for displaying urban travelling experience in vision has been developed through the studies of planarity, transparency, and simultaneity. This 2.5D presentation may be able to describe more accurately how people view city as a series of fragmented images. Then it becomes 2.5D urban landscape. On the other hand, the experiment of creating another way that can be used by people to re-interpret the city is going to be developed in the following step. The next step of the project in the 2.5D model is to investigate how people can re-view the city through 2.5D presentation in order to find new fascinating point of view. The 24 places/events will be constructed and presented together through model to be the urban theatre. However, the scale and material of model will be taken into consideration during the process of producing. The model will be developed partial by partial as well as the concept of fragment composition. Finally, it could become a large complex model by scale and multiple perspectives.
Bibliography Book Ades,D. Cox, N. & Hopkins, D. 1999. Marcel Duchamp, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Codition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Boym, S. 2008. Architecture of the Off-Modern, Princeton Architectural Press, New York Elderfield, J. 1985. Kurt Schwitters, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London Evans R. 1995, The Projective Cast, MIT, Cambridge Ford, S. 2005. The Situationist International- A User's Guide, Black Dog Publishing, London Giedion S. 1 941, Space, Time and Architecture, Harvard, London Grant, K. 2005. Surrealism and the visiual art- Theory and Reception , Cambridge Lodder C., 1983, Russian Constructivism, Yale, London McDonough T. 2002, Guy Debord and the Situationist International, , October, London Mical, T. 2005. Surrealism and Architecture, Routledge Pile, S. n.d. The Unknown City. In: I. Borden, eds. 2001. The Unknown City, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Schimmel, P. 2003. Gregor Schneider, Edizioni Charta, Milano
Exhibition Subversive space – Surrealism + Contemporary Art, 7 February 2009 – 4 th May 2 009, Manchester, UK Supertoys, November 2008 – January 2009, Bristol, UK
Website th
The Whitworth Art Gallery Available at: http://www.subversivespaces.com/index.php/about/subversive_spaces (Accessed28 February 2009) th
Orozco, G. Gabriel Orozco, 2006 Available at: http://www.whitecube.com/artists/orozco/orozcopaintingsone/ ( Accessed, 4 June 2009) Sze, S. Available at: http://www.sarahsze.com/index.html (Accessed14 th March 2009) .
Figure Figure 1 Debord, G. 1957 The Naked City, Figure 2 Picasso, 1911-1912 L'Arlésienne Figure 3 Gropius, W. 1926 Bauhaus,
2002, Guy Debord and the Situationist International, p242 , October, London Giedion S. 1941, Space, Time and Architecture, p 494, Harvard, London
Giedion S. 1941, Space, Time and Architecture, p495, Harvard, London
Figure 6 Orozco, G. 2006 Samurai Tree 2U,
th
Available at: www.whitecube.com/img/artworks/1524/t2/st-2u.jpg ( Accessed 4 , June, 2009)
Figure 8 Tatlin, V. 1915 Corner Counter-Relief, Available at: www2.skolenettet.no/.../tatlin_relieff_l.jpg (Accessed 4 th, June, 2009) Figure 15 Samuel van, H. 1655-1660 Peepshow, Available at: www.essentialvermeer.com/cat_about/balance_b.jpg (Accessed 9 th, June, 2009)