I hate architecture
<3
Architectural
flirtations, formerly known as critique
Summary
Through a 'method of opportunities’
and intentional post-justification, I tell stories while formulating critical
arguments to propose a series of ‘disruptions’ in how we think, make and
position ourselves as architects, teachers, researchers, even humans, in
relation to our power and privileges. With the help of feminist and queer
theory, I use fictional provocation, humor and imagination in order to reveal
our habits, shift our perceptions and raise ethical concerns in situations
where we encounter the conflict, dreams and drama of the places we inhabit.
However, rather than a deconstruction, I would call it a re-construction.
One of my current main research
questions is “ If we begin with the most vulnerable, passionate or empowering
moments in life, what kind of architecture will we make then?” Most of the
stories take place in spaces that are usually located 'outside' of the norm,
whether a separatist bathing space, a sanctuary for mythical humanimal
creatures or an occupied Aldo Rossi row house with ghosts, locating them in a
place of possible political resistance to assumptions of gender and sexuality,
anthropocentric oppression and general disregard for the natural world or
simply the discrimination and conformism of a profession. In a broader sense,
the methods of my practice aim to question traditional forms of knowledge
production and research.
My contribution to the discussion of
critical architectural theory and pedagogies, lies within the act of clearing space
through what I call architectural
flirtations, where what
is usually understood to be “the
center” is continually displaced, by shifting it to places it usually is not. The intention cares not so much in the eventual
outcome, although there is always an underlying interest in the direction of a more
ethical and empowering shift, but rather in the constant redefining of what “the
center” might include. Although the inherent vulnerability in this particular
strategy, allows for unintended (and undesired) failures, the uncertainty also opens up for
the displacement of assumptions and habits lurking in the practices of
long-standing institutions and professions.
Introduction
As a brief introduction, I can say that my strategy
for this first half of the project has been to produce as much material as
possible and then to piece it together. This packet is my first attempt at
organizing all of the parts and suggesting a possible structure for the whole
dissertation, before the next phase. After the 50% seminar, I have a
‘teaching-free’ year to re-write everything into a coherent draft. My ambition
is to be far enough along with the content that I can spend the last year and a
half working with the material sense and layout of the book, parallel to the text,
as this will also affect the ‘readability’ or accessibility of my writing. One
of the primary aims of my dissertation is to function as a resource for
architectural pedagogy.
A note on plans for reworking this material:
In writing critical fictions the way I do, I’ve
consistently ended up with an odd form, where ‘parallel papers’ exist in terms
of the proportion of narrative text in relation to the amount of text found in
the notes. I try to allow the narrative to remain ‘free’ in order to tell the
story, while the more theoretical or rigorous academic work gets done in the
notes. However, the limitations of the note apparatus also feels constricting
in terms of being able to more fully develop and connect ideas. (I’m also a bit
of a collector, and the notes are where I end up gathering things that I don’t
want to forget.) So, my intention is to rewrite everything during the coming
year, using a metafiction, where a ‘Future Voice’ will reflect on the existing
narratives as artifacts, using much of the information currently found in the
notes. Right now, everything exists as free-standing parts, although there are
many links between the stories.
Some questions I would like to discuss at the seminar:
1) Reactions to the overall structure of existing
material and thoughts on where could I be headed? Including the idea to add
another voice in a layer of metafiction.
2) Thoughts on my initial formulation of what my
contribution may be in relation to what I’ve written so far? The idea of architectural flirtations and displacing
the center? Other work I should know about?
3) How to deal with Aldo Rossi in my work? Not sure
what to do with him, although he has been very helpful during the process.
A short description of the material, piece by piece,
and the state each is in:
Diagram 1- Table of contents. Presents an inventory of
parts, with an indication of an order and intended structure of the parts to a whole.
It also attempts to convey the underlying idea of architectural flirtations, in the continual displacement of the
center, where the first point is located with “I” in the feminist killjoy
button and ‘I hate architecture <3’, eventually making it’s way to “you” in ‘Dear
Architect’ and then finally traveling outward into a metafiction.
Diagram 2- Who am I in conversation with? Presents
current key concepts and theoretical references.
0) "I hate architecture <3" In the form
of a manifesto, this is a quick piece I wrote initially in the beginning of my
project as an exercise to reflect upon my own frustrations with ‘architecture’-
as a subject, a profession, an education, an area of research, an institution.
Upon later revisions, this began to formulate the WHY for my project.
1) "Open House: Telling stories with
architectural room specifications" This is an unfinished piece and the
first ‘story’ that works with a ‘Camp sensibility’-a play on ‘the serious’ and
the frivolous. It began as a quick assignment in one of my PhD courses, asking
us to formulate the research design of our doctoral project, and it quickly
became another writing experiment. It serves as an organizational model,
introducing stories 2, 3 & 4 as rooms inside (and outside) the renovated Rossi
row house. I am including the original room specifications, along with the abstract
I wrote for the AHRA conference in November. Besides developing the
specifications, I will add an intro, some narrative parts and an afterword to
better frame it.
2) "Meditations on lesbians who meditate on
Lesvos" This paper was presented first at a conference on Contemporary
Esotericism, and again in another version at a conference called Lesbian Lives.
This is the second ‘story’ that explores desire and vulnerability in separatist
space and corresponds to ‘The Women’s Bathing Salon’ in the Open House text.
3) "Vanity (Fair), conflict, dreams and drama on
an ordinary day at The Beastlet" This paper was presented at the AHRA 2012
conference in London and again at Rethinking the Social in Architecture Symposium
2013 in Umeå. This is the third ‘story’ based on a studio teaching experience,
using critical fictions that deals with the figure of the architect and its
formation. It corresponds to ‘The Studio Salon’
in the Open House text. I intend to make some major revisions of the narrative,
to both develop the character of the reporter writing the interview, as well as
specific architect characters, in order to nuance the discussion of the figure
of the architect.
4) "Renovating Rossi: Stories of anticipation in
close encounters of the (un)desirable kind" This paper was presented at the
Writing place Conference at TU Delft in 2013. It is the fourth ‘story’ and
corresponds to the garden outside of the renovated Rossi House, as the effects
of the renovation begin to spill out into the surroundings.
5) “Passionate Pedagogy: the act of pedagogical
stewardship” This is the documentation of a performative text seminar course I
held during the spring 2014 in relation to my research.
It functioned as a ‘live’ experiment of the pedagogic ideas within my project,
as well as a ‘test audience’ where students could read my own writing and
provide feedback. It is the fifth story. I am including selected visual
material and the outline of a paper. (first draft, unfinished)
6) “Architectural Flirtations, formerly known as
critique: Clearing ground for vital architectural conversations” This paper brings together the important theoretical
concepts, begins to contextualize the project. (It is possible that this text
becomes the ‘Future Voice’ during the re-write.) It describes the WHAT of my
project. Right now, it is only the first draft of a short paper, but an
important piece of the puzzle in understanding/formulating what the
contribution of my dissertation could be.
Diagram 3- Traces the architectural flirtations throughout the project. (coming soon)
7) “Dear Architect, A Flirt’s Scientific
Autobiography” This text began as a personal letter to Aldo Rossi’s ghost,
explaining the renovations made in the Open House text, in dialogue with
Rossi’s own writing in “A Scientific Autobiography”. It resulted in something
resembling an introductory/methods chapter, or the HOW of the project. It is in
an unfinished state, too wordy and should perhaps address a more general
‘architect’ rather than a specific one? However, I would like to keep the personal
letter form.
8) Future Voice- reflection, analysis, metafiction
(coming soon)
