Collection of InDeSem articles/ promo
-
Upload
ruben-smits -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Collection of InDeSem articles/ promo
22 s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n
Joris Hoogeboom
public sphere 2.0
Today, our notion of Public Space is shifting
increasingly as an inevitable outcome of
technological and cultural developments.
Shaping how we perceive and interact with
this space and what we count towards Public
Space. Consequently also in!uencing the very
designers of this Public Space, or can it be said
that Public Space is a collective act, no longer
designed but put together by a variety of ever
so complex processes. Is it even a matter of
physicality, or has media perhaps taken on a
much bigger role. What constitutes this Public
Space and what position do architects have in
the forming of this?
One of the earliest and most famous depictions
of public and private space has been done
by Giambattista Nolli, an itialan architect but
foremost a surveyor. By far the most accurate
map made of Rome until the 1970’s, it shows the
relation between privately used spaces and pub-
lic spaces. Using !gure-ground representation
black represents built space and private space,
while white being unbuilt and public space.
However this also includes the pantheon and
publicly accesible buildings. This depiction of
space is based on the ownership of the physical
buildings, boundaries speci"c to material p
erception. In this case the interior public space
depicted is territory owned and controlled by
a government, who has allowed some form of
freedom within restrictive boundaries.
According to Foucault(Deleuze, 1986) we can classify
eighteenth and nineteenth century society as
disciplinary societies. A model for how society
in a spatio-temporal manner is organised into
closed environments with a very clear and
encapsulated laws. Consequently giving rise
to Societies of Control (Deleuze, 1990), which are not
based on physical boundaries and institutions as
such but rather an open "eld in which power is
regulated through control mechanisms. Marxist
theories aside, the importance of this shift is in
the way that public space and it’s role are de-
"ned as outlined very clearly in the introduction
of Cognitive Architecture (Hauptmann, 2010)
“Deleuze, in his essay ‘Postscript on Control
Societies,’ also argues that the dispositifs
of power and control that once operated
primarily on the body(read pace Fou-
cault) now operate on the mind through
technologies of communication. With
this we are no longer within the closed
spaces of control outlined by geographic
or political boundaries (sovereignties as
such) of individuals or populations; but
in the open spaces of public opinion, of
multiple affiliations and dispositions
dispersed across the globe.”
As indicated by Hauptmann, these spaces and
temporalities are also inhabited by architecture
and urbanism. Examples of which can be
explained as social sites being manifestations of
the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1989). Such sites included
but were not limited to co#ee houses and salons,
places where one could discuss political mat-
ters based on a couple of institutional criteria,
namely: disregard of status, domain of common
concern and inclusivity. The emergence of these
‘Deleuze also argues that the dispositifs of power and control
that once operated primarily on the body now operate on the
mind through technologies of communication.’
Nolli depicting private and public space using figure ground-representation.
23s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n
social spaces was supported by liberal democ-
racy, giving rise to apparent self-organisation.
“Public debate was supposed to transform
voluntas into a ratio that in the public
competition of private arguments came
into being as the consensus about what
was practically necessary in the interest
of all.”(Habermas, 1989)
However with the coming of mass-media, we
have witnessed the downfall of the Public Sphere
as outlined by Habermas. At the basis being a
consumerist drive, leading to less interest in
political matters and ultimately leading to media
becoming a tool for politics.
“Therewith emerged a new sort of in!u-
ence, i.e., media power, which, used for
purposes of manipulation, once and for all
took care of the innocence of the principle
of publicity. The Public Sphere, simultane-
ously prestructured and dominated by
the mass media, developed into an arena
in"ltrated by power in which, by means of
topic selection and topical contributions,
a battle is fought not only over in!uence
but over the control of communication
flows that affect behavior while their
strategic intentions are kept hidden as
much as possible”(Habermas, 1989)
In this we can see a shift in modalities of dis-
tribution of power, shifting from Foucauldian
environments to rationally critic social spaces,
to societies controlled by mass-media under
capitalism. Information now seems to be the
most prevalent object for control, which has
implications for Public Space. As outlined in
Venturi’s writings, Las Vegas’ Public Space o#ers
insight into how symbolism in architecture
represents information.
Most of the theorists of modern architecture
are speaking about space. It is space which lets
architecture clearly be distinct from painting,
sculpture and literature. But the architectural
language in Las Vegas does not talk about space,
it talks about symbols. Symbols which are used
to communicate over space, the space as an ar-
chitectural element becomes dominated by the
communication. This is prevalent in the arche-
typal symbols like the duck and the decorated
shed (Venturi&Brown, 1977). This notion transforms the
function of Public Space into a one of informa-
tion. The duck being an example of architecture
showing o# information in a symbolic way, by
directly mimicking the message that is to be
sent. Decorated sheds on the contrary do not
directly mimick the message but apply this to
a generic space in a graphic way in the form of
signs, banners, etc.
However in these examples we are confronted
with a predetermined sender and receiver of
information. Namely the owners of these build-
ings being the senders and the receivers being
the consumers. With the rise of the internet
and media networks however, our collective
ability to share and receive information has
been drasticly empowered. Coupled with a
desire for individualization this leaves us with
a fragmented public space, hardly the pure
Public Sphere as imagined by Habermas, but
also extraordinarily capable of self-organisation.
“Our societies are increasingly struc-
tured around the bipolar opposition of
the Net and the Self;the Net denotes
the network organisations replacing
vertically-integrated hierarchies as the
dominant form of social organization, the
Self denotes the practices a person uses in
rea$rming social identity and meaning in
a continually changing cultural landscape.”
(Castells, 1996)
On the other hand Vogelaar(2010) argues that
urban/architectural space and information
networks are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For one, mobile telephony in open urban spaces,
intermingles private and public space. Devices
capable of augmented reality provide a layer
of information on top of the physical reality,
providing a fuzzy combination of the two.
Whereas symbols would guide one in an era of
commercialism, the representation in an age
of informationism is placed on a di#erent level.
Navigating the physical world as an instance
of the virtual world is going to take integral
urban and architectural visions in order to
connect them. Rather than trying to "gure out
how architects can re-envision our traditional
public space in the new context of social media,
Bohman envisions a more democratic way of
using Public Spheres.
“Bohman articulates three minimum
conditions for democratic public spheres:
(i) First of all a democratic public sphere
must be a social space in which speakers
may express their views to others and who
in turn respond to them and raise their
own opinions and concerns; (ii) secondly
a democratic public sphere must manifest
commitments to freedom and equality in
the communicative interaction in the fo-
rum; (iii) and "nally the public sphere must
address an inde"nite audience” (Bohman, 2004)
As outlined below this contains a premise for the
contemporary architect.
“thinking in (spatial) relationships and not
in geometries, implies that’ the architect
no longer designs objects, but relation-
ships…Instead of thinking geometrically,
the architect must design networks of
equations.” (Vogelaar, 2010)
Clearly with space being less of a critical factor in
the contemporary architectural context the role
of the architect in the forming of public space
is now more than ever one of connections, one
of information and the logical representation
of it. //
‘a battle is fought not only over in!uence but over the control
of communication !ows that a"ect behavior while their
strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible’
Sources:
>> Nolli, Giambattista, Pianta Grande di Roma, 1784>> Deleuze, Gilles, “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, 1990>> Deleuze, Gilles, “Foucault”, 1986>> Hauptmann, Deborah “Architecture & Mind in the Age of Communication and Information”, 2010>> Lazzarato, Maurizio “The Concepts of Life and the Liv-ing in the Society of Control”, 2006>> Habermas, Jürgen “The structural transformation of the public sphere”, 1989>> Venturi, Robert, “Learning from Las Vegas (with Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour)”, 1972>> Castells, Manuel, “The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I”, 1996>>Vogelaar, Frans & Sikiaridi, Elizabeth, “Idensity”, 2010>> Bohman, James; John Michael Roberts, “Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transational democracy”, 2004
34 s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n
indesem /11juryMilou Joosten
Competition: Inside the Jury
Since we can remember InDeSem has always
selected its participants by means of a selection.
This year was no di!erent and I was honored to
be one of the members of the jury.
The brief of the competition was to create
a physical, architectonic intervention that
connects the physical and virtual world to
create or contribute to social interaction. The
students had to pick a public space in their home
town and describe their solution in words and
images. We received more than 120 entries from
students all over the world. But only 80 students
will be able to participate in the workshop.
On Thursday March 10th, the jury deliberation
toke place at DSD o"ce. The jury consisted of
Deborah Hauptman (supervisor of this year’s
InDeSem), Machiel van Dorst (environmental
psychologist and our theory mentor), Mark-
David Hosale (working at Hyperbody Research
Group), Henriette Bier (teaches at design
studios within Hyperbody and SpaceLab),
Joris Hoogeboom (chairman of the InDeSem
board 2011) and myself – Milou Joosten -
(commissioner of lectures of the InDeSem board
2011). We invited Mark-David and Henriette
as well, because they both will be workshop
leaders during this year’s InDeSem.
In less than three hours, we selected the 80 best
entries, using the following criteria:
answering the question stated in the assignment;
spatial/ architectonic value (no gadgets);
possibility of contributing to a better functioning
public space;
contribution to discussion: virtual vs physical
;new social developments, etc.;
re#ection on own design, topic discussion;
presentation.
Due to the limited time for deliberation, we
split up in two teams. Machiel, Henriette and
Joris looked at half of the entries and Deborah,
Mark-David and myself took the other half.
Surprisingly, both teams ended up with almost
exact the same amount of ‘yesses’, ‘no’s’ and
‘maybe’s’. Forty students did a good job: their
presentation consisted of multiple elements
(diagrams, schemes, sketches and renderings)
and/or their solution was quite unique. They
were directly put to the pile of ‘yesses’. It was
a bit of discussing which other entries were
adequate as well. Because a lot of students came
up with a more technical solution, consisting of
screens, electronic cubes and so on. But we were
looking for more fundamental solutions. It was
remarkable that the Dutch entries in general
weren’t that good as the entries from abroad. We
could see that they didn’t put as much e!ort in
their entries as the international students. This
came as a slight disappointment. Is it because
Dutch students aren’t hungry enough for
knowledge? Or are they just overworked? We
wanted to look at quality only and that is why
we didn’t end up with a perfect ratio of Dutch
students and students from abroad. But well…
InDeSem is an International Design Seminar. We
as the InDeSem board will manage the practical
aspect of the larger amount of internationals
than we expected.//
35s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n
indesem /11 winnersPeter Smisek
received praise for “coming up with a one
liner that no-one else came up with” and thus
contributing to the debate. [ENTRY 97]
So what was the jury looking for? Although few
entries were completely original by themselves,
Henriette Bier commented on one of her favour-
ite entries “It engages people in both analogue
and virtual ways, it encourages interaction with
the object, but also with its other users and
touches on a number of questions posed by the
assignment”. [ENTRY 69]
Another entry, also by a Delft student addresses
the necessary public provisions that arise in a
society where people are increasingly spending
their time tweeting and facebooking on their
smartphones. Machiel van Dorst comments: “By
making this charging stations for mobile phones,
people are forced to stop for a moment and
come together and interact in a non-digital way”.
And of course, he adds with a smile, the roof
edge of the structure is a screen that displays
last messages sent by the owner of the phone
that is being charged. [ENTRY 49]
The 80 winning entries were (at the time of
writing) displayed along the corridor that runs
through Oostserre, attracting quite a large
amount of attention from passers-by. So far,
things have run quite smoothly for Indesem,
and the Indesem team (including yours truly) has
continued working to make the event a success.
Stay tuned.//
Competition: And the winners...
Few days before the announcement of the
competition winners, the Indesem o!ce was
abuzz with excitement, anticipation and stress.
On Friday 4thMarch, we have already received
about 85 entries, by the closing time of the
competition, Monday 7th March, this number
rose to 125. We all breathed a sigh of relief,
knowing that we could surely fill up the 80
places originally open in this. After the obliga-
tory computer crashes while printing out all of
the entries, we handed these to the jury and
hoped that the jury would be able to pick the
80 winners in just under 2 and a half hours on
a Thursday afternoon, since right afterwards,
we have scheduled a small jury statement and
invited the participating students.
Apparently, this was the "rst time, Machiel van
Dorst told us, that Indesem competition results
were being announced to straight to the public,
instead of just an exhibition and a list of names
on the internet. Although not prepared to admit
it, we were slightly worried that there would be a
very limited turnout and that jury would rather
walk away than talk to a completely empty room.
In the end, around 25 students, not including
the Indesem committee, turned up to see the
jury statements.
“What we saw were many one-liners,” said
Deborah Hauptmann, a member of the jury
and director of DSD, “but we were looking for
entries with more depth and complexity”. And
indeed, many of the entries featured screens
in public spaces that projected images from all
over the world, while quite a few took the idea
of projecting facebook statuses and “Likes” onto
existing structures. In the end, Hauptmann com-
mended only one one-liner. A Delft student, who
decided to let people embed any information
they want to share by uploading into the paving,
as information for future urban archeologists,
more information
Indesem.nl
Facebook.com/indesem
Twitter.com/indesem
B NIEUWS 11 26 APRIL 20112 NIEUWS
Addendum BN 10In het artikel ‘Architectuur van
de politiek’ (B Nieuws 10) mist
er cruciale informatie. Hoewel
XML architects het initiatief
namen, werd het onderwijsproject
georganiseerd samen met
Christoph Grafe (Interior Archi-
tecture) en Hans Teerds (Public
Building). De afdeling Interior
Architecture heeft het onderwijs
gecoördineerd.
B Nieuws 10, pagina’s 06 - 07
Bouwkunde wint prijsDe faculteit Bouwkunde van de
TU Delft heeft met het project
BK City een belangrijke Euro-
pese prijs voor het behoud van
Cultureel Erfgoed gewonnen: de
EU Prize for Cultural Heritage/
Europa Nostra Awards 2011.
bk.tudelft.nl
Call for new editors B Nieuws is looking for new
editors to join our team. Since
three of our lovely editors will
probably leave the editorial board
after the summer, we are looking
for new talents in writing, editing
and InDesigning. So do you have
the skills and are you interested
in working for the periodical of
the Faculty of Architecture, please
send an e-mail to:
Winnaar STYLOS folly bekendgemaaktHet ontwerp is van Martin Fiala
en heet 'Act of Folly'. Vanaf nu
zal STYLOS zich voornamelijk
bezig gaan houden met de
vergunningen en het zoeken van
sponsoren. Naar verwachting kan
de folly volgend studiejaar
worden gebouwd op het
voorplein. Voor meer informatie,
check de website van Stylos.
stylos.nl
KORT NIEUWS
BK–City This year's InDeSem, discusses the
influence of digital information and social
media on (our perception of) architecture and
human interaction: “because InDeSem 2011 is
somewhat theoretical and conceptual, we
invited the relevant theorists and academics,
but also designers and artists who deal with
the more practical side of the theme”, says
Milou Joosten, a member of the organizing
committee. The list of speakers therefore
features such renowned academics as Saskia
Sassen, Arie Graafland, to the young interac-
tive artist Daan Roosegaarde and a founding
member of Archigram, Sir Peter Cook. Another
person who won’t be missing is Herman
Hertzberger, the spiritual father of InDeSem
and a social architect par excellence.
The event kicks off on the 13th May with a
mini-symposium, in which international
speakers, as well as our faculty’s own heavy
hitters will introduce the topic to the eighty
participants of the Indesem workshop, as well
as the general public, which is welcome. The
weekend programme includes a book launch
at V2 Institute in Rotterdam on Saturday 14
May, while Sunday features a movie night
(which is only available to the participants).
On Monday 16 May, Indesem will return to the
faculty, where it will stay until its end on 20
May, the day of the public presentations of the
workshop results and a final debate.
The lecture programme, which is free to all
interested, might still undergo a few minor
changes, but the times and places of each
lecture are already negotiated. “We might
have to shift one or two speakers, but the rest
is already confirmed”, Joosten informs and
assures that the Indesem website will be
updated as soon as any changes occur.
For now, the last preparations are under way,
but it seems that Indesem 2011, if the organi-
zing committee succeeds in its plans, will
definitely be one to remember, at least until
Indesem 2013. (PS)
PUBLIC LECTURES INDESEM 2011:
13 May 2011 / Opening Indesem 2011 by
Karin Laglas / Mini-symposium featuring
Andreas Angelidakis, Arie Graafland, Saskia
Sassen and Kas Oosterhuis, debate modera-
ted by Deborah Hauptmann
14 May 2011 / Book presentation of
‘Sentient City’ by Mark Shepard and Martijn
de Waal and moderated by Michiel de
Lange (non-participants €4)
16 May 2011 / Lectures Herman
Hertzberger, Chris Speed, Marcos Novak
17 May / Lectures Adriaan Wormgoor,
Warren Neidich, M. Christine Boyer
18 May / Lectures Frans Vogelaar, Daan
Roosegaarde
19 May / Lecture Neil Leach
20 May / Final presentations / Lecture Sir
Peter Cook / Jury debate
For more details go to indesem.nl
INTERNATIONAL DESIGN SEMINAR (INDESEM), WHICH ALTERNATES EVERY
OTHER YEAR WITH BK BEATS, IS JUST AS LEGENDARY, ALBEIT FOR ANOTHER
REASON. THIS YEAR‘S EVENT IS NO DIFFERENT. FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH
INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED LECTURERS, A BOOK LAUNCH A FILM NIGHT
AND A MINI-SYMPOSIUM, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW EVENTS STUDENTS
SHOULDN‘T MISS.
INDESEM IS
ALMOST
HERE!!!
INDESEM ’11PROGRAMME REVEALED
InDeSem 2009
5
Dutch interactive-installation
artist Daan Roosegaarde, the
famous Dutch-American sociolo-
gist Saskia Sassen, as well as
Marcos Novak and theorist/digital
design-architect Neil Leach.
Naturally, Herman Herzberger
will take part in the event as well.
Furthermore, InDeSem is also
currently discussing collaboration
with other well known architects
and theorists.
And it is not just the keynote
speakers that had been contacted.
The workshop of 80 students is
actually split into smaller groups,
each group being led by two
tutors, one for theory and one for
design. For this, mostly Dutch,
but also international tutors have
been invited. Some of the confir-
med mentors are Tomasz Jaskie-
wicz, Henriette Bier and Mark-
David Hosale from Hyperbody and
Ekim Tan from the department of
Urbanism. InDeSem was aiming
to find knowledgeable tutors with
a background in the subject, but
the idea is that they each add
their own twist to it, according to
their specific expertise and ideas,
and their quest is now almost
finally over. This, coupled with
the students enormous enthusi-
asm for the project should
produce very diverse and innova-
tive solutions to the workshop's
main task.
Because of the interest that
InDeSem generates, the potential
participants are asked to do a
small assignement ahead of the
main workshop in order to show
their understanding of the topic,
but also to provide feedback to
the organizing committee about
how the participants perceive the
topic at hand. The task is to take
a familiar social space and
redesign it to reconnect the
physical and virtual reality. The
deadline for the competition entry
is Monday 7th March 2011, the
participants will be announced on
the 10th March.
“HAVE YOU ALREADY USED THE 'LIKE' BUTTON TODAY?” HAS BECOME A KIND OF
MANTRA FOR INDESEM 2011, HAVING BEEN REPEATED COUNTLESS TIMES ON VARIOUS
ARCHITECTURAL WEBSITES AND BLOGS. HOWEVER, THE TOPIC OF THIS YEAR'S SEMINAR
GOES DEEPER THAN THIS FACEBOOK-INSPIRED PHRASE SUGGESTS...
InDeSem 2011 takes place at the Faculty of Architecture in Delft from 13 May until 20 May. There are 40 places reserved for Delft students. In order to participate, send in your competition entry by 7 March 2011. For more information go to indesem.nl or send an email to [email protected]
BY PETER SMISEK
BK CITY InDeSem, or Internatio-
nal Design Seminar is a biennial
event that has been set up by
students and supporting staff as
early as 1962, and it has drawn
big architectural names since its
inception. The first event featured
some of the most renowned
architects of its time like Peter
Smithson and Aldo van Eyck.
Since then, a long succession of
famous names followed, ranging
from Rem Koolhaas to Adriaan
Geuze and Jean Nouvel. One
architect in particular who has
been involved with InDeSem
since its beginning is Herman
Herzberger, who still finds time
every two years and tries to
attend as much of it as he
possibly can.
“The theme explores the manner
in which people interact with
each other and the changing
interfaces they use to do so. Not
so long ago, people used to
interact in public space that was
given form by the architect or the
urbanist. These days, however,
more and more people spend their
time interacting online, giving
rise to new virtual public spaces.
Students will be encouraged to
challenge the time-worn notions
of public space and invent not
only new ways in which archi-
tects can deal with this space, but
also give form to it,” says Joris
Hogeboom, the chairman of the
InDeSem Committee. Further-
more, the reconnection of the
physical and virtual reality is key
to this, but not through designing
“gadgets”. “We do not see this
design challenge simply as a way
to ask students to design an
internet kiosk or a long bar with
touch-screens,” Hoogeboom
continues “it should be more
fundamental than that”.
Speaking of fundamentals, the
workshop is also always super-
vised by a senior member of the
faculty. In the past, Michiel
Riedijk (2009) and Winy Maas
(2007) have taken their position,
and now, it is Deborah Haupt-
mann, the director of the Delft
School of Design (DSD) who will
help the organizing committee
grapple with the theory. Coinci-
dentally, Hauptmann recently
co-edited a book on Cognitive
Architecture that included a
chapter on the changes in the
human perception that arise from
the proliferation of internet and
other networks. A seemingly
perfect fit...
InDeSem itself consists of two
parts. Firstly the week long
workshop in which 40 students
from Delft and 40 international
students from abroad take part.
This is accompanied by a series of
public lectures by well-known
architects and theorists. The
board informs B Nieuws that
InDeSem 2011 has had a great
response. So far students from
over twenty different countries
have signed up for the competi-
tion. Students from as far as
Japan, Malaysia and even Sierra
Leone showed interest in the
event. This interest is no doubt
generated by the choice of the
highly actual topic; the first
potential participants signed up
before there was any indication of
possible speakers or a more
defined direction. Thankfully,
InDeSem 2011 can now confirm a
couple of speakers, including the
INFORMATION
INDESEM 2011: LOSING GROUND
Dune 4.1, an interactive installation by one of the confirmed speakers, Daan Roosegaarde.
BK IN FOCUS 5