First, and this bias may already be legible in my contributions, I am
primarily concerned with the role of the designer of contemporary spaces.
(My main interest in this is how, in lieu of having these mediated
spaces merely come into existence via multiple complex events, they can
be considered as a design project.) I believe that nearly everyone on
this list subscribes to the view that to understand our architectural
spaces as a purely physical entities is an outdated construct. Given
these mediations, (as described in Keller's initial contribution on
6.13):
>to truly exploit some of the intelligence
>related to network thinking, perhaps the real power of many urban
>organizations lies within the relationships between distributed sites
>which are disconnected materially, which remotely affect each other, or
>which are involved, not with fusion or holism, but with tactical
>adjustment. The tactical adjustment, as a "switch" between segregated
>environments or as "fitting" propagated within the generic protocols of
>development and consumption may be an extremely effective way overwriting
>a spatial context.
I would add that this is also particularly relevant for non-urban
organizations: organizations at the scales of domesticity, consumption,
global networks, etc..
The question then arises, for someone interested in the design of such
spaces, how these "organizations" can be represented. What Keller is
calling a switch is, in fact, a possible mechanism for representation
that may very well be able to replace perspective (which tends to be
concerned with a 'complete' representation of a singular site). If, in
fact, we were to assume this, how then can this switch be constructed or
employed as a design tool?
If I can now digress to Brandon's reply to my home shopping discussion,
I'd like to pick up on his point (a point also of DeCerteau) of
transgressing the organization of a space. One of the dangers of
perspective as a design tool is that it tends to totalize; through its
monocular viewpoint, it encompasses a discreet field, offering a
privileged design-viewpoint of control. Perspectival space, in order to
be transgressed, requires one to physically contradict its organization.
Now, imagine if a space could be designed via the representational device
of Keller's switch (I believe that I am being a bit liberal here with her
concept); could it, in fact, be a space which offered continual
transgression? Would a space result which, through its ordering, offer
complex means of inhabitation unlike any we are aware of now? Or rather,
would it enter into my earlier discussion of de-spatialization; removing
spatial criteria, and shifting control into a ambiguous realm of
information management? (I can't honestly say how much of this I
believe; I'm tossing out some ideas for discussion.)
To relate it, however, to something I do have some convictions about, I'd
like to pursue further this issue of home shopping (HS). I would first
modify Brandon's critique of despatialization (if I may be so
cavalier...); I would agree with his point, but I would add that
despatialization occurs, in fact, due to a hyper-ordering of space. By
making space merely order, it becomes quantized information, or data. I
personally don't use this "switch" word in my work, but an beginning to
sense that it is in many ways, exactly why I am interested in HS. As a
network which transgresses the boundaries of space and media, it is
composed of a many "switches", and has the opportunity for many such
"fittings." If we are able to clarify exactly what these device may be
(or find other devices), we can begin to attempt to address the spatial
aspects of HS, possibly offering a spatial empowerment to one's
'inhabitation' of it. (I must digress once more. (...maintaining concise
theoretical discussion on a list is always a pain in the butt for me...)
I would agree to Alan's suggestion that HS is empowering for some, but
would add that it is empowering in that it is serving a spatial function
for them; that, in fact, it is failing as a controllable sales mechanism.
And in response to Bracha's concern over our abuse of "power", I have
only ever intended to suggest a power over one's own person, one's own
prerogatives in a space.)
So, in the end, have we come any closer in this discussion to a
clarification of the means of representation of these mediated spaces?
What are the devices we should be investigating if this is a meaningful
goal? And how might we derive devices which are constructively
representational, rather than passively so?
brian lonsway
......................................................................
j erik jonsson distinguished visiting assistant professor.
rensselaer architecture.
lonsway@rpi.edu.