Just for the record: In the initial forum suggestions, I wanted to
emphasize the politics of spatial representation--to consider the
struggles for voice, materialization, control registered there. I wanted to
articulate these as struggles for the setting of the terms, situating
contemporary space in terms of these contestatory fields and their
protocols.
It seems strange that, given the issues raised here in the past
week, that we would now want to pursue these matters in terms
of architectural design. Could you please tell me what an
"architectural design problem" is? I understand that it's
important to consider these issues from the viewpoints of
specific disciplines, and that we don't want to become detached
from the specific conditions of practice. The information
regarding specific issues in VRML programming that has been
presented here, for example, situated within the context of
industry struggles, is valuable to the discussion. It is
encouraging to know that a politicization of the tools of
programming is something that is, or might be, maintained within
the discipline. Perhaps, in elaborating further--and I don't mean
to discourage you from pursuing this thread!--you could give us
some insight into who and what a design problem is for, and
help to situate its assumptions and tools within a larger dynamic
of "mattering." The "tactical adjustment," for example, begs for
this kind of consideration. Are we representing the spatial
organization itself (with design tools), or the agencies of spatial
organization? To whose benefit?
I hope these struggles for the setting of the terms and mattering
will also be pursued in terms of behavior and psychic space by
Bracha, Viktor and Olessia.