found on the trays (unknown authors)

End of semester treasures (two out of hundreds), found on Harvard GSD trays, during December tour.

algorithmic architecture archive

With Kostas Terzidis 
Photos by Arlene S. Persaud

MDES Thesis Reviews

It has been great day to be guest critic at Art, Design, and Public Domain Thesis Reviews at Harvard GSD.

And what a treat, to spend the day, in the back yard patio! On May 13, 2015

Thesis presentation by Jen Krava. Photo by Tatjana Bianca.

John Harvard Projection

John Harvard Projection, Krzysztof Wodiczko, April 20-27, 2015

Read: 
Harvard's iconic statue comes to life
Learn more:
John Harvard 'speaks' & video

guest critic @ADPD pro-thesis seminar

Guest critic for proseminar review of Art, Design, and the Public Domain (ADPD). Invited by Krzysztof Wodiczko, and Silvia Benedito. With Anne Liu, Chris Molinski, and Zenovia Toloudi. April 22, 3-6pm, Harvard GSD

Art, Design and the Public Domain review

Women in Design lunch with Caroline Jones

Women in Design (WID) have been organizing a series of very relevant and eye-opening informal lunch/breakfast meetings, each time featuring a distinguished female professional of the architectural realm.  In this text, I am recapping my notes from the April 2nd WID lunch with Caroline Jones, Professor of Art History at MIT, at Byerly Hall Room 231 in the Radcliffe Yard. 

Caroline James, on the two women behind the Denise Scott Brown petition, and current WID group leader, opened up the discussion with a provocative statement by Elias Zenghelis. The quote was shared by Cynthia Davidson, director of the nonprofit Anyone Corporation, and editor of Log: Observations on Architecture and the Contemporary City, in a previous breakfast meeting organized by WID and Loeb fellows. Borrowing James' text from the breakfast/meeting recap:

"She [Cynthia Davidson] also cited her interview from Log 30 Winter 2014 with Elia Zenghelis, who said, 'I believe, generally speaking, that women are better at architecture than men, even though in my 45 years of teaching, of my four best students, three were men. I believe this is the case only because the men paid greater attention to the fundamental importance of the frame and context of architecture in human culture and history, and therefore to the importance of theory. This is a responsibility that talented women still have to undertake.' Davidson didn’t pass judgment on Zenghelis’ statement, but she seemed to be pointing out a belief held by an authority in architecture."

Jones, who found the Zenghelis' quote "shocking," embraced James' invitation to discuss what is considered as Theory. In relation to theory within the art/architectural realm, Jones referred to her experience teaching in Boston University (BU) before coming to MIT in 2001. At that time, even a word like "method" sounded very theoretical (and scary). But even nowadays, for her current teaching approach, Jones favored teaching dominant threads  (instead of canons) on visual domains. 

Other participants brought up the dipoles: social practice (grounded and practical) versus theory, or contemporary theory versus conceptual art (conceptual artists that are not necessary theorists). In relation to art/architecture, Jones shared how her courses are elective, and therefore peripheral to Master of Architecture students at MIT. She mentioned the difficulty of being an Art historian within an Architectural Department: Architects know about art, but artists do not know a lot about architecture. Jones discussed the difference between architects who recognize the need for the discourse (even if it is not them who write) in relationship to artists that do not want to say much (in order to keep things ambiguous, to maintain a space of projection, and for viewer's interpretation). To resolve some of the aforementioned issues in her class, she asks from the students to pretend to be this other person who writes about the work (for example the curator, the producer who puts the show, etc). 

Jones discussed as well her current research (and book) on art and globalism as a Radcliffe fellow: How art functions in world’s fairs, national pavilions, and biennial culture; how art operates differently when it is in the context of a global assemblage; and how the artist becomes subject to these global discourses. In the meeting, she explained that the discussion of the 80s on durational works of art are still relevant: Biennal is not just a spectacle, it is a provocative space where different economies of experience take place. A biennal can spread the ambitions of an architect. Within this context, architecture can become a way to debate about things. It can become political. 

On the practice versus theory dipole, James mentioned how for example Denise Scott Brown (the theorist of the pair) does not like to separate the roles among the two. And James asked: Does the dichotomy practice - theory need to exist? By referring to Scott Brown's manuscript on photography, the discussion on theory opened up to other media, beyond writing, as a way to understand architecture. 

A series of questions occurred: Is theory writing? Is theory talking? Is theory, like in philosophy, facts and principles? At this point, another Radcliffe fellow, Lucia Allais, architectural historian and theorist, and currently assistant professor at Princeton University, entered the room and the discussion. Lucia Allais's contribution to the dialogue evolved around issues of gender, salaries, negotiation, pregnancy, maternity in the academic context: How can we learn to "hear" authority? How one found in a position of power (for example professor in an Ivy League school) has the responsibility to educate the others (students not used to seeing pregnant professors) through their own example. 

Allais, being annoyed by Zaha Hadid as the only "handy" example of female architect in various contexts and discussions, expressed her concerns of practice being more gendered than theory. And she explained that in Hadid's era everyone practiced "theory" in the similar way to Hadid: Through the immaterial drawing and the avant-garde. To further support her claim about the gendered practice, Allais mentioned the fact that many architectural firms position women as project leaders, but do not credit and recognize those female leaders. The recognition always go to the brand name of the firm or the  owners. This comment later was discussed by Caroline Jones in relation to the "collaborative" practice, but branded under the name of Olafur Eliasson. Jones who met Olafur Eliasson at his recent artistic residence at MIT, recalled him defending the use of his name to maintain the practice. Many participants shared opinions and views on collaborations, how small and big team or firm works, and how one can protect or share credits. Jones tackled how authorship and collaboration may be different in architecture versus art. And it was around this topic and time that the meeting had to end. 

To be continued?

She also cited her interview from Log 30 Winter 2014 with Elia Zenghelis, who said, “I believe, generally speaking, that women are better at architecture than men, even though in my 45 years of teaching, of my four best students, three were men. I believe this is the case only because the men paid greater attention to the fundamental importance of the frame and context of architecture in human culture and history, and therefore to the importance of theory. This is a responsibility that talented women still have to undertake.” Davidson didn’t pass judgment on Zenghelis’s statement, but she seemed to be pointing out a belief held by an authority in architecture. - See more at: http://blogs.gsd.harvard.edu/loeb-fellows/women-in-design-breakfasts-with-cynthia-davidson/#sthash.VrEYkKhd.dpuf

She also cited her interview from Log 30 Winter 2014 with Elia Zenghelis, who said, “I believe, generally speaking, that women are better at architecture than men, even though in my 45 years of teaching, of my four best students, three were men. I believe this is the case only because the men paid greater attention to the fundamental importance of the frame and context of architecture in human culture and history, and therefore to the importance of theory. This is a responsibility that talented women still have to undertake.” Davidson didn’t pass judgment on Zenghelis’s statement, but she seemed to be pointing out a belief held by an authority in architecture. - See more at: http://blogs.gsd.harvard.edu/loeb-fellows/women-in-design-breakfasts-with-cynthia-davidson/#sthash.VrEYkKhd.dpuf

She also cited her interview from Log 30 Winter 2014 with Elia Zenghelis, who said, “I believe, generally speaking, that women are better at architecture than men, even though in my 45 years of teaching, of my four best students, three were men. I believe this is the case only because the men paid greater attention to the fundamental importance of the frame and context of architecture in human culture and history, and therefore to the importance of theory. This is a responsibility that talented women still have to undertake.” Davidson didn’t pass judgment on Zenghelis’s statement, but she seemed to be pointing out a belief held by an authority in architecture. - See more at: http://blogs.gsd.harvard.edu/loeb-fellows/women-in-design-breakfasts-with-cynthia-davidson/#sthash.VrEYkKhd.dpuf

structures on earth

Tassos Mpiris & Sofia Tsiraki's lecture

Tassos Mpiris, Dimitris Mpiris, Polykatoikia, 1980, Source: greek architects

Last Thursday, Tassos Mpiris and Sofia Tsiraki gave two lectures at Harvard GSD. They were invited by GreeceGSD. It was indeed touching to see Greek architecture being presented in Cambridge, MA. Tassos Biris presented his theory on architecture as typology emphasizing timeless dwelling and human inhabitation. Mpiris begun his presentation by defining good architecture, architecture of ethics (referring to ethos = habit and dwelling = habitat), as antithetical to the global architecture of "athletic trends." The focal image of his talk has been the beautiful, white, cycladic house by the anonymous architect who offered the example of the timeless human creativity (He claimed that even an Eskimoo would associate it with their igloo-house). Through a series of examples, he discussed relationships between the element (as house) and typology (as city or neighborhood), the personal and the communal, the typical and the original, the black (as the dramatic in life) and the white (as the charismatic), and so on. (Later, in a more informal setting he clarified that these antithetical couplings are what differentiates him from modernism and what have saved him from problematic situations.)

Tassos Mpiris @ NTUA, Source: greek architects

Tassos Mpiris, Experimental Teaching Model, Source: greek architects

One of the most inspiring moments of his talk has been when he explained his experimental teaching model, a kit of parts he uses for teaching at the Athens Polytechnic School (NTUA). The kit has the basic sturctural elements (the pilar, the wall, the beam, and the slab) which he uses to produce space-structure ("it is diagrammatic.")

John Hedjuk, The Nine-Square Problem, Education of an Architect, Source: designcoding

He differentiated his approach to that of John Hedjuk's educational kit where a series of morphological elements (combined all together) produced forms ("it is not diagrammatic; forms produce form; it is a formalistic representation.") By using his educational kit, Mpiris has been showcasing a series of archetypal space formations. He both constructs and analyzes an in-situ game of architecture: standing and moving, points and axes, atrium and gallery, inner and outer space, the corner, the roof, transparency and opacity, and so on. He emphasized that such a space is architectural space (where people live in), not any kind of space.

Sofia Tsiraki, Tassos Mpiris, House and Mutli-cultural Center, 2010, Source: arch photo missions

Sofia Tsiraki introduced a series of very interesting concepts that both of them use when making space and architecture, such as the micro-landscape, the human absence, the ground as compositional element, the structural relationship between the part and the whole, earth as a chromic archetypal symbol. In her talk she explained also a series of concepts they used for projects. One of those has been the spiral, as an ambiguous structure, that opens up. A kinetic tool that makes space constantly. For many of the projects she presented, she used very beautiful representational methods that include hand-drawing, sketching, open models, photography of hands showing the concept, and clay models. Tsiraki discussed the valie of small-scale interventions in urban landscape that are gradully adapted by dwellers overtime. Another dominant topic of her talk has been the development of an architectural syntax, almost like an architectural lego through which one makes space. The audience made quite interesting questions about typology, archetypes (as object or not?), teaching versus practicing, tool using versus tool making, and self-criticality. The night felt more like going to a class than attending a lecture. As in many other cases at Harvard GSD the discussion continued until late with more scandalous questions, comments, and architectural gossips, comparisons between here and there, but also architectural and educational ideas!

The event was organized by Dimitris Papanikolaou, Aphrodite Stathopoulos, and GreeceGSD

from performance to architecture: Marina Abramovic part 3

Marina Abramović started her presentation (or performance?) by explaining the reasons behind her need to create legacy. For Abramović there is not big difference to create few more shows (especially after exhibiting at MOMA) but it is more important to think of other formats in which she can transfer her 40 years of experience. Abramović also explained the need to have her name on the Insitute, both as a brand to raise money, but also to secure the type of performance that will take place there. 

Abramović addressed the role of the artist in society and specifically how this has transformed the last years, from a "disturbed bohemian guy with dirty clothes" (in different venue she has described herself as an artist wearing black, dirty clothes) towards a person that has many responsibilities and clear functions within society. For Abramović, art should not occur in the nature (which she finds perfect) but in the "disturbed societies."

For Abramović, performance art's role and the Institute's role is "to unconditionally give to your own public and society." More specifically the Institute needs to really address the immaterial forms of art, starting with music, then performance, then opera, then theater, then video, then film, and following with new forms not yet predicted. In performance, time is important. When you enter the Institute, you need to sign a contract, to give your word of honor that you are staying 6 hours. You cannot leave. As Abramović says: "You give me your word of honor, I give you an experience. It is a fair exchange."

Once you enter the Institute you abandon your belongings (eg. laptop, cellphone etc) and you wear a uniform. The Institute is like a lab in a way. When you start your training, you enter different chambers to experience different situations, like the crystal chambers, according to Abramović crystals have memory, chamber with magnetic beds, and so on). There is a slight complication with the bathrooms for which they design three types: for women, for men, and for artists.

To further highlight her point about the need for time and long duration in performance, Abramović brings historical examples in which she mentions the duration and the preparation (and transformation) of the artist. She starts from Richard Wagner, Stockhausen, John Casem to Pina Bausch, Douglas Gordon, Robert Wilson, David Lavine, Terence Koh, herself, Tehching  Hsieh.

Tehching (Sam) Hsieh, is an artist, whom Abramović characterized as master. In One Year Performance, Hsieh transformed his studio into a cage which he would not allowed (himself) to leave. A friend would bring him food every day. From their discussions she recalls  that after one year the whole space has completely change. For example, when you sit on the bed on the far left corner, this is the sleeping room, when you sit in the middle this is the sitting area, when you sit in the far rigth edge this is the garden. In various occasions in her talks (not only in this lecture) Abramović suggest something similar (but obvisouly less extreme), the experiment with opening and closing the door. She explains, to open the door and leave, or to open the door and close it, or to open it half way, it is a very different experience. This is when the door becomes space. One could say that her New York piece, House with the Ocean Views, where she stayed in the stage for 12 days without food, exposed to the public, follows similar concepts and it is influenced by such practices like Hsieh's. She showed many examples of his work. Abramović once asked Hsieh: "What are you doing now?" and Hsieh replied: "I am doing life." Then she explained to the audience, in art you keep doing more projects in order to achieve things you had not been able to complete in the previous projects. However she differentiated Hsieh from this by acknowledging the stage of completion in which he has arrived in his work. So Hsieh, according to Abramović does not need to perform anymore, he just does life. 

Performance art for Abramović is a time-based art, a living type of art, and an immaterial form of art. During the Abramović experiment, people commit to time; they learn many things about their body like for example not to cross their legs because this blocks circulation. The Abramović method includes the learning of three objects/ positions: standing, sitting, and lying. 

To further study immaterial art Abramović went to Brazil to research two kind of things: places of power and people of power. Abramović believes in the transmission of energy that naturally happens in places like the waterfalls, volcanos, and other natural fields, and she compared this with some people's power to extract this energy from the environment, through spirituality, and give it back to people in order to heal them. Much of this research will part of her upcoming "The current" movie. In one of her videos (not in this lecture), Abramović explained how she synchronizes her performances with the moon cycles in order to utilize its ability to move ocean and therefore body waters.

Questions from the audience ocurred around religion, market , toilets, subjectivity and other diverse topics. At the end of the day, one still desires from architecture to acquire this transformative ability  performance has. Borrowing Abramović's words:   [Performance] it is not about you, it is about the others. 

Note: Click Part 1 & Part 2

from performance to architecture: Marina Abramovic part 2

After MAI (Marina Abramović Institute (click PART 1), Shohei Shigematsu presented the second project with Abramović, situated in the town of Centinje, Montenegro. Shigematsu mentioned the importance of creating an archive of communism, not just as a collection of monuments, but with the intention to preserve the feeling.

For this complex project (which is half represented by industry), they introduced also, together with Rem Koolhaas, and Hans-Ulrich Obrist, the idea of an Art Parking, a place where they can collect all the large installations that take place in the world, and they have no place to park themselves, as they need to be dismantled.

The most perhaps interesting part of this complex is the production of a social club space in the middle of the complex. This type of space can be found both in the communist era (e.g. the canteen, where one could find also a ping pong), but also in the technological industries (e.g. Google company, where one can find again pool tables and ping pong tables). This socialistic space will be also the visitor center of the complex.

To mark Marina Abramović legacy, the architects design a tower that is a direct translation of Marina's sketch of body enclosed in a tower, a drawing that represents her method. the tower becomes the entrance and the monument of the complex. 
(to continue reading click PART 3) 

from performance to architecture: Marina Abramovic part 1

In the beginning of March, at Harvard GSD, Sanford Kwinter hosted performer Marina Abramovic & architect Shohei Shigematsu (OMA NY) to present the Marina Abramović Institute. Kwinter acknowledged Abramović, as the spiritual founder of performance art practice. By borrowing some Nietzschean concerns and Spinoza's question, "What can a body do", he introduced to the audience the idea of thinking The Institute (i.e. building) as a body in extreme spatial temporal extension, as a kind of organism, that has the capacity to shape our experience, perception, and imagination. By exchanging the word body with that of building in Spinoza's question, Kwinter answered it at the end of his introduction: [the building]... "to alter the body and mind."

Shohei Shigematsu, described the Marina Abramović type of performance through the concept of "loose engagement." You can always stay connected to it, even if you are not the immediate audience. He compared this engagement looseness as similar to that one can find in baseball: he particularly mentioned how important it is even when you buy your hot dog to still be engaged with the act. He expanded this notion, also found in the semi-enclosed ciricle in the photo above, to that of an onion relationship, where the mulitple rings/ layers represent audiences with different degrees of engagement.
The building that Marina Abramović bought had been initially a community theater, but recently it has been transformed to an interior tennis court. OMA's proposal for the existing building, being based on this idea of "loose engagement," would require the creation of a very simple pure box in the middle of the building for different types of performances, around which they would position supplementary programs. The focus of the intervention has been the "audience 2m" second layer in the onion diagram, that would circulate in this additional programs (this is based on the assumption that the "audience 1," first layer in the onion diagram, would be fully engaged by default.

Between "audience 1" and "audience 2," or between program: performance and additional programs respectively, OMA designed a wall, that acts as viewing window, it is like the section (wall) in a doll house. This kind of "loose engagement" has been present in many of OMA buildings (e.g. MTCC at IIT campus) so it is interesting to see how the architects use Abramović's as an alibi for their "agenda" or visionary architecture.

"The Abramović method" has been the second ("Loose engagment has been the first) out of three notions the architects took under consideration. In the above diagram one can see the translation of the method to that (red) circuit one needs to follow when entering the building. As one understands through the progression of this lecture by both Sho (hei) and Marina, the new audience follows this script, that acts as a learning experience, a (desired) training for performance art.

The third notion they took into consideration has been the chair. Since in Abramovic &amp's performances long duration has been very important concept (Time for Abramović is crucial in performance) the Institute should provide the right chairs for all the different types of audiences. Comfort, relaxation, and even sleep is necessary to make you forget, and concentrate in the present. Sleeping is in fact another form of engagement.

During the wheeled chair experience, but also in other parts of the Abramović's method, it is hard to distinguish who is the audience. There are multiple audiences, like one audience that observes the audience who observes the performance and so on.

According to Shigematsu, OMA realized that with Marina Abramović everything becomes a performance. In order to address this issue of constant observation they made a hole into the Institute model through which one can "observe" what happens inside: you need to "wear" it and therefore you perform. In this case the observation of the model becomes part of the performance. 

This model attracted a lot of attention during the fundraising event, where as Shigematsu said, they did enjoy being stuck in the model. (to continue reading click PART 2)