Katrine Lotz Nordic 03
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Architecture, Design and Conservation Danish Portal for Artistic and Scientific Research Aarhus School of Architecture // Design School Kolding // Royal Danish Academy Mapping architectural controversies Lotz, Katrine Published in: Nordic Journal of Architecture Publication date: 2012 Document Version: Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication Citation for pulished version (APA): Lotz, K. (2012). Mapping architectural controversies. Nordic Journal of Architecture, 2(3), 140-141. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 XXXREVIEWS tions of architecture that have passed as the economy, politics, “the social,” Architecture their “sell-by” dates. The first subject or “the zeitgeist,” in which the build- AS Moving scrutinized is the kind of representa- ing itself finally disappears. From these Projects tionalism that accepts designation of well-argued reckonings, Yaneva makes a symbols in architecture as a sufficient strong argument for the MAC approach Albena Yaneva: explanation of the relation between that refuses to admit this traffic of ana- Mapping Architectural Controversies architecture and society. “A building is lytical reductionism. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012 not a static entity composed of symbols, The second part of the book forms but a flow of trajectories,” states Yaneva, a detailed recipe, with several “object In her book Architecture as Moving Pro- who is not afraid of throwing an essen- lessons” showing how to conduct con- jects, Albena Yaneva elaborates on her tialism here and there herself. Second, troversy mapping. It offers thorough already impressive contribution to an a vigorous revisit of Bourdieu’s analy- explanations on how to generate the architectural theory by which architec- sis of the Kabylean house serves as the empiric material and shows different ture is understood as projects in motion background for a confrontation with the ways of making it visual and digitally rather than static objects. As we face the sociological analysis and its reduction accessible. Daringly, the first example challenge of the renewal of the welfare of architecture to a mere effect of the is the almost over-scrutinized “text- state, it becomes increasingly obvious social. Yaneva shows how this kind of book controversy” of the Sydney Opera that none of the prevailing architectural analysis doesn’t get us any closer to what House. It displays the benefits of the theories have proven able to provide is implied by the key notion of sociology, main approach: to replace the “who”- a satisfying answer to the question of “the social.”. Yaneva also scrutinizes the questions that guide so many other the relationship between architecture inverse understanding, by which archi- accounts of this story, like “who was the and society. The attempts to define the tecture is seen as the cause of changes in actual designer,” or “who was responsi- relationship philosophically or grasp it social patterns, with Bentham’s Panopti- ble,” by a “programme of inquiry,” that theoretically are numerous, but very few con and the many Foucauldian studies of allow us to follow the collective actions theories—if any—are based on evidence the prison as examples. of architecture. Yaneva expends quite an that enables an empirically sustained The problem in both versions, effort, which seems counter to her thesis, ontology of what the “connection” actu- according to Yaneva, is that the uncer- in pursuing those long outdated decon- ally consists of. tainty of design, of planning and con- structions of the architect as the “Divine “Mapping controversies” is the name struction, is denounced or simply made Creator” or other equally obsolete per- of an elaborate set of techniques devel- invisible. Building methods and tech- ceptions of design as “one man’s work.” oped by researchers within the fields niques that make architectural objects However, this and the two subsequent of Social Studies of Science (STS) and possible are left out of the equations as cases of the Eiffel Tower and the London Actor-Network Theory (ANT). The tech- being trivial realities. She discloses it Olympics Stadium vividly and with great niques allow researchers and students as a “reference-trick”: One large unex- detail illustrate the many features of the to provide empirical accounts of public plained chunk (“Society”) is used to method. controversies on complex issues, in the explain the other (“Architecture”), or One of the features of this whole outset concerning the relation between vice versa. approach that make the reader sympa- science, technology, and society. With In chapter 3, truly intellectual in the thetic to it, actually, is that from these inspiration from geographers, the tech- finest sense of the term, Yaneva takes first and groundbreaking case studies, it niques employ digital information tools on the third problematic ontology of lies opens to further development. The to make the disputes and their many architecture, made up of the different MAC approach has been employed at participants visible, comprehensible, discourses known as “critical” in archi- the Royal Academy’s School of Architec- and even accessible to interested parties. tecture. She shows how these discourses ture in Copenhagen for more than three In Mapping Architectural Contro- have not been able to update the notion years, at courses at the candidate level versies (known as the MAC approach) of “the social”—that to which architec- that teach contemporary conditions for Yaneva pursues the obvious next step: to ture, according to the critical stance, the production of architecture. Through transfer this set of mapping techniques should relate and by which it should even the many case-studies performed by to architecture and also to introduce the transform itself. Actual studies of the students, this approach has revealed its post-representationalist and pragmatic development of the concept in the fields amazing potential to demonstrate how approach from STS and ANT to archi- where it came from, the social sciences, both perceptions of the modern welfare- tectural theory. The book is based on have simply not been adequate, since state and the Nordic architectural tra- Yaneva’s own teaching and her earlier many things have happened in those dition are translated and distributed in works on developing an ethnography fields meanwhile. the doings of the many actors. It makes of architectural design as the basis for Yaneva’s clear diagnosis is that either visible and tangible how architecture is a pragmatist approach to architecture. we reach out for critical theory, with its not “a world apart” but actually consists The ambition is no less than to trans- search for “intrinsic meaning” carried by of processes and concrete acts of build- form both architectural theory and edu- the work of architecture which can thus ing society. It allows students to inves- cation. explain society, or we cling to a cloud of tigate how the architectural motive or Part I is a fierce and systematic show- “external factors” and explain architec- proposal comes to make a difference in down with several predominant percep- ture with society—using such externals the sense that it affects the actions of 140 NORDIC JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE NO 3 2012 Nordic_03_Adrian_2012.indd 140 19/12/12 13.20 REVIEWS other actors—or fails to do so. By grant- laid out in Yaneva’s book hold immense by an overarching theme. And like Hara- ing agency in the “controversy-map” to potential for both architectural educa- way, Anker is interested in the social and models, sketches, calculations, and so on, tion and research in the field of archi- political contexts of both science and alongside individuals and organizations, tectural practice. design. their effect can be investigated. How From Bauhaus to Ecohouse is struc- architectural motives and narratives are Katrine Lotz, tured in two parts. The first half explores materialized and dematerialized, coor- Royal Academy of Fine Arts, a pivotal moment in the 1930s, when dinated and unravelled, how they are School of Architecture, Copenhagen Bauhaus expatriates Walter Gropius, stabilized and then again made precari- Lazlo Moholy-Nagy, and Herbert Bayer ous, uncertain, and revisable—all this encountered a group of social progres- becomes visible. Following Latour, even Ecology sives and ecologists centred around the architectural concepts such as “tecton- London Zoological Society—most nota- ics,” “coherence,” “concept,” or “parti” AND DESIGN bly Julian Huxley—who saw modern could be granted agency if they occur in design as an instrument for exploring Peder Anker: From Bauhaus to the case being studied. Even the convic- ideas of “natural habitat” for animals or Ecohouse: A History of Ecological tion of the architect—like Utzon’s per- people. Two projects exemplify the com- Design Baton Rouge: Louisiana State ception of “perfection”—could be seen as mon interest of these groups in habitat: University Press, 2010 a specific association whose effects can the group Tecton’s design for the Pen- be made visual, traceable, and accessible Ecology and design. The first has to do guin House in the London Zoo, and a in the MAC context. with the intrinsic qualities of the natural visionary scheme for an underground Actors come in different scales, and world, and the second with the human ecotopia, developed in the film Things they can change scale and position dur- ability for artifice.