reading responses for thursday, oct. 10th
Harvey:
1. David Harvey gets Marxist on us and breaks our world down to the production and consumption of goods, and its effects. Buildings are definitely a part of this world, but occasionally of an aesthetic world also. Can the production of architecture ‘lift the veil of fetishism of commodities’, and help to reveal the entire process of the built environment? or How can the global and local moralities be unified?
2. What does ‘remote’ mean to you? A landscape or a mental state? Is it going beyond your self to a social world, the ‘exterior’? or Is it an ‘interior’ and solo endeavor, just you and nature? Somewhere inbetween? Is there anything ‘mediating’ that experience?
Bishop et al:
Remote Possibilities: Land Art’s Changing Terrain
- This question has been building since the beginning of the term. The use of materials and energy in some of the land art projects we has reviewed seem exsessive in terms of the studio we are in and the goals behind it, for example James Turrell’s installations. Is there any flexibility for the artistic expression in a project such as ours that might require using more materials or energy?
- The reading discusses the new role of land art as being more of a social and collaborative movement and less about the aesthetics. What relationship does this conversation have with architecture today?
- What is it about the remote site or landscape ( I am scared to use these words now) that intrigue not only artist, but architects as well? Is the remote coded as an aesthetic like the discussion in the reading?
1.
This reminds me of something I am reading, “The language of Things,” by Deyan Sudjic. He mentions capitalism’s role in our consumption of goods. There is a history here! Which begins to formulate around the industrial revolution, where goods were more readily available for upper middle class, and middle class citizens. Now everyone can “have a piece of the pie.”
This situation can’t be solved by one thing alone, like architecture. It could help, but isn’t the solution. Many things need to be addressed simultaneously for long term quality change to happen.
The question is do we have a building conscience? If so, we take the steps to do what we know is right and refuse to build bad ones! This relates to my next point, but this is difficult to apply because this could affect your employment.
Global morality… also big time philosophical question. This really comes down to how you view life, and those around you. I believe humans when acting as a mass can not make these changes. It is much easier to continue what we are doing than make changes which could/would mean a negative impact on the quality of life they have come to appreciate. If humans on the scale of a nation or planet aren’t put in a situation which forces their hand into action they/we will simply continue to do what they/we know.
2.
Remote to be can be both physical and mental, physical remoteness always affects my mental state though whether it be a time to reflect and question or simply clear all thoughts and just b. Something like meditation I guess. For me being in a remote place or any foreign place can bring on a meditative state. The meditation happens because my normal life has been altered and I am forced to do something different. This can make me question or affirm things I do normally.
Personally I love the feeling of being alone, which I most commonly attach to being in a remote desolate place, but I also like being in a city where I know no one, or simply walking down a unfamiliar road. I guess for me remote is the state of being alone, which can happen whilst I am surrounded by people if that makes any sense.
Harvey:
1) I think architecture and building in the current state is intrinsic to the fetishism. We can do small-scale ‘back to the earth’ or charity works or theorize endlessly, but I architecture won’t be released from this toxic relationship without a total global catastrophe that resets our economic and social systems. Our best hope is to work within the system (and we are) through improved building practices, QOL improvements, and gradual social shifts toward smaller/denser housing.
2) Remote to me doesn’t me landscape, just location, and is totally relative. A remote corner of Lawrence just means some place on the periphery or hidden from the main circulation of the building. A remote wilderness is far/hidden and hard to get to. So I guess that leads me to think that remoteness is somehow tied to circulation but I’m not quite sure how to nail it down further.
Bishop:
1) If you have a good reason for using more materials or energy and feel that the benefit multiplier is greater than the material multiplier, then I don’t see why scaling up is necessarily bad. If you can get 400 volunteers to help with something then why not?
2) I think the collaborative and social movement parallels one branch of architecture that is doing the same. There may even be some overlap between the two here, although a specific project doesn’t come to mind.
3) I think the question assumes that architects are intrigued by the remote, which may be true in some cases but not all and couldn’t really be quantified. I suppose remote could be coded as an aesthetic (if I’m understanding that phrase correctly which may not be the case).
Harvey
1. I think one way to ‘lift the veil of fetishism of commodities’ in architecture is to build something strange that the natural response is “what is that?”. We first have to raise the question before we can discover a solution that will create change.
2. I would associate remote with being alone and maybe even unchanging. A “place” with no new ideas, that doesn’t grow and isn’t inspired.
Bishop:
I think this question might confuse current day agendas (especially at Oregon) with the motives of Land artists from decades past. I think what is valuable from the land art movement is the experimentation with what is known weather it be scale, perception, etc. As for energy and/or material consumption I think it is more important to focus on the value of that exchange rather then the amount.
2. I would strongly disagree that land art today is less about aesthetics. Can you call yourself an artist if you de-prioritize aesthetics?
3. In my opinion “remote” is romantic because it is a frontier. Nothing is yet known. For an architect to be the first “conquer” or build there is an impressive feat.
1. I see this as a communication problem, and since architects are master communicators, architectures could be a part of expanding awareness. That said, I don’t think it would necessarily be through a spatial intervention, but rather through a change in product design, or a change in the check out process at the store.
2. To me personally, when I think of remote I always associate it with the outdoors, and usually with backpacking/camping/roughing it. I think of being somewhere with a heightened sense of awareness of the consequences of your actions. If you twist your ankle in the middle of the woods, you have to be prepared to limp out of the woods on your own two feet. I can definitely feel remote without feeling alone.
Bishop:
1. This reminds me of the debate about zoos. They can be seen as horrible places for caged animals, put on as a spectacle for human entertainment – clearly not good for the animals or the environment. OR, They can be seen as places that foster care for the greater environment, because it allows people to connect with these animals, and therefore make the jump that their natural habitats should be preserved, poaching should be stopped, etc. etc. So. Does an environmental art piece have to be carbon neutral, non-toxic, and energy generating to be beneficial to the environment? Not necessarily. If your piece is so profound that it changes the behavior of those who experience it, that can be much more important than making the piece eco-friendly. However, my personal interests in this studio are not simply engaging with the landscape in an artistic endeavor, but also presenting a case study for building in an ecologically responsible manner.
2. I think architecture is experiencing more or less the same thing, or at least what we are taught in architecture school. We have seen, in most cases, that purely aesthetic buildings can be severely lacking in other ways – from physical problems, like leaky roofs or cracked walls, and psychological problems, like building classrooms with no windows.
3. To me, remoteness implies a removal from other human/built context. It may be more forgiving, in that one does not have to confront the politics of the city or the constraints of the established building patterns. In building at a remote site, there is added pressure to create a true destination. There is potential to create an objectified building. Is still don’t quite understand the “remote as aesthetic” concept, and hope to delve into this tomorrow!
Think global/act local has long been a bumpersticker morality, but is really hard to maintain with a clear conscience. The reality of global capitalism and the fruits of other people’s labor is extensive. As Americans we by default are living “the dream” on the backs of dead or enslaved everywhere. If architecture is to course correct, it first must be constructed not to serve capital, but people. This mean public projects that promote the moral stance we seek. But this is hard.
Remote for me is unexplored territory. Mentally I seem to live in the remote most everyday, pushing my boundaries of knowledge and know-how. The tools to survive the remote exist, and we have to utilized them everyday. Just as I wouldn’t go into the wilderness without my backpack of equipment, I don’t venture into a new design or planning realm with something to aid me. Being remote is sometimes solitude task, but often there is a team present somewhere.
Working in architecture today is by far a collaborative venture, moving past the aesthestics of an artist’s vision, and relying on the cooperation of a team of people, all working for the same effect. ARchitecture is definitley like theatre in that way.
Remote for an architect is like a pureland, where the structure we place there will be alone in the landscape, set out like a lone human imprint on an otherwise untouched place. Its appealing, sexy, and a little scary. Failure is not an option in the remote, but it is oftent he result. The challenge of supporting and maintaining a remote site is constant, even with a “zero” building. We are attracted by its blank canvas, but are often intimidated by its constraints.
Harvey
1.) Architecture and building in the current state of things is a lot about the final product. We fetishize the shiny new objects which plaster the magazine covers and fuel the market and demand for more. A lot of us care little of where it comes from and more of the final product. Our attempts at “lifting the veil” can be seen in such things as LEED certification in which we try to consider more of the larger scope of our building practices (points for materials, sourcing, site, etc.) Now LEED is a great step, but much much more can be done. Its growing popularity and ubiquitous application is a sign that we are trying to perhaps “lift the veil”.
2.) Remote to me is about separation. In a lot of ways I agree tie Pierre Huyghe in “Remote Possibilities…” that being remote is about the “conceptual displacement, the journey that brings you to this elsewhere” (109). The issue of remote is in the act of separation. To me this can be achieved through a number of different things whether physical or mental. I find that attempt to be remote, to be distant, or separate is the special and meaningful experience that makes the end result better. Trying to get there can be equally as powerful and enlightening.
Bishop:
1.)I think Turrell’s installations are by no means excessive in their usage of technology or structure or materials. I think if they achieve the intended effect, and I believe that his Aten Reign certainly does this. Why not use everything available to create the strongest experience. Sometimes the excessiveness of materiality, participation, etc. provides a kind of “irony or self-conscious wryness” as what was perhaps the work of Olafur Eliasson (108). To me, this can make work ever more amusing and powerful.
2.)I feel like a lot of things in design, including architecture, are becoming more democratized. We are allowing more and more people to contribute to the design process in many more ways. This is good. This is how we create better architecture for the world when we are able to gain input from all those affected by our work.
3.)Again, I agree with Pierre Huyghe that what is special about the remote is the process of getting there. It is about the conceptual displacement and not necessarily the site itself. Remoteness can be achieved by going somewhere far away, but depending on the purpose of “remoteness”, it could also mean going anywhere else. Pierre states that the journey to Antarctica was to produce a “no-knowledge zone” but if “remoteness” was desired for say isolation of an art work, why couldn’t that be done in a pool for example. I feel they can both be considered remote because they bring us to this idea of elsewhere for a work of art. This creates the intended effect.
Harvey // Between Space and Time
1. I’m not sure if you can ‘lift the veil of fetishism of commodities’ through architecture. Architecture is made of many components sourced from many different manufactures and vendors and all of these pieces, like the fruit, is mute. While buildings can receive awards for being whatever the word sustainable means now, one or many of its parts probably would be frowned upon when considering energy required to make it or its pollutants. However, perhaps another way to think about making architecture more revealing is to use the internet as a smarter way to source better materials, like the company GIGA. It has been really interesting considering the movement in aesthetics, especially in the west, towards a more exposed tectonics in building composition and construction.
2. That’s a really interesting question because I think the idea of being remote goes far beyond physical distance. I’m not sure if you need to be in nature to feel remote but being pulled away from what embeds you into any place seems required to be considered remote. Remote also suggests a lack of capacity to be reached or found so whether or not it requires physical emancipation or not seems less important than a intentional void in space in time to be “remote.”
Remote Possibilities: Land Art’s Changing Terrain
1. Flexibility to use less materials? I’m not sure how to answer this question because it would depend on the project, the concept, and what you are trying to achieve. It was interesting how Turrell cited Stonehenge, Maccu Picchu, etc as his inspiration and I think there is validity into making something at a scale where its ruins will leave generation of existing humans (whatever we are at this point) questioning or admiring. If that required more material, use more, if it requires less, use less.
2. I think it is a direct relationship to architecture today. Buildings, especially in a sustainable context, need to perform as well as please. Beauty and aesthetics, in our time, seems to require advise and and expertise in realms not traditionally considered. Collaborative futures is definitely necessary if we are to bring about meaningful change in building and building science.
3. The photos of a beautiful building sitting empty and remote in a field (read: Kundig’s Delta Shelters) appeals to some innate desire for individuality. Only alone can you be unique and the singularity is meaningful. However, as much as seeming or being remote is appealing in photos, the reality is that there is still a dependency on things, people, resources. Spending my undergraduate years in Maine, I’ve read many articles of off the grid houses in remote rural Maine. I think that idea of remote, the ability to continue and survive after a network dependent system goes down is appealing.
Harvey:
1- I think it is hard in the production of architecture, and all “things” we consider a commodity, to lift the veil of fetishism. People are choosing blissful ignorance of the consequences of their lifestyles. There are currently so many campaigns to ensure you buy products that are made by paid (and supposedly) happy workers in other countries, but sometimes (like fair trade coffee) the standards for stamping commodities in this category lowers drastically and it means nothing overtime.
2- The word remote to me relates to both the landscape and a mental state. Although I tend to lean towards a mental state that relates to my landscape. The landscape does not have to be barren of life to be remote; I could be walking down the streets of New York City and the feeling of “remoteness”. I associate it more the feeling of anonymity and the locations that allow such a feeling.
Remote Possibilities: Land Art’s Changing Terrain
1- This is a question that happens all the time, what can be sacrificed in order for the concept or design goals. The efficiency of buildings is a priority, but at times it is sacrificed for the “greater good”. I am not sure if I can answer this question exactly. It depends project to project. With Turrell’s Crater, he plans to have it live long past our lifetimes…so it makes it better than a quick installation piece. Overall, we should always explore more efficient construction methods for projects.
2- Architecture is best, in my opinion, when it has a relationship with the context and the community surrounding a site. This needs collaboration in order to occur between the designer and the community.
3- When I think about building on a ‘remote’ place, I think about a place where the land art could be more pronounced or unique. It becomes a destination rather than a statement you walk by every day.
Harvey:
1. I think we can improve our social understanding of the built environment, but really – only to a certain point. The best way, I believe is to as much as possible keep people involved in the building/design process. Part of our studio group had an interesting conversation last Friday about the advancement of technology and how it may shape our relationship with buildings. I can’t help but feel that the less we are physically involved with buildings, the less we will even have the potential to see these social implications associated with all of the labor/materials, etc. I keep thinking about Harvey’s story of the grapes too: even if we are able to somehow make the economic AND social aspects of architecture transparent, is it have a global reach?
2.
-Immediately, I tend to think of remote as a physical place, but exactly what qualifies as such is very dependent on the person, which links this back to the mental state as well. A place may be far removed from another, technically classifying it as ‘remote’, but one’s relationship to that area – whether it is familiar, crowded, empty, comfortable, will all influence one’s interpretation.
Remote Possibilities: Land Art’s Changing Terrain
1. Ideally, yes – every designer should be aware of material choices as they develop their ideas. But sometimes, to express a certain content, we may be limited in what is available to us. Which, is the other end to this question – because of these ‘limitations’, how can we move beyond and innovate to get the aesthetic/structural qualities we desire while making ecologically conscious choices.
2. I’m an optimist. We need to achieve both! But also a realist – Architecture that is socially powerful, but limited aesthetically will only go so far. And, if we aren’t striving for aesthetic link between the social, cultural, environmental aspects of buildings, than how much of it is ‘architecture’?
3. I think part of it is aesthetic – remote sites or landscapes have their own unique spatial qualities because of their context, but I think ultimately, we find it appealing because there is usually so little out there in these ‘remote; areas that we have the opportunity to insert a building/installation, etc. into the area and it will immediately alter the site – in a very different way than if installed in a tight urban fabric, where it might blend in.
Harvey:
1.) When I think of architecture and the “veil of fetishism of commodities,” I think of LEED. A program designed to give an environmental conscience to design projects, but really supports the consumption of expensive commodities. Designers ignore the embodied energy and impact of building materials for the promise of a more efficient design. Until designers begin to care as much about the history and embodied energy of a materials, as much as the operational benefits of that product, I fear lifting the “veil of fetishism of commodities” is unreachable.
2.) Often I recall remote as a physical removal of myself from familiar context and people. So I guess my answer is a little of both. I could be in a cabin in the woods, away from civilization with a friend and not feel removed. However at the same time I can begin to feel removed in a crowded city surrounded by unfamiliar people and buildings.
Bishop et al:
1.) My feelings are mixed for this answer. I think of land are and environmental expression as a means to communicate nature and notions about the landscape and environment. These expressions create a response, typically a statement or impression of the natural environment. For the artist or designer seeking to create this resulting impression, I think their responsibility is to remain true through the artistic process. If the end result is to make a statement about environmental consciousness, the artist had better maintain that feeling through the entire project, saving energy and using appropriate materials. However, if the statement is critical of environmental waste and use then the means may take a heavier environmental impact on materials.
2.) I think there is a growing conscience in design about social and environmental impact. Compared to the mid-century ideal of “starchitects” and design for the sake of aesthetics rather than user compatibility, contemporary architecture is more focused on larger responsibilities.
3.) I see beauty in the removal of one’s self to the remote landscape or site. To be alone in a place is often unfamiliar and insecure resulting in different personal reactions to stimuli like art and architecture. There is an impact a remote location has that cannot be replicated by familiar situations.
Harvey:
1. The market exchange of building materials masks the true economic character of the ecological impacts the construction of the built environment has on ecosystems. To understand how the life cycle of building materials negatively affects the natural world it is essential for architects to brows underneath this veil of fetishism of commodities. Global and local moralities will only become more unified if economic value is placed on functioning ecosystems.
2. For me remote refers to a place distant from the hustle and bustle of city life. Whether I am there with a handful of people or not, makes little difference. However it is important that parts that are usually associated with a city, such as traffic, crowds, or modern infrastructure, are missing.
Bishop et al.:
1. To determine what kinds of material are needed it is important to know the climate and function of a building. For environmental art, it seems to me, less material and energy would be appropriate.
2. People living a modern lifestyle are living in a more isolated world. Living in one’s own suburban house, commuting in one’s own car, using one’s own laptop for work, and ending an evening with a personalized exercise routine on a treadmill, are only a few examples of how life has become more isolating. I believe architecture is a main ingredient for how to reverse this trend, and create environments for people to engage with one another.
3. Tiravanija stated, “the Land in itself is just a land.” I believe it has to do with the primal relationship we humans have with the land. It is where we evolved and therefore is something that is embedded into our genetic code. We have an appreciation for the undulation of landscapes, the unexpected formations of mountains and flat plains. I believe the remote intrinsically appeals to the senses and as a result is aesthetically pleasing. What I think is unique about the artwork being remote is that it brings people together for a purpose of appreciating something in particular.
Harvey
Taking personal responsibility for something you can’t see isn’t something our culture is taught to do. Even if you decide you care enough to pursue the truth for yourself, your daily life pushes back. If buildings are built social manifestations, I’m not surprised our buildings are anthropocentric, ethnocentric, short-sighted, or that we’re not supposed to know that. I wonder how architecture that is both high design (working within a traditionally commodified aesthetic) and socially/ecologically responsible can inject another teaching. The building can’t just be high design/low carbon. It has to experientially oppose almost everything. Not trying to be pessimistic.
Bishop
I’m not sure I understand, but to me, “remote” has both time and space components (and interior and exterior, respectively). Accessing remote is an internal exercise in time–your perspective is allowed to adjust because you have the time to take in the changing–or unchanging–landscape around you and react to it. Pierre Huyghe makes the point–“The displacement is in the constant renegotiations that take place…a no-knowledge zone…not overcrowded with meaning…”. Zittel seems to agree but says she doesn’t (“a space where lack of structure creates gaps in which innovation or change can happen.”).
If something high energy can give enough people a desired new perspective, I’d say do what it takes. But I say that and I want to hear why not. I worry about what this would still say–this shouldn’t be done/should be different, but this is an exception so I can be too.
Harvey
1. Currently, architecture does not have the necessary means or language to “lift the veil of fetishism of commodities”. I am also not convinced that lifting the veil is at all a possible activity with regards to the built environment since it would require the cataloguing of systems that are complex beyond the capacity of the human brain as it exists. I am also not convinced that if the goal of lifting the veil is to improve the human condition or give access for humanity to a closer connection to the geography of production that simply lifting the veil, as if a puppeteer is really controlling everything would effectively increase humanity’s proximity to that very geography. Perhaps further commoditization is a better tool.
2. Remote to me implies a state of disconnection from X through Y means that is relative to each individual. I am not physically where the server to which I post this writing resides but it is not remote to me (and I am not remote to it: the server does not consider my location or state of mind). However, the students in my studio are remote to me because I have shut them out mentally in my attempt to reach the server, and you, the reader, and perhaps as you read this, you and I are not as remote as you thought.
Land Art’s Changing Terrain
1. The implication that a material usage is excessive implies that there is an appropriate amount. I think there is always flexibility for a material usage that is aware of itself and its own consequences. For instance, how can we judge if the massive amount of work (physical and material) that went into Turrel’s installation, in terms of embodied energy, maps appropriately to the experience created for the audience at the Guggenheim? I don’t think we can (yet).
2. Buildings have been funded through Kickstarter. I believe we’re beginning to see a change in the architecture profession in which the architect must be come more entrepreneurial than in recent years and reverts back to the architect of the early 20th century and before. Simultaneously, informal settlements will continue to grow as cities become more densely populate through the year 2050, creating a new generation of informal architects that respond more nimbly to social pressures and social change. This points us in the direction of the architect as a social engineer perhaps moreso than a designer of space.
Harvey
(1)Generally, buildings are not thought of as a commodity. I believe that they are thought of more as necessity; a shelter. The parts that go into a building could be considered commodities; coming from various parts of the world, but the building as a whole with its parts together comes to be considered a necessity.
(2)Remote is something that is somewhat a state of mind as well as a landscape. The hope would be that a state of mind could make you feel ‘remote’; removed and disconnected from your current surroundings. In a landscape sense it could act as the setting for which you become ‘removed’.
Bishop
(1)The social and collaborative movement in modern land art is being affected by contemporary art. Collaboration of ideas or people and the ‘process’ tends to have more importance then the final outcome of the art. This characteristic of contemporary art is not necessarily aimed at aesthetics. In fact, I some ways it completely ignores aesthetics.
(2)In particular, artists as well as architects are greatly influenced by landscape. Sometimes the landscape serves to be the driving factor for the initial design decisions. I often find the idea of a building being ‘remote’ very appealing. It’s fascinating to see a building standing alone in a field. However this this not generally the case. With a building being the opposite of remote, it is greatly affected by landscape, location, the elements, resources, people, etc. Even with the building being remote, it is still affected by the same elements.
1- The “fetishism of commodities ” is the Achilles Heel of contemporary architecture. In the contemporary value system commodities is a decisive factor. At this point I don’t have any improving idea.
2- There is something remote about all of them. I think the feeling of unknown and desired to be know, owned or being part of; binds them all together.
1- it depends on how physically durable and how effective the art installation is in getting the massage across.
In general how durable is the massage of the most effective peace of pure art ? (it has no function or marking of something else )
2- This is the same for a branch of Architecture today. By this I mean: role of land art as being more of a social and collaborative movement and less about the aesthetics.
3- I will not necessarily code remote as aesthetic but more of an enthusiasm for something that is not here or controlled or owned or ? This type of enthusiasm is intrigue to both artists and architects.