Monday, October 9, 2006
Friday, September 1, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Wall Studio: The ‘wall’ and its inversion, Introduction
Introduction
The wall is a line on the plan. It is a primordial, inevitable and necessary architectural element in our environment. Its omnipresence makes it easy to be ignored and taken for granted.
The wall can be brutal too. History of mankind has demonstrated its ultimate role. Meaning of the wall could be: enclosure, division, separation, isolation, framing, protection, seclusion, display, provocation, support, connection, mystification (of the other side), boundary, mediation, etc. It separates this and that, here and there, us and them. It excludes the ‘misfits’, the ‘unsuitable’, the ‘lunatics’, and the ‘others’.
The studio tries to comment on contemporary social divisions and invisible walls between different races, tribes, religions, economic brackets, and ideologies. The studio also tries to sharpen our consciousness for position, ideology, and architect’s social responsibility. In a larger sense it tries to address humanity through architecture.
While trying to induce meanings of the wall, we shall seek inversion of its power and give the meanings a twist. Ultimately we shall be able to arrive on ‘the other side’ and to be able to understand different sides.
Architecture is, as Elia Zenghelis suggests, a medium through which to be critical. To understand the problem, horror as well as beauty of wall is to begin to understand the power of architecture. Next time you draw a line, or design a wall, be conscious of your power.
Studio Brief
The wall is a line on the plan. It is a primordial, inevitable and necessary architectural element in our environment. Its omnipresence makes it easy to be ignored and taken for granted.
The wall can be brutal too. History of mankind has demonstrated its ultimate role. Meaning of the wall could be: enclosure, division, separation, isolation, framing, protection, seclusion, display, provocation, support, connection, mystification (of the other side), boundary, mediation, etc. It separates this and that, here and there, us and them. It excludes the ‘misfits’, the ‘unsuitable’, the ‘lunatics’, and the ‘others’.
The studio tries to comment on contemporary social divisions and invisible walls between different races, tribes, religions, economic brackets, and ideologies. The studio also tries to sharpen our consciousness for position, ideology, and architect’s social responsibility. In a larger sense it tries to address humanity through architecture.
While trying to induce meanings of the wall, we shall seek inversion of its power and give the meanings a twist. Ultimately we shall be able to arrive on ‘the other side’ and to be able to understand different sides.
Architecture is, as Elia Zenghelis suggests, a medium through which to be critical. To understand the problem, horror as well as beauty of wall is to begin to understand the power of architecture. Next time you draw a line, or design a wall, be conscious of your power.
Studio Brief
1st quarter_’Walls’ in Rotterdam
We will start with documenting ‘walls’ in Rotterdam. The ‘walls’ could be physical, immaterial or metaphoric. All examples are documented in the same format, and eventually compiled into one matrix.
We will start with documenting ‘walls’ in Rotterdam. The ‘walls’ could be physical, immaterial or metaphoric. All examples are documented in the same format, and eventually compiled into one matrix.
2nd quarter_Robben Island as Museum
Robben Island has been a prison for many important freedom fighters during Apartheid era in South Africa, most famously, the former president Mr. Nelson Mandela. Visiting Robben Island is an act of willingness to reconcile individual’s own struggle towards Apartheid and the like. We seek to create conceptual dialogue space for differences to deal with one another. The dialogue could be visual, physical, spatial or economical. It is a space for respect, contemplation, learning, leisure and freedom. People come here to learn about past, to meet and learn the tolerance of ‘the others’.
The whole island is regarded as a museum. Design assignment includes the journey and structures which manifest the message of the museum as well as necessary buildings which support the visit. What is the museum’s message? How does the museum convey the message? What is the meaning of the museum’s architectural structures, and materials and their effects? What other additional programmes be added to the island in order to enrich the Robben Island Museum’s meaning and extend the island’s future life?
Utilize or invert the meaning of ‘walls’ to set up new rules for dialogue and communication (include reconciliation and new conflicts). The museum shall invert the horror of the ‘wall’ into a calming, relieving, sympathetic and connective architecture.
Robben Island has been a prison for many important freedom fighters during Apartheid era in South Africa, most famously, the former president Mr. Nelson Mandela. Visiting Robben Island is an act of willingness to reconcile individual’s own struggle towards Apartheid and the like. We seek to create conceptual dialogue space for differences to deal with one another. The dialogue could be visual, physical, spatial or economical. It is a space for respect, contemplation, learning, leisure and freedom. People come here to learn about past, to meet and learn the tolerance of ‘the others’.
The whole island is regarded as a museum. Design assignment includes the journey and structures which manifest the message of the museum as well as necessary buildings which support the visit. What is the museum’s message? How does the museum convey the message? What is the meaning of the museum’s architectural structures, and materials and their effects? What other additional programmes be added to the island in order to enrich the Robben Island Museum’s meaning and extend the island’s future life?
Utilize or invert the meaning of ‘walls’ to set up new rules for dialogue and communication (include reconciliation and new conflicts). The museum shall invert the horror of the ‘wall’ into a calming, relieving, sympathetic and connective architecture.
Students
Eun Zung Baik, Korea
Shu Yan Chan, Hong Kong
Young Joon Choi, Korea
Una Finnsdottir, Iceland
Hui Ping Foo, Malaysia
Ljubomir Georgiev, Bulgaria
Ayumi Isomura, Japan
Hiroko Kawakami, Japan
Geun Poong Lim, Korea
Peng Li, China
Maria Fernanda Pastor Peracchio, Italy and Peru
Hee Chan Park, Korea
Simone Pizzagalli, Italy
Luhayu Fauzia Triratnamuti, Indonesia
Dong Won Yoon, Korea
Weiping Zhang, China
Shu Yan Chan, Hong Kong
Young Joon Choi, Korea
Una Finnsdottir, Iceland
Hui Ping Foo, Malaysia
Ljubomir Georgiev, Bulgaria
Ayumi Isomura, Japan
Hiroko Kawakami, Japan
Geun Poong Lim, Korea
Peng Li, China
Maria Fernanda Pastor Peracchio, Italy and Peru
Hee Chan Park, Korea
Simone Pizzagalli, Italy
Luhayu Fauzia Triratnamuti, Indonesia
Dong Won Yoon, Korea
Weiping Zhang, China
Friday, March 31, 2006
Rotterdam Wall Catalogue: Introduction
Rotterdam ‘Walls’
Why is Rotterdam the site for the research? It is not an obvious choice to make. There are no powerful and brutal walls as physical constructs separating groups of people, like in Berlin, Jerusalem, Korea, or Ceuta; nor are there laws or rules legislated to segregate, like in Apartheid South Africa or Malaysia. There are, in our findings, only seemingly timid and subtle examples. But it is precisely because of their understated nature that make Rotterdam ‘ walls’ fascinating and challenging.
Consider a town of only just a bit more than 600,000 inhabitants; more than 160 nationalities; more than one third of the population and more than half of the children born are not of Dutch decent. Demographically this is a real heterogeneous city; cultural diversity should characterize its urban life. In a decade the demographic figures will increase substantially. What is now the polarity of Dutch vs. the ‘others’ will probably become ‘allochtonen’ vs. the ‘others’ (Dutch) in the future.
Most of Rotterdam’s diversity is hidden and concentrated in certain areas. Ethnic groups have low participation of city’s social, political and cultural affairs. Many groups take on, what Bert van Meggelen calls, ‘absent presence’. 1 They are ‘somewhere else’. The gigantic absence makes these groups visibly invisible, loudly unheard. Are they excluded (passive absence), or are they excusing themselves from the civic platform (active absence)? Is this passive absence derived from the prejudice of the Dutch population? Are stories about crime just heresy and paranoia? Are all foreigners unwilling to integrate and generally speak poor Dutch language? Amongst the population, in the name of tolerance and liberalism, perhaps open debate and cross-cultural encounters have long been avoided.
Indeed, because there is no brutal physical wall or legislated segregation in Rotterdam, its walls are easily overlooked and neglected, its codes of inclusion and exclusion abstract and implicit, its networks intricate and elusive, and its spatial implication subtle and underestimated. This research project is an attempt to employ a lens, through which one can start to see beyond Rotterdam’s masks, and ultimately imagine the coexistence of cohesion and diversity. This lens is the membrane, the border, the transitional zone, the ‘wall’, between different conditions. The immaterial ‘walls’ in Rotterdam, made of cultural, religious or economic differences are as important as physical divisions.
Why is Rotterdam the site for the research? It is not an obvious choice to make. There are no powerful and brutal walls as physical constructs separating groups of people, like in Berlin, Jerusalem, Korea, or Ceuta; nor are there laws or rules legislated to segregate, like in Apartheid South Africa or Malaysia. There are, in our findings, only seemingly timid and subtle examples. But it is precisely because of their understated nature that make Rotterdam ‘ walls’ fascinating and challenging.
Consider a town of only just a bit more than 600,000 inhabitants; more than 160 nationalities; more than one third of the population and more than half of the children born are not of Dutch decent. Demographically this is a real heterogeneous city; cultural diversity should characterize its urban life. In a decade the demographic figures will increase substantially. What is now the polarity of Dutch vs. the ‘others’ will probably become ‘allochtonen’ vs. the ‘others’ (Dutch) in the future.
Most of Rotterdam’s diversity is hidden and concentrated in certain areas. Ethnic groups have low participation of city’s social, political and cultural affairs. Many groups take on, what Bert van Meggelen calls, ‘absent presence’. 1 They are ‘somewhere else’. The gigantic absence makes these groups visibly invisible, loudly unheard. Are they excluded (passive absence), or are they excusing themselves from the civic platform (active absence)? Is this passive absence derived from the prejudice of the Dutch population? Are stories about crime just heresy and paranoia? Are all foreigners unwilling to integrate and generally speak poor Dutch language? Amongst the population, in the name of tolerance and liberalism, perhaps open debate and cross-cultural encounters have long been avoided.
Indeed, because there is no brutal physical wall or legislated segregation in Rotterdam, its walls are easily overlooked and neglected, its codes of inclusion and exclusion abstract and implicit, its networks intricate and elusive, and its spatial implication subtle and underestimated. This research project is an attempt to employ a lens, through which one can start to see beyond Rotterdam’s masks, and ultimately imagine the coexistence of cohesion and diversity. This lens is the membrane, the border, the transitional zone, the ‘wall’, between different conditions. The immaterial ‘walls’ in Rotterdam, made of cultural, religious or economic differences are as important as physical divisions.
Conclusion
The project is not a statement of inclusion or provocation of hasty cohesion. It is a search for defensive and exclusive walls, as well as productive, liberating, calming, and sympathetic walls. It tries to go beyond the obvious typologies and venture into productive values of a wall which inevitably separates and positively liberates both sides. It respects both, benefits both, and does not apologize or compromise for its efficiency.
At the end of the research it is clear that this work need to be expanded and deepened into future research; and the research results have become poignant enough to demand design proposals.
The project is not a statement of inclusion or provocation of hasty cohesion. It is a search for defensive and exclusive walls, as well as productive, liberating, calming, and sympathetic walls. It tries to go beyond the obvious typologies and venture into productive values of a wall which inevitably separates and positively liberates both sides. It respects both, benefits both, and does not apologize or compromise for its efficiency.
At the end of the research it is clear that this work need to be expanded and deepened into future research; and the research results have become poignant enough to demand design proposals.
Rotterdam Wall Catalogue: Catogory
01 division
The wall of division is a non-negotiable and absolute separation. There is no real common interest between two sides. These walls are usually unintended; they are ‘just there’. In many cases they are natural barriers- river, hill, valley or sea, that makes it unnegotiably powerful and convincing. The wall of division also takes manmade forms, such as dike, road, zoning regulation or fence, etc. There are also immaterial walls, such as cultural or religious differences, which drastically separate one group of people from the other.
To create communication between both sides of the wall or to achieve accessibility require much effort. Often, powerful intervention such as construction of a bridge or legislation of laws is needed to enable access.
02 exclusion
The wall of exclusion produces high degree of separation and exerts high degree of control. The production of such walls is highly deliberate and calculated. Sophisticated mechanism, technology and design strategy are employed to ensure maximum accuracy and performance. It could be made collectively by a community or an organisational body; it could also be the act of defence from individuals.
Access is strictly controlled unless identity is verified and approved. There is always an (in)visible authority who monitors and guards the access. The architecture of exclusion projects clear message of rejection though sometimes disguising its real intention.
03 enclosure
The wall of enclosure to be found in a urban setting is mostly collective construct, like a housing block, which does not necessarily have direct intention to separate inside from outside. The enclosure creates a world within a world; it is sometimes a surprise that a wonderland is contained within the understated appearance. The world within is beyond the imagination of outsiders.
The enclosing element is an assemblage of walls closing a ‘room’ inside. The wall could be the scale of buildings; in this case the enclosure is a city block with neutral message and pragmatic function. The neutrality further contrasts the wonders behind the wall.
Access into the world within is usually controlled and regulated. Often codes of inclusion and exclusion apply.
04 protection
The wall of protection can be found in both physical and non-physical examples. It is omnipresent and often made from good intentions. The examples can be laws and rules, surveillance cameras (CCTV), controlled public spaces, cage, etc. There is an authority that exerts power and enforce rules to keep dynamic forces in fragile equilibrium. Protection suppresses threat and danger to ‘normality’ and smoothness. The paradox is that though its purpose is to maintain smoothness; its appearance often suggests friction.
There are dangers in the wall of protection. When power of control exceeds balance, individual’s privacy could be compromised, or worse, diminished. The aesthetics of protection could project a sense of security, but often it is only an illusion. Criminality or invasion of safety can always find its way in the shadow of control and protection. Demarcating a protected world subsequently points out an underworld, uninhabited by status quo. How safe are we under protection? And what if the protection is only an illusion?
05 boundary
Boundary is one of the most primary functions of the wall. It is a simple line that demarcates this side and that side. It demonstrates a basic act to differentiate. The examples can be found in dress codes, behaviour, and subtle spatial demarcation, etc. Boundaries are constantly being challenged, negotiated and re-established. They usually lack outspoken expression and can be easily taken for granted, furthermore, they can affect our behaviour subconsciously.
06 provocation
In this category, the wall’s function to separate is less significant than the message it conveys. The vertical surface is used as information board, carrying message with rather explicit purpose and assertive tone, be it commercial, cultural or social. Design strategy or technology is often employed to produce calculated effects upon viewers. Unintended provocation can also be discovered, revealing the subconsciousness of the city.
07 mediation
A mediating wall allows linkage between this side and that side through physical, visual, informational or mental passage. If mediation is enabled through physical means, such as door or window, the linkage is direct and immediate. If the mediation is visual, the effect is suggestive and subdued. If mediation takes the form of communication, such as belhuis (phone shop) or signboard, it links the information flow between distant places or cultures.
08 identification
A wall of identification reflects upon attribute or characteristics of the signifier- the wall’s owner. Unlike mediation, identification does not try to encourage two-way communication; it is a self-satisfactory and self-referential process. The style is employed by the expression of the signifier; the message is expressed via positive association. The wall represents an individuality, personality, and preference. The wall can also represent a community. The wall is loaded with codes, symbols and implicit meanings.
09 representation
A wall of representation works in opposite ways from a wall of identification.
Instead of reflecting upon itself, the wall reflects upon the world. In active representation, the wall’s own materiality or composition is intentionally designed to reflect upon its context. In a passive representation, the wall’s deterioration is part of the process in which the context undergoes.
10 freedom
This category compressed many meanings of the wall- boundary, enclosure, protection, as well as mediation. Altogether it inverts the possible brutality of the wall into a calming, relieving, sympathetic and connective Architecture. The power of the wall lies in its ability to liberate and allow self-expression of what is contained. Within the boundary different rules and behaviour apply; the boundary enhances the community within. The wall of freedom is negotiable and invites dialogue. Those who are willing to respect the rules within the boundary are welcomed into the community.
The wall of division is a non-negotiable and absolute separation. There is no real common interest between two sides. These walls are usually unintended; they are ‘just there’. In many cases they are natural barriers- river, hill, valley or sea, that makes it unnegotiably powerful and convincing. The wall of division also takes manmade forms, such as dike, road, zoning regulation or fence, etc. There are also immaterial walls, such as cultural or religious differences, which drastically separate one group of people from the other.
To create communication between both sides of the wall or to achieve accessibility require much effort. Often, powerful intervention such as construction of a bridge or legislation of laws is needed to enable access.
02 exclusion
The wall of exclusion produces high degree of separation and exerts high degree of control. The production of such walls is highly deliberate and calculated. Sophisticated mechanism, technology and design strategy are employed to ensure maximum accuracy and performance. It could be made collectively by a community or an organisational body; it could also be the act of defence from individuals.
Access is strictly controlled unless identity is verified and approved. There is always an (in)visible authority who monitors and guards the access. The architecture of exclusion projects clear message of rejection though sometimes disguising its real intention.
03 enclosure
The wall of enclosure to be found in a urban setting is mostly collective construct, like a housing block, which does not necessarily have direct intention to separate inside from outside. The enclosure creates a world within a world; it is sometimes a surprise that a wonderland is contained within the understated appearance. The world within is beyond the imagination of outsiders.
The enclosing element is an assemblage of walls closing a ‘room’ inside. The wall could be the scale of buildings; in this case the enclosure is a city block with neutral message and pragmatic function. The neutrality further contrasts the wonders behind the wall.
Access into the world within is usually controlled and regulated. Often codes of inclusion and exclusion apply.
04 protection
The wall of protection can be found in both physical and non-physical examples. It is omnipresent and often made from good intentions. The examples can be laws and rules, surveillance cameras (CCTV), controlled public spaces, cage, etc. There is an authority that exerts power and enforce rules to keep dynamic forces in fragile equilibrium. Protection suppresses threat and danger to ‘normality’ and smoothness. The paradox is that though its purpose is to maintain smoothness; its appearance often suggests friction.
There are dangers in the wall of protection. When power of control exceeds balance, individual’s privacy could be compromised, or worse, diminished. The aesthetics of protection could project a sense of security, but often it is only an illusion. Criminality or invasion of safety can always find its way in the shadow of control and protection. Demarcating a protected world subsequently points out an underworld, uninhabited by status quo. How safe are we under protection? And what if the protection is only an illusion?
05 boundary
Boundary is one of the most primary functions of the wall. It is a simple line that demarcates this side and that side. It demonstrates a basic act to differentiate. The examples can be found in dress codes, behaviour, and subtle spatial demarcation, etc. Boundaries are constantly being challenged, negotiated and re-established. They usually lack outspoken expression and can be easily taken for granted, furthermore, they can affect our behaviour subconsciously.
06 provocation
In this category, the wall’s function to separate is less significant than the message it conveys. The vertical surface is used as information board, carrying message with rather explicit purpose and assertive tone, be it commercial, cultural or social. Design strategy or technology is often employed to produce calculated effects upon viewers. Unintended provocation can also be discovered, revealing the subconsciousness of the city.
07 mediation
A mediating wall allows linkage between this side and that side through physical, visual, informational or mental passage. If mediation is enabled through physical means, such as door or window, the linkage is direct and immediate. If the mediation is visual, the effect is suggestive and subdued. If mediation takes the form of communication, such as belhuis (phone shop) or signboard, it links the information flow between distant places or cultures.
08 identification
A wall of identification reflects upon attribute or characteristics of the signifier- the wall’s owner. Unlike mediation, identification does not try to encourage two-way communication; it is a self-satisfactory and self-referential process. The style is employed by the expression of the signifier; the message is expressed via positive association. The wall represents an individuality, personality, and preference. The wall can also represent a community. The wall is loaded with codes, symbols and implicit meanings.
09 representation
A wall of representation works in opposite ways from a wall of identification.
Instead of reflecting upon itself, the wall reflects upon the world. In active representation, the wall’s own materiality or composition is intentionally designed to reflect upon its context. In a passive representation, the wall’s deterioration is part of the process in which the context undergoes.
10 freedom
This category compressed many meanings of the wall- boundary, enclosure, protection, as well as mediation. Altogether it inverts the possible brutality of the wall into a calming, relieving, sympathetic and connective Architecture. The power of the wall lies in its ability to liberate and allow self-expression of what is contained. Within the boundary different rules and behaviour apply; the boundary enhances the community within. The wall of freedom is negotiable and invites dialogue. Those who are willing to respect the rules within the boundary are welcomed into the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
