“We’re interested in bodies and their implications in space, their political positions in space, and how materially and technologically they are constituted,” states the Feminist Architecture Collaborative, otherwise known as f-architecture, during an interview conducted as part of Archinect’s Next Up: Floating Worlds.
Based out of the GSAPP Incubator in Manhattan, f-architecture is a three-woman architecture collaborative “working through architecture and its refusal.” Their work, which spans disciplines and geographies, is oriented around a commitment to changing the space of architecture practice for women architects and, more broadly, “disentangling the contemporary spatial politics and technological appearances of bodies, intimately and globally.” To that end, their work has taken them from the Ecuadorian Amazon to Amman, Jordan.
architecture as a profession, when it responds to politics and to the invocation of an f-word—feminism—has a tired diversity discourse that’s really based in representationDuring Next Up: Floating Worlds, the fourth iteration of Archinect’s recurring live podcasting event held at the Neutra VDL House in Los Angeles, f-architecture presented their project the Post-Fordist Hymen Factory. Artificial hymens are prosthetic membranes that circulate in global markets, catering to expectations and notions of virginity that persist in cultures around the world, and serving as an alternative to the costly prospect of surgical hymenoplasties, which can cost up to $4000 USD. F-architecture mapped the global circulation of this market, where objects manufactured in China end up in the Egyptian parliament, accused of luring “vulnerable souls into committing vice.”
For f-architecture, artificial hymens represent virginity, and the hymen itself, as a “a historical cultural construction manufactured in various ways for centuries.” These new technological apparatuses reconfigure “rudimentary simulations of ruptured virgin hymens and entrenched cultural notions of virginity through an economic lens.” Critically interrogating the cultural production of virginity and its ramifications, f-architecture take this “re-making” of the hymen as a design opportunity, producing a line of new “hymen objects” that, in various ways, disrupt and intervene in these new, global markets.
In our interview following the presentation, which you can listen to here, f-architecture discuss a wide variety of other projects as well as their broader motivations. Check out some selected excerpts below.
On the normative gender politics of architecture:
"I would say that architecture as a profession, when it responds to politics and to the invocation of an f-word—feminism—has a tired diversity discourse that’s really based in representation. The easiest way to engage with the politics of the profession is to take a reading of the room and see how few women or people of color are in it and wonder why they’re not paid very well."
On their work after the election:
"After the election we all started to re-think our forms of political action and try to examine where agency and efficacy may lie, whoever we are, architects or otherwise. One of these ideas was to think about the use of design to represent different populations or political views and to think about what the architectural aesthetic of politics even is."
On their work methodologies:
"We really try to work ethnographically, meaning that we try to operate with other individuals who are exercising their agency through different design methodologies and, for us, that means seeking collaborators and recognizing collaborators that might not fit this role of traditional architects. A lot of our projects that are based in different continents have involved collaboration with other women or gender non-conforming individuals."
"We’ve been trying to do these projects that produce an appearance of a subject or a cause…in the spaces of legitimation, of discourse and of political speech and will. The UN Habit Conference was one such stage that we were looking at, but we’ve also tried to produce scenarios in which political speech can be aired and recognized and recirculated."
Listen to other interviews from Next Up: Floating Worlds here!
Writer and fake architect, among other feints. Principal at Adjustments Agency. Co-founder of Encyclopedia Inc. Get in touch: nicholas@archinect.com
1 Featured Comment
"This assumes that the advancement of women's rights, which is my understanding of feminism, is the goal." --- not the only goal of feminism, this isn't 1973. For example, altering architecture's methodology could also mean dismantling embedded patriarchal and masculinist norms of behavior and professional performance. Like, for example, this condescending comment section. Not every feminist discourse is rights-based.
Agency isn't just "doing something". It's more like: whether or not you're able to "do things" within a world that strictly regulates the behavior and potentials of certain people (over others, cough cough white men). It's the ability to act within social structures and networks of power relations.
Anyway, interesting to see a bunch of men judicate—in a pretentious and condescending manner—on the legitimacy of a feminist practice and discourse. Hot tip: just because you don't understand something, or are unfamiliar with it, doesn't mean it's pretentious! Just because it's "feminist" doesn't mean it's about where your gaze falls on the subway!
All 16 Comments
Can we get an NSFW tag on the gif?
Really?
"OHMYGOD IT'S A VAGINA I'M SCANDALIZED EVEN THOUGH I MOST LIKELY CAME OUT OF ONE!!!"
I was legitimately trying to read this article and parse the argument, but I found it hard with a bunch of flashing labia blasting on my screen. It then went from an innocent thing to do during a render to a sexualized display causing awkwardness if my boss/coworker were to look at my screen. It would be equally (probably even MORE) scandalous if it was a bunch of fat dicks in a gif.
If you want people to take you seriously, tone down the genitals.
It's a drawing, one, and b. Most men wouldn't be able to tell you what that gif was just by taking at glance at the computer.
Yes, but not all men
I just listened to the podcast, and I have to be honest, it was filled with such densely coded jargon that I really have no idea what they actually do. Very curious. For example, what is up with all the references to "bodies"? There is obviously some body (forgive the pun) of thought or philosophy at work here that is enveloped, intentionally or unintentionally, in an obscuring fog of code words. I can't parse it out.
Erik I responded to you below b/c I haven't yet figured out paragraphs in threaded replies.
So I keep double-posting and look like an idiot LOL
It's not about 'doing' anything, it's about agency! It's about the fact that there aren't enough women and PoC's in any room in architecture!
There are in my office. We are majority female.
But, they appear to be doing stuff, too. They have a website, they appear to be doing something. I just can't figure out what it is.
All architecture is, or should be, concerned with "bodies in space". As a statement about what they are interested in, I think this is redundant given the field they have chosen. Too many academics have a tendency to use bigger/longer words to make something simple sound more complicated than it is. Just listen to a lecture by DJ Spooky and he makes it sound like DJing (ie. playing records for the enjoyment of other people) is the most difficult thing in the world.
They claim that with their work they will be attempting to "...alter architect's methodology." This is a general statement about architecture, and being a feminist group it would seem to reason they are referring to male architects' methodology in so much as they see these methodologies as standing in the way of women's rights. This assumes that the advancement of women's rights, which is my understanding of feminism, is the goal. How they intend to accomplish that is as clear as mud. However, posing questions about gender and politics in architecture is important, so I will give them credit for putting things out that that start conversations among architects and fuel the discourse of architecture in general.
www.chrisalker.com
Agree. Very vauge and pretentious.
The gif is interesting but I cant read the label and see the vagina type drawing becase it moves too fast. Is it intentionally fleeting?
I am not being critical of their ideological stance at all - I'm interested in learning more. But I just don't understand why they can't just come out and tell us what their issues are, and what they are doing to work on them.
"This assumes that the advancement of women's rights, which is my understanding of feminism, is the goal." --- not the only goal of feminism, this isn't 1973. For example, altering architecture's methodology could also mean dismantling embedded patriarchal and masculinist norms of behavior and professional performance. Like, for example, this condescending comment section. Not every feminist discourse is rights-based.
Agency isn't just "doing something". It's more like: whether or not you're able to "do things" within a world that strictly regulates the behavior and potentials of certain people (over others, cough cough white men). It's the ability to act within social structures and networks of power relations.
Anyway, interesting to see a bunch of men judicate—in a pretentious and condescending manner—on the legitimacy of a feminist practice and discourse. Hot tip: just because you don't understand something, or are unfamiliar with it, doesn't mean it's pretentious! Just because it's "feminist" doesn't mean it's about where your gaze falls on the subway!
What exactly are sis white males holding you back from doing? In a free market yoy are free to sell what you choose and others are free to either buy it or not. Seems like what is being sold here is not being clearly conveyed. Thats the problem of the designer not the audience. Also, I'm a proponent of complete deregulation of design professions...being that white men are oppressive and all wouldn't you then support stripping them of the power granted by the system of idp which puts them in control of the future of females?
It just seems like
?????????????????????
Hard to know where to begin with this, but I suppose I might mention that *cis* white men are currently working in congress to make it almost impossible for a woman to control her own reproductive health. not sure where you're going with the randian rambling but you do you bud
Easy. I wasnt saying that men dont hold back women. I was simply asking for some clarity and specific instances related to the arch/design profession. I presented one...idp. You guys are all over the map. Its really annoying to hear such generalized and vauge arguments and a complete lack of steategic/potential solutions. And chill with the ad hominem.
I should clarify that I'm not part of f-architecture. But you should check out their website because it seems like you're spending more energy on expressing confusion than on trying to understand their work, which doesn't strike me as all that difficult to wrap your head around. But that's just me.
You're doing great work here trying to teach, muckraker. Thank you for your efforts.
Kek, funny how the only comment making an enemy out of the males in this thread gets 'featured'.
Funny how the featured comment was the only one actually making a 'cogent argument based on current realities', hmmmmm.
Thanks Donna. Pretty disheartening, particularly when your comments are labeled as "making an enemy out of males" (not to mention the 'kek' drop, yikes)
Will continue to kek until architecture is freed from this one-sided dribble you call a dialogue.
*It just seems like this is all very unfocused and unclear. "An intellectual says a simple thing in a difficult way, and artist says a difficult thing in a simple way." This needs to either be a clear an concise work of intellectualism, or a clear work of art. It seem like the group is combining the two and it just doesn't convey a message well for such a broad subject matter.
And lol at the "randian rammbling" comment. How fucking funny is it that you would rather maintain a system where your said oppressor has power over you than adopt a policy that can be labeled as libertarian. The labeling and personal attacks on anyone with differing ideas IS why a fascist was trolled into office. Nice job.
Didn't know the only political options available are maintaining neoliberal governance or libertarianism. Talk about Sophie's Choice!
Neoliberalism= clinton
Neo Fascism = trump
Agreed.
Neither party is classically liberal or libertarian. You created that false dicotomy. And, classical liberalism (of which libertariansim is a radicalized form of) is the philisophical foundation that Established your right to sell Christmas balls with pictures of vaginas, get abortions, and worship zeus. To not understand that you live in a politically hybrid system is shocking to me. We have elements of libertariansim, socialism, corporatism, etc....any of those isms in totality would be a dystopian nightmare.
Which is why labeling ideas in a way that insights some sort of identity crisis is dangerous and anti-intellectual. In reality, stability relies on the hybridization of ideology to prevent extremism and tyranny via govt or private. Checks and balances. And yes, I do believe that many people where so annoyed by being frivolously labeled as a racist or sexist for any mildly politically incorrect thing they said or thought that they wanted to see the orange troll enrage them further...even if their logical brain hated him and disagreed with him. It was a sort of F-U vote for many.
well, i certainly disagree with you on just about everything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (wish i had time to elaborate, but can't at the moment)
Also, empowering the poor and females through competitive means such as title deregulation is the least sexist position one can take. Essentially "eroding the embedded patriarchy". But you would rather focus on changing "norms"...ok fine. How? I have no idea what that means.
Not sure if it's the "least" lol
Changing norms, ie. how the norm of wife beating has been de-normalized. Norms change.
Yes they do, but they change over time.
An example of economic empowerment would be to deregulate street vending to promote entrepreneurship in poor immigrant communities for example. To just say "Blaaaaa thats randian" is crazy. Lol. Civil discourse dude. Thats whats needed.
Erik:
jla-x wrote this: "This assumes that the advancement of women's rights, which is my understanding of feminism, is the goal." This comment shows such a deep disconnection from and understanding of the current discourse of feminism that it seems pointless to even *try* to bring him up to speed.
It's like if you're talking to your neighbor who's renovating their house and they say "I don't understand why this builder wants to use real clay brick when this fiberglass sheathing board stamped to look like brick is just as good." You can work to teach them but it will be a long slog and you've likely got better things to do with your time!
Talk about "bodies" is the way people in movements for equal justice are speaking right now because so much of inequality comes down to what you can and can't do (aka how you do or don't "have agency") within the confines of the way your body appears to others. Example: white straight guy on dance floor groovin' on his own = dude who's maybe a bit odd, but is just doing his thing; white straight woman doing same = she must be lonely so she's putting on a show for others/inviting attention/deserves whatever she gets. Non-gender-conforming (commonly understood jargon in this discourse) Jordanian men put their bodies in danger in public spaces by being who they are. Their agency is lessened according to norms, but by using a sanctioned display of activity - a parade - to present their true selves public acceptance of them becomes normalized (one hopes).
Mitch McEwen is good to follow on these topics.
David Lowery of Cracker went on a tour of military bases in Iraq in 2010, playing for soldiers like a kind of USO/Bob Hope thing. Lowery talked in an interview about how he spent months before that hanging out on chat pages for soldiers and their families - not talking, just listening. He learned the lingo and came to understand what the *actual* experience was of people there or with loved ones there.
(Note: I'm not comparing this conversation with f-architecture with being in a war. I'm *just* talking about how cohorts of people involved in the same activities and discourse about them come to speak in jargon that may be opaque to others.)
I've been publicly humbled several times recently for doing what I think a lot of commenters here are doing: reading/hearing something that makes me uncomfortable, so I get defensive about it and start delegitimizing it. I'm learning to just listen sometimes: to consider that the speaker has a platform for a reason (f-architecture is certainly doing stuff), and maybe I should listen *without commenting* and try to figure out why what they're saying makes me uncomfortable and examine what long-held beliefs I have that might just be insufficiently examined.
As that bastion of humble inclusivity Frank Lloyd Wright (LOL) said: When you see an aesthetic effect that pleases you, or doesn't, ask yourself WHY.
Donna, It really does not make me feel uncomfortable. Im crit-ing of the delivery method not the content. Just seems unfocused and too vauge to me.
Thanks Donna. Your example of the architect having to explain the difference between the value of full brick vs. synthetic brick is a good one, and one that I am of course familiar with. I have to bridge that gap every day. And I believe that, far from being a waste of my time, it is among the most important things that I do as an architect. If I can't explain my values to someone who is not a part of my "inside group", someone not familiar with our discourse, and gain consensus with them, then what is the point? If I can't do that, then all I am doing is speaking in code to other architects. I have always said that the best architects are able to persuade their clients of ideas, and make the clients believe that those ideas are the client's ideas.
It's a similar thing here. I would hope that their goal is to persuade others, who are not part of the clique, to adopt these ideas and make them their own. So that's why I am a bit frustrated by the obscurantism.
I hear you, Erik, and agree with you in general, but....we all know that we can cast pearls before swine all day and some will never, ever, ever get it. Sometimes we have to cut our losses and just say "This person won't make a good client, ever, no matter how much I try to teach them." I feel like many women right now, and I'm feeling it to a FAR lesser degree than WOC and people of various gender identities and abilities: We've *been* explaining. We're *tired* of explaining the same shit over and over. The internet exists; if someone wants to learn what "battle rattle" means they can google it. It's effort, both mental and emotional, for me to explain things. With YOU, Erik, I feel like the effort will be received, but with a lot of people I don't.
" Artificial hymens are prosthetic membranes that circulate in global markets, catering to expectations and notions of virginity that persist in cultures around the world, and serving as an alternative to the costly prospect of surgical hymenoplasties, which can cost up to $4000 USD"
that is fucked up
"These new technological apparatuses reconfigure “rudimentary simulations of ruptured virgin hymens and entrenched cultural notions of virginity through an economic lens"
a global marketplace might be new, but there's nothing actually new going on here. nothing in this argument actually solidifies the use of economics as a meaningful lens for analysis. the wealthy have been indulging their vanity for the duration of human existence.
"touring a cosmology of hymen objects"
this really fails as a graphic exercise. setting white text over a bright pink background renders the text virtually unreadable. i assume the point is not to gaze a pretty objects, but to convey meaning. to that end, it fails
"I would say that architecture as a profession, when it responds to politics and to the invocation of an f-word—feminism—has a tired diversity discourse that’s really based in representation."
so the solution is more representation? i don't buy it.
"After the election we all started to re-think our forms of political action and try to examine where agency and efficacy may lie, whoever we are, architects or otherwise. One of these ideas was to think about the use of design to represent different populations or political views and to think about what the architectural aesthetic of politics even is."
it would seem that the aesthetic is physical and individual, not economic and collective. i fail to see how vagina gifs are going to check back destructive politics or engender emancipatory politics.
Agree. Well said.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.