Surveillance space becomes pain space. Aside from ethical questions (is it ever possible to put ethical questions aside? maybe not) this is a fascinating instance of space which is defined by operating on the body rather than acting as an empty container.
Is it possible to imagine joy-spaces? hope-spaces? lamentation-spaces? What kind of spaces could this produce?
References to Henri Lefebvre are approved for use in this thread.
The torture thing is the most obvious application of this. But the thing that interested me the most was the idea of projecting a space. With this device, the military can point the transmitter wherever they want and instantly create a space of exclusion: in a street, an interior, the middle of a crowd.
Perhaps this could line up with the current Japanese architects working with architecture that dissolves or even disappears?
The whole point of the panopticon was that it didn't necessarily need keys and guards. You didn't know if you were being watched, so you had to presume you were.
But that's Foucault's argument, nonetheless: that the space itself acts to propagate those morals by constraining behaviour. The panopticon aims to 'institutionalise' its occupants.
I don't think we can be deterministic about it, but I find it hard to argue that space is always ethically neutral. That's what Eisenman's work on Terragni seems to be arguing, but I'm not quite sure I agree.
I'm not really trying to follow a particular theoretical trajectory. I'm particularly interested in space that is projected rather than contained; in spaces of exclusion; and generally how this relates to human bodies.
things that hang just overhead are often projections that affect space. have you ever seen people duck quickly when they perceive that they're about to bump their heads on something just above head height? that's not something that is actually in their physical space or affecting their space physically, but it's had a mental/psychological effect of some sort, even if only short and incidental.
i always loved the log flumes where it looked like the huge saw blade was about to cut you in two as you moved toward it - strapped into your seat - so you ducked/flinched/closed your eyes, and then dropped down the last big chute to the end.
what i've always thought interesting about the panopticon's basis was that it's founded upon the idea that those experiencing the design (prisoners) must be under the impression that they are watched and monitored.
so if you're equating a painspace to surveilled space i think an interesting way to approach is to look at varying degrees of surveillance and how that can modulate the degree of the painspace. what does it mean to be watched to differing degrees. seeing someone's shadow vs. opposed to on a video screen vs. through a window.
something interesting also. the internet and video, google earth, etc. has allowed for a large amount of voyeurism that's allowed through the privacy of our home. how does this screen suddenly make us comfortable when we wouldn't necessarily be using binoculars to look at our neighbors across the street. does it have to do with getting caught? the voyeur doesn't want to be seen?
space by itself is neutral, but i think that as soon as you occupy it or put something in it, it ceases to be neutral. sort of a heisenberg/foucault's uncertainty principle...
Yeah, that's quite good, Smokety. Theorists of Pacific tattooing argue that the tattoo is not conceived as a decoration applied to a surface, but a projection of the individual onto the greater body of the ancestor.
I still disagree that space is neutral, meta. There have been some pretty trenchant criticisms of Cartesian a priori space - some by the people you have cited. That doesn't mean its necessarily organised according to any particular ethics or politics, of course.
Steven, that flinching reflex is interesting. I think so far, apart from meta's beer, you've suggested the only non-torture-related instance of projected space: theme-park rides which project a spatial experience by throwing the body around.
Projecting painspace.
Surveillance space becomes pain space. Aside from ethical questions (is it ever possible to put ethical questions aside? maybe not) this is a fascinating instance of space which is defined by operating on the body rather than acting as an empty container.
Is it possible to imagine joy-spaces? hope-spaces? lamentation-spaces? What kind of spaces could this produce?
References to Henri Lefebvre are approved for use in this thread.
Its official, my thesis is gonna be a CIA Black Site, complete with torture facilities!
Guatanamo bay 2.0 ?
Actually that would actually be really cool to design. Im sure you could also explore some serious ethical issues and the like as welll
The torture thing is the most obvious application of this. But the thing that interested me the most was the idea of projecting a space. With this device, the military can point the transmitter wherever they want and instantly create a space of exclusion: in a street, an interior, the middle of a crowd.
Perhaps this could line up with the current Japanese architects working with architecture that dissolves or even disappears?
The whole point of the panopticon was that it didn't necessarily need keys and guards. You didn't know if you were being watched, so you had to presume you were.
Is the surveillance space of London a prison?
A whole new meaning to negative space perhaps?
If these things are so cheap, and have such a large range then it seems they would be scarily well suited to "wall" type arrangements
i love torture...i just wish that i knew more about it
Perhaps this is also a space of exclusion: a large surface of water that serves to maintain a void in front of a politically significant artefact.
But that's Foucault's argument, nonetheless: that the space itself acts to propagate those morals by constraining behaviour. The panopticon aims to 'institutionalise' its occupants.
I don't think we can be deterministic about it, but I find it hard to argue that space is always ethically neutral. That's what Eisenman's work on Terragni seems to be arguing, but I'm not quite sure I agree.
Another space of exclusion, by Rachel Whiteread.
I'm not really trying to follow a particular theoretical trajectory. I'm particularly interested in space that is projected rather than contained; in spaces of exclusion; and generally how this relates to human bodies.
[img]http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/morgan/photo2.jpg[/img
]
(Martha Graham's Lamentation)
(turkey and beer sounds good)
things that hang just overhead are often projections that affect space. have you ever seen people duck quickly when they perceive that they're about to bump their heads on something just above head height? that's not something that is actually in their physical space or affecting their space physically, but it's had a mental/psychological effect of some sort, even if only short and incidental.
i always loved the log flumes where it looked like the huge saw blade was about to cut you in two as you moved toward it - strapped into your seat - so you ducked/flinched/closed your eyes, and then dropped down the last big chute to the end.
what i've always thought interesting about the panopticon's basis was that it's founded upon the idea that those experiencing the design (prisoners) must be under the impression that they are watched and monitored.
so if you're equating a painspace to surveilled space i think an interesting way to approach is to look at varying degrees of surveillance and how that can modulate the degree of the painspace. what does it mean to be watched to differing degrees. seeing someone's shadow vs. opposed to on a video screen vs. through a window.
something interesting also. the internet and video, google earth, etc. has allowed for a large amount of voyeurism that's allowed through the privacy of our home. how does this screen suddenly make us comfortable when we wouldn't necessarily be using binoculars to look at our neighbors across the street. does it have to do with getting caught? the voyeur doesn't want to be seen?
space by itself is neutral, but i think that as soon as you occupy it or put something in it, it ceases to be neutral. sort of a heisenberg/foucault's uncertainty principle...
Yeah, that's quite good, Smokety. Theorists of Pacific tattooing argue that the tattoo is not conceived as a decoration applied to a surface, but a projection of the individual onto the greater body of the ancestor.
I still disagree that space is neutral, meta. There have been some pretty trenchant criticisms of Cartesian a priori space - some by the people you have cited. That doesn't mean its necessarily organised according to any particular ethics or politics, of course.
Steven, that flinching reflex is interesting. I think so far, apart from meta's beer, you've suggested the only non-torture-related instance of projected space: theme-park rides which project a spatial experience by throwing the body around.
Is this architecture?
In the Penal Colony describes a device that tattoos the sentence into the body of criminals.
Sound can be projected, and aural spaces exist. Can silence be projected?
Direct operation on the brain.
I'm not sure what this proves, but it seemed interesting.
I am curious if it is possible or creating opportunities for a spatial projection of pain
Well, I guess it would depend on whether pain or calm are spatial experiences.
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.