can you just hold your self-promotion for five minutes? i don't care if noctilucent is using your definition or not. I just want to understand what s/he means.

i didn't use his definition, see above. and what a sporadic outbreak of per corellesque aut(ego)ism. one more ghostly dissipation.

agfa8x, its really there, stated and all. i don't understand what it is that you didn't understand. also, the fact that you can still name them implies that you can still conceive of their difference and segregation. simply endowing them with a poderous ontological unity does not undermine the more hysterical epistemelogical schism of duality. i guess epistemelogical wounds are like entropy; they can only get 'worse' rather than 'better'.

i have stated before, i never did not come across the word either in your posts or your website. usurp your indignation.

actually means you're just being assholic now.

u silly man, do you really think i actually read everything you write?
i said, i came across it in a pop song. now fuck off.

and, since its psychology bashing time,for an end

whats "sad" is that an educated grownup man is pathetically clinging to his obstinance, calls someone a liar without evidence and refuses to register a simple response from my part that will make me no less nor more than who i am. i have no qualms about referencing whatever material i use (i've referenced your usage of plaincy before), i don't even use my real name or persona. noctilucent "fame" is futile.

not calling you qualifying names and pretending to be prim and calling something "sad", when obviously it doesnt make anyone sad at all, would be the childish thing to do. my thought is that you were being a paranoid megalomaniac asshole, a synecdoche working as an analogy (operativly: spewing shit)..thought expressed.

as for your difficulty in reading: read this! and this:

noctilucent: "u silly man, do you really think i actually read everything you write?"

regardless, a fucked up asshole you were, a fucked asshole you remain sitting up or lying down. if i get banned for this, thats also fine. the teeming masses indeed.

now, I will fuck off.

actually, moderators of this thing, do ban me. the shia blood in me covets martydom. you did it before...christ the mihdé (or maybe its just a sad, for real, procrastination of a fake truth..the end of times)

yes, all assholes stand on a gigantic labyrinth. we know that already.

oops! that was a funny blip on the thread.
Frankly I could not care less about who said what first. It would be far moe interesting whether the term is used in the same way or not. I think that between you there are slight differences which may be relevant to the subject and I would rather concentrate on those...

Okay.
I have been meaning to post for a minute now.

Finally got around to reading the AZP articles. Thanks for the (PDFs), surprised by them (the essays vs previously seen lecture) more than the Latour and Sloterdijk lecture.
First re: recent points in the "discussion".

I think while we may "need" a utopia these essays call for a performative and political architecture (of the envelope) focused on the concept of agency as opposed to ideology.
There is a "political ecology" and "politics's of the envelope", which is AZP speaking of, questioning?

He does make clear however, that facade is not, envelope! Also, micro-politics vs political correctness and how either may, or may not, be more "discursive" than material operation.

Re: additionally, Latour and Sloterdijk. All three are seeking to "depoliticize ecology" it would seem.

Finally, while i think the "cellular/immunological" perspective has gained much attention in recent years, i find the focus "on operation function" more subversion...

Oh and in terms of bi-location...
Is "philosophical idealism" in the same category as ideology?

Probably not..

so - what does he mean by "envelope?"

Toast,
What does he mean by envelope?
Well he is clear not just facade. It seems that AZP concieves of envelope as being the entire surface/exterior (perhaps even shape at least metaphorically) of a structure including roof, portals et al.
I think the reason for distinquishing from facade is that facde by itself is almost to exclusive representational in it's politics as oppossed to AZP's interest in both Re-presentation and micropolitics.

ah - faciality? I'm still not sure how this has gone beyond yet another re-hashing of Deleuze and Guattari. It's like architectural theory culminated with "a thousand plateaus," and over the past 20 or so years we're just continually framing everything around this text as if it were the bible. Maybe it's time to start being a little more critical of the text itself? I have yet to see any substantial alternatives, though...

Still... I'm curious about AZP's articles - are there any online?

Toast there are links in the thread above..

thanks!

first impressions of the article - it's called "the politics of the envelope" and there is no reference of Terragni's Casa del Fascio? I'm guessing since he's referring to a multiplicity of typologies in the current context of capitalism/globalization, maybe this isn't relevant? I think it would be an interesting case study in this context, though...

envelope also includes the demarcation of environmental systems, levels of porosity, thresholds, some kind of implied thickness... not necessarily faciality.

so far pretty interesting, though... kind of all over the place... but interesting. I feel like I've heard most of this before, though...

Nam
Good to see you back! Do you mean that you thought the text was substantially better than the lecture?
In the meantime I tried to listen to the Latour-SloterdijkGSD talk. Funny that the two main references of the AZP text appear now like that. As Mostafavi says "there is something in the air".
What I could listen from the talk, which is basically the Latour bit, I found amazing! (Sloterdijk comes up as a bit of a jerk, although he is obviously being provocative with the politically correct audience at the GSD) I loved the way Latour describes modernity as the extensive space, the all-exterior, and globalisation as the all interior way of moving through the networks, where there is no life "outside"!
How utopia is associated to the lack of space in modernity and pragmatism and materialism become the new political realm of globalisation.
I disagree with you that these two and AZP's text -which is basically an attempt to apply their philosophical discourse to architecture- are about de-politicising ecology. I think that in fact they are trying to ground politics in nature and nature in politics... But you point at what I think is the most interesting point of AZP's texts: utopia has reached an expiry date and there is no need to create a utopia as a solution for the lack of space of modernity and we need to develop the technologies to address the construction of networks or foams that we could inhabit intensely. And those technologies are primarily within the realm of architecture and need to be politicised, like nature and ecology. Forget about utopia and ideology, they are useless to operate within the global world.
Why do you think that we need some utopia?

how can you have agency without ideology?

Alba,

I too really liked the poitn there is not outside anymore and the corresponding concept of "modernity as the extensive space, the all-exterior'

Yes, i thought AZP text(s) were better than the lecture...

I stand by the idea of de-politicising ecology , however to clarify i believe this means first they are interested in moving beyond eco-ideology, and in the case of Latour and Sloterdijk are seeking to emphasize a non-human centered definition of the term. This actually ties in with the discussion about utopia...

By decentering the idea of nature from an idea of a pre-human eco-utopia but to a nature and ecology of the now (human inclusive) one is able to better "politicize" but not ideo(lize) ecological as referencing no longer just how the "global world can be made habitable" but "habitable for billions of humans and trillions of other creatures, we mean a possible collective not nature or society".....

I personally am less interested in Utopia than in operative betterment.. Although, once can be a tool for the other.

social and environmental justice through architecture.

Something like that.. But non ideological?

Nam
I think that what these guys are saying is precisely that, in the global world, de-ideologisation does not mean de-politization but exactly the opposite. And that utopia and other all-encompassing statements such as "social and environmental justice through architecture" have lost their transformative function when everything has become an interior.
Toast's doubts are legitimate, but whether you suscribe to an ideology or not, as an architect you have agency by default. The question is whether you can easily attach this agency to a certain political ideology, and whether that matters at all. That is a doubt shared by Latour's and Sloterdijk's critics who often accuse them of being conservative.
the question is whether we are still living some form of inconclusive modern project where utopia is still effective as a transformative tool, or whether we are entirely beyond and the new global reality requires an entirely different form of politics.
I think AZP's example of Siza's housing in the Netherlands is an excellent description of a non-ideological political agency in architecture.

Alba,
Nice summation...

Perhaps I should have said that what is difficult at this point is whether your agency has positive or negative effects in terms of elevating and distributing material wealth, producing better social synergies, a more democratic decision making... This is where the problem becomes complicated. Hence the doubts.

alba - good points -

from what I understand is that they are treating the envelope as a medium for ideologies to play out - hence non-ideological.

the Siza example is a good example of agency through design, but it still has some traditional dutch elements on it's exterior and its interior is an expression of a non-duch ideology. I'm guessing since the envelope is now the medium where these two ideologies come into contact - this is what they are talking about?

It's dangerous when someone denies the existence of (or claims to be above) ideology(s) in their own thinking - it's like denying that one is the product of one's environment - or that one holds any prejudices. I think the criticism is based on the idiom that only those interested in preserving the status quo deny the existence of ideology. politicization isn't the opposite or absence of ideology. neither is philosophy (as foucault would have you believe).

Toast are you referring to the AZP line of reasoning...?

Toast,
I think what is dangerous is people justifying their architectural or theoretical work on the grounds of ideology. I think in the Siza example it is not so much a matter of ideology but a device to articulate two different cultures. In this case, the limit between public and private does not happen on the line of the envelope, but it is allowed to move inside to allow for the integration of multiple cultures, without taking an ideological position to the subject of gender definition between the Western and the Islamic cultures. It is precisely the lack of an ideological stance what allows Siza to produce a building capable of cultural integration, as opposed to the position of Hertzberger, which AZP associates with Chirac's ban or Britishness...
So, I think the proposal from AZP, derived from Latour and Sloterdijk is that, despite the dangers of losing direction, the agency of the discipline can no longer be grounded on ideology. Precisely because we are a product of our environment: we are part of the material world.
Frankly, I agree with that. I think ideology and utopia are over, part of an obsolete modernist paradigm that is no longer operative.

Even if Siza clames to be neutral, there's still going to be a subconscious favoring of one ideology/culture over the other. nothing is ever going to be completely even.

I see no substantial difference between ideology and culture - I think there's also levels of fluidity in ideology (there's no true either/or - black/white) - and it's difficult to prove that they can hold no influence over design. Hertzberger may have taken the hard-line approach, but AZP only sees ideology in hard-line terms (another conservative trait).

What I think is important is the ability to recognize and challenge ideologies in our own and others work. I do agree that grounding the field in a particular ideology is dangerous (the modernist utopia has been obsolete for several decades) - however it's even more dangerous to ignore that ideologies exist or that we can be free of them in our own work and discourse.

Toast
Siza does not claim to be neutral. His claim is that he wants to accomodate cultural behaviours of an immigrant population that are contrary to the uses in the west, and morally inaccepatable.
I think what they are saying is precisely that "ideologies" have become so fragmented that you can no longer see them. That is the phenomenon of the swing voters versus the partisan approach that we see happening everywhere. The opportunity AZP is pointing at is precisely that: in the absence of comprehensive political ideologies, there is an opportunity for architecture to take a central role as a political agency that does not simple implement political ideologies.
But the question is complex because we are used to talk about politics in a certain way and with a certain lexicon, and I do not think the article solves the problem of directionality yet... Let me think about this a bit longer...

In order for agency to exist, you need to be able to challenge ideologies. if ideologies have become so fragmented that we can't see them any more - then why do we need agency?

That's right. This is also what troubles me, as I can also see political ideologies at play. The neocons and the fundamentalists are a good example of that, and they are very much alive and well. In Europe there has been a surge of the radical left and the xenophobic, neo-fascist movements as a result of eocnomic duresse... However, it may be just wishful thinking but I believe that those are still segments of the population that are constantly decreasing to the benefit of an electorate that is increasingly bipartisan, made of swing voters... Maybe the downturn will eventually reverse the process of de-politisation and re-construct ideologies. But frankly I do not think this will happen. What is happening on a global scale is that the proletariat has been exported from the first world to the emerging economies, and that has elliminated political friction across classes, as they have been located in different compartments. True, in the UK and other European economies there has been an increase of inequality. And locally, emerging economies have also suffered from an increase of the class gaps. Will see how the downturn pans out. But even if there is a reversal into a radicalisation of politics, what is the role that architecture can play in the achievement of a more just and more democratic global society? Do architects remain the device that "re-presents" and therefore intensify political struggle or do we become the vehicle that enable a more integrated society, like in the Siza case?

I should have added: become the vehicle of a more integrated society at the risk to elliminate awareness of the political and consequently sanction the status quo, even involuntarily.
Pragmatists, with their flexibility and desire to ply to the existing forces run the risk of becoming an instrument rather than a legitimate social and political agency, and contribute to erase the political debate from the public's consciousness. On the other hand, agonists, ideologists and utopians, by emphasising or representing the political struggle may also contribute involuntarily not only to the consolidation of the status quo, but to its radicalisation. Even worst, to operate as vehicles of representation of the political struggle will most likely deprive architects from true agency.
If you look at the epilogue of the AZP text, there is a very messy attempt to propose a certain political directionality to the practice. Some of the ideas are in fact dangerous and volatile, but if we were able to locate political targets within the discipline, we would be able to retrieve some political agency.

Alba
"The opportunity AZP is pointing at is precisely that: in the absence of comprehensive political ideologies, there is an opportunity for architecture to take a central role as a political agency that does not simple implement political ideologies."

Then Lexicon is a performative one, correct? Which requires agency...

Nam
Sorry, I do not understand your question. Can you elaborate? This is not a rethorical question, I simply do not understand what performative one is. And why does it require agency...

Alba,
What i was trying to ask was that given (your above quote I cited), would the Lexicon of this sort of non-ideological political architecture be one based on the concept of a performative micro-politics?

If so, and to then tie in toast's point, agency would be assumed/required within such a construct(ed) architecture, because without it, how could it be political.

Or did I make it less clear? Basically i was arguing for the relevancy of agency un-connected to the existence of ideology...

perhaps the only reason there is no ideology is because we're stuck between a dystopia and a remedial prescriptive future...heaven is no longer an option, we know we're heading to hell and we're trying not to...but the moment of our own history is just flinging us there. what is sustainability but a remedial measure to save us from killing ourself.

the idea that there is no utopia simply because utopia is somewhat an unfashionable idea, or that its not conducive to a healthy politics, thats an insufficient reason. maybe we're bored by utopia because its just too ambitious, too projective (which is the name flung around by the pragmatists) and the banal run of our history (history running out of itself) cannot measure up to any other singular aim other than our mass death. it is natural and banal to die, it is not natural and quite spectavular to reach nirvana in life.

perhaps the only reason there is no ideology is because we're stuck between a dystopia and a remedial prescriptive future...heaven is no longer an option, we know we're heading to hell and we're trying not to...but the moment of our own history is just flinging us there. what is sustainability but a remedial measure to save us from killing ourself.

the idea that there is no utopia simply because utopia is somewhat an unfashionable idea, or that its not conducive to a healthy politics, thats an insufficient reason. maybe we're bored by utopia because its just too ambitious, too projective (which is the name flung around by the pragmatists) and the banal run of our history (history running out of itself) cannot measure up to any other singular aim other than our mass death. it is natural and banal to die, it is not natural and quite spectavular to reach nirvana in life.

perhaps the only reason there is no ideology is because we're stuck between a dystopia and a remedial prescriptive future...heaven is no longer an option, we know we're heading to hell and we're trying not to...but the moment of our own history is just flinging us there. what is sustainability but a remedial measure to save us from killing ourself.

the idea that there is no utopia simply because utopia is somewhat an unfashionable idea, or that its not conducive to a healthy politics, thats an insufficient reason. maybe we're bored by utopia because its just too ambitious, too projective (which is the name flung around by the pragmatists) and the banal run of our history (history running out of itself) cannot measure up to any other singular aim other than our mass death. it is natural and banal to die, it is not natural and quite spectavular to reach nirvana in life.

perhaps the only reason there is no ideology is because we're stuck between a dystopia and a remedial prescriptive future...heaven is no longer an option, we know we're heading to hell and we're trying not to...but the moment of our own history is just flinging us there. what is sustainability but a remedial measure to save us from killing ourself.

the idea that there is no utopia simply because utopia is somewhat an unfashionable idea, or that its not conducive to a healthy politics, thats an insufficient reason. maybe we're bored by utopia because its just too ambitious, too projective (which is the name flung around by the pragmatists) and the banal run of our history (history running out of itself) cannot measure up to any other singular aim other than our mass death. it is natural and banal to die, it is not natural and quite spectavular to reach nirvana in life.