monospace and multiverse - exploring space with actor

From:

Sabine HansmannMonospace and MultiverseExploring Space with Actor-Network-Theory

January 2021, 244 p., pb., 55 b&w ill., 60 col. ill.

40,00 € (DE), 978-3-8376-5502-5E-Book: available as free open access publicationPDF: 0,00 € (DE), ISBN 978-3-8394-5502-9

In contrast to buildings divided by walls, monospace buildings are determined far less by its shell than by a reciprocal relationship between space and practices, objects, mate-rials, and human bodies. Using the example of such one-room-architectures, this book explores the potential of an actor-network-theory (ANT) approach to space in the field of architecture. Sabine Hansmann focuses on the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts in Norwich, England by Foster Associates (1978) to investigate the mutual entanglement of people, objects and building. She traces the work that is necessary in »doing« space and thus suggests a re-conceptualisation of space in architectural theory.

Sabine Hansmann (Dr.-Ing) is a researcher at the Institute for the History and Theory of Architecture and the City at the Technische Universität Braunschweig. She teaches at the COOP Design Research Program by Bauhaus Dessau Foundation and Hochschule Anhalt in cooperation with Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. From 2013-2018 she was a member of the Laboratory for Integrative Architecture at the Technische Universität Berlin and the Cluster of Excellence Image Knowledge Gestaltung. An Interdisciplinary Laboratory at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Both provided the framework for her doctoral thesis (2019). In 2017, she was a visiting researcher at the Manchester Architec-ture Research Group (MARG). Her research focuses on architecture, urbanism, spatial theory, actor-network-theory and material semiotics.

For further information:www.transcript-verlag.de/en/978-3-8376-5502-5

© 2021 transcript Verlag, Bielefeld

Table of Content

Acknowledgements 9

1 Introduction 131.1 RethinkingSpacewithMonospace 141.2 ARealistAccountonArchitecturalSpace 211.3 ACurrentDebate:ArchitectureandtheSocial 271.4 StructureoftheBook 321.5 WritingStyle 34

2 Opening the Box 372.1 Open-PlanandMonospace 382.2 WhichSpace?StabilityversusFlux 45

2.2.1 SpaceasPractice 492.2.2 Spacing:ANetworkedSpace 53

2.3 Agency:WhoElseIsActing? 552.4 ComponentsoftheInquiry 59

3 The Case: The Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts 653.1 ExploringtheBuildingAccordingtothePlans 67

3.1.1 ASingleVolume 713.1.2 ZoningandCirculation 763.1.3 ConstructionandConditioning 88

3.2 PerspectivesontheBuildingas... 913.2.1 ...aHigh-techandLateModernMuseumBuilding 913.2.2 ...theFirstPublicCommissionofaStarArchitect 943.2.3 ...aPieceofArt 98

3.3 ApproachingtheBuildinginPractice 101

4 In Practice I: Working-With 1034.1 TakingaWalk:IntroductiontotheGuides 1054.2 FirstStop:Gallery1 107

4.2.1 TwoBuildingParts? 1094.2.2 WorkingwiththeBuilding 1104.2.3 Flexibility:TheWorkofMany 112

4.3 SecondStop:EastEndGallery 1144.3.1 DefininginRelation 1154.3.2 Unpredictable»Mediator« 117

4.4 ThirdStop:LivingArea 1204.4.1 Stopover:AConnectiontothePatio 1214.4.2 InIts»Script«Anti-Museum 1224.4.3 Stability:TheWorkofMany 1254.4.4 HeterogeneityinPractice 131

4.5 Conclusion:ConnectivityinSpacing 135

5 In Practice II: Visiting 1395.1 SketchingExperiences 1415.2 Arriving 142

5.2.1 FacingPracticalities 1475.2.2 NetworksofArrival 149

5.3 Exploring 1515.3.1 WalkingwiththeObjects 1545.3.2 LookingDown 156

5.4 Returning 1605.5 Conclusion:MultiplicityandExperience 163

6 In Practice III: Lighting 1676.1 TracingtheObject 1696.2 OpeningUpandSpreading 172

6.2.1 WhoDoestheLight? 1736.2.2 LettingtheLightShowThrough 1746.2.3 TheGenerosityofLight 17

6.3 Layering 1876.3.1 MovingwithIntensities 1916.3.2 LightandShadow 193

7

6.4 MonitoringandRotating 1956.4.1 ConditionofMovement 1976.4.2 TheControversyofLight 198

6.5 Conclusion:SpacingDevices 201

7 A New Dynamism in Architecture 2037.1 SpacingtheMonospace 2057.2 TheBuildingasanActor 2117.3 TheDisappearanceoftheUser 2137.4 ArchitectsAmongstManyExperts 2147.5 TracinganArchitecturalWorldinFlux: SomeMethodologicalRef lections 2167.6 WhenSpaceIsNever‘Completed’ 218

List of Figures 223

Building Details 227

Bibliography 229

Acknowledgements

MonospaceisatermIlearnedaboutfromFinnGeipelwhoencouragedmetofindandtakemyownpathexploringitspossibilities.MygratitudegoestohimforgivingmetheopportunitytobepartoftheLaboratory for Integrative Architecture(LIA)atTechnischeUniversitätBerlinandsubsequentlyamemberoftheCluster of Excellence Image Knowledge Gestaltung (BWG)attheHumboldt-UniversitätBerlininwhichIwasalsomemberofthestructureddoctoralprogramme.Bothinsti-tutionsputmeinauniquesituationthatmadethisworkpossible.Finn’strust,supportanddiscussionofthisworkbutalsothegivenfreedomtoexperimenthave been invaluable throughout the years. Iwould like to thank both teamsfromLIAandBWGforthegreatandintensetimesIwasallowedtobepartof.BWGmustalsobementionedhere,sinceitmadetheresearchfinanciallypossi-ble.Theysupportedmyworkinthemakingandfinanced,amongotherthings,myresearchstaysinMachesterandNorwich—forallofthisIammostgrateful.

MultiverseonthecontraryisatermthatIencounteredinanarticlebyAlbenaYaneva.VisitingherattheManchester Architectural Research Group(MARG)duringmy studies, Albena providedmewith the necessary tools and important com-mentsthathelpedtoimprovemyworktremendously.Iamgratefulforhertimeandtheeffortthatshespent.InvitingmetoMARGsetthecourseforwritingandprovidedmewithanenvironmentoffruitfulconversations,joinedreadingsanddiscussions.Here, Iwould like to particularly thankBrettMommersteeg, FadiShayya,SteliosZavosandfurthermoreDemetraKourriandEfstathiaDorovitsawithwhomIsharedwonderfulmomentsandwhohavegivenimportantimpulsesforthedevelopmentofthiswork.

WhileMonospaceandMultiverseinacertainsensestandforthebeginningandendofthisstudy,Iwouldliketostressthatthisworkisnotaboutapathfromtheformertothelatter.Onthecontraryitisajourneyintoarchitecturalspacethatcouldunfoldonlyinthisfieldoftension.Adecisivefactorforthiswork,however,wasafurtherexceptionalplace,theSainsburyCentreforVisualArtsinNorwich.IwouldliketothanktheteamoftheSainsburyCentreInstitute,theuniversity’steachers,students,visitors,andotherswhotookthetimeandparticipatedinmyresearchintheperiodbetween2016–17.Inparticular,IwouldliketothankMeryl

Monospace and Multiverse10

TaylorandCalvinWinnerfortheirconstantsupportandassistancethroughoutallmyresearchstaysandthemanyenrichingconversations.

Writingadissertation is a solitaryaffair,however Iwas fortunateenoughto havemany additional colleagues and friends aside from those alreadymen-tionedwhosupportedmethroughoutthisjourney.ThanksgotoEvaCastringius,AlinaEnzensberger,CarolaFricke,PeterKoval,InesLüder,ZoricaMedjo,SandraMeireis, Julia von Mende, Nicole Opel, Friederike Schäfer, Kathrin Schlenker,VerenaSchmidt,VerenaStraubandNiloufarTajeri.AparticularthanksisreservedforSéverineMarguinwhohasaccompaniedmeespeciallyfromthefieldofsociologyinanadvisorymannerthroughouttheyears.Iwishtoextendmygratitudealsoto the former studentassistantsatBWGandamongst themespecially toMariaLisenkowhoassistedmeinthepreparation,implementationandfollowupofoneofthefirstresearchstays.FurtherthankstothelectorNathanielBoydwhocheeredmeoninthelastfewweeksbeforesubmissionandwhogavethefinalscriptacare-fulreading,andalsotothegraphicdesignerCarolaPlappertwhoprovidedfortheinnerlayoutofthisbook.

Thispublicationwasfinanciallysupportedby theOpenAccessPublicationFundoftheTechnischeUniversitätBerlinandbytheCluster of Excellence Matters of Activity (MOA)attheHumboldt-UniversitätBerlin.ForbothIamverygrateful.MythanksfurthermoregototheTechnischeUniversitätBraunschweigandheretotheInstitute for the History and Theory of Architecture and the City(GTAS)thatprovidedmewiththenecessaryresourcesforthefinalediting.Fortheirprofessionalguid-anceIwouldliketothanktheteamoftransciptaswellasGabrieleKlein,MartinaLöwandMichaelMeuser,editorsoftheseriesMaterialities,fortheirsponsorship.

Finally,ahugethankyoutomyfamilywho,collectively,gavemeencour-agement,support,andconfidence.MostimportantlytoFabianandFinjawhomIammostgratefultohaveatmysideandwhograntedmeserenity.Butalso,tomyparentswhosupportedmegreatlythroughallstagesofmyacademicpath.Thisbookisdedicatedtothem.

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1: Box containing space.

Can there be a building with only one space? If you are an architect, your answer will be most likely, yes of course. Depending on your age, you might think of the KAIT Workshop (2008) by architect Junya Ishigami in Kanagawa, Japan. Or a bit larger, the Neue Nationalgalerie (1968) by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in Berlin, Germany. But maybe you had a glance at this sketch above first (Fig. 1.1), and you are simply thinking of a shipping container, frequently used as site offices. No matter what reference you have in your mind, let us call these buildings ‘monospace’. We will then have to see why this might be interesting.1

Can there be a movement with space? The answer is not quite so simple. That said, we indeed can consider movement as an action with space, a movement that is shaped and re-arranged by many ingredients and which generate space

1 Itakeuptheterm‘monospace’fromthearchitectandurbanistFinnGeipel(Geipel,Koch, and Thorwarth 2011) who groups under this typology buildings which distinguishthemselvesbyoneoutershellwithamaximallyopenf loorplan.


in the course of action. This is not about a movement that occurs within a pre-existing space but is instead a movement that is actively producing space. Let us call this process of space-making ‘spacing’ and see why this concept might be challenging for the notion of monospace, and revealing for our understanding of buildings, architects and ‘users’, and thus for architectural theory in general.2

1.1 Rethinking Space with Monospace

Rethinking space withmonospace starts with a paradox. Concerned with abuilding,whichisof tencalleda‘box’,‘shed’or‘aircrafthangar’,andthatcom-prisessomuchspace that itcanbedescribedas the ‘containerspace’parex-cellence.3Thisbooksetsouttochallengeatraditionalunderstandingofspaceinthefieldofarchitecture.Opposingaspacethatcanbeenteredandaviewofarchitectureasanobjectiveframethatsurroundsandcontains,Iapproachthetypologyofmonospaceandarguethatspaceisnotwhathappensinabuildingbutspacehappenswithabuilding.Whatatfirstsoundslikealittleintellectualpunquicklyturnsouttobeafundamentalshakingofbeliefsystemsinthedis-ciplineofarchitecture.Afterall,thequestionofspaceisclosely linkedtothequestionoftherelationshipbetweenarchitectureandsociallife.Bothofwhichare currently being re-negotiated in an interdisciplinary context (Jacobs andMerriman2011;Yaneva2012,2009b;Delitz2009a;Löw2001;cf.alsoHeynen2013).Thisundertaking toexploreamonospace through ‘spacing’ is thusnotonlyanempiricallybasedstudyonthetopicofspaceinthefieldofarchitecturebut furthermore aims to contribute to recent scholarship in re-thinking andre-conceptualisingarchitecture’srelations(Till2013;Yaneva2017;LatourandYaneva2008).

However, let us take a step back and define more precisely the subjectathand.Monospace is a specific formofopenplanbuilding.4Tounderstandamonospaceseemsatfirstglancerathersimpleasitconsists—initsmostradical

2 Itaketheterm‘spacing’upfromFrenchsociologistandphilosopherBrunoLatour(1997)andnotasmightbeexpectedinGerman-speakingcountriesfromsociologistMartinaLöw(2001).BothapproachesareexaminedinmoredetailinChapter2.

3 AlbertEinsteincoinedtheterm‘container’spaceindistinctiontoarelationalun-derstandingofspace(Einstein1954,XV).

4 Thefirsttentativestepstowardadefinitionofmonospaceanditsinterrogativepo-tentialforthetopicofspaceinthefieldofarchitecturewereelaboratedpreviouslyinaco-authoredarticlebymyselfandFinnGeipelÜber Hüllen und Werden(GeipelandHansmann,forthcoming).

Introduction 15

cases—ofonlyoneroom.TheKAITWorkshop(2008)byJapanesearchitectJunyaIshigami, a studio andworkshop on the campus of the Kanagawa Institute ofTechnology,Japan,issucharadicalmonospacebuilding(Fig. 1.2, 1.4).5Comprisedofroughly2000squaremetersinasingleroom,thisf latsingle-storeystructurehasall-glassfaçades.Theroomisnotemptybutstructuredintovariouszonesby305thincolumnsofdifferentproportionsscatteredaboutinvariousdensities.Inbetweenthereareplants,chairs,tables,workbenches,machinesandallsortsofthings.Sucharichmaterialworldlooselydefinesdifferentpossibilitiesofaction.Clayisprocessedattheturntablesnearthewaterbasins,woodclosetothecircularsawontheworkbenches.Thatsaid,thedailyhustleandbustle,thetrajectoriesoftheobjects,thecirclingandmeanderingmovementsofthestudents,thethreetofiveworkshopmanagerswhoarepresentteaching,supervisingandcoordinatingthisfieldofpossibilities,quicklyrevealsthatthismonospaceishighlycomplex.Tograspthisbuildinginitsarchitecturalqualitywehavetomove‘inside’totakeacloserlook.Theglassshellsurroundingthecontainerspacegiveslittleindica-tionoftheactualpossibilitiesthatemergeinthecourseofaction.Incontrasttobuildingsdividedbywallsintoasequenceofrooms,monospacesaredeterminedfarlessbythebuildingshellthanbyareciprocalrelationshipbetweenspaceandpracticeandobjects,materialsandhumanbodies.ThearchitectIshigamicom-paresthissituationwiththeemergenceofalandscapeinwhichthenotionofar-chitectureasframeworkdisappears:

Whenastateofequilibriumisreachedbythearchitectureandotherelementsintheprocessofgivingformtoaspace,theresultismorelikealandscapethanlikearchitecture.Thecharacterofarchitectureas the framework that forms space disappears. This phenomenon can be linked to people, cars, vegetation and buildings becomingequal components in a landscapewithout any particular hierarchy.(Ishigami2010,24)

5 ForadditionalinformationontheKAITWorkshop,seeJunya Ishigami: Small Images(2008,particularly28–43).


Contemporarystudiesofanothermonospace,theNeueNationalgalerie(1968)byMiesvanderRoheinBerlin(Fig. 1.3, 1.5),6revealthechallengesofconceptualisingandanalyticallygraspingthisarchitecture,whichisapparentlyopentoconstantchange.AsIargue,toaccountfortherealityofsuchbuildingsit is insufficienttodosoonthebasisoftheirtechnicality.Inotherwords,monospacebuildingscannotbeunderstoodsimplybyfocusingonthematerialobject.Tomerelyreadtheirplans,sectionsorstaticpictures(Woelk2010)isnotenough.Norisitsuffi-cienttostudythemthroughthemovementsofthe‘phenomenological’bodythatpassthroughthem,focusingonsensorialperceptionsandatmospheresordecod-ingsymbolicmeanings(Leyk2010).Withmonospacebuildings,it isparticular-lyessentialtoturntotherealityofthebuildingintheprocessofuseinordertoovercometheseparationof ‘objective’and‘subjective’space.Theformerdefinedbynumbers andmeasurements, the latter emergingaround thehumanbeingsthatperceiveit.Thisverydichotomythatreducesthebuildingtopassivematerial,however,whilemakinghuman life into theactivecomponent isverymuchan-choredintheprevalentwayofthinkingaboutspaceinarchitecture.

Inthecourseofthe20thcentury,spacewasdeclaredthe‘essence’ofarchi-tecture(Scott1914;Giedion1954[1941];Zevi1957[1948]).Inthisrespectarchitectsbecameshapersofspace:‘If,foraparticularpurpose,weseparate,limitandbringintoahumanscaleapartofunlimitedspace,itis(ifallgoeswell)apieceofspacebroughttolifeasreality.’(Rietveld1958,162)Consequently,architecturebecameadisciplineconcernedwith the taskof shapingspace. Ideasof spacearebynomeanshomogeneous(Denk,Schröder,andSchützeichel2016;Forty2004).Nev-ertheless,traditionalspatialconceptsstillpredominatemostcontemporarydis-cussions,suchastheideathatspaceiswhatiscontainedwithinanobject(Hilger2011;Till2013;Awan,Schneider,andTill2011).ThisgoeshandinhandwiththeambiguitythatGermanarchitectOswaldMathiasUngershasisolatedinhisar-ticleon the Janus faceof architecture: ‘architecture is,by its verynature,bodyofrepresentationorcontainer,figureorvessel,massorvoid,coreorshell,fabricorenvelope.’(Ungers1991,231)7Thus,architectureismostcommonlyeithercon-cernedwith thedesignofwalls,whichcontainspace,or thedesignofvolumeswithinwalls.Ineachinstance,architecturerepresentsaformofthoughtaboutcontainingspace,whichhas roots inanabsolutistunderstandingof space.Theideaofanabsolutespacehasexistedsinceancienttimes,however,IsaacNewtonelaboratedthisnotionashomogeneousandendlessspace(Newton1872).Absolutespaceisindependentfromaction—itispre-existent.AlbertEinsteinthenintro-

6 ForadditionalinformationontheNeueNationalgalerie,seeNew National Gallery, BerlinbyVandenberg(1998).

7 My translation. German original: ‘[…] ob die Architektur ihrem Wesen nachSchaukörperoderBehälter,FiguroderGefäß,MasseoderHohlraum,KernoderSchale,StoffoderHüllesei.’

Introduction 17

Fig. 1.2:Isometric view. Junya Ishigami + Associates, KAIT Workshop, Kanagawa Institute of Technology, Japan, 2008.

Fig. 1.3:Isometric view. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Neue Nationalgalerie Berlin, Germany, 1968.


Fig. 1.4:Interior view (2014). KAIT Workshop.

Fig. 1.5:Interior view (2014). Neue Nationalgalerie Berlin, exhibition Sticks and Stones, eine Intervention by David Chipperfield.

Introduction 19

ducedtheterm‘container’(asanegativedemarcationfromarelationalnotionofspace)andeversincewehavetalkedabout‘spaceascontainer’(Einstein1954,xv).

The termmonospace originates from this very understanding of space ascontained and to some extent canbe considered representative of thedifficul-tiesthattheentirearchitecturaldisciplinehasbeenfacingforsometime.AstheCanadiandesignerandarchitectBruceMauhasputitwithrespecttothemajorchallengescivilisationisfacing:‘Theproblemsweshareareplural.Architecturalpracticeandeducation,however,arestill lockedtotheideaofthesingular[…].’(2004,33)Therearenuancestothis.Indeed,somearchitectshavestartedtoad-dress topics like ‘f low,mobility and transformation’ in their projects and havetherebyturnedawayfrom‘stylistic,formal,staticspatial’considerations(LefaivreandTzonis2000,58).Nevertheless,suchideastendtostaywithinspaceandareseeminglyunaffectedbythecurrentspatialdiscourse,adiscourseforwhichwecanlearnfromotherdisciplines.

Inthewakeofthespatial turn avividinterestinspacefromtheearly1990son-wardshaspermeatedthehumanitiesandsocialsciences(Soja2011[1989];DöringandThielmann 2008). Anthropologists and sociologists, for instance, describehowbodilyself-perceptionhaschangedfromaphysicalbodyasacontainertoanopenimmunesystem(Martin1994);theyhavealsoaddressedanewspatialunder-standingwithinthecontextofvirtualnetworking(Löw2001).Withthisawakinginterestinthecapacitytounderstandsocialphenomenathroughspace,newcon-ceptstoinvestigateandtheorisespaceweredeveloped(e.g.,inactor-network-the-ory(Latour2005),practicetheory(Schatzki2002),sociologyofspace(Löw2016)).Spaceturnedintoacomplexsocialprocess,whichcanneverbeabstract,singularandenclosedbyashell.Thisshouldbeenoughofareasontoshiftthefocusandtransformthefieldofadisciplineinvolvedintheshapingofspace.Yetwhileweconfrontinrecentdecadesinmanyspheresoflifeachangeinspatialphenomena,thisdevelopmenthasremainedlargelywithouteffectinthefieldofarchitecture.Theremaybevariousreasonsforthis.TheGermantradejournaloftheAssocia-tionofGermanArchitects(BDA),der architekt,devotedawholeissuetothediscus-sionofthespatialturninarchitecture,statingthatthediscourseonspaceinthehumanitieshasremainedtooabstractforarchitectsandthereforehadlittleeffectondesign(Denk,Schröder,andSchützeichel2008).Theseauthorsconsiderarchi-tecturetobeanobject-orientedscience,therealityofwhichhaslittleneedofsuchabstracttheoreticalapproaches.Furthermore,asarchitectandacademicJeremyTillexplainswithregardtothetaskofthearchitect:‘[t]hesupposedneutralityofmetricspaceprovidesacomfortzoneinwhichdimensionscanbesharedasun-contestedvalues[…].’(Till2013,122)

Indeed,architectsareentrustedwiththeplanningofthree-dimensionalob-jectsamongstotherthings.AnabsolutespatialthinkingislinkedtomathematicalEuclideangeometryandVitruvianarchitecturaltheory,whichstilltodayremains


thebasisfordealingwiththeconstructionalparametersofthephysicalbuildingelements (Hilger 2011). In this sense, architecture is concernedwith amaterialspatialconstructionandthuspreoccupiedwithaspacethatiscontainedinbuild-ings.That architects can shape and control this space bolsters the authority ofarchitectureassuch.Accompanyingthisfocusontheobject,however,criticismbeginselsewhere.Becauseitleadsto

thedominanceofaesthetics,style,formandtechniqueintheusualdis-cussionofarchitecture,andwiththisthesuppressionofthemorevola-tileaspectsofbuildings:theprocessesoftheirproduction,theiroccupa-tion,theirtemporality,andtheirrelationstosocietyandnature.(Awan,Schneider,andTill2011,27)

Excludingtheprocessesbuildingsarepartof,theyarestillunderstoodasstableandrigidobjects,whichcontainspace.Assuch,theyarewidelydesigned,theo-risedandanalysed,supportedbyarecursivearchitecturaldiscourse(Hilger2011;Awan,Schneider,andTill2011;LatourandYaneva2008).

Nevertheless space offers the possibility of overcoming these limitations.Architecturemustnotbelocatedinspaceandremainisolatedfromthecourseofaction(Latour1997).

Everybodyknows—andespeciallyarchitects,ofcourse—thatabuildingisnotastaticobjectbutamovingproject,andthatevenonceitis(sic)hasbeenbuilt,itages,itistransformedbyitsusers,modifiedbyallofwhathappensinsideandoutside,andthatitwillpassorberenovated,adul-teratedandtransformedbeyondrecognition. (LatourandYaneva2008,80;originalemphasis)

SociologistandphilosopherBrunoLatourandarchitecturalanthropologistAlbenaYaneva programmatically demand the overcoming of the three-dimensionalunderstandingofarchitectureintheirarticleGive me a Gun and I will Make all Build-ings Move (2008).What they propose is to integrate the numerous dimensions,processesandrelationsinwhichabuildinglivesintothe(spatial)understandingofarchitecture.

Inthefollowingstudy,Ipursuethedemandforearthlyaccountsintoa‘build-ing-on-the-move’madebyLatourandYaneva(ibid.87),andturntotheprocessofspacingasawayofexploringthemultipledimensionsofthemonospace.Whatsuchanapproachprioritises istherich lifebuildingspossess inreality.Explor-ingthemonospaceasafieldofpossibilitieswiththehelpofactor-network-theory(ANT)(Latour2005),thisbookaimstoenrichtheunderstandingof(architectural)spaceasacomplexprocessemergingoutofthesharedagencybetweenarchitects,

Introduction 21

buildingsandthepeoplewhooccupyandusethem.ANT,asitisrootedinscienceandtechnologystudies(STS),isamethodofinquirythatallowsustore-conceptu-alisearchitecturefromanexperientialperspective.Appropriatingtheterm‘spac-ing’fromBrunoLatour(1997),thefocusofthisstudyaretheconsequencesofasymmetricalprocessualapproachtospace(asrootedinANT)fortheunderstand-ingofarchitectureanditsrelations.Concentratingontheprocessofspacingin-steadofdiscussingitsnominalform‘space’,allowsustowitnesstheemergenceofspaceinactivity.Actorsherearehumansaswellasmaterials,objects,techniques,texts,norms,etc.thatformnetworkswithotheractors.Thepowertoactisdis-tributedwithinthesenetworksandcanthereforeneverbeattributedtoasingleactoralone.Withspacing,spaceisnolongersingularandnolongercontainedbutactivelycreatedduringmultipleinteractions:betweenobjects,materialsandhu-mans.Thetermmonospaceisthusmisleading,asthereisnotonehomogeneousspacebutacomplexandrichvarietyoftemporallylimitedspacesgeneratedin and through action.Forthisreason,Ifocusonthe‘doingincommon’ofarchitectureandpeople.Inotherwords,Ianalysethesharedprocessthattakesplacebetweenpeople andagivenbuilding.Hence I abandon the still predominant static andpassiveunderstandingofarchitecture.Themonospaceinspaceturnsouttobea‘multiverse’withspacing.8

1.2 A Realist Account on Architectural Space

Inforegroundinginteraction,practiceandexperienceIfollowahostofdifferentscholarswhoareconcernedwithmovingpastthetraditionaldividebetweenac-tivesubjectsandpassiveobjects,mindandmatter(Mol2002;Latour1991).Someofthesescholarshavebeenparticularlyconcernedwitharchitectureaswell.Thereisaturntowardsdesignandarchitecturein the making(Loukissas2012;HoudartandMinato2009;Yaneva2005b,2009b,2009a),aswellasashiftintheapproachtoarchitecturethat is made(Yaneva2012,2013,2017).AlbenaYanevawhointroducedANTinto thefieldofarchitecture,demandsa ‘dynamicunderstandingofbuild-

8 OnreadinganarticlebyAlbenaYanevaA Building Is a “Multiverse” (2005a),Iwasinspiredtotakeupthisterm.AlsoLatourandYanevaspeakof‘acomplexandmul-tiverseargumentativespace’(2008,87).ThetermwasoriginallycoinedbyAmeri-canphilosopherandpsychologistWilliamJames(1895,10).Camacho-HübnerandLatourexplainitelsewhere:‘Sincethereisnogoodacceptedterm—whichinitselfisoddsince it is theonlyworldweall inhabit,humanaswellasnonhumans!—wewilluseJames’sterm,multiverse,indicatingbythiswordthatitisindeedjustasrealasthe‘universe’ofcommonsensebutthatithasnotbeenprematurelyuni-fiedthroughacontinuous“physicalspace”,ineffecttheresextensa.’(November,Camacho-HübnerandLatour2010,595;originalemphasis)


ings’(Yaneva2010,142).‘Realistaccountsofarchitecturearetobemadeinasituat-edandpluralistfashion’shenotesandclaimsthat‘ifwereallywanttounderstandthemeaningofbuildings,weneedto[...]makeadetourtopractice.’(Ibid.145)

Theinterestinpracticesisnotnew.Thereisabroadturntopracticeswith-inthesocialsciencesandhumanities(Schatzki,Knorr-Cetina,andSavigny2001;Reckwitz2003).9Inthefieldofsocialandculturalgeography,JaneM.JacobsandPeterMerrimanintroducetheconceptof‘practicingarchitecture’toelaborateanunderstandingof‘architectureinpractice’(JacobsandMerriman2011,211;origi-nalemphasis).Thisincludesvariousarchitecturalactorsfromtheprocessofcre-ationandoccupation,changeormanipulationtodecayanddismantling.Theseactorsarenotonlyhumanbutalsoincludeanimalsandinsectsasmuchaspro-cessesandforceslikeweatheringandrusting.Inthiswaythey‘wishtoanimatearchitecture’andunderstandit ‘asanon-goingprocessofholdingtogether[...].[T]hestabilearchitecturalobject(architecture-as-noun)’isturnedintoan‘effectofvariousdoing(architecture-as-verb).’(Ibid.211–12)10However,thereis‘nouni-fiedpracticeapproach’andwhile

mostpracticetheoristswouldagreethatactivityisembodiedandthatnexusesofpracticesaremediatedbyartifacts,hybrids,andnaturalob-jects,disagreementreignabout thenatureofembodiment, theperti-nenceofthematizingitwhenanalyzingpractices,thesortsofentitiesthatmediateactivity,andwhethertheseentitiesarerelevanttopracticesasmorethanmereintermediariesamonghumans.(Schatzki2001,11)

Towhatextenttheworlddividedintolifelessmatterandactivelifeshouldactuallybe left behind thus remains contentiousground.Currentpractice-orientedac-countsofspace,suchasTheodoreSchatzki(2002)andMartinaLöw(2001),whileacknowledgingmaterialityintheirorderingcapacityinsocialspatialproduction,neverthelessgive(indifferentways)preferencetohumanaction.11Evenifcurrentscholarshipinterestedinarchitectureinvestigates‘thedoingsofbuiltspaces’(RehandTemel2014),consideringrelational,processualandpracticebasedarchitec-turalexperiences(Leuenberger2018),thereisneverthelesssomekindofpartiality

9 OnANTasa‘stringent’sociologyofprocessesseeLaux(2011).10 SeeJacobsandMerrimanalsoforanintroductionintotheliteratureongeogra-

phiesofarchitecture(2011).Theyemphasisethat‘[m]uchoftheexistinggeograph-icalscholarshipdoesstayresolutelyinterestedinthishuman-centredviewofar-chitecture: itsusers, itsproducers and (re)designers, itsmeanings.’ (JacobsandMerriman2011,218)

11 Schatzkidistinguishestwotypesofaction,oneofwhichisintentionalandthusadistinctivefeatureofhumans(Schatzki2002).Löwonthecontrarystressestheaspectofhumansynthesisasanelementoftheconstitutionofspace(Löw2001).

Introduction 23

given to the subject.The samecanbe saidof the accounts thatbegin from theco-productionofatmospheres(Böhme1993).Thisisindeedsomethingthatpush-estheboundariestoovercomethesubject-objectdichotomyinspace.Thatsaid,suchaccountsultimatelystressanintentional,ref lexive,perceivingsubjectand/or its biographical vantagepoint. Ingeneral, studies thatnotonlymakeadis-cursivecontributionbutalsomoveintomaterialrealityarescarce.ThishasbeenpointedoutbyarchitecturaltheoristHildeHeynenaswellassociologistMartinaLöw(Heynen2013;Löw2001).ThepresentstudywishestoaddressthecurrentgapintheliteraturethroughexploringthepotentialofanANT-perspectiveapproach,whichisadifferentwayoflookingintotherealmof(architectural)space.

FollowinghumansandnonhumansbymeansofANTis toapproachthemsymmetrically.12 In thisway itwill be possible to circumvent the predominantmodeofassessingsuchthingsthroughtheprincipallyhuman-centredperspec-tiveonagivencourseofaction.Iclaimthatthisapproachtorealityisparticularlyrevealingforarchitecture’sconcerns.Here,itisnotthepointto‘catchrealityasitreallyis.Insteaditistomakespecific,surprising,sofarunspokeneventsandsituationsvisible,audible, sensible.’Andhence ‘toattune to realitydifferently.’(Mol2010,255)WhatANToffersisthepossibilityofshowingthedifferencethingsmakeandtracingtheirsociallife.Itwillthusprovideawayofincludingbuildingsin social space,buta social space that is asmuchnon-physical as it isphysicalandthatdistributesagencywithoutseparatingthesetwodomains.Quitesimply,agencyemergesthroughthedoingincommonofpeopleandarchitecture.Latourreferstothesocialthenas‘a type of connectionbetweenthingsthatarenotthem-selvessocial.’(Latour2005,5;originalemphasis)When‘facedwithanobject’,heexplains,weshouldnotaimtoexplainitthrough‘socialaspectssurroundingit’but ‘attendfirsttotheassociationsoutofwhichit’smadeandonlylaterlookathowithasrenewedtherepertoireofsocialties.’(Ibid.234)WhileSTS-inspiredap-proachesinthefieldofarchitecturalresearchproduce(d)richaccountsintodesignpracticewecanfindscholarsinthefieldofculturalgeographywhodiscuss(ar-chitectural)spaceunderitsinf luence(Thrift2006;Murdoch1997,1998).TheworkofKevinHetheringtonisofparticularinterestheresinceheaddressestherela-tionshipbetweenmaterialcultureandspatialityinthecontextofamuseumset-ting,whichwillbetheempiricalsettingforthisstudy(Hetherington1997).13Thisstudythereforetakesupinf luencesfromaninterdisciplinaryfieldofresearchattheintersectionofanthropology,sociologyandculturalgeography.Ittakesitsin-spirationfromsuchworkandwishestoconveyittothespatialdiscourseofarchi-

12 SpeakinginthefollowingofthepairhumanandnonhumanIfollowLatour’scon-ceptwhichis‘notawayto“overcome”thesubject-objectdistinctionbutawaytobypassitentirely.’(Latour1999b,308)

13 ForresearchintospacingandtiminginrelationtoorganisingseeJones,McLeanandQuattrone(2004).


tecturaltheory.Turningmyattentiontothetypologyofmonospace,Iarguethatanabsolutist-substantivalistunderstandingofsuchspaceparticularlyobstructstheabilitytograsptherealityofthesetypesofbuilding.Thebuiltstructureofamonospaceisessentiallyashell.Ifwefailtoaddresstheprocessesalongwiththebuildingitself,thenwehavenoaccesstotherealcomplexity,tothetangledandmessyrealityofthesebuildings.

ThisbookengageswithaspecificbuildinglocatedattheedgeofthecampusoftheUniversityofEastAnglia(UEA),inNorwich,EnglandbyFosterAssociates(Fig. 1.6, 1.7).14TheSainsburyCentreforVisualArts(SCVA)openeditsdoorsin1978.Fromtheoutside,itisawhitetubewithaprominentsteelframeworkatbothendsorientedintothegreenery.Ithouses,underonesingleoutershell,severaldiffer-entinstitutionsandactivities:theuniversity’sartgallery,acafé,restaurantandshop,theSchoolofArtHistoryandWorldArtStudiesandtheSainsburyResearchUnit.AsthearchitectsofthebuildingFosterandPartnersputit,theSainsburyCentre ‘integratesanumberof relativeactivitieswithin a single, light-filled space’(Foster+Partners2018;emphasisadded).Isitindeedjustasingle, light-filled spacethatcontainsactivities?Howcanwehaveaccesstotherelationshipbetweenar-chitectureandthemanifoldactivitiesthatemergewithit?Theliteratureprovideslittleinsighthere.Fromtheexistingaccountsofthisbuildingwedonotunder-standwhatthisspecificbuildingdoes,howitfosters,hindersorsupportsinpar-ticularwaysthedailylifeoftheSainsburyCentre.

Sincethecasestudyisconcernedwithabuildingofaso-calledstararchitectandasIamspeakingabout‘architectural’spaceonecouldeasilyassumethatthisstudyisoccupiedwithhighstylearchitecture.However,inthefollowingitwillbe-comeevidentthatthisstudyis innowaypreoccupiedwithstylisticarchitecturalpretensions.Onthecontrary,theresearchisabout‘mundane’processes—thatistheunderstandingofthewordassomethingearthlyorworldly—thatarisewithbuild-ings.Sincespacehereistobediscussedasacomplexongoingprocesswithbuild-ingsandpeople,Iamnotusingtheterm‘built’spaceasitechoesadiscrete/com-pleteobject.Iamanarchitecturaltheoristandresearcherandmyallianceiswitharchitecture,however,myapproachtothisbuildingishybrid.Iwillfirstintroduceit inthetraditionofarchitecturaldescriptionandanalysis.Iwill thusstartfromcommongroundonlytothendrawonthemethodofANTinordertotraceandana-lysethewayspaceemergesinthecourseofaction.Ethnographiesofarchitectureasconductedintothefieldofarchitecturalpractice(HoudartandMinato2009;Yaneva2009a,2009b)haveshownpreviouslyhowANThelpstoanalysetheentanglementoftheworldoftheofficeandarchitectsinthemakingofbuildings.

14 FosterandPartnersproceededinthe1990stheofficeFosterAssociates,thatwasfoundedin1967byWendyCheesmanandNormanFoster.InthefollowingIwillonlyspeakofFosterandPartnersalsoaddressingtheworkofFosterAssociates,unlessexplicitlytouchingonhistoricalcircumstances.

Introduction 25

Fig. 1.6:Isometric view. Foster + Partners, Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, 1978.


Fig. 1.7:Interior view (2017). Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts.

Introduction 27

I take this approach up and enhance it with specific types of interviews:sketchingandwalkinginterviews.

ANTisincreasinglyrecognisedinthefieldofarchitecturaltheory(Hauser,Kamleithner,andMeyer2013,2011;Crysler,Cairns,andHeynen2012);thatsaid,itshakesarchitecture’sbeliefsysteminthatitrelocatesarchitecture’sagencyinnetworks.UsingtheANTmethodologyinthisstudytofocusonthedoingincom-monofarchitectureandpeople,analysing thesharedprocesses that takeplacebetweenhumanandnonhumans,meansgenerally leavingdualismorthemod-ernistoppositionbetweensubjectandobjectbehind(Latour2005).Thisresultsinthedisempowermentofthegenuinecreatorofobjectswhoactsuponthe‘user’.15Here,thearchitectisoneamongstmanyspatialcreators.Turningtothebuildinginpracticeandtracingtheprocessofspacingallowsustoenterthecomplexandmutualconnectivitybetweenarchitectureandthesocial,whichisofparticularconcerntocurrentinterdisciplinaryscholarship.

1.3 A Current Debate: Architecture and the Social

Theconcept of spacing is not only important in terms of howwe conceptualisespaceinarchitecturaltheory,andhowweanalyseandunderstandbuildings,italsoimpliesacarefulre-thinkingoftraditionalideasabouttheroleandrelationofthearchitectandthepeopleengagingwithagivenbuilding.Inthisrespect,theSains-buryCentreisanexcellentexample.Inthefirstinstancethisisbecauseitsmul-ti-functionalusescreatearichinnerworldofdifferentcoursesofaction.Secondly,itisabuildingthatisconsideredtobehighlymodernist.Asmanyarchitectsofhistime,Fosterassumedhisbuildingstohaveastructuringandchangingimpactonsociety(Sudjic1986).TurningtotheSainsburyCentreinpracticeanddrawingonanon-modernistmethodology(ANT)isawayofbreakingwithconvention.SinceANTtakesanon-deterministicstanceontherelationbetweensubjectandobject,interestingshiftsandvaluableinsightscanmoreeasilyemerge,whichwillallowforare-thinkingofthearchitecturalrelation:betweenthebuildingandthesocial.Itmovesthefocusofinterestfromthethree-dimensionalstaticobjectinarchitec-turetospatialstructuresthatactlatently;itrelocatesthearchitectasthesupposed

15 The ‘user’ as a modernist term has a functionalist connotation. He/she is anabstract person, unknown to the architect and without phenomenal identity (Forty2004,particularly312–15).Ipreferinthefollowingtospeakof ‘people’or‘humans’,whenevernotaddressingthemodernistunderstanding.Whilepeopleandhumansinthefirstplaceareindefinitedesignationstheycanbeenrichedwithspecificroles,capacities,andexperienceswithoutimplyingafunctionalrelationtobuildings.


genuineshaperofspaceintoacomplexnetworkofsharedagenciesinthemakingofspace.Herearchitecture’srelationsarere-arranged,whichallowstheworktocontributetocurrentdebatesontherelationofarchitecturetothesocial.

In thecourseof therediscoveryof spacewith the spatial turn there isalsoan(re-)awakeningofanexplicitinterestinarchitecturewithindisciplinessuchassociology,anthropologyandhumangeography (Delitz2009a;Yaneva2009b;JacobsandMerriman2011; cf.alsoHeynen2013).During the lastfifteenyears,lively researchhasbeen conducted in thefieldof architecture,which explicitlyaddressesarchitecturalartefacts,activities,anddiscourses.16Here,wediscoverscholarswhotrytoleavetraditionaldeterministconcepts,whichviewarchitectureeitherasamirrorofsociety,assuming ‘thatbuildings [...]areessentiallysocialandculturalproducts’(King2003[1980],1)orasatooltoproduceandshapesociallife(ase.g.discussedbyEvans(1982)withregardtoprisonarchitecture).Bothoftheseperspectivesarereductionist,asYanevaargues (2012,particularly25–37).Itisthisveryseparationofsocialhumanspaceandphysicalobjectspace,whichpreventsunderstandingthecomplexentanglementofboth.Aslongaswetakethemonospacebuildingasasolidobject,whichcontainsspacewecannothaveaccesstoitsprocessualnatureandcannotacknowledgewhatitdoes.Yet,thinkingarchi-tectureandthesocialtogetherdoesnotmeanputtingthemintocausalrelationandasking‘whoorwhatshapes/determines/organiseswhoorwhat’.Thismerelyre-producestwodistinctdomains,reducingtherelationshiptoalinearprocess.Onthecontrary,anon-deterministicstance,assuggestedbyANT,allowsforthecircumventionof traditionaldisciplinaryboundaries,whichseparate thearchi-tecturalobjectfromthesocial.Thisisaverypromisingapproachasitallowsustoaddresstheentanglementbetweenhumans,objectsandbuildingsinthefieldofarchitecture.Thatsaid,takingthisinterdisciplinarypathshakesbeliefswithinthedisciplineofarchitectureasittouchesontheauthorityofarchitectureassuch;itquestionsarchitecturalagencyandre-arrangestherelationbetweenthearchi-tectandpeopleengagedwithbuildings-in-use.

Modernism particularly tied the design of the architectural object to theclaimtohaveaneffectonthe‘user’.Throughthearchitectonic‘programme’(Sum-merson 1990),Modernism attempted to define spatial relationswith regard tofunctions.17Herearchitecture’sagencyisusedtooperatethesocial,whichbuilds

16 NexttotheaforementionedANT-inspiredstudiesintotherealmofarchitectureonestrandhereistheSociologyofArchitecture,anassociationfoundedin2007withintheGermanSocietyofSociology.Buildingonarangeofsociologicalclas-sicsthisassociationaimsatcreatinganewdisciplineincludingthedevelopmentofitsowntheory,methodologyandresearch(Delitz2010,2009a). Butalsointhefieldofhumangeography,theGeographyofArchitecturefollowsanexplicitinter-estinstudyingthearchitecturalrealm(CresswellandMerriman2011).

17 FollowingthedefinitionofSummerson,theprogrammeasaprincipleofspatialdesignworksinrelationtospecificfunctions:‘Aprogrammeisadescriptionofthe

Introduction 29

onthedualismbetweenthe‘social’andthe‘architectural’orthe‘human’andthe‘material’.Architectstendtobelievethattheirworkisameansofimprovingandenrichingsocialconditions,which‘assuresthemthattheirworkhasvaluereach-ingbeyondthemereprovisionofshelter.’(Lipman1969,195)Whilestudiesinthe1960’sand70’sattested to thestrongdeterministicbelief systemdrivingarchi-tects(Broady1972;Lipman1969),the‘beliefinthemoralauthorityofarchitect’islessexplicittoday(Hill2003,8).18Therehavebeenclearcounter-movementsaim-ingtowardsalessfunctionalisticunderstandingoftheuser.Thisisparticularlyevidentwith participatory architecture that specifically addressed the housingsituationafterthesecondWorldWaraswecanseeforexamplewiththeworkofJohnHabraken(1972),ortheapproachofHermanHertzberger(2009[1991]).Thelatterseesarchitectureasmeansofemancipatingtheusertoadweller.Notwith-standingthesensitisationtowardsknowledgeandthediversityofindividualsandcommunities,eventoday‘thehierarchyofarchitectanduserisevidentinthedis-courseofarchitects’,asthearchitecturalhistorianJonathanHilldiagnoses(2003,9).

‘Asauthor,thearchitecthasauthority,whichatthesametimeisaprerequi-site forone’scredibilityasaprofessional.’ (SchneiderandTill2009,97;originalemphasis)Nevertheless,thearchitectasagenuine,autonomousdesigner-archi-tecthasrecentlycomeunderscrutiny.Theincreasingglobalisedstarsystemcre-atescelebratedsingularauthorships(McNeill2005)—FosterismentionedhereinthesamebreathasFrankGehryorZahaHadid.Inthecourseofhighlycomplicat-edconstructionprocesses,economicalandlegaldemands,thisisromanticfictionandanewpicturemustbedrawntoshowthearchitect’sdependencies:

Thesebuildingsarenotandcannotbeexemplarsofthearchitect’sauton-omousapplicationofknowledgeandtalentalone.Theyarealsostrikingmanifestationsofthearchitect’sdependenceonclientsandotherspe-cialistsofbuilding,betheyrivalprofessionalsorhumblerexecutants.Icallthisdependenceheteronomy,becauseitcontrastsradicallywiththeautonomythatisalwaysconsideredadefiningattributeofprofessionalwork.(Larson1995,5;originalemphasis)

However,itisnotonlytheclients,thecountlessplannersandspecialists,whoareinvolvedwithabuildinginthemaking:thedependence heteronomyextendsmuch

spatialdimensions,spatial relationshipsandotherphysicalconditionsrequiredfortheconvenientperformanceofspecificfunctions.’(Summerson1990,263f.)Ar-chitecturalhistorianAdrianFortypointsoutthatweneedtobeawarethat ‘Theidentificationofatheoryofform-functionrelationsonlyappearsafter1960,[...]aspartofthegeneralattackuponmodernism’(Forty2004,187).

18 SeealsotheearlystudiesintoarchitecturalpracticewhichalsoshedlightonthearchitecturalbeliefsystembyarchitecturaltheoristDanaCuff(1991)andsociolo-gistJudithBlau(1984).


further. Turning towards the mundane practices in the architectural offices,complicatesthesituationevenmore.Itbecomesapparentthatthedesignprocessisnotonlya‘co-operativeactivity’ofhumansbut‘models,paintsandpixels,ma-terialsamplesandplans’alike,asYanevashows(2009a,12).YanevafollowedanddescribedthedailypracticesinthearchitecturalofficeofRemKoolhaas(Yaneva2009a,2009b).Thecomingintobeingofabuildingemergesoutofinnumerablesmallroutinesanddesignmoves.However,whatisinvolvedhereisnotsimplyadisplacementofthearchitectfromthefocusofattention.Rather,Yanevasuggestsre-positioningthearchitectasthe ‘setterofaspecificstudiopractice;hisbuild-ings are born in the studioworld’ (Yaneva 2009a, 102). Architecture ‘depends’,asarchitectandacademicJeremyTill(2013)discusses,notonlyinthemaking,aprocessthatinvolvesmanyothersduringconstruction,butalsoinitsoccupationafterwardsbymanyothers.Thus,notonlythearchitecturalprocessesofdesign-ing,negotiating,presentingandre-thinkingare involved inmakingabuildingbutalsoprocessesthatinvolveotheractors,whichinsomerespectcalltheposi-tionoftheautonomousarchitectintoquestion.Sufficetosay,suchissuescreatecomplexauthorships.Lookingatthingsfromthebuildinginpracticeperspectivechallengesthegenuinepositionofthearchitectasauthority.Here,accountson‘buildingconversion’(Guggenheim2010),post-occupancyre-design(Brand1994)ortheretrofittingofalaboratorybuilding(Gieryn2002),showhowinthelifeofabuildingspatialstructureschangeandcanoverwritethearchitect’splan.Turningtospacing,however,thisstudyratherrevealsthebeingwith,themundaneentan-glementbetweenpeopleandobjectsand thebuilding; itparticularly looks intothedetailsofthemessyreality.Herenotonlymanysmallmodificationsofspatialarrangementscometothefore,butalsotheworkthatisnecessarytoholdthingstogether.Similarthingscanbediscoveredinstudiesofmaintenanceandrepair(GrahamandThrift2007;Strebel2011),butalsointheconceptofarchitectureasa‘manifoldinterface’puttouse(Guggenheim2010,7).

The Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts is amuseum and education centre.WhilemyfocusisonspacingItracemanypracticesthatarespecifictomuseumenvironments,forexampleobjectvisitorinteraction.Inthebroadfieldofmuseumstudieswelikewiseface(inadditiontotheaforementioned)agrowingawarenessof‘multiplicityandcomplexity’(Macdonald2006,2).Hereweencounteraspecifictensionwithamuseum’saimtowardsthecreationofsomekindofhomogeneity(Hetherington1999).SocialanthropologistandmuseumstudiesscholarSharonMacdonalddescribesthemuseumas‘institutionofrecognition’.‘Itselectscertainculturalproductsforofficialsafe-keeping,forposterityandpublicdisplay—apro-cesswhichrecognizesandaffirmssomeidentities,andomitstorecognizeandaf-firmothers.’(Macdonald2006,4)Thisprocessoforderinggoeshandinhandwiththedesignof‘architecture,spatialarrangements,andformsofdisplayaswellas[…]discursivecommentary—offact,objectivity,superiortaste,andauthoritative

Introduction 31

knowledge.’ (Ibid.)Thatsaid,themuseumasasiteofknowledgecreation(Hein2006)hasbeen recentlydiscussed in termsofa shift fromaplaceofauthoritytooneofmutuality(Hooper-Greenhill2000).Contemporaryexplorationsofnewrelationshipsbetweenvisitorandexhibits(T.Smith2012),andtheturntowardsmuseumobjectsandmateriality(Dudley2010)gobeyondmoretraditionalcon-ceptsofmuseumas(cultural)‘contactzone’(Clifford1997,adaptingthisconceptfromMaryLouisePratt).Hetheringtonpointsoutthe‘clearanduniqueperspec-tiveonthemuseum’thatANTinthiscontextallowsfor(Hetherington1999,52).HisANT-inspiredrelationalperspectivesintomuseumsshowhoweventhisplaceof classification never is under full control (Hetherington 1999). Hetheringtontracestheideaofheterogeneityalongashiftingrelationbetweensubjectandob-jectasestablishedbymuseumsovertime.Discussinghowmuseumobjects,suchasMarcelDuchamp’surinalchallengetheideaofanorderlyandknowableworld,whichthemodernmuseumasitoccurredinthesecondhalfofthe18thcenturyaimed for,Hetherington draws a comparison to contemporary philosophy andANT.WithHetheringtonwecan learnhowobjects,urinalsasmuchasceramicowls,create‘fold[s]intheEuclidean spaceofthemodernmuseum’(Hetherington1999,69,1997).ConcernedwiththeSainsburyCentre,thisstudythenapproachesthemuseumbuilding(amongstothers)withthehelpofANT.Itrarelygoesintodetailwithspecificpiecesofart,butrathertracesthemanyothersthatarepresentwhen it comes to visitorobject/visitorbuilding interactionandotherprocessesaswell.As such the focusof thiswork remainswithinabroaderdiscussionofspacingasfruitfulforadifferentunderstandingofarchitecture,providingvalu-ableinsightsintomuseumpractices.Turningtoanobjectrichworldbyfollowingspacinginthespecificcontextofthemuseumsettingallowsforacontributiontobemadetocurrentattemptsforamorecomplexandrichunderstandingofmu-seums.Additionally,myspecificaccountofvisitorexperiencetracesimmediateencountersinobjectinteraction,asurprisinglyunderexploredareainthefieldofmuseumstudies.19

19 SocialandmaterialanthropologistSandraDudleywhofocusesonbodilysensorial(subjective)experiencewithmuseumobjectspointsoutthatthephysicalengage-mentwithmaterialthingshaveoftenbeendisregardedeveninthefieldofmate-rialstudies(Dudley2012,2010).AlsoKirchbergandTröndle(2012)whohavealsoreviewedthestudiesofvisitorexperiencesinmuseums,emphasisethatthistopicremainsunderexplored inmuchof the recent literature in thefieldofmuseumstudies.SummarisingvisitorstudiesofexhibitionexperiencesthatareempiricallybasedKirchbergandTröndle,highlightthesimilarityofthesestudiesina‘generalideaofchronologyandcausality’ (ibid.447).Pointingout that thesestudiesall,exceptforone,were‘pre-orpost-visitsurveys’basedonquestionnairestheyhigh-lightthelackofstudiesintotheimmediatevisitorsexperiencesitself(ibid.448).Generallyspeaking,amorenuancedviewofvisitorsisdeveloping,however,thisshiftawayfromahomogeneous‘public’inmuseumsis‘stillonlypatchilyachieved’(Macdonald2006,8;Falk,Dierking,andAdams2006).


Thisstudyaimstoprovidearealistaccountofspaceinthefieldofarchitec-ture:neitherreducingarchitecturetomaterialortechnologynorhumanstosim-pleuser.Ithuswishtotracetherichrealityofamonospacebuilding,andthespe-cific reciprocal relationships betweenpractices, objects,materials andhumanstodeepenourunderstandingoftherelationbetweenarchitectureandsociallife.Validatingresearchmethodsby‘studyingthroughexperience’,Iwillcontributeavaluableanalysistocurrentarchitecturaldiscourse.Thisfollowsthepostulatesofanewfieldofarchitecturalpractice(Awan,Schneider,andTill2011),andcurrentattemptstoextendtheconceptsofarchitectureandarchitecturaltheory(Hauser,Kamleithner, andMeyer 2013, 2011;Crysler,Cairns, andHeynen2012).Beyondthisfieldof interdisciplinaryarchitectural research, Iwill add toANT-inspiredanthropologicalworksonarchitectureingeneralandinthisfieldfurthermoretoresearchintomuseumenvironments.

1.4 Structure of the Book

Themonospaceurgesustorethinkourunderstandingofspacewithinarchitec-tureandtoquestionourunderstandingofwhatarchitectureisandwhatitdoes.Howdoesabuilding,itslayout,objectsandmaterialscontribute,promote,hinderorchangespatialprocesses?Howcanwerefrainfromunderstandingabuildingasastableandpassiveobject?Howcanwetracethemutualentanglementofprac-tices,objects,materialsandhumanbodieswithintheworldofabuildinginuse?

Ibeginwithanoverviewofthetypologyofmonospaceandpresentitasaspecificformoftheopenplanbuilding(Chapter2).Understandingamonospaceasaphysicalobjectseemssimple—aboxthatcontainsspace—however,thisdoesnotdo justice to the realityofmonospacebuildings inuse.Arguing that spacecangiveaccesstothemutualentanglementofmonospacebuildingswithsociallife, Iopenupa theoreticaldiscourseonspace.Asanabsolutist-substantivalistconceptofspaceexcludesthebuildingsfromthecoursesofactionthattakeplacewithinthem,Iconsiderthetheoreticalfoundationandpositionsthatapplytorel-ativist-relationalistconceptsofspaceascurrentlyoftenemployedinthefieldofsociology.Tomakesenseof themultipleconnections thatoccurbetweenspaceandpractices,objects,materialsandhumanbodies,IthenturntoANTinordertobeabletoneitherfocusonthephysicalbuiltenvironmentnoronthesociallifeincoursesofaction,buttogainaview‘in-between’.Ilayoutthetermsofactor,agencyandnetworkastheyarerootedinANTandwhichareessentialforinclud-ingobjects intoprocessesofspatialproduction.Onthebasisofthistheoreticalfoundation,Iconcludethechapterwithanoutlineoftheempiricalanalysis.

Introduction 33

TurningtotheSainsburyCentreforVisualArts,Ifirstexplorethebuildingwithanarchitecturaldescriptionand thenprovideaglimpse into theavailableliterature(Chapter3).Howdoesthisspecificmonospacelook,andwhatenablesthelargespatialvolume?ApproachingtheSainsburyCentreasamonospaceim-pliesaddinganotherreferencesystemtoabuildingthathasbeenputintomanycontextspreviously.However,insteadofapplyinganotherrigidandstaticframe-worktotheSainsburyCentreItakethisbuildingtypeasapointofdepartureandplaceofarrivalsimultaneously.Duringtheanalysis,acarefulexaminationoftheworldoftheSainsburyCentrewiththehelpofANT(Chapter4–6)providesanun-derstandingofwhatamonospaceis.Thisshiftsfromtheformal-typologicaltoanuancedunderstandingofitspossibilitiesanddependenciesbymeansofarealistaccount.Amonospacewillbewhatitdoes.Thisgeneratesatypologyinf lux—atypologywecanonlyunderstandfrom‘within’andwhichthusfocusesonthebe-coming(ofspace)(GeipelandHansmann,forthcoming).

Thus,followingtheprocessesandpracticeswiththebuildingweleavetheideaofabeautifulandstaticobjectthatresidesinspacebehind.Basedoninterviewsandethnographicallyinspiredaccountsweturntothebuilding‘inpractice’.Thisiswherewecanwitnesstheentanglementofarchitectureandallitselementswithpeople.‘Inpractice’permitsthediscoveryoftheordinaryandtheexceptional—mundane problems, contradictions, ephemeral and long-term decisions—withthebuilding,andthuswiththeelementsintegraltospacingorspecificspacingprocessesthemselves.Firstly,wetakeawalkthroughthebuildingwiththeHeadofCollectionsandSeniorCurator (Chapter4).Structuredalongthreestops,wefollowourguidesandlistentothestaffoftheSainsburyCentreInstitutewhoin-troducedifferentmodesofworking withthebuilding.Working-withisasharingofagencywiththebuildinginspacing.Thischapterallowsustofollowandunraveltheconnectivitybetweenarchitectureandpeople.Throughitsanalysiswewillseethatbothpeopleasmuchasobjectscanactinunpredictableways.WiththehelpfromSTSandANTscholars,wewill learntodifferentiate thewaysthey jointlyengageinspacing,bothintermsofmaterialarrangementandintermsofcoursesofaction.Wewillwitnesshowthebuildingbeginstomoveandchangewhenweapproachtheworldofworking-withandhowthebuildingasafullyblownactorentangledinspacingbecomesvisible.

Equippedwithaclearunderstandingforhowexploringtheworldofabuild-ingfromwithinalwaysopensthecomplexityofthatverybuildinginreality,wethenmoveonandturntotheexperiencesofpeoplewhoareengagedwiththeSainsburyCentre,albeitonlytemporarily(Chapter5).Oncemorewedonotturnourattentiontotheobjectiveorthesubjectiveperspective.Approachingtherichandephemeralstateoff luxinvolvedinspacingwelookintothepossiblecontributionsofaspe-cificformofinterview.AskingintervieweestosketchwhileansweringquestionsabouttheirstayattheCentreweseehowmanyobjects,materialsandpracticalities


cometolightbymeansofthistangibleactivity.Wewitnesshowthebuildingisper-ceived,practiced,andexperienced.Whilespacingcircuitsthedistinctionbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveitalsochallengesanydeterminismtiedtofunctionalism.Hence,wealsoadd that it equally rejects the reductionistunderstandingof the‘user’inarchitectureasmuchasofthe‘public’inthemuseum.Variousexperiencessimultaneouslycoexistwiththebuilding,asitismanifoldinitspossibilitiesofal-lowing,hindering,andfosteringcertaincoursesofaction.

Alongwithspecificexperiencesoflightwethenmovedeeperintotheworldofthebuildingitselfparticularlyfocusingonthevariouscontributionsofobjectsandmaterialsintheworkofspacing(Chapter6).Lightisacontroversialissueinthecontextofmuseumbuildingsanditwasinastateofre-negotiationduringmyresearchattheSainsburyCentre.Followingthemanyspacing devicesinthecom-plexnetworksinvolvedinthemakingoflight,welearnaboutthespecificqualityofobjectsthatbridgetimesandlocations.Furthermore,interactionsarealwaysmadeofdifferentmaterialities.Intracingthemakingoflightwecanwitnessthecomplicatednatureofspacing.Spaceismadewithmaterials,objects,technicaldevices,rhythms,etc.anditisthereciprocalrelationshipbetweenspace,buildingandhumansthatbecomesvisiblewhentracingtheconnectivepoweroflight.

Thefinalanalysis thenbrings theresultsof thestudy together,discussingthefindingsandtheirsignificanceforarchitecturaltheoryandpracticeandtheirpertinenceforcurrentdebatesabouttherelationshipsbetweenarchitectureandsociallife(Chapter7).

1.5 Writing Style

Monospacebuildingsareof tendismissedasnon-functional. Idonot aim tocriticiseortodefendsuchbuildings.WhatIattemptratheristoengagewiththeworldofthebuildinginordertotraceitsmultiplicity.Insodoing judge-mentisnotmyconcern.Bymeansofdetaileddescription,wewillapproachtheworldofthebuildingtounravelthemutualprocessesofspacing,followingtheconstantworkthat is involved inthemakingofspace.Thus,whilemytext isargumentativewhenconsideredtheoreticallyandmethodologically,itisrath-erref lectiveintermsofthepresentedcase.Methodologically,becauseItrytoopenupspatialprocessesandshowhowwe,asarchitectural theorists,usingour own analytical repertoire, andutilisingANT, can access suchprocesses.Thus, I am concernedwith away of thinking and approaching space and itsimplicationsforourunderstandingofwhatarchitectureisandwhatitdoes.TousethistechniquetojudgebuildingsortoemployitforprospectivedesignsIleaveopenforthefuture.

Introduction 35

Usingthefirstpersonsingular,the‘I’,isuncommoninGermanyinthecon-text of academicwriting; on the contrary, in anEnglish setting, it is used fre-quentlyenough.Butthereisanotherreasonwhyitistrickytousethe‘I’inthiswork.Itcouldsuggestanauto-ethnographicalstancethathintsataphenomeno-logicalapproach,whichIparticularlychosenottofollow,asIwillexplaininmoredetail (Chapter2).Nevertheless,Idousethefirstpersonsingular.Nottomakemyselfmoreimportantthannecessary,buttomakemyselfvisibleasanactorinthe spatialprocesses I observeandparticipate in.Thus, Iwish to acknowledgethatImyselfamanactorinthiswork.Incontrast,Iaddressanacademicdistantnarrativeusingthe‘we’.

Afinalwordontheuseofimages.Imagescanneitherrepresentexperiencesnorconveytheirsequentialcharacter.Theyreduce,separateandfreezeacourseofaction,amomentintimeandconveyrigidimpressions.Furthermore,theyfocuson thevisual sense.However,of course imagesarea central component in theproductionofarchitectureaswellasinarchitecturalanalysis.Therefore,Ipursuethreestrategieswhenusingimagesinthisstudy.Firstly,Ifollowarchitecturaltra-ditioninpresentingthebuildingthroughavarietyofdrawings.Therecanbenosingledrawingthatshowsormakesthewholebuildingunderstandable,butrath-eramultitudeofdrawingsincombinationwithpictures.Secondly,Iuseisomet-ricdrawingsandannotatethemwithlinkstospecifictextpassageswithdetaileddescriptions.Inthisway,thedrawingbecomesanavigationaltoolthatallowsthereadertotraveltodifferentdimensionsinordertoexplorethecomplexityofthebuilding.20Thirdly, Iusea seriesofpicture, fragmented imagesand snapshotsthataccompanyethnographicallybasedchapters.Suchsequenceshavenosepa-ratetextualexplanationpriortotheethnographicallyinspiredaccount.Idonotwish to reduce theabundanceofvisible things toacaptionsimply to focus thereader’sattentionandguidethem.Thereisnosimplewayofknowingabuilding.

20 Usingtheannotateddrawingasanavigationaltoolisinspiredbythediscussionof(navigational)mapsinthefieldofgeography,whichwassuggestedbyNovember,Camacho-HübnerandLatour(2010).

monospace and multiverse - exploring space with actor

Documents