Conference Theme – Body Matters
WHICH BODY. Architecture has always been obsessed with bodies. Its own body first and foremost. What are the relations, the differences, the articulations of building and architecture? And between the body of the discipline and the constructed body of each of its instantiation – a building, a project, a drawing. What then is the body of architecture, in the exquisite and still troublesome relationship of arché and techton that sits at the origin of its western etymology (Vitruvius). Answers can be found perhaps by rearticulating the conversation in wider cultural and geographical, global contexts. Arché then becomes multiple, movable, and ultimately untraceable – it is exposed as a project of constant reinvention. Techton is pulverized in a myriad of techniques, technologies, makings and materializations, itself an ephemeral substantiation.
WHOSE BODY. Shelter, haven, container, envelope; home and sepulchre; social platform, hub of cultural and political exchanges, but also apparatus of control, exclusion and reclusion… Architecture has an inevitable relation with bodies, human and non-human. It makes space, it constructs and constricts, it enables and accommodates life. Until a century ago architecture wanted to look like a human body and function as an organism, but then deconstruction exposed the violence of its relationship with the body. The history of the body in the architectural humanities needs to be expanded to re-frame the emerging materiality/mattering of bodies.
WHAT BODIES. As bodies lose organisation from without, the shifting remaking of assemblages exposes their interconnectedness. Bodily intensities and affects need to be considered on their own terms leading to new relations. Architecture is also put into question: more than container, envelope, shelter, architecture can be understood as a vulnerable construction, a constellation of vibrating matter and resonating oscillations. Beyond the separations and distinctions of bodies and environment and bodies in environment, architecture needs to be considered as a manifold of mutual envelopments.
OTHER BODIES. From passive malleable material to acting matter; beyond distinctions and questions of natural and artificial, human and animal, organic and inorganic, virtual and actual: we have learned to co-exist, living multiple and intersecting lives – in our flesh, emotions, media, in uni- pluri- meta- verses. It seems we have dissolved, no longer made of cells, but of moving subatomic particles, bits of information and lies, and ultimately of energy. Then what does architecture become, do, make?
OVEREXPOSED AND FRAGILE. Extreme global events generated by anthropic activities of depredation are threatening or destroying lives and redesigning geopolitics and geologies alike. And while we live in hybrid or virtual realities, construct our digital alter egos, and reengineer our bodies, we are still called to face, feel, and sense our very material interconnectedness with the physical world. We need to redefine our bodies, invent new boundaries, design or improvise new forms of sociality and collectivity.
POLITICAL BODIES. New materialism has expanded how we see bodies, not simply as social constructs, but as multiple actants, quasi-subjects and quasi-objects that cut across social and natural divisions (Latour). The current geopolitical conditions call for such an emerging philosophy. But what about the social constructs inherent in historical materialism and poststructuralist thought? Does the human agency implicit in historical materialism necessarily counter a more multiple notion of agency? How can we question emerging relations between agents and actants, new and ‘old’ materialisms. How do these inform unexpected ways to think of political bodies?