Architects of Interactions
Posted on November 22, 2016The most basic purpose of architecture is perhaps to configure space through materials in such a way that it allows for human activities to develop. By definition, architecture implies building, but what is it that architecture really builds? In a time when more than 50% of the world’s population is living in cities, it is imperative to reflect on the processes by which we produce and appropriate space within the urban context. More importantly, we need to understand the social dynamics which the built environment allows for and reinforces. Not only are we inhabiting deeply unequal urban spaces, but the mechanisms by which they generate and operate are highly unsustainable in social, economic, and material terms. How can we rethink the way in which we design and construct space, and what does building really mean? How can architecture act beyond its current obsession with form and initiate actions that provoke real change?
Last year, I encountered for the first time the work of Tino Seghal, a contemporary artist who refuses to create physical objects and instead builds “constructed situations”. These are experiences in which people who attend his exhibitions actively participate in by responding to certain triggers such as phrases, questions, and choreographic movements enacted by players who have been previously directed by Seghal. The players usually take the visitors´ responses to keep building a series of more elaborate comments or performances. Instead of exhibiting inanimate artworks, Seghal produces choreographed yet open-ended and renewable human interactions. The work is not allowed to be archived in any way, nor are there written pamphlets or publications to accompany the exhibitions; Seghal´s work leaves no physical trace at all. If we consider that for the last three hundred years in human society, we have been deeply focused on the earth and on the transformation of its materials, then it is no surprise that we have reached a point where all construction —of objects and spaces—has reached a limit. Institutions such as museums and galleries have developed as temples for material objects themselves, hardly bearing any relation to these objects´ place in the network of human interactions and understanding. In this context Seghal comes in and says: ‘I’m tired of that. I do not think that is interesting, and it is not sustainable.’ In a world full of objects, he chooses to refocus attention to human relations.
I wonder how our cities and the built environment could be transformed if, as architects and designers we start to think a bit more like that and prioritize not the final material product but instead focus on the possibilities of interactions and experiences that the project and its process is able to bring to life. In such case we can start understanding architecture as an activity which profoundly affects, creates and recreates human relations. We urgently need to reinvent architecture and the methods by which we produce space, so that the success of a project is not defined by how impressive, ingenious or novel a construction is, but by how it manages to inspire and catalyze new social outcomes. Fortunately, a lot of practices are starting to see the urgency of moving away from proposals that put primary emphasis on giving form; and instead they are transforming the role of the designer, the architect, and the urban planner into one that devises executable instructions for an operation or play. Indeed, many emerging design practices indicate a mode of design that is closer to facilitation than to craft.
Architecture´s biggest challenge, I believe, is to design and create platforms that allow us to explore alternatives to the socioeconomic and spatial development of cities affected by inadequate and marginalizing growth models that only benefit minorities. Cities must be understood as dynamic processes that involve and require active participation of their citizens. If we consider how the open source software model has proved to be successful in creating complex outcomes through the collaboration of a large number of individuals working towards a common goal, then it must possible to apply that process towards the construction of spaces and cities. But maybe an open source architecture is not about freely distributing the source code —blueprints— for buildings, because that would not guarantee the success of that same construction in a different context. Maybe, the source code for open architecture would be more like a platform for sharing the process by which that building came to be what it is; How did people organize? How did they make decisions? How did money, gender and power affected the construction? How did they fund it? What was the biggest mistake? Maybe architects could stop wasting so much energy and resources in trying to build striking structures and start worrying about setting the conditions in which people can have a voice and participate in the construction of inclusive and egalitarian cities. Maybe what architecture really needs to build are not buildings but processes that can shape meaningful human interactions.
– Gabriela López Dena