Posts Tagged ‘ art theory ’

The first exhibition

It was a success, although the crowd was a bit underwhelming, I was extremely impressed about how everyone pulled through, I was very lucky in having dedicated and ambitious teammates so that we could deliver the center piece of the exhibition (in my humble opinion). Now let me divulge some secrets about Percy, we chose bones as a element for him because we wanted him to be a critique towards the sites we were given, New York and Liverpool, cities which both thrived on the slave trade, and were at a time two of the biggest slave trade centers of the world. The two sites are set in the docks so the correlation is even more obvious with the idea that Percy would illustrate how both cities were built on the bones of the slaves, and that fact was slowly overwritten, to the point of people not being aware of it anymore. A friend said he could name 10 streets in Liverpool named after slave traders/owners, but being embedded so deep in routine and normality, people eventually forget the atrocities committed in for the comfort of others. The architectural device we created through Percy will help develop buildings that will be strongly correlated with the past of the two sites and will make people aware of it. Some might say that what is history it is already written and nothing can be changed, but keeping a close eye on it will prevent it from repeating itself. There are a lot of mistakes that humanity made along it`s history, and most of them should never happen again. Architects should enforce this idea through the statements of their architecture, people can be made aware of the past through subtlety as well, not only history books, tangential learning could be a key element in making a whole demographic aware of a real problem that could be affecting them without even knowing. But I`ll leave that rant for some other time in the meanwhile enjoy the exhibition, there are photos of us setting it up, and of the final look of it.

DSCN0448DSCN0446  DSCN0449 DSCN0450 DSCN0451   DSCN0454 DSCN0455 DSCN0456 DSCN0457 DSCN0458 DSCN0459 DSCN0460

DSCN0467 DSCN0468 DSCN0469 DSCN0470 DSCN0471 DSCN0472 DSCN0473 DSCN0474 DSCN0475 DSCN0477 DSCN0478 DSCN0479 DSCN0480 DSCN0483 DSCN0484 DSCN0486 DSCN0487 DSCN0491 DSCN0492 DSCN0493  DSCN0462 DSCN0463  DSCN0465

Thesis idea: Utopia-is this what the myth of modernism looks like(Ted talk by Mikko Hypponen: How the NSA betrayed the world’s trust)

I was currently studying a text by Frederic Jameson called “Of islands and trenches: Naturalization and product of utopian discourse”, for my History and Theory course. This is a text which analyses other texts which speculate on utopia, it references a huge amount of literature, most of it fiction along with philosophy and theory. The more I read of it the more I started questioning its relevance, in this day and age. I didn`t understand why is it important to analyze speculations on Utopias seen through the spectrum of Sci-fi writers or similar fantastic set-up. So I`ve done some digging, I`ve spoken with my tutor who has read some stuff here and there, by which I mean an amount that I cannot currently even try to have the arrogance to admit that I would be able to comprehend, and also I`ve found this interesting video that just popped up. So I started thinking upon the information I had and ended up considering that it is fundamentally relevant to discuss the concept of Utopia.

In the text it is referred to Levi Strauss` interpretation of the myth, which he considers a device for mediation. A circumstance that cannot be solved in the current sociopolitical context of the society is discussed or speculated upon through a myth. Which leads to eventually the myth of the Utopian context which is represented through a series of fiction texts that attempted to create a perfect Utopian world. What I found most interesting is that they all failed, even in fictional literature, the authors had to come to compromises or deux ex machina devices to solve the complications that would arise within the dense system of what utopia actually is. Some of the fundamental rules would be that money is no longer a thing and there is no such thing as crime, which sound ludicrous if we would apply them to our own society. And yet this dream/myth was pursued with great energies by the modernists, and failed to deliver it. But it’s not my belief it was a complete disaster or a complete travesty of their concept, but that some of it should be salvaged along with what was not flamboyant irony in post-modernism. The pursuit of this myth of utopia cannot be pursued blindly, as it was by the modernists because it produces the anomalies of places like Dubai, which in my opinion are similar growths to that of cancer within a body, places like Beijing where the air is un-breathable, and places like Kowloon city which although they might look like hell on earth it might actually be closer to an utopia than we might think at first glance.

And I started asking myself, why did they not deliver? Why did the great minds of the modernists fail in their crusade for the gates of Utopia. I believe it`s because their hands were tied. They could not act fast enough, or react accordingly with the world which grew so fast it overwhelmed them. The ever-growing capitalist machine did not care for the utopia, it wanted things to happen fast, and used the overrated axiom of Less is More just to validate their impending needs. The modernists were not blind to this and realized that their influence is shockingly limited, and what could not be achieved in the real world was attempted to be achieved on paper. And I think this was a complete fetishism on their part because they didn`t had the power to act. Eventually some of the so-called utopias were build and failed exceptionally fast. I think what was fundamentally wrong in LeCorbusier`s approach to it for instance was the all but complete use of tabula rasa. The massacre of Marseille for instance he would wipe completely a part of Paris, he would decide what is relevant to keep as an artifact of the former civilization and to rebuild everything in his own vision of what Utopia should be.

Is this approach a correct one or a fair one? Doesn`t this sound like how corporate-towns pop up in the middle of the desert in the proximity of oil. Is this not a complete disregard of cultural identity, of regional tradition and an insult to the French people? (Or maybe not, the French never knew what they wanted.) The problems of the traditional city are obvious, Collin Rowe explains that quite eloquently in Collage city, but what are we willing to sacrifice for utopia? Our identities? Our character? Our pride? And as the link above states, our privacy? Utopia means a complete lack of the organic, of actually what makes us human, living as a lobotomized zombie, although that`s what any corporate would want for most of us, it doesn`t really sound fun, now does it? And I feel that`s exactly what this type of international style artificial architecture is doing. The loss of cultural identity instills a sense of complacent`ness (there I go inventing words now) by default. Everything is the same and you could be from anywhere, although it creates a comfort zone, it limits your identity. Other newly formed states like America try to deliver its patriotism through a propaganda agenda with the gist of it in 3 words : the American dream, which has led eventually to be used for naive chauvinistic dialogues with foreigners.

But I`m not here to discuss American problems, and why isn`t Kafka ever brought up in these kind of discussions, his dense monstrous machinations work in all intents and purposes as utopian dystopias, funny right? why do I say that, and I am referring now to the castle mostly, because the system works perfectly, and although they seem to have internal conflicts, that is all just a facade because they only seem as conflicts in K.`s eyes, for everyone else it is just how things normally happen, should happen and will ever happen. Everything in that machine seemed to work to perfection until you add the human element to it, the protagonist, who cannot comprehend the space he is thrown within, and no matter how many layers he unfolds and how much more information he discovers, he cannot seem to integrate himself within the system, or to actually understand it. He cannot be part of it, he is fundamentally different and cannot comprehend the utopia. So how could we try to even speculate that we might be capable to comprehend it in real life, we can`t it is absurd. Is Marxism the key for utopia? Is an implosion of classes in the proletarian masses an answer? No it is an impossibility as well. (I`ll address that in the second draft of this essay, who knows when) I`ve recently read a funny little book I came across : Animal Farm, by George Orwell, which is basically the recent history of all post-communist countries. It is uncanny how accurate it is. Extreme communism is a failure as a doctrine, it must never be employed on anyone in my opinion. But a socialist approach might solve some of the social-economical crisis of the extreme lob-sided distribution of money to the populous.

Economy is catering for the elitist few, culture and art for the masses have all but been reduced to kitsch and pseudo-intellectualism, this is a process that began with the totalitarian regimes, which actually didn`t have much against post modern art (except for Hitler, but that didn`t stop Goebbels to have his little charades) argues Clement Greenberg, they found it to innocent to use in propaganda, but eventually realized that it is not feasible to sustain a culture that is understood by the privileged few, and decided to completely redirect culture towards the masses. The best example of it is Mussolini`s regime, who at first were promoting a futuristic mentality, showing that fascism is an progressive regime, and it is in tune with modernism, but when realizing that the masses could not understand or identify with the new current, he killed it with the extremely megalomaniac gesture of his monumentalist architectural program.

A lot of this is speculation on my part, but this is a thing that caught my interest, and I decided to write a thesis on it, (Because I can!), there is a lot of reading to do, I want to attack the Heideggerian position of Architecture, I want to clarify my own position as an individual in relation with the meta-modernist approach. I want to discuss what can be salvaged, and what is usable of modernism and post`modernism. This is a radical approach to architecture, that I am studying now, and might be the next step in all arts. This is an extremely vast subject to debate, I left a lot of ideas out, and all of them are incomplete at the moment, I don`t have a scope on this work yet but I`ll set it to maybe 100 000 words. But it will have to be done over the course of a year or two, who knows…Any comments at all, and especially criticism is highly appreciated. Any suggestions on reading material is welcomed as well, but the list is outrageously as it is 🙂 Thanks for reading.

Symmetrical speculation


After the collection of towers I`ve created, I decided to explore the object of Percy through a controlled symmetrical photographic series. I found it curious how much our own body alters the perception of images. A lot of images that are boring on their own, get a lot more overwhelming, fascinating and aesthetically pleasing, which can only be attributed to the symmetry humans share as a species. Although most look uncanny because the mind keeps trying to attach meaning to them and due to their perfection, they are have a much better reception of the human psyche than their opposite,the pronounced lack of symmetry in the human body or figure, dis-figuration. With those said, I`ve named them as a Rorschach test, by perceptual instinct. Who knows what you`ll see in this. Enjoy!










Gaze  dissaproval





Welcome, my friend, to the machine

What is in store for the future of Percy? Speculation, a lot of it. The next stages are to explore and exploit Percy’s formal and spatial qualities and distil them through various processes such as suprematist compositions, metamodernist photography, mapping, juxtaposing and reinterpretation etc.


So in many respects we created a machine, a factory to produce architectural form from the formal qualities of Percy, which will always relate back to the conceptual principles on which Percy was established as an entity, thus preventing us of falling in the trap of creating suprematist architecture from a mish-mash of randomized shapes which can be altered to suit the site.

Percy has become the device for a process that creates a vast and (probably infinite) amount of work that can be translated as architectural formal interpretation. These exercises are made in absence of any type or building brief, so in many respects it turns the usual creative process which everyone is used to on its head with the concept of function following form. But in fact that is not entirely true, although it is quite a perverse technique which many architects would consider too abstract or too radical to accept, Percy is providing us with a pseudo-infinite amount of possibilities that could be reinterpreted and re-iterated many more times to suit the function or the site conditions, without falling in the abysmal state of producing shape with no meaning, concept or intellectual background and ambition.

large aa

The next step is setting up an art gallery in about 2 weeks which will present the study of the object of Percy. Some of our colleagues considered we were picking up where Warhol left with this factory type cult of the object artistic approach, which is true to some extent, but what we are creating at the moment is a process, a means to a means of designing architecture. So in many respects we are not celebrating the object, but the process or the transformation and the interpretation.

These are some renders done in high quality textures that I have created, next step is to tryout some more unconventional textures and see what results we get.

ggg topaaa bot  percy large

The compositions below are made by one of my teammates, really interesting pieces, though one fell off :).


peeeeercypussssShadow plans

And lastly some speculations made by me based on details from Percy, it is a rhythm and spatiality study based on altering different iterations of the same vector.

xXXx Print Print Print Print

These are the first techniques and the first drafts we produced, we are hoping to enlarge our spectrum of operations greatly in the following week by employing more complex processes and algorithms.

P.S. Percy will star in a movie, the trailer is not out yet : )

Suprematist art a lie?

Ok for some reason, I cannot publish the actual article so there you go an link to it, feel free to comment as you wish.Dynamic Suprematism 1915 or 1916 by Kasimir Malevich 1878-1935Ok for some reason, I cannot publish the actual article so there you go an link to it, feel free to comment as you wish.

Suprematist art a lie?

Dynamic Suprematism 1915 or 1916 by Kasimir Malevich 1878-1935

Suprematism was a current that started in Russia in 1913 founded by Kazimir Malevich, depicting compositions or constellations of basic geometric forms such as squares, circles, lines etc. But the point of this post is not to explain the current, you can wiki it or grab a book (haha). The main course is this:

The most expensive piece of Russian art ever created and sold was the Suprematist composition by Malevich, it was sold for 60 million dollars. And the question at hand is why? Why does it value that much?april 2008

They say that suprematism renounces any tangent with reality and refers or depicts “the supremacy of pure artistic feeling”.

Under Suprematism I understand the primacy of pure feeling in creative art. To the Suprematist, the visual phenomena of the objective world are, in themselves, meaningless; the significant thing is feeling, as such, quite apart from the environment in which it is called forth.

And I was wondering what is this so called pure artistic feeling? Where does this vision of dynamic-static geometry come from? Isn`t everything we do a reaction to an exterior factor? When did anyone do something for absolutely no reason without expecting any reaction from it? I think what they were saying is that they were not depicting an object, they were creating the object, they were objectifying the abstract. So all the compositions were their attempts of resolving graphically their spiritual conditions, which means that when they said that they produced art devoid of the concept of the object, not serving religion, politics or anything, it was a lie. They were depicting the object just as any other artist would do it, by interpreting it through their own spectrum of understanding by using constellations of basic geometric shapes. Basically what I`m saying is that they were painting in regard with their spiritual and emotional condition they were in at that particular moment, but if you ask them why they felt that way, well its obviously because of the object they dismissed so much, because of politics, religion, or waking up on the wrong side of the bed for that matter. Thus in reality there is not such a big difference between suprematist art and any other art form. Or is it?black-square-and-red-square-1915

…a blissful sense of liberating non-objectivity drew me forth into a “desert”, where nothing is real except feeling… (“Suprematism”, Part II of The Non-Objective World)

Another iconic painting was Malevich`s Black square and red square. The creative process was over-imposing a canvas to a painting of the virgin Mary and Jesus Christ as a child, and drew the squares where their faces would be. After this exercise Malevich resolved the composition. What does “resolved” mean?? What happened was that he moved the red square under the black square, and rotated it slightly. Was that the pure artistic feeling or was it a lie? Besides the fact that the painting was a recreation of an object in a different manner, what further artistic or intellectual ambition has that “resolving” of the composition bestowed upon it? I personally have no answer to it, but some people hold his art in extremely high regard, and I want to know if it is anything else besides the fact that he came up with it first. And comparing Black square and red square to the painting it was based on would be like comparing Saturn devouring his son by Goya with the one by Rubens, same image, same object, depicted by different artists in different manners, from different artistic currents.

As a final point, wasn`t art supposed to transmit feelings as well, wasn`t the point of it to be observed and emotionally relevant? White on white was a breakthrough from polychrome to monochrome suprematism? But looking at it, it doesn`t really evoke any emotional response, so why was it created? Why was an object that had the sole role of existing be created, was it just some sort of personal, emotional, visual diary? Just grab a piece of canvas and depict the way you are feeling right at that moment through basic geometry kind of thing? Well then why would his feelings be more relevant than any other person’s feelings? With a months of exercise and compositional routine, we`d have a Malevich at every crossroad, depicting his feelings through shapes.url22

I was going to write a lot more, but I don`t want to make this post daunting to read, what I truly want to start an aesthetical debate on why are those paintings valued so much, further more I`m not dismissing them or trying to undermine their value, I`m trying to communicate and understand. Was the suprematist doctrine a sincere and truthfully impactful artistic current, or was it a lie to “resolve” aesthetically pleasing compositions?

P.S. Malevich died poor.