[...]assed over in ="trms">history, brings with it a great many d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angers
architecture (never touches the object) is enchanted with object discourse
...all of us have been asked to “="trms">instrumentalize” architectural ='lgc'>[or art='lgc'>] theory ="trms">according to a particular building
="trms">material given a structure
="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................
Q ='and'>& A ='qstn'>?, ="trms">interactivity, swarovski party, servants and robots ="trms">interacting with foreign bodies ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> feeling at home='qstn'>? ex="trms">cited... ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> disco without bouncers and borders without border check, spaces you can seamlessly in and out, labyrinthine
i am generating some ="trms">vocabularies
parsite and parasitical, not all of them are predatory like the wolf
="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%">
(Karen ="ppl">="ppl">Barad)
With all mirroring practices, biomimcry has built-in optics on the ="trms">geometry of distance from what which is other.
="large lg1" stl="font-size:130%">
(="ppl">I="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigaray)
surprise (to be new)='lgc'>: not yet assimilated or disassimilated as known
our attention to that which is not yet (en)="trms">coded
="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................
(something to consider, regarding the pigs and wolf ="trms">story, also an ="trms">interest for performances that happen in closed space;) there is a standard account that says ‘="trms">interiors’ and ‘="trms">interiority’ are linked, that the ="trms">articulation of ="trms">interior physical space enabled the development of certain kind of (initially bourgeois European) sense of subjective life='lgc'>--as something sheltered and enclosed.
='lgc'>=/= ="trms">interiority (subjectivity) is linked to the exterior ='lgc'>[="ppl">Sennett='lgc'>]
O='lgc'>-- still in the 15th century (when sex and sleeping was not ="trms">veiled under curtains) there was no cor="trms">relation between ='thdf'>the notion of privacy and the ="trms">interior
O='lgc'>-- in the mid 18th century (among European bourgeoisie) a new ideal of domesticity appeared which ="trms">dictates a new ="trms">interior space ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> separate room separate functions, segregation of domestic activities
O='lgc'>-- ="ppl">Rousseau='lgc'>: in the shelter of private domestic space subjectivity is set free (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a ="trms">different kind of subjectivity (one which guards the self, something to be protected from the outside) is enabled by the development of the division of labor in ="trms">interior space) ='lgc'>[this is not merely architectural, it is also something about the clothing people wore='lgc'>: wearing ="trms">different clothes in family or in the realm of str="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angers. houses became warmer='lgc'>]
(="ppl">Simmel's) “="trms"nttrm="disturban">urban subjectivity”='lgc'>: street physical over-stimulation ='lgc'>==> wearing a mask, you show nothing to people, you are not there. and behind this mask there is the feelings you are having, and these sensations behind the mask are your subjectivity.
it is a reaction to being exposed to ="trms">difference and complexity
the subject is divided='lgc'>: neutral on the outside / stimulated in the inside
(i don't want to become a camera)
observe (without ="trms">interacting)
observational cruising
='lgc'>[the standard account:='lgc'>] ="trms">interiority ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= reflexive detachment, reflexive withdraw
="trms">social media and exteriority
="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................
="ppl">Sennett, “3rd ="trms">world” SPeCo62Mz2Q ='lgc'>: condition in which centralized space or distributed ="trms">communication ="trms">networks are missing
="prgrph">-a public space that is officially organized
='strcls'>*parks='lgc'>: open space that are reserved for the public='lgc'>: “where informal economy wants to be but is banned”
='strcls'>*public space='lgc'>: (='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Selma on st.open project)
(21st century) ="trms">modern thought ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- ='strcls'>*two traditions of thinking about public realm='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1- as a dialogical condition (of exchange, of political engagement) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">Arendt ='and'>& ="ppl">Habermas; ='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>{a ="trms">communicative im="trms">material space='lgc'>} ='lgc'>: “more talk ='lgc'>==> more agreement, common understanding” ='lgc'>='lgc'>---='lgc'>[dialogic ='and'>& im="trms">material='lgc'>]
="lstsrd">2- as a space of ="trms">spectacle ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (goes back to 19th century) ="ppl">Baudelaire's ‘individual passers-by’ watching something on the ="trms">fold (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='lgc'>[old ="trms">Greek idea of ="trms">spectacle:='lgc'>] “un="trms">folding of ="trms">narrative.” a ='thdf'>bad idea of ‘how people should be physically in space’ for example, a landscape architect that creates a scenography in a park ='lgc'>==> a witness in a s="trms">cene, watching as ="trms">spectator from out of a ="trms">situated identity in the ="trms">world), (not so new) ="trms"nttrm="disturban">urban sensibility and ="trms"nttrm="disturban">urban subject ="trms">matter; criticized by ="ppl">Guy ="ppl">Debord; ='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>{a theater with performers and ="trms">spectators, a very physical understanding of public space, ='lgc'>='lgc'>---='lgc'>[dramatic ='and'>& ="trms">material='lgc'>]='lgc'>}
="lstsrd">3- in="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusive ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">integrative
many of the ="trms">differences (culture, class, ="trms">religion, etc) that cities contain can't be reconciled ='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how can I talk to you and not pressing a point of ="trms">integration, rather in="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusion='qstn'>? (where people feel provoked to ="trms">integrate, ="trms">integrieren, an inherently passive condition)
="prgrph">-always more parallel activities that don't form a ="trms">spectacle only but are also productive
='lgc'>='lgc'>---='lgc'>[in="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusive ='and'>& ="trms">synchronous='lgc'>]
="large lg3" stl="font-size:111%">
='strcls'>***(in the public realm='lgc'>:) ="trms">integration ='lgc'><='lgc'>~='lgc'>-> ="trms">spectacle
public spaces must be much smaller ='lgc'>=/= gigantism of dramatized power of the politics in large scale public places
small ='lgc'>==> intensity (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> this i learned from Julia as well, create small spaces to show our art-works to each other, the intensity of that moment generative of desire)
(most public spaces have been designed by powers that want to use the very size of the public space as way to ='strcls'>*dramatizing their own power='strcls'>*)
="lsts lst1">•public space inspired by power
="lsts lst1">•public space inspired by wealth
="lsts lst1">•
="large lg4" stl="font-size:112%">
the “stop” as an architectural project itself (='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Selma)
we argue, in our project st.open, that there should be many activities going on at once in public space, that public space should be ="trms">synchronous, productive as well as ="trms">spectacular
="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................
="large lg5" stl="font-size:121%">
='strcls'>*the way we concentrate has a deeply ="trms">historical character='strcls'>*
="ppl">="ppl">Crary
looking at opera or television or driving,
we are in a dimension of contemporary experience that requires that we effectively cancel out or ex="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clude from consciousness much of our immediate environment
="ppl">="ppl">Crary='lgc'>: how western ="trms">modernity since the 19th century has ="trms">demanded that individuals define and shape themselves in terms of a capacity for “paying attention”='strcls'>*** ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> disengagement from a broader field of attraction for the sake of isolating or focusing on a reduced number of stimuli
='lgc'>{ our lives='lgc'> = disconnected patchwork of stats ='lgc'>}='lgc'><== ="trms">dense and powerful remaking of human subjectivity in the West over the last 150 years
the so-called crisis of subject dis="trms">integration is diagnosed as a deficiency of “attention”
attentive norms and practices ='lgc'>==> ="trms">modern distraction
imperative of concentrated attentiveness within the disciplinary organization of labor, education, and mass ="trms">consumption
='lgc'>+
ideal of sustained attentiveness as a constitutive element of a creative and free subjectivity
a cultivated individual gazing (='lgc'>~ ="frds scrmbld">Jassem) on a great work of art or ="trms">nature
='lgc'>+
a factory worker concentrating on the performance of some repetitive task
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> institutional constructions of a productive and manageable subjectivity ='lgc'>+ purified ="trms">aesthetic perception
='lgc'>["='lgc'>+” ='lgc'>: inseparability='lgc'>]
='lgc'>==> experience of subjective autonomy (for example in ="frds scrmbld">Jassem)
='lgc'>+ ambivalent limits and fai="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lures of an attentive individual
19th century emergence of new ="trms">technological forms of ="trms">spectacle and recording
...set of terms and ="trms">positions that cannot be construed simply as ="trms">questions of opacity
vision is not an autonomous and self-justifying problem
(we have to rework the) forces of specialization and separation that allowed ='thdf'>the notion of visuality to become the intellectually available concept that it is today
(we should do that with all our ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready at hand concepts)
what is the genealogy of attention in Persian subjectivity='qstn'>?
="lsts lst1">•an ="trms">embodied subject is both the location of operations of power and the potential for resistance
="lsts lst1">•vision is only one part of a body capable of evading institutional capture
="trms">social economic re="trms">presentational shifts and practices
visual/auditory culture
...richer and more ="trms">historically determined notions of “="trms">embodiment”
="trms">spectator culture is not founded on the necessity of making a subject ‘see’ (="ppl">="ppl">Crary)
rather, individuals are isolated, separated, and inhabit time as disempowered.
counter-forms of attention are constituted as other temporalities and states (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> my ="trms">lectures, reverie)
for ="ppl">="ppl">Crary, “perception”='lgc'>: a way of indicating a subject definable in terms of more than the single-sense modality of sight
="lsts lst1">•fundamental absence at the heart of seeing
="lsts lst1">•impossibility of the perception of p[...]