In the same way in which one’s personal identity requires a digital counterpart, architecture is negotiating more and more for a position in-between reality and its representation. Art and architecture take on the character of a project formed of ephemeral and concrete. The physical is accompanied by representations of these artefacts, mediated by photographs, texts, film etc. They are not just documentation though, they become part of the project. The author is therefore faced with the absurd situation when work takes on the character of a project, where thinking is potentially infinite while the space of installation is finite.
Place becomes a key term to interrogate, both in terms of site and context, in relation to the current form of architectural/art project. They offer the viewer different possibilities of perceiving & relating to the work of art/architecture, and negotiating their own position to both the object & site its located in.
Taking the studio as point of departure, the project presents itself as a continuum, challenging the instances of permanence, within a collection of work, in relation to place across the spectrum of mass, fixity, performance and time. The studio is both a factory of cultures and mass. In this factory, the method of making and assembling of a whole is fragmentary and resembles an archipelago.
I call it an archipelago as each piece of work can be read as a singular independent element although it is part of a larger collection of work. A collection of fragments constructing an iteration of formalised thinking. Similarly to how contemporary art requires a further understanding of the authors intention/behaviour in order to negotiate a position, while classic architecture requires text to clarify context, contemporary architecture needs text to clarify content.
I propose to make a landform, a speculative ground, which doesn’t fix these fragments to a site. The logos of the archipelago is developed as a ‘dia-logos’ of collisions which reject the proposal of a sole placement for the artwork. The archipelago of objects become the tools with which you think of and understand the author.
Questioning place allows the attention to shift from the result of the project to the activities that are supposed to produce that result. “The documentation of virtual and real steps necessary to realise the project become the main interest”. – architecture becomes more of an activity and less of a product.
– factory creates places of tension between fragments. -> how? panorama is the medium – why? looking at space of production to space of exhibition.
Manolis’ edit: The factory is composed by fragments which exist in isolation with each other forming an archipelago. The objective of the factory is to choreograph/design ‘places’ where these objects have a dialogue in tension. In this sense the factory is forming a critique or a counterpart to the museum/ traditional gallery space, where objects were de-contextualised but existed in fixation to each other and to the physical space in which they were exhibited.
How? The factory operates in two levels.
First is by processing each one of the objects. This primary process aims to reintroduce the object in a more absurd condition to the one it was initially found in. f.e. the soup -> soup inside resin.
The second level is the design of a continuous landform/ landscape where the objects are reintroduced in absurd relations with each other. This landscape is where the places of tensions is revealed in the form of a panorama view which is continuously changing, disclosing the unexpected.