Page 1






(THEOPHIL HANSEN’S ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS VIENNA) FIRST SEMESTER Christina Condak Daniela Herold Benjamin Baar Jasper Knaebel Ambrosia Köb Anna Kollmann-Suhr Dóra Kovács Valerie Mauerhofer Philipp Ortinger Oskar Pollack Sophia Rettl Manuel Rugo Elena Schlüter Hannah Schmidleitner Florian Schüly Hanna Thomaseth ADP THE POINT CLOUD, THE BASEMENT AND THE SPIRAL STAIR with Wolfgang Tschapeller, Damjan Minovski, Werner Skvara HTC WHAT ABOUT THE GRID? with Angelika Schnell GLC NEW WAYS OF ENTERING with Lisa Schmidt-Colinet ESC WHAT YOU DON’T SEE with Hannes Stiefel CMT FRAGMENTS with Michelle Howard, Günther Dreger, Rüdiger Suppin

WAYS OF KNOWING A BUILDING The first semester studio project was structured by six exercises. Upon returning to the Academy building after its long renovation, we intended to prolong the sense of unfamiliarity that new students would initially experience. Each consecutive exercise that would unlock and reveal a new space probed the building and sought a different way of observing and drawing. These curiosities led to a variety of tools learned in order to see and DESCRIBE THE SITE. The drawings ranged from technical and analytic to notational recordings, 3D renderings, heat maps, animations, models, and even playful design proposals. THE SECTION As a way of establishing an orientation, the students were asked to leave their studio room, 203b, and set out with measuring tapes, laser devices and ladders to measure all rooms on the south side of the building. The dimensions of essential rooms, i.e. the library, the Gemäldegalerie, the Aktsaal, the Anatomiesaal, the new ground floor art studios, as well as other spaces, were collected in order to draw hard-line sections of each individual room on tracing paper. Each section was cut in the centre of the room looking to the south interior elevation. All hand

drawings were pieced together on the studio wall into one collective longitudinal section at a scale of 1:20. THE SECTION OF THE WHOLE BUILDING SHOWED THE SPACES SIMULTANEOUSLY, REVEALING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROOMS, PROGRAMMES AND PEOPLE. This we called the “Science of Sections”, to see how things are situated, such as finding our own studio position just above the Gemäldegalerie and exactly above Hieronymus Bosch’s triptych The Last Judgement, and to see the kind of structure that allows for those spaces. But then, we also discovered our false assumptions, our measuring mistakes and size discrepancies, while putting the drawings together. They just didn’t fit – as it turns out, not all windows are the same in the paintings gallery, for example. The exercise was repeated digitally in AutoCAD or Rhino, implementing the corrections made, and a new section was assembled from a series of pieces into a whole. THE POINT CLOUD, THE BASEMENT AND THE SPIRAL STAIR From the “Science of Sections” we moved on to the “Science of Documentation” to find more ambiguous spaces in the Academy building (hidden spaces, dark spaces, hard-to-reach places). Inevitably, the lower basement and stairwell drew our attention to their niches, vaults, shafts and strange doors. The 3D scanner was set up, and a workshop was held to learn to use the tool. THE 3D SCANNER ALLOWED US TO MEASURE IN 360° AND TO RECORD INFORMATION QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS THAT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT TO REACH. The goal was for each student to record a space of the basement as a point cloud. They then joined all the point clouds together to transform them into a 3D drawing to be attached and shared. Clipping sections in the Rhino models were to be cut, and a sequence was to be created. The final project resulted in a collective animated film about moving through the basement from a fly’s point of view. WHAT ABOUT THE GRID, MR. HANSEN? As part of the large-scale urban development along the Ringstrasse in the 1860s and onward, the Academy building was one among several monumental buildings. It was common for all public buildings at the time to emphasize glory and representation, expressed by the rhythmic layout of spaces, the introduction of grids, the symmetrical arrangement of the façades, and the repetition of elements. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT HANSEN’S UNDERLYING GRID DESIGN, WITH ITS OVERLAPS AND SHIFTS, WAS A SYSTEM TO ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENTS AS THE PROGRAMME MIGHT CHANGE, RAISING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS BUILDING IS PART OF THE GENEALOGY OF MODERNISM IN SOME WAY – A LOOSENESS TO THE BUILDING THAT IS NOT QUITE EXPERIENCED. THE STUDENTS WENT OUT IN SEARCH OF THE GRID. NEW WAYS OF ENTERING THE BUILDING In a one-week workshop, the students studied the urban context of the Academy

building, and how it is perceived by the city. The students walked and mapped a sequence route from a room in the building out to a specified point in the nearby surroundings of the urban fabric, and back again. Ways of approaching the building and new ways of entering it were discussed. We returned to thinking in sections, extending the section to the city to see relationships of space and ground. The city was read as spaces of continuous transitions between buildings, of connections and places where people meet. THIS WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY DESIGN EXERCISE GIVEN: HOW TO ENTER THE ACADEMY BUILDING DIFFERENTLY. Since there is only one main entrance to the building, the design task called for an emphasis on public access and meeting places. Particular interests developed, for example how the public could visit the Gemäldegalerie more directly, or how to connect the canteen to the street. WHAT YOU DON’T SEE This exercise we called “Live Phenomena”. The task was to recognize and VISUALIZE LIVE PHENOMENA THAT WE NORMALLY DO NOT SEE, SUCH AS AIR, WIND, DUST, THE MOVEMENT OF THE SUN, SOUNDS, SMELLS, TEMPERATURES, AND OTHER EPHEMERAL ASPECTS. These qualities are usually not part of a building analysis. This exercise also involved other tools to be tested, such as heat detection cameras and sound equipment, as well as the need to invent our own ways of measuring phenomena, such as how to record air movement in a corridor. Unfortunately, we could not use smoke machines. These studies led to exploratory digital drawings and models, both analogue and laser-cut. FRAGMENTS: A COLLECTIVE MODEL From the investigations of the previous exercises, students selected areas, intensities and fragments to be interpreted into a 1:20 model. An armature, an echo of the grid exercise and a last-minute decision to use some surplus model making material led to A COLLECTIVE MATRIX ON WHICH TO CONNECT ONE’S OWN ACADEMY FRAGMENT. Windows and doors, varying on each floor, pieces of roof constructions, vaulted ceiling segments, stair elements, the sitting landscape of the life drawing room, sections of pipes that constitute the water, heating and air circulation infrastructure, as well as busts in the library, all together created a final model in just two weeks, in time for the open house. Christina Condak, Daniela Herold Design Studio BArch1

→ fig. 16-17 / p. 11 → fig. 20-21 / p. 13 → fig. 23 / p. 14


Instructors Brno Michelle Howard, Adam Hudec and Veronika Miskovicova

CMT Michelle Howard Eva Sommeregger Sofia Abendstein Arda Arin Leonard Vincent Behrens Vladislava Bugaeva Elliott Griffith Luke Handon Paula Hauschildt Lucia Herber Justa Jasaityte Juliane Jungblut Marie Lang Ji Yun Lee Soryun Lee Majed Naseri Emma Malea Noll Laurin Saied Florentin Schumann Moritz Tischendorf Xaver Wizany

HOOKUP 1: a state of cooperation or alliance 2: an assembly or connection of components into a circuit, machine, or system 3: a device for conveying substances or information from a source to a user What direction would technology have taken if the skills that are normally attributed to women and other anomalies1 were given the attention they deserve? Starting from the premise that the first tool was not the weapon, but the carrier bag2, we built sociable collectives, upcycling discarded materials, following the path of the line through the medium of yarn. With the words of Paul Klee in mind, who insisted that the processes of genesis and growth that give rise to forms in the world are more important than the forms themselves. “Form is the end, death. … Form-giving is life”.3 Emphasis was placed on process. We looked closely at the complex workings of coordination between yarn, tool, hands and brain by hooking up to a bespoke device that we assembled together. We began with the Bilum, a string bag from Papua New Guinea made by hand, using yarn from twisted plant fibres and looping technology. Traditionally slung behind from the head, it is capable of carrying both light and heavy loads, including small children – Bilum also means womb. We explored the mathematics of the hyperbolic surface, which is difficult to represent using norm technology. In 1997, the Latvian mathematician Daina Taimina discovered that they could be represented using the ignored technology of crochet. Machines are unable to replace the dextrous hand in crochet, which resists, as Tim Ingold puts it, “how the line … has been gradually shorn of the movement that gave rise to it. Once the trace of a continuous gesture, the line has been fragmented – under the sway of modernity – into a succession of points or dots.”4 Walking, weaving, observing, storytelling, singing, drawing, and writing all proceed along lines. Lines can be interrupted but also have the potential to reconnect, interweave and eventually become endless. HOOKUP plus Threads and Traces

Students Brno Saša Smolej, Ana Paula Ramirez Venegas, Hsing Jen Lee, Klarissa Ach-Hübner, Diana Bevelaquova, Tarek Malaheifi This studio was conducted in tandem with a separate but intertwined master’s studio at FA VUT Brno in the Czech Republic called “Threads and Traces”. In 1748, the Habsburg monarchy was forced to cede Silesia, and chose Brno as its new centre for wool processing and textile production. Raw wool arrived from all over the world, was carded, combed, spun, and woven by women, and re-entered the world as cloths of many colours, weaves and grades. Described as the Moravian Manchester in its heyday 1850-1930, very little has survived of this golden period. We followed “Threads and Traces” where they led us and explored what we could learn from pliantly immersing ourselves in their flows and forces. In a conscious effort to calibrate between conjecture and activism, we used our finest tool, our hands, to transform bales of raw wool that arrived in much the same state as they would have done in Brno’s heyday, and navigated our way through the threads we create and the traces we leave. HOOKUP plus Threads and Traces equals ignored.technology The work of this studio collective was exhibited at KUMST Brno under the title of “ignored technology” from the 8th of January to the 4th of March 2022, and is still exhibited at the website of the same name www.ignored.technology The work was also presented at the 2nd Claiming*Spaces Conference on the 26th of March 2022 in the panel “Educating Architectures. A Feminist Culture of Learning”. www.claimingspaces.org Thanks to: Carmen Lael Hines, Ebru Kurbak, Monica Titton, Jan Kristek, Luciano Parodi, KUMST Brno, Caritas Vienna, Volkshilfe Vienna, Technical Museum of Brno, Centrum Traditional Technologies Pribor Funding AKTION OEAD, Academy of Fine Arts Vienna Michelle Howard Design Studio BArch3

→ fig. 1-2 / p. 5 → fig. 14 / p. 10 → fig. 31-32 / p. 18 1 A term we use to describe those whose bodies, needs and skills are generally ignored. 2 Ursula K. Le Guin, The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction (1986). 3 Paul Klee, Notebooks. Volume 2. The nature of nature. London: Lund Humphries (1973), 269. 4 Tim Ingold, Lines: A brief history. London, New York: Routledge (2007), 75.


ARCHITECTURE AND ITS ONGOING DISCONTENTS HTC Angelika Schnell Antje Lehn Olivia Ahn Charlotte Beaudon-Römer Jakon Draz Planinsek Salomé Feigenbrügel Lucas Fischötter Woohee Kim Felix Knoll Armin Maierhofer Jonathan Moser Diána Mudrák Anna-Elina Pieber Normunds P ne Mona Prochaska Dana Radzhibaeva Christian Reinecke Paul Schurich

The studio started with a radio feature by Theodor Adorno in 1959 entitled, “Was heißt Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit?” (What does it mean to come to terms with the past?)1 Postulating that “National Socialism lives on!”, Adorno urgently pled for the memory of the Holocaust to be preserved, because its destruction would be a betrayal of the victims of Nazi crimes, who in this way would be deprived even of their memory. The term “Erinnerungskultur” (culture of remembrance) is originally related to an emphasis on the perspective of the victims, which Adorno thus demanded and introduced.2 The first places, architectures and monuments created for such remembrance of a “negative history”3 were commemorative sites, Holocaust memorials and artistic interventions. But with the passing away of survivors, the subsequent generations’ perspective on a culture of remembrance has become broader. It seems that under the guise of dealing carefully with the past, efforts are made – especially in Germany, but also in Austria – to use architecture in order to “sanitize history”, in a way. Strategies vary, but their intention is the same: reconstructing the state of buildings before 1933 to appear “unsullied”; striving for a cubic, white, minimalist style that purports “neutrality”; declaring monumental motifs to be politically neutral stylistic devices, even though they are directly related to the horrors of the Nazi era. Sixteen students created radio features in the course of the studio to explore contemporary architecture projects and the related theory of history issues: Hanada, Richarz, Weißmüller: A fictional but not coincidental encounter Podcast: 21min

The new Bauhaus Museum in Weimar by Heike Hanada, opened in 2019, immediately provoked debate. Its monumental style seems to reflect the architecture of the neighbouring former “Gauforum” (the city’s power centre during the Nazi era) much more than it reflects Bauhaus architecture. In discussions, the architect emphasised that she did not want to surrender classicist motifs to the Nazis. Lucas Fischötter, Jonathan Moser and Christian Reinecke conducted interviews with her, but also with architecture critic Laura Weißmüller and architecture historian Jan Richarz, and combined these to result in a kind of disputation.


wondered why David Chipperfield’s minimalist architecture is so popular in Germany of all places, and especially in places with a troubled past. They met at the foot of the James Simon Gallery on Berlin’s Museum Island, admired the building’s elegance, but also wondered about the office’s ambivalent attitude about the design for the conversion of the House of Art in Munich, criticised as “historical amnesia”.4 Ceci n’est pas un château Podcast: 25min

No doubt about it, the reconstructed Hohenzollern palace in Berlin is a debacle: the so-called Humboldt Forum is questionable in terms of architectural theory, aesthetically repulsive and politically implausible. It is an architecture that, as Bénédicte Savoye has pointedly put it, communicates to the outside that history can be undone, whereas keeping the ethnological collection presented inside in Berlin is defended by arguing that reproductions can never really replace originals. In three acts, Salomé Feigenbrügel, Armin Maierhofer, Anna-Elina Pieber and Mona Prochaska explored the philosophical, architectural and urban planning policy dimensions – in each case interrupted by bizarre advertising messages. Potsdam Garrison Church: An Audio Essay in Six Chapters Podcast: 28min

Receiving a bit less public attention, a dispute is raging around the reconstruction of the Potsdam Garrison Church, which was the site of the so-called Day of Potsdam, when Hitler symbolically asserted his power after the elections to the Reichstag in 1933. In their radio essay, Jakob Draz and Normunds Pune sought to adopt a dispassionate and detached stance. Inspired by the Dutch Nulbeweging movement, they let the protagonists of the parties to the dispute have their say without intervening themselves. Instead, they made occasionally enigmatic references to Jonathan Meese, Slavoj Žižek, Hannah Arendt or Ludwig II of Bavaria in order to challenge various political and aesthetic fault lines. A House is a House is a House Podcast: 27min

The old house located at Salzburger Vorstadt 15 in Braunau is a source of irritation for the town’s inhabitants. Since the Austrian state expropriated the house where Hitler was born, and subsequently launched a competition with the express goal of “neutralising” the place, Felix Knoll and Paul Schurich undertook a critical, ironic exploration of the award-winning projects’ atmospheric impact in a fictional walking tour. The podcast is accompanied and interrupted by interviews conducted in Braunau, as well as with members of the association “Diskurs Architektur”, who have done artistic and theoretical work to make the political zigzagging around the competition visible. Sonata of Guilt – A Document of Memory Podcast: 24min

Walk and talk sessions 07 – Are we ready to face the past? Podcast: 17min

Woohee Kim and Dana Radzhibaeva have developed a dedicated podcast series entitled “Walk and Talk”, which they use to discuss issues of contemporary architecture in entertaining and also controversial ways. In their most recent session, they

Guilt is a strong emotion that may grip even later generations in Germany and Austria when faced with the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. However, the documentation centres on the Nazi era in Munich and Berlin seem to strive rather for an architectural style meant to be as objective as possible in order to impede any stirring of emotion. Instead, visitors are expected to soberly and objectively “process” history in neutral structures and showcases. Olivia Ahn and Diána Mudrák

doubt that this can be done, especially as architecture always stirs emotions. With artistic means, but also by reading out texts by Winfried Nerdinger and Mirjam Zadoff (the former and current directors of the Munich Documentation Centre for the History of National Socialism), they created a sound collage that raises questions. What We Don't See – or How to Create a Space of Reconciliation Podcast: 20min

Charlotte Beaudon-Römer also sought an artistic way to address the contradictions inherent in Berlin’s controversial Documentation Centre for Displacement, Expulsion, Reconciliation. Here, too, the white, pure design by the Austrian office Marte.Marte for the sculptural and architectural conversion of the Deutschlandhaus built in 1931 tends to distract from rather than point to fault lines in society. Inspired by Walter Ruttmann’s idea of a “photographic audio drama”, photos of the Deutschlandhaus from various eras were used as the basis of a descriptive text collage, with a writing technique gleaned from George Perec’s Tentative d'épuisement d'un lieu parisien. The radio features made by the students, who were socialised in various countries – some in Austria or Germany, others in Slovenia, France, Korea, Cyprus or Latvia – did not always deal with the issue of historical awareness in architecture in the way we expected, making the semester a learning process for everyone involved. Arguably, a culture of remembrance must be dynamic: each generation relates differently not to remembrance as such, but to a particular instance of remembrance. Angelika Schnell Design Studio BArch5

→ fig. 12 / p. 9 → fig. 24 / p. 14-15 → fig. 33-35 / p. 19 1 Adorno, Theodor W. (1971): “Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit.” In: Adorno, Theodor W.: Erziehung zur Mündigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 10-28 2 Assmann, Aleida (2013): Das neue Unbehagen an der Erinnerungskultur. Eine Intervention. Munich: C.H. Beck, p. 189 3 Ibid., p. 12 4 Jean Wolfgang Stock, “Nach Weißwaschung nun Rückbau”, in: Bauwelt, 04.04.2017, https://www. bauwelt.de/themen/betrifft/Nach-Weisswaesche-nunRueckbau-Haus-der-Kunst-Chipperfield-2805151. html

ADP Michael Hirschbichler Felix Beyer Andreas Brandstetter Pablo de Mingo Palacios Hannah Ehre Kaspar Kleinhenz Alina Meyer Magdalena Stainer Ilinca Urziceanu Blanca Zamora-Troncoso Reviewers and guests: Thomas Feuerstein Michelle Howard Alex Hurst Antje Lehn Luciano Parodi Paul Petritsch Angelika Schnell Gabriela Seifert-Kavan Werner Skvara Hannes Stiefel Wolfgang Tschapeller

PHANTASMOGRAPHY II continued our critical engagement with contemporary spaces and territories in relation to the phantoms and phantasms that inhabit and shape them. While PHANTASMOGRAPHY I dealt with spaces of extraction, PHANTASMOGRAPHY II focused on spaces of accumulation. Simply put, everything we make and build happens in

a field between extraction and accumulation – between taking something away from somewhere and gathering it somewhere (else). Extraction and accumulation thus mark the poles of our cultural, political and economic life, and underlie all forms of spatial production. In the studio, we concentrated on an array of exemplary forms of accumulation that are most relevant in terms of their impact on contemporary territories. These comprise accumulations of material resources, of goods, of waste, of data, of culture, of capital, of bodies, of weather, and of hopes, dreams and fears. In their projects, the students engaged with these types of accumulation in diverse ways: Felix Beyer traced the interrelations between mining, production and consumption landscapes. Andreas Brandstetter and Magdalena Stainer staged a material, territorial and ideological spatial history of oil. Pablo de Mingo put industrially optimized agricultural accumulation in relation to utopian and dystopian histories and their corresponding structures. Alina Meyer assembled a bricolage of a “garbage nation” from bits and pieces of material and ideological waste. Hannah Ehre translated digital phantoms and ruins back to the material world from which they originated and thereby explored their mutual implications. Blanca Zamora-Troncoso designed a contemporary tower of Babel as the ultimate structure of accumulation. Kaspar Kleinhenz acted out accumulations and manipulations of weather on different scales. And Ilinca Urzicanu performatively recorded and lived through spaces of fear using her own body. These heterogeneous projects are tied together through the common approach of a “Phantasmography”1 that we tried to develop in the studio. Based on the assumption that architecture is not, first and foremost, an object, but an accumulation of myriad material and immaterial relations, we embraced ghosts and phantoms as useful concepts that help us to understand our position and act amid these relations. Phantasmography, as we envision it, is a spatial practice concerned with establishing connections and understandings between the material and the immaterial (stories, memories, histories), between the visible and the invisible, between past, present and future, between the living and the dead, between facts and fictions. Key aspects of phantasmography are: THE 3 A’S – ARCHITECTURE, ART, ANTHROPOLOGY: Phantasmography is a practice that combines methods and techniques from the disciplines of architecture, art and anthropology, in order to develop a multidisciplinary and multisensory understanding of contemporary spaces and man-made landscapes. ALIGNING TWO MODES OF THINKING: Phantasmography coordinates and aligns two different modes of thinking and making: a scientific, secular, fact-based, modern, Western mode, and an artistic, non-secular, speculative, non-modern and non-Western mode. Only by combining and intertwining these commonly upheld oppositions is it possible to understand how diverse phantoms and fantasies contribute to shaping the world we (and many others) inhabit. ON-SITE/OFF-SITE RELATIONSHIPS: Phantasmography is a situated, sitespecific approach that puts concrete sites in relation to other sites (and nonsites) that they are entangled with through manifold processes and dependencies. RESEARCH AND DESIGN: Phantasmography combines research on, within and with spaces and landscapes with their transformation in critical design projects. Reading and writing, understanding and transforming are thereby inextricably intertwined. WORKING WITH AND THROUGH ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL MEDIA: Phantasmography is conscious of the role that media play in the process. Media serve to make certain things visible, while obscuring others in turn. They both reduce and introduce uncertainty. As often fleeting

representations that mediate (in)visibilities, they sometimes turn into phantoms themselves. Michael Hirschbichler Design Studio MArch

→ fig. 3 / p. 5 → fig. 11 / p. 8 → fig. 15 / p. 10 → fig. 26 / p. 15 1 Building and expanding upon: Robert Desjarlais, “Phantasmography,” in American Anthropologist 118, 2 (June 2016) 400-407.

ESC Hannes Stiefel Luciano Parodi Paul Böhm Manuel Gruber Tim Handl Alice Hoffmann Dila Kirmizitoprak Anna Orbanic Patricio Sota-Renero Matias Tapia Catherine Zesch Reviewers and guests: Aristide Antonas Andrea Börner Thomas Feuerstein Zmary Gharwal Michael Hirschbichler David Lieberman Valerie Messini Damjan Minovski Josh Müller Dominik Strzelec Peter Trummer René Ziegler Susanne Zottl

INTO THE DARK, OUT OF THE DARK You run at risk of getting lost in the dark, especially if the terrain of investigation is still unfamiliar – that was the prospect at the beginning of the studio Urban Scotoecologies. To dive into the depths and shadows of a forecast city that hovers above the existing city of Vienna, and to explore and design its architectural particularities beyond brightness, is a true challenge. That the resulting projects found a way out of the gloom and formulated promising and idiosyncratic urban twilight concepts, at times even establishing potential foundations for future RAUMPARK1 structures – this may satisfy all the requirements of a master studio. That these projects open up a much larger discourse on the potentialities of future darker cities, that is the true yield of the term. Hannes Stiefel, Luciano Parodi

STRANGE INVERSION “To these dispossessed souls, space seems to be a devouring force. Space pursues them, encircles them, digests them in a gigantic phagocytosis. It ends by replacing them. Then the body separates itself from thought, the individual breaks the boundary of his skin and occupies the other side of his senses. He tries to look at himself from any point whatever in space. He feels himself becoming space, dark space where things cannot be put. The ego is permeable for darkness, while it is not for light; the feeling of mystery that one experiences at night would not come from anything else. Minkowski likewise comes to speak of dark space and almost of a lack of distinction between the milieu and the organism: Dark space envelops me on all sides and penetrates me much deeper than light space; the distinction between inside and outside [...] here play only a totally modest role.”2 Darkness is not the absence of light, nor is it black – it is a state of mind. The protagonists are being absorbed and digested by space; there is a lack of authority. Darkness is the space of exploration, experimentation, obsession and uncanniness. It is a thick matter, a living entity. We are living in the paradox of inside and outside; everything is a body, is my body. Milieu and body become indistinguishable. Instead there are intensities, empathies, and there is fluidity.



Exploring the darkness in Francis Bacon’s paintings methodologically, an alienated relationship between body and space, figure and ground, organ and framework, flesh, skin and armature emerges. By extending the complex of the project’s site (a university campus), the project investigates the idea of a fluid and deformed body to be inhabited, to be taken over. Other than environmental conditions, there is no pre-occupation of the space. It is a living entity that probes its interior and exterior spaces in order to react to its conditions and inhabitants, creating an endless feedback loop within an open system. It is a piece of machinery, a self-regulating system, of which humans are never fully in control.

structure. Studies of its vegetation cycles, the cycles of conventional and organic winemaking, and studies about the potential integration of the large bat population on site into these cycles, (in)formed the design approach. Darkness not only marks endings but also offers the potential of new beginnings and progress – as we can learn from wine. In darkness we produce, store and age wine. Additionally, wine involves an interspecies effort and entanglement between humans, animals, machines and bacteria. How to construct a spatial structure that allows us to perceive the otherness of the opposite species in a way that includes non-visual perceptions and behaviours triggered in darkness? To create a cultural space that blurs boundaries in order to truly confront the great otherness of the new urban situation underneath the “Faux Terrain” with a different understanding and gaze? To approach an architecture that aims to establish well-balanced interspecies cycles? “Where the vision is blurred...” aims to bring all of this together in an architecture that functions as a multihybrid – a hybrid between machine, habitat, production and learning space, between an urban size pillar and public circulation – a hybrid between different species, implementing processes that blur distinctions and offer a preview of a new multispecies society that may arise in the darkness created by RAUMPARK in between the built city and itself.

Paul Böhm

ALTERNATING SHADOWS It’s hard to deny that day and night are linked. The principal aim of Alternating Shadows is to explore darkness, to embrace the shadows of the unknown, searching for a space in between – to result in a benefit for the city. The project interprets – through the lens of darkness – the concept of “the house” as a dialogue between soft and hard. The fiction of an inhabitable infrastructure uses the alternating seasons of the year and the change between day and night. It acknowledges that the aesthetics of technology is never neutral but evolves over time, and reflects the changes of and in the culture that produces it. Alternating shadows add a new component to the script of the city in a world of increasing environmental diseases and energy needs. They represent a kinetic form of energy production by using Vienna’s wind situation throughout diverse time scales of days and years. The parameters of wind and transforming processes make it possible to establish an artificially produced layer of physical phenomena called “inversions”. This could be seen as a model for the creation of space, and enriches “the house” in an atmospheric way, offering a settlement for the city.

Tim Handl Design Studio MArch

→ fig. 13 / p. 9 → fig. 18 / p. 12 → fig. 29 / p. 16 → fig. 30 / p. 18 1 RAUMPARK is a concept for ecological urban megastructures that will extend and densify our cities in the third dimension, operating simultaneously as beyond-urban-scale climate devices (see also ESC design studios of the last few years). 2 Anthony Vidler, The Architectural Uncanny (London: MIT Press, 1994), 174.

Manuel Gruber

THE WATER TOWER The project deals with darkness, the medium of water, and with atmospheres. The Tower punches through diverse layers of the earth, the city of Vienna, the space in between RAUMPARK and the city, and the free space above RAUMPARK. It acts as a connector, operating with the resources that surround it. The water of the Danube canal is filtered and stored in cold and warm water cisterns. Additionally to these storage spaces, the tower is equipped with clever skins and hairs. They act as sensors, detecting temperatures, and as ejectors of water or vapour as well as light. The cisterns contain water, turbines to keep the water in motion, and heaters to keep them at a constant temperature. The hairs are the brain of the tower. They measure the environment’s moisture content and regulate humidity while controlling the water exchange between the cisterns and the environment. Humans are of no importance to the building; the tower just communicates with environmental data (facts) and operates only to the benefit of the environments. Humans occupy only the liminal space of the tower’s vertical circulation area. A massive staircase and an elevator lead people from the city to RAUMPARK or the other way around.The tower acts as a light bulb. The translucent water cisterns break the daylight into caustic surfaces, thus creating deep dark areas and, in high contrast, deep light areas on the surface and into the city. The vertical circulation structure contains water in its walls – the higher up you go in the tower, the darker it becomes since the water walls get deeper, ending inside the cisterns, where consequently the deepest, darkest accessible spaces occur. Dila Kirmizitoprak

WHERE THE VISION IS BLURRED… “Where the vision is blurred...” is based in the new urban situation created by the (no longer virtual) megastructure RAUMPARK – more precisely at its western edge near the Vienna Woods. Almost 1000 years old, the vineyard Ried Alsegg, which will be hugely affected by the newly created condition of Darkness, acts as the focal point of this piece of mega-

GLC Aristide Antonas Julian Berger Oscar Binder Nikol Dlaba ová Yoko Halbwidl Hannah Heiemann Martin Kohlberger Stepan Nesterenko Lisa Penz Nikolaus Podlaha Hans Nikolaus Schmidt Reviewers and guests: Elina Axioti, Humboldt University Roberta Jurcic, ETH Zurich Katerina Koutsogianni, Antonas office Asli Serbest, HFK Bremen Malkit Shoshan, Harvard GSD Thanos Zartaloudis, Kent University

Negative Landscapes begins as an archaeology of the blurring difference between rural and urban character. If the countryside and the city were constructed conceptually by mutual reference to their negatives, what can be seen as the negative of a homogeneous geography of infrastructure? As Marshall McLuhan wrote in 1970, “the CITY no longer EXISTS except as a cultural ghost for tourists. Any highway eatery with its TV set, newspaper and magazine is as cosmopolitan as New York or Paris. The peasant was always a suburban parasite. The farmer no longer exists; today he is a “city” man”.1 From then on, this unified land of mediated experience that the city became was solidified in a way to produce an idiosyncratic field. The studio introduced research about new definitions of this exact conceptual space, namely the areas left out of this continuum, urban extensions to it, or some defined non-urban options negating the primacy of this construction. The studio was oriented towards the limits of the new urban and tried to articulate parallel stories about some of its negations. By naming the field of “Negative Landscapes”, we assert the

existence of problematic areas that resist, benevolently or not, this absorption by infrastructure. Encountering difficulties in seeing the limits of an infrastructure that is always already present, the studio targeted the areas where its presence is blurred, unusual, strategic, or seemingly absent. If life without buildings is now announced as a life in infrastructure, we explore the areas that still cannot fit well into the “immaterial building” of infrastructure and into the architecture of its mediated landscapes. A question is proposed in a political tone, even if it refers primarily to the digitalisation of public life and its social atmosphere. The question about Negative Landscapes is translated to parallel ones: how can the study of the countryside and urban landscapes frame different political orders in their problematically defined borders? What landscape elements lead to alternative writings, transforming given areas or complex interdependent systems? The studio focused on digital representations and visual reconstructions of landscapes, influenced by readings on the concepts of urban and rural landscapes. Negative Landscapes indicate the dynamics of a difficult inversion rather than the description of malevolent situations. However, the malevolent side of infrastructure was present in most of the studio’s work. At the same time, the studio marked a distance from the traditional bibliography analysing the city. The distance from the tradition of humanism is inherent in this problem of necessary human action in a post-human world, where the scale of action cannot manage to respond to the magnitude of the question. In this context, the question of large scale is haunted by a ghost and structured as a function of infrastructure. Nowadays, infrastructure dictates the geopolitical land, the philosophy of landscape, in many ways and at different scales. A contemporary archaeology of landscape – where fields of infrastructural remains interweave invisible disciplines – serves as the background for the studio. Digital representation was meant to produce a possible form of critical constructions. The production of the studio was finalized as a series of architectural drawings, point cloud findings, digital archaeology and videos, textual narratives or micro-legislative literature. A set of observations and recordings are meant to narrate accidents or side stories in the infrastructure sphere, or demonstrate selected areas of interest; in parallel to these archaeological constructions, some transformational projective interventions intend to bring about different orders, or comment on upcoming changes of the social sphere. Even though this research is driven by a range of digital and artistic means, it originates from practical exploration and solid observations, and aims to comment on the social status quo and its forgotten facets. The traditions of architectural design and various software or post-production techniques are deployed to interpret the new “great outdoors” and its imaginary constitution, be it the invisible part of the neoliberal city or the hidden structures of traditional landscapes. Using architectural production as idiorhythmic writings, the studio intends to create elementary narratives while organizing personal languages that describe specific fields. The fragmented narratives locally translate elements of existing geographies into already represented and articulated settings. Aristide Antonas Design Studio MArch

→ fig. 5-6 / p. 7 → fig. 9-10 / p. 8 → fig. 22 / p. 13 → fig. 25 / p. 15 1 Marshall McLuhan, Counterblast (London: Rapp & Whiting, 1970), 12.



Thesis project Jakob Jakubowski

A CINEMATIC RECONSTRUCTION OF EVERYDAY SPATIAL ROUTINES (...AS PROMPTED BY MARCEL) Thesis project Christopher Gruber Advisors Wolfgang Tschapeller Werner Skvara

(Game engine, bed, linen blanket, architectural models, drawings on apothecary paper, sleeper) The research objective of this project is a digital reconstruction of Marcel Proust’s living and working space. The fundamental question is the following: What did Marcel Proust see when he wrote the episode of the madeleine for his novel In Search of Lost Time? The plan for this project brings two elements together – the studio and the work of art. In this context, space is understood as an element conditioning the creation of works of art. The combination of these two elements yields new interpretations and perspectives on the perceived reception of works of art and buildings. Proust’s room is digitally reconstructed and retold by means of an in-depth exploration of scientific biographies and the memoirs of his housekeeper, Céleste Albaret, as well as visual research on museum exhibits. The resulting film installation attempts to expand what is seen beyond human sight, and to make the hidden spaces in Proust’s room visible. The first section of the project is dedicated to research on Proust’s life and his spatial situations. Subsequently, the methodology of repetition as a design tool is examined in greater detail. The final section features an approach to conveying the objects of examination through media. In this, Proust’s bedchamber has decisive architectural significance. The urgency of this project arises from the observation that contemporary, spatial production in architecture has turned into a sort of cockpit simulation on autopilot. Or rather: Why do we no longer have an outside? Escalating seriality, and an interest in the complete disassembly of architecture into its tectonic elements, requires a re-evaluation of architectural practice. Besides a statistical and escalating dynamic repetition of elements, this thesis seeks to operate in another repetitive mode. To that effect, this project puts itself in the smallest possible unit of spatial circumstances: a bed in a city, or in the present case, a studio in a system of semi-autonomous cells. In conclusion, architectural repetition of lost spaces is not a call to transform a city into visual forms of the past, trying to fit old buildings from a bygone era into a new order. Repetition and history imply a socialised approach to architecture that seeks to provide architectural repetition with an architectural representation of repetition. Architecture should be capable of giving form to these processes and expanding the range of possibilities. Any repetition will inevitably lead to difference, which is understood as a desirable attribute in this spirit. Prompter: Marcel Proust; assistant director: Christina Ehrmann; sleeper (performer): Mona Abdel Baky; voice-over: Jessica Fisher, Frieda Zapf; technical assistant: Manuel Gruber; graphic advisor: Florian Röthel; research assistants: Christina Ehrmann, Elisa Mazagg; prop making: Marcella Brunner, Peter Gruber, Manuel Gruber; proofreading: Mona Steinmetzer, Clara Fickl, Christina Ehrmann, Dorothea Ehrmann

→ fig. 19 / p. 12 → fig. 27-28 / p. 16-17

Advisor Hannes Stiefel Dominik Strzelec

HOOD140 is a thesis project in the form of a cinematic journey, exploring the quite familiar, yet uncanny reality of the Neu Marx area – one of the many decentralized hoods in the city of Vienna. Embracing the capability of music to communicate a sense of belonging, this project deals with a new kind of poetry by introducing the character of a narrating DJ and critically transcribing its apparatus into the architectural domain. The term ‘Homo separatio’ has replaced the notion of Homo sapiens as the dominant form of existence in human societies, while everybody has been compelled to become architects of their own augmented environments. The hood’s virtual realms have turned into territories of almost permanent retreat ... for those willing to distance themselves from their grimy everyday lives. Along their way, the documentation team comes across numerous temptations for possible realities, which address the linearity of a timeline, and the 'here and now’ results itself in multitudes of feasible scenarios, concurrently present in the hoodscape of the near future. This work is a polyphonic choir, as opposed to a conventional ‘architectural proposal’. It grew over the last couple of years, incorporating multiple perspectives, reacting to the turbulent times we are living in. It questions what it means to be engaged with architecture in the first place. It consists of a great deal of heterogeneous material: captured, recorded experiences, as well as entities produced from scratch, translated and mixed into radically new forms. This project evolved in the circumstances of many encounters – interdisciplinary partnerships, debates, jam sessions and collective research. It emerged from a quite literal current of a vast range of expertise: from modelling, programming, storytelling, cinematography and CGI, to leading an experimental HTL workshop or collaborating with Grime and Rap musicians in composing and producing an album. This journey is reflected in the outcome of a mockumentary movie – as ‘real’ and fictional characters who played a major role in the development of the thesis, as well as their alter egos and avatars, come together in the framework of my film. It tells a 3-fold story (from the perspective of 3 different narrators), with different camera paths across multiple timelines. There are 3 different perspectives established – 3 languages that stand for 3 voices and represent different mindsets that will guide us through HOOD140. This documentary elaborates on a specific scenario of a Hood Society, based on and inspired by a mood of Grime, embracing the musical qualities and cultural aspects of this rebellious underground creative movement. This cinematographic formation is a self-referential, self-aware and self-critical piece that makes an attempt to call into question the very attitude of how architecture is conceived ... to investigate the relationship between the realm of architectural representation and its content. Today we face a time of crises and situations of increasing despair, isolation and withdrawal into virtual worlds. This new agenda, however, has potential particularly for architects who explore communication through audiovisual storytelling. The music genre called Grime (from Flemish grijm, Middle Dutch grime ‘soot, mask’), formed in the estates of East London, will provide a sociocultural basis for HOOD140. This music was generally produced by and within a dedicated community, serving as a political weapon that opened up the possibility of a gateway for escape. Playing abroad for the first time, or even reaching new audiences beyond the common youth clubs or the local pirate radio stations, was mind-expanding. Through identification with the local surroundings, and the urge of young artists



to find support and appreciation by the community, Grime culture quite often triggered an atmosphere of neighbourhood nationalism. On the other hand, Grime often helped to transcend racial segregation, to develop slang as well as a DIY culture, and to create a sense of harmony within a harsh and heavily suppressed environment. This strong local identity was a response to and simultaneously a consequence of extreme density, or rather urban claustrophobia, triggered by processes of gentrification, which often left those communities in a politically dictated, narrowed ‘ghetto frame of mind’. Embracing the capability of music to communicate a sense of belonging, HOOD140 deals with a new kind of poetry, by mimicking and controlling the character of a narrating DJ while critically transcribing its apparatus into architectural methodologies.

Plans and sections were not identified before 1923. And an interesting number of images were printed without any text to make sense of them. In fact, Loos’s theory and Loos’s images went uncoordinated for the better part of this period.

This project constructs an outlook on possible, alternative future societies, based on the culture of the hood. It uses different languages, perspectives and lyrics from three MCs to describe the hood from different distances. In this short mockumentary, I treat Neu Marx, an area in Vienna, as a green screen for a hood environment never seen before in order to, perhaps, uncover different possibilities for the current moment. My project aims to stir up architectural discipline by appropriating the tasks of a ‘kitbashing’ DJ by means of a speculative and falsified hood documentary, discovering the times when everybody is inclined, or even forced, to design spaces of their own.

Things changed for Loosian images in 1923, when Loos took part in the Paris Salon d’Automne with four projects that would dominate his media presence during the rest of the 1920s. The number of printed images soared, and their publication in non-German journals caught up with the traditional German ones. It was those unbuilt projects, rather than the Viennese buildings that we have come to consider his canonical oeuvre, that the words “Adolf Loos” would have prompted in the minds of readers at the turn of the decade. And as odd as it may seem now, only from 1923 onwards was Loos systematically framed as an architect, first and foremost, and not as a writer. 1923 is probably the year when seeing Loos overtook reading Loos. In a sense, the dissertation turns preconceived notions of Loos’s media strategy upside down. It forces us to consider if there was a strategy at all, and if what we have come to understand as a man’s control of his own visual narrative was perhaps a rationalization of very haphazard events.


→ fig. 7-8 / p. 6-7



This thesis tells a new story about Adolf Loos. Not who Adolf Loos is, now, after decades of research. Rather, the blurry, gaseous, incoherent picture painted in the media during the better part of his lifetime – when it mattered for the modern movement. Before historians moved in and framed him, studied him, and coined what is canonical Loos. But this is a story of images. It asks what could be seen, not what could be read. And what could actually be inferred from those few pictures. By forgetting the tide of visual records published from 1928 onwards, it reconstructs a European setting where the actual look of Loos’s buildings was nothing short of a mystery. Trawling the printed media, the dissertation identifies and interprets 120 images of Loos’s architecture published between 1899 and 1927. They include cartoons, plans, photographs, renderings and sketches, deployed in all sorts of publications, from tabloids to architecture magazines, written in numerous languages. Together they form a catalogue raisonné that raises questions previously unasked: Which buildings could people see the most? How did the place and language of publication vary with time? How did interior views compare to exterior views? And how comprehensible were they actually? The findings are eye-opening, and reveal a chasm between our belief in the visibility of Loos’s buildings – not of his texts – and their actual visibility during his lifetime. Most of the sanctified buildings were hardly there. Occasionally, projects were not even attributed to Loos. Some of his buildings were often shown fragmentarily, dissembling their radicalism, and in some cases the image quality made them close to unintelligible. The Loosian interior, the cynosure of aficionados, almost disappeared from publications after 1903.

PhD project Sigrid Prinz Advisor August Sarnitz

Award-winning and controversial, both visionary and misunderstood, ironic and critical: SPLITTERWERK’s [building] work takes on architectural and artistic shapes that polarise, often alienating fellow architects and bewildering observers without formal professional training. This is the first academic thesis to provide a comprehensive analysis of the SPLITTERWERK label, founded in Graz towards the end of the 1980s, and its free and applied artistic production in the context of history, art, architecture and media. Case studies of selected works exemplify these intersections, as well as connections between history, culture and architectural theory. Numerous plans and photographs visualise the theoretical discourse spanned by the SPLITTERWERK projects discussed in this thesis. In scope, this ranges from regional events and global trends in contemporary architecture to postmodernism and the beginnings of modernism, and back to the historical art styles of Baroque, late Baroque/ Rococo and Art Nouveau, as well as to the contemporary art movements of Dadaism, Conceptual Art, and the aesthetics of Op Art and Pop Art. These reflections are to be understood as exemplary and as representing a given moment in time. Their elaboration aims to make a contribution to basic research in architectural history and theory, as well as to an understanding of the architectural and artistic forms of SPLITTERWERK’s [building] work. Furthermore, this thesis intends to stimulate a revision of contemporary architectural practice.


THE ARCHITECT AND CITY PLANNER ROLAND RAINER BETWEEN DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY 2022-2024 Angelika Schnell Ingrid Holzschuh Waltraud Indrist Monika Platzer (AzW) Susanne Rick This research project (P34938) is funded by FWF Austrian Science Fund. Roland Rainer was one of the best-known architects and urban planners of post-war modernism in Austria. The Stadthalle in Vienna (1958), the Puchenau housing estate near Linz (1965-2000) and the ORF Centre in Vienna (1968-1974) are among his buildings. It is less well known that he went to Berlin as early as 1936, two years before Austria's “Anschluss” to the National Socialist German Reich in 1938, and placed himself in the service of the German Academy for Urban Development, Reich and Regional Planning (DASRL), which was practically and theoretically subordinate to Albert Speer, the General Building Inspector for the Reich capital. Consequently, he was integrated into the National Socialist system not only through his early membership in the NSDAP, but also through his practice, hardly just through opportunism. In fact, he already developed his central theories on urban planning and architecture in the early 1940s at the DASRL. During this period, he conceived and wrote, together with his colleagues Johannes Göderitz and Hubert Hofmann, the first version of “Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt”, which was published in 1945 and became a standard work in German-speaking countries in its second version of 1957. This writing contains something typical for its time: it criticises the modern, densely populated city, it pleads for a garden city model in which living, working, traffic and leisure are disentangled and people live “at ground level”. Only in the first version is this living "folk-biologically" propagated as the right way of living. Racist dictions like this are no longer found in the second version of 1957. But has the concept changed significantly as a result? The research project, a collaboration between the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (where Rainer taught as a professor) and the Architekturzentrum Wien (where Rainer's estate is located), will be dedicated to investigating this question in two ways. On the one hand, Rainer’s historical development as a modernist architect will be examined in more detail for the first time; this includes his time as a student at the Vienna University of Technology in the 1920s. On the other hand, a current reassessment of the "ambivalence of architectural modernism" itself will be possible via Rainer's concrete biography. Especially in the context of recent research on colonialism and racism in modern architecture, the question of the inherent biopolitics of garden city models can become substantial with the analysis of Rainer’s work. To this end, the "articulated and loosened city" as described by Rainer will be sketched for the first time and compared with other urban planning models. In addition, the complete estate will be reviewed and evaluated, and further material on Rainer will be excavated and analysed in archives in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. In this way, Rainer's work is placed in a differentiated and wellfounded context.


ADP Michael Hirschbichler The seminar lecture series PHANTOM FORUM, which was associated with the studio PHANTASMOGRAPHY, opened up a larger discourse on the agency of diverse phantoms and phantasms in relation to contemporary spatial realities and practices. Assembling original international voices from the fields of architecture and urbanism, contemporary art, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, literature and post-apocalyptic studies, the seminar inspired discussions on spaces and landscapes at the nexus of human and nonhuman action, active and passive matter, living and dead persons and species, secular and non-secular practices, reality and imagination. In the course of two semesters, spaces of extraction and accumulation where thus entangled in a multidisciplinary web of artistic and scientific stories. The invited speakers were, in order of appearance: Chris Wright, Goldsmiths, University of London (Department of Anthropology), 9 March 2021 İpek Hamzaoğlu, Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (Institute for Art Theory and Cultural Studies), 23 March 2021 Wolfgang Marx & Peter Niedermaier, Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (Institute for Fine Arts), 4 May 2021 Heather Anne Swanson, Aarhus University (Department of Anthropology / Centre for Environmental Humanities), 11 May 2021 Xavier Ribas, University of Brighton (School of Art and Media), 8 June 2021 Ulrike Draesner, German Literature Institute Leipzig (German Literature), 22 June 2021 Charlotte Malterre-Barthes, Harvard GSD (Department of Urban Planning and Design), 11 October 2021 Aleksandar Staničić, TU Delft (Department of Architecture), 18 October 2021 Jane Rendell, The Bartlett School of Architecture (Critical Spatial Practice, Faculty of the Built Environment), UCL, 25 October 2021 Melanie Sehgal, University of Wuppertal (Institute for Basic Research on the History of Philosophy), 22 November 2021 Martin Savransky, Goldsmiths, University of London (Department of Sociology), 6 December 2021 Benjamin Steininger & Alexander Klose, MPI for the History of Science (curators of the exhibition “Oil. Beauty and Horror in the Petrol Age” at Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg), 13 December 2021 Daniel Barber, University of Pennsylvania (Weitzman School of Design) / University Heidelberg (Käte Hamburger Centre for Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic Studies), 24 January 2022



fig. 1–2 To overcome attempts to reveal the reality of textile consumption. We are actors in this network that deals in cheap merchandise and the values projected upon them. As we consume, a string of actions merges into a finite end all too quickly. Elliott Griffith. Bilum Bozagi, my grandmother folded her bozagi (Korean handkerchief) to carry everything; unfolding her bozagi was always something joyful. The bilum and the bozagi interacted. The T-Shirt yarn’s elasticity heightened and encouraged playful interaction. Soryun Lee. HOOKUP → p. 1

fig. 3 Body Traces (a sensual inquiry of spaces of fear). Film still: Ilinca Urziceanu. Phantasmography II. Spaces of Accumulation → p. 2



fig. 4 Garbage Nation. Photo collage: Alina Meyer. Phantasmography II. Spaces of Accumulation → p. 2



fig. 5–6 Territories of the PostAnthropocene. Stills. Landscape Collage Landscape generated by AI Lisa Penz. Negative Landscapes → p. 3

fig. 7–8 KITSFORKIDS HOOD140 MODEL 1:500 A view on the hood. HOOD140. Jakob Jakubowski → p. 3-4



fig. 9–10 Abandoned Cable Car Station. Stills. Anti Avalanche Tunnel Alpine Apparatus. Julian Berger. Negative Landscapes → p. 3

fig. 11 Garbage Nation. Plan. Alina Meyer. Phantasmography II. Spaces of Accumulation → p. 2


fig. 13 Morphing textures. Strange Inversion. Paul Böhm. Urban Scotoecologies → p. 2-3


fig. 12 How have the form and function of the former Deutschlandhaus changed in the course of time? What is a “photographic audio drama”? Is it possible to represent images in an audio format? What We Don‘t See – or How to Create a Space of Reconciliation. Charlotte Beaudon Römer Building: Documentation Centre for Displacement, Expulsion, Reconciliation, Berlin. Photo: Charlotte Beaudon Römer. Radio Palladio: Architecture and Its Ongoing Discontents → p. 2



fig. 14 Exhibition view ignored.technology. KUMST Brno. Photo: Jan Prokopius. HOOKUP → p. 1

Site1:2000 Plan Distribution Plant

Population Nucleous

Population Nucleous

Recycling Plant "Cathedral"

Toad Resevoir


Las Norias de Daza

fig 15 Structures of Accumulation (Agricultural Theater, El Ejido). Site plan. Pablo de Mingo Palacios. Phantasmography II. Spaces of Accumulation → p. 2



fig. 16 Floor Plan Basement. ADP: The Point Cloud, the Basement and the Spiral Stair. Plan assembled by Florian Schüly. Ways of Knowing a Building. → p. 1

fig. 17 Corridor of Winds. Simulation ESC: What You Don’t See. Dóra Kovács. Ways of Knowing a Building. → p. 1

















fig. 18 Masterplan. Alternating Shadows. Manuel Gruber. Urban Scotoecologies → p. 2-3



source: IWEC












1:2000 0m 10 20 30 40 50






fig. 19 Proust’s serial bed – digital drawing printed on apothecary paper (2700x6000mm). A Room with an Outlook. A cinematic reconstruction of everyday spatial routines (...as prompted by Marcel). Christopher Gruber. → p. 3



fig. 20 Individual Model CMT: Fragments: A Collective Model. Ambrosia Köb. fig. 21 Photocollage GLC: New Ways of Entering the Building. Manuel Rugo. Ways of Knowing a Building. → p. 1

fig. 22 Archeology of a Glacier. Alpine Apparatus. Julian Berger. Negative Landscapes → p. 3



fig. 23 Schillerplatz Façade HTC: What about the Grid? Benjamin Baar, Oskar Pollack, Elena Schüter, Anna Kollmann-Suhr. Ways of Knowing a Building. → p. 1



fig. 24 What is memory? What is emotion? What is guilt? Sonata of Guilt – A Document of Memory. Olivia Ahn, Diána Mudrák. Building: Munich Documentation Centre for the History of National Socialism. Photo: Olivia Ahn, Diána Mudrák. Radio Palladio: Architecture and Its Ongoing Discontents → p. 2

fig. 25 The Kardex System is a software driven and expandable storage used for chaotic warehousing, telling the workers by light signals which item to pick and thus subsuming the workers to the computer. Martin Kohlberger. Negative Landscapes → p. 3

fig. 26 Body Traces (a sensual inquiry of spaces of fear). Film still: Ilinca Urziceanu. Phantasmography II. Spaces of Accumulation → p. 2



fig. 29 Section collage. Strange Inversion. Paul Böhm. Urban Scotoecologies → p. 2-3



fig. 27-28 Film still: Digital camera zoom into a teacup. Photographed tea leaves become visible. The figure uses a graphic algorithm to extract the contour of the images. fig. 28 Screenshot: The screenshot shows Marcel Proust’s digitally reconstructed bedroom. A Room with an Outlook. A cinematic reconstruction of everyday spatial routines (...as prompted by Marcel). Christopher Gruber → p. 3



fig. 30 Section. Alternating Shadows. Manuel Gruber. Urban Scotoecologies → p. 2-3

+191,14 m


+150,42 m


1:500 0m







_1 0.0e+00 m/s



± 0,00 m

fig. 31 Crochet closeup. Photo: Sofia Abendstein. fig. 32 HÄKELMOPPED - a ‚crochetage‘ a multifunctional crocheted hyperbolic structure made using the yarn extracted from 250 discarded and repurposed T-shirts. PLEASE DO TOUCH. Paula Hauschildt. Photo: Jan Urbášek. HOOKUP → p. 1



fig. 33 Wenn die Zeit zu 1750 zurück gedreht wird, ja baut man dann an dem Haus, in dem Er-nicht-mehr-geborensein-wird, oder steht hier etwa die Geburtsstätte des Noch-nicht-geboren-Seienden? Kann man diesen komplexen historischen Fragestellungen mit baulichen Lösungen gerecht werden? If time were turned back to 1750, would they be building the house in which “he would no longer have been born”, or would the birthplace of the “not yet born” stand here? Can architectural solutions do justice to these complex questions of history? A House is a House is a House. Felix Knoll, Paul Schurich. Building: Salzburger Vorstadt 15, Braunau. Photo: Angelika Schnell. Radio Palladio: Architecture and Its Ongoing Discontents → p. 2

fig. 34 Audio walk experience as part of a visit to the memorial site of the Gusen concentration camp. Excursion. Photo: Antje Lehn. Radio Palladio: Architecture and Its Ongoing Discontents → p. 2

fig. 35 What is happening in Potsdam? It‘s being rebuilt. My attention is diverted by the very imposing object next to us – the carillon. The question is asked whether it is still in use? No, is the answer. Can they get out of this mess they made? Potsdam Garrison Church: An Audio Essay in Six Chapters. Jakob Draz Planicek and Normunds P ne. Building: Garrison Church Potsdam. Photo: Antje Lehn. Radio Palladio: Architecture and Its Ongoing Discontents → p. 2




FOREWORD Conventional scientific events, and even more so events held within “academic” walls (universities, institutes and academies), often recreate quite a classical discourse as well as a very familiar, conservative structure. The same cannot be said about the Claiming*Spaces1 Conferences and their community, which are a rare example of bold experimentation with approaches/ methods, issues and topics, activities and ways of organising, and participants invited. Since the first conference in 2019, they have been a radical mix of academic and activist features, of theory and practice, of professors, students, artists, protestors and bureaucrats. A rich ground for such endeavours is the field of architecture and feminism. I have known that for a long time, because in 2013, together with my “sisters in arms” (architects and researchers), I founded the women’s avant-garde movement Modernistki (from Ukrainian: Модерністки, meaning ”female modernists”) in Kharkiv that followed a somewhat similar path. We started with meetings of practicing female architects to discuss problems of our profession, as well as the history of architecture and applied arts through the prism of feminism. It grew into a series of scientific conferences dedicated to gender issues in art, architecture and urban planning, organised by the NGO Urban Forms Center and the Heinrich Boell Foundation’s office in Ukraine in 2016 and 2017. In the same

way as Claiming*Spaces, but a little bit earlier, we experimented with both formats and problematic issues, as well as with mixes of participants, facilitating encounters between people who had never interacted before in the usual familiar bubbles of their communities and practices. This gave us a result equal to a bomb explosion, exposing the destructive potential for the “old” in the academic sphere on the one hand, but on the other hand constructiveness – for the creation of something “new”. That is why, from the first moment I got to know Claiming*Spaces, it was obvious to me that we have common approaches and views that I am totally in solidarity with. The conference organisers have succeeded in creating a safe space for outspokenness and freedom of expression. Participating in 2019, I preferred to present a manifesto as the best way to speak publicly, responding to complex conditions. During the second conference in 2022, the full-scale war in Ukraine had already been launched by Russia. But the main title of the conference laid down a strong discussion element I wanted to respond to. And again, the best format for a statement in that kind of academic environment, where you are enabled to be as frank, uncensored and sensuous as possible – which means keeping your subjectivity and releasing your voice in its original, individual form – is a manifesto. Regrettably, it turned out to be a manifesto about the war.

being destroyed, bombed, exterminated, erased, exploded, demolished, deconstructed and killed along with my city of Kharkiv. Does this mean that the one who destroys heritage seizes memory? Does this mean that the one who captures, ruins, exterminates space also appropriates history? Does it mean that the invader, by his tanks, occupies a territory, state or people? Does the rapist possess a victim after an act of sexual penetration? No. No. And one more time no.

In 2019, it was a different time. In my other, old reality, I was here in Vienna participating in the 1st Claiming*Spaces Conference. I gave a talk that my colleagues called a “burnout speech”, and I called it the “dead architect's speech”. Through my personal story, I revealed a multidimensional aspect of the phenomenon of inequality and toxicity of some positive attitudes produced by liberal feminism. What is my reality today? Is it unseen? Definitely, yes. I’m not in Vienna, and you can’t see me. Instead of the role of a “promising young” scholar, I fit the role of a migrant, or the official status of a temporary refugee from a zone of military conflict. My reality is a war. No, no, this is not some kind of local conflict. My reality is a full-scale inhuman, massive war of a terrorist state-aggressor against its former colony. My reality is thousands of missiles fired at civilian infrastructure, all-day shelling hitting residential areas. My reality is thousands of people and hundreds of children killed. My reality is millions of people forced to leave their homes.

Apartment house of "Russia" Insurance Company (now: Palace of Labor), Constitution Square 1, Kharkiv. Architect Hyppolit A. Pretreaus, 1916. Photograph: Pavlo Dorohoi, 2022. Facade detail. Photograph: Oleg Nesterenko.

Academy of Fine Arts Vienna Institute for Art and Architecture (IKA) Schillerplatz 3, 1010 Vienna 2nd floor

My reality is a vastly destroyed home city of Kharkiv. For many years I have been a guide of hundreds and thousands of people into this city. Most of my research and my activist, architectural and restoration projects were related to this city. I wrote a book about this city and sent it to my publisher a month before the war. Its historical centre – its heart, where the largest number of heritage sites of all styles and periods are located – has been ruined. Every fourth building has been destroyed; heritage buildings including the Derzhprom from the UNESCO tentative list are in danger. This, along with other war crimes, could be defined and punished under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. My world, my reality is

Office: Room 213, 2nd floor Ulrike Auer +43 (1) 58816-5101 u.auer@akbild.ac.at Gabriele Mayer +43 (1) 58816-5102 g.mayer@akbild.ac.at

www.akbild.ac.at/ika arch@akbild.ac.at

Why do we still have sympathy for the aggressor? Why do we still need to blame the victim? Give the victim the right to speak. Give the victim the right to be subjective and active. Give the victim the right to fight and take revenge. Let a new history be the history told by the victims. Let the new victims be full of power and energy. Let the victims build their own narrative. Help the victims capture the discourse. And then you will see another history. Then you will see another reality. A reality where the power of one victim is a thousand times stronger than the power of all the missiles and nuclear bombs of all the armies of all the empires of the world. Down with imperialism! Down with colonialism! Down with Russian fascism! Sincerely yours, Ievgeniia Gubkina Ievgeniia Gubkina Architect, architectural historian, curator of architectural and art projects and educational events. She is a co-founder of the NGO Urban Forms Center and the avant-garde women’s movement “Modernistki”. Her work specializes in 20th century architecture and urban planning in Ukraine, and a multidisciplinary approach to heritage studies. Her first book “Slavutych: Architectural Guide” was published in 2015 by DOM Publishers in Germany and was dedicated to the architecture of the last Soviet city of Slavutych, built after the Chornobyl disaster for workers of the Chornobyl NPP. In 2019, after many years of research, her second book “Soviet Modernism. Brutalism. Post-Modernism. Buildings and Structures in Ukraine 1955– 1991” was published in English by Osnovy Publishing and DOM Publishers, and included photographs from all over Ukraine of the most stunning examples of Soviet-Ukrainian architecture from the second half of the 20th century. In 2020–2021 Ievgeniia curated the “Encyclopaedia of Ukrainian Architecture”, a multimedia online project that worked with architecture, history, criticism, cinema and visual arts. After the full-scale Russian war against Ukraine started in February 2022, she was forced to leave Kharkiv and temporarily moved to Latvia. Encyclopaedia of Ukrainian Architecture https://ukrarchipedia.com/ NGO Urban Forms Center https://urbanforms.org.ua/ 1 Michelle Howard and Antje Lehn met Ievgeniia Gubkina through the Claiming*Spaces Network. This open letter was presented at the Claiming*Spaces Conference „Whose History?" on 26th of March 2022 at Architekturzentrum Wien. Michelle Howard, Luciano Parodi and Eva Sommeregger together with students of the IKA, participated in the panel „Educating Architectures. A Feminist Culture of Learning“ in the same event.

Chair / Deputies: Wolfgang Tschapeller Lisa Schmidt-Colinet Christina Condak

Review Winter 2021 Editor: Christina Jauernik Translation: Judith Wolfframm Proofreading: Judith Wolfframm Design: grafisches Büro