12 minute read
the parafictional house
Architecture is often criticized when it attempts to produce something “unrealistic”, denoting that it fails to be real. In today’s world, we depend on the digital interface to suggest and test methods of designing that represent the “real”. However, the digital produces a superficial realism of an object or building really is; it is in-fact a composition of different realities. This is also the case with the physical properties of a material, which when unmasked, represents an outcome of practices, economic and political conditions, and aesthetic motivations. The relationship between the physical and the digital exists as their own individual realities co-exist, but when these realities become “weird”, there is an assumption that they will cease to function. In this paper, I am demonstrating that architecture can still function, and produce new meanings when the reality of the digital is augmented with the physical.
An Essay On The Parafictional House
Architectural spaces are more than often spaces that operate within the boundaries of a permanent structure with specific programs attached to them. Over time, humans evolve and require new technologies and material tectonics to be applied to the construction of buildings and spaces. However, in the recent years, the focus has shifted. As several architectural theorists such as Peter Eisenman and Michael Young have demonstrated, there exist several layers of multiplicity in architectural spaces, each with its own contextual realities. Architectural spaces can reveal their inherent multiplicities through sensory interventions which can immerse the users in plausible realities, allowing the physical spaces to operate dynamically. The reality of architectural spaces is that they can be composite and have the potential to contain a plethora of non-physical elements. This can be represented in many ways such as material use, form, or other artistic and conceptual measures. The medium I am interested in is the process of dynamic projection mapping, and potentially combining the process with audio or kinetic additions.
Projection mapping is the process and medium of digital media being projected by a single or multiple projectors onto physical surfaces without image distortion. This requires the calculation and adjustment of projected imagery to make it wrap correctly onto static objects. Making it dynamic requires a system that is able to sense and track what is happening in the corporeal reality, and to be able to respond to it through projections. This essay will reference related architectural ideas regarding parafiction and will draw a correlation to the medium of projections. I will argue that dynamic projection mapping has significant potential in being able create fully immersive environments through the ideas of parafiction.
Parafiction is typically referred to as a genre of artwork where the boundaries between fact and fiction are blurred. In architecture, parafiction has always in been in the core, and the tension between the various realities of an object is prominent. For instance, when a user interacts with an object or space, the corporeal realities attached to them typically take hierarchy over all the other realties that can be attached. However, through the lens of parafiction, the seams of these attachments can be revealed and are not limited to a specific hierarchy. Jesus Vassallo, a writer on realism in architecture, suggests that by operating on fragments of the real and questioning “how and why specific fragments of reality are chosen and then combined”, there can be a better understanding of the “range of tones and cultural material” that architecture can inhibit.1 This is facilitated in Anna Neimark’s exhibition Rude forms among us, where the object(s) are composited of multiple realities through their forms and material context.2 A megalith form inspired by the stone-age is juxtaposed with its own materiality; commercially available SIPs used for a modern-day ADU.3 This juxtaposition does not attempt to lead the viewer into a specific direction where they must consciously decide the ultimate reality of the objects they see and experience, but rather it offers a “slight release from the present”.4 The expectations of the model, in this case, were very intentional, yet vague, leaving them to be spontaneous and immersive. While functioning as a canon of parafiction, the exhibition demonstrates the promiscuity of the medium.5 The medium incites skepticism through its visual aesthetics, which leaves it open to the viewer to consider alternative plausible realities.6 This can only be done through parafictional spaces, where the corporeal realities of the space have the potential to be secondary to the conceptual ideas attached.
If a space were to attempt to immerse a user by imitation of another space; for example, a room that has jungle sounds and decorations which are meant to simulate specific conditions to immerse the user in a jungle; it then either becomes temporary because the user eventually realizes they are not in an actual jungle or is lied to until they do. The space becomes what Louisa Nyman describes as a gimmick, where it becomes “exhausted” after its first use and must be “thrown away” once the trick has been performed.7 Parafictional spaces, however, constantly challenge the user’s knowledge without specifically defining an ultimate truth to the reality of the space. Referencing the previous example, the parafictional space can immerse someone in a jungle environment while only abstracting specific elements from the jungle. In this case the space is less about hiding or distracting away from the corporeal reality but more rather to suggest what the space could be. The possibilities should not be limited but rather tuned within a range.
In Michael Young’s The Art of the Plausible and the Aesthetics of Doubts, he suggests that realism is defined “as a constructed tension between reality and its representation”, which is precisely the grounds where parafiction operates on. This brings back some ideas from David Eskanazi’s Tired and Behaving Poorly essay, as he questions and compares digital and physical models of paper scrolls, asking, “do these models behave well?”. Architecture operates within the specificities of building, with digital tools increasingly becoming the medium to design objects and the the outcome of these processes are: the digital objects, and an idea of how these buildings should behave. Despite Eskanazi’s explorations being specific to material consequences, there is a point to make when attempting to depict the multiplicity of the realities that an object can pertain. Aside from scaling and comparing material compositions of specific objects in the digital and the corporeal, these aspects of imitating realities can be utilized as a parameter for augmenting visual interventions in architectural spaces, since there can be “intentional [discrepancies] between the source and the imititation”. The mathematical approach of analyzing simulations and translating the information into representation is a point of departure for the dynamic projection mapping process, and the concept of compositing specific discrepancies in attempting to imitate reality is how it can flourish as an architectural process.
Referencing concepts of parafiction, the combination of fact and fiction is essentially what happens when ideas are projected from onto a medium. To create digitally augmented architectural spaces through the lens of parafiction, there must be a field where the real and fake, or the fact and the fiction, engage in conversation. This conversation creates tension in interpreting the reality of a space because it gives a glimpse of the possibilities that the space could be. Hence, by projecting digital material onto a corporeal object, with the goal of having these projections respond to the space and interactions; the separation of the two becomes blurred as the space begins to exist in-between two realities. As Young states, “what makes the real seem real is its constant withdrawal from our access to it”. Therefore, if a space’s reality can be vague through its visual aesthetic properties, a user’s phenomenological experience in the space can be tampered with and becomes a malleable material.
Like a person you’ve known for twenty years suddenly acting strangely, leading you to think, “I don’t know who this person is,” architecture at its best can only interface in a similar way with the real.
Since architecture’s operates in the field of creating built environments, it also has the potential to detach itself completely from the material environment it exists in. This is evident when thinking of an architectural object as a surface; for ideas to be projected onto and new realities to flow along. Literally speaking, projection mapping can give a ‘surface’ a new meaning, either by purely abstracting it and changing its meaning, or augmenting it with additional layers of information. Hence it takes a ‘real’ object and inserts a ‘fictional’ layer on top of it. Whether the projections are static or dynamic, they change the meaning of the object purely through visual aesthetics. It is more beneficial to generate dynamic projections however, as they are able to respond and react to the ‘real’, creating a more immersive environment as users can interact with the ‘fiction’. This paradoxical relationship is interesting as the interactions begin to blur the boundaries between what is experienced and what the objective realities of the space are. This is evident in some of the referenced works in the dossier, specifically artist Dirk Koy’s work. In his studies, animations and images of seemingly ‘real’ object becoming manipulated and distorted are used to suggest series of alternate plausible realities. For example, his work titled Skin, where a street bollard begins to bounce and wiggle as if it wrapped and trapped someone inside of it. This work is an example of how parafiction can initiate thoughts of plausibility, demonstrating the malleability of ones’ perception of an object or a space. In Koy’s work he augments the corporeal environment and object with plausible realities which were generated in post-production.
What I am suggesting, is that these realities can be displayed instantaneously by creating process of dynamic projection mapping, hence creating a true parafictional environment where the practices of “what ifs” and “as ifs” begin to interlude simultaneously.
Artist and academic Rebecca Smith defines that these two practices mentioned can be used to further group parafictive practices, beacuse they can have different values and contexts attached to them them. The “what ifs” suit the ubiquitous nature of technology, which can exist outside the realm of art and architecture, and the “as ifs” depict a specific nonlinear time and space relationship that is limited by the constraints of the production. A composition of “what ifs” demonstrates the diachronic nature of parafiction, opening the doors to endless speculation and alternate futures. Despite being a more commonly practiced method of parafiction throughout history, the “as ifs” tend to direct the speculation towards a specific reality, not dismissing its openness for diversion but rather guiding a specific it towards a specific narrative. This is why many writings on parafiction may use politics or the multitude of microconstituencies of groups that exist on the internet to describe the term. These practices are key to implementing parafictive elements into architectural spaces with dynamic projection mapping as they are the domain in which specific spaces can operate and immerse the user.
Ultimately, architectural spaces should be able to escape their material realities in order to become fully immersive. This can be made possible by combining dynamic projection mapping and concepts of parafiction when constructing an architectural space. By giving the spaces the ability to become dynamic, the space can continue to be immersive if the realities were ever to be different.
I believe with the use of lighting an tracking technologies we can design architectural spaces differently, and promote the physical engagement of the body with spaces. Through the use of projections and 3D scanning, the space I will be proposing a space that will allow users and inhabitants of the space to be immersed. This is very speculative as of now, but I can imagine the space engaging the user through augmentation of smart features and also entertainment. This creates a flexible space since it allows the users to customize how their space will be and how they engage with the space will be personal to the users. The heirarchy of attached realities to the object become less important when the material realites becomes overshadowed and yet enlgihtened by the projected realities. The users will be able to curate a space that works for them in terms of effiency and aesthetics. The space is able to become fully immersive through responsive projections as it will involve complex algorithms to ensure that the projections are accurate and real-time. This proposal is still in its speculative stages, hence the details are not visible yet. My focus is to highlight how concepts of parafiction have the potential to be applied in the field of architecture to create spaces which are more immersive and dynamic. The images attached are one of the many ways that this space can function or be represented. It is clearly depicting a blank canvas box which can be geometrically altered after it is constructed. The grid on the walls is to represent the seam of the corporeal world but also the module for transformation. These units that make up a space are then projected onto to by projectors contained in other units. Micro-scanners and computers are also found in these modules to ensure that the projections are calibrated and operating the way the user is choosing. The space allows for plausibility and doubt, with the users’ perception and experience of the space constantly at play. Spaces can be made with the material units and environments can begin to shift. The real and the unreal become blended together, leaving their traces behind to identify themselves as separate realities. Things can get weird, but will never become unfamiliar.
Augmented spaces might make the user temporarily forget the material realities of the space, but does that matter anymore? What matters is that they have the ability to become composers of their own space and experience the multiplicity of the spaces’ realities.
