Page 1

MAD WORLD


MADAMEWANG JOURNALFOR GEO-DISTRIBUTED COLLABORATION I S S U E 2 . 3


EDITORS

Craig Cooper & Sam Basu

WITH THANKS TO

Bogna Konior & Yvette Granata, Nicolas Sauret & Ashley Wong, Yuk Hui, BLOOM collective, Jack Spittle, Josef Bares & Prayas Abhinav, Treignac Projet, Academy of Visual Arts Hong Kong, Isabel Sio, Ingrid Chu, Kit Hammonds, Leslie Van Eyck, Liz Murray, WING Platform for Performance, Giulia Bondi, Radio Ghetto


i s s u e2 . 3 m i g r a t i o n T H R E S H O L D PINTHW 9 Jack Spittle from the Ghetto 20 NONSPACE 32 BOTANICAL 40

AFTER OCCUPY 46

URBAN EXOTIC DILEMMA 52 Our wod

areeOUR

WORLDS ARE WOVEN TOGETHER 58

ITINERANT SYSTEMS 64 MOWGLI’S REVENGE 86


8


PINTHW Philosophy-in-the-wild.

BOGNA KONIOR & YVETTE GRANATA

PINTHW (Philosophy-in-the-wild) is an ongoing, collaborative, multimedia and multi-platform non-philosophy project, devoted to re-wilding philosophy beyond its institutional (decisionist, androcentric etc) limitations. Conceptually, it operates at the intersection of Laruelle / Schmid non-standard method, de-colonial theory and the ontological turn, as well as feminist philosophy. By means of both artistic and academic research, it utilizes text as well as performance and new media art to unveil an underdetermined wilderness of thought. pinthw is an integrative project and a methodology that takes shape anew in each of its specific incarnations. For Madame Wang, we present an artist sketchbook of a conceptual re-wilding of a threshold following the pinthw method of non-standard spatialization.


What would it mean to have a wild epistemology of the threshold?


In thinking about borders movable and immovable, we propose a ‘holding-of’ and ‘staying-with’ the threshold, which becomes a mutable passage of realist invention. ‘Wild’ philosophy, a question of collaboration across the nature / culture divide, presents a model of artistic research that is also a non-standard epistemological practice. A practice of thought and bodily motion that is rather about ‘unveiling’ the already present divergence of epistemologies, rather than speculating about ‘new’ concepts.


Wild epistemology is an integrative approach, rather than a synthesis: it does not fool itself in seeking unity, where there is none. In a multiple world that perpetually scatters itself into diverse ontologies, a synthesis of epistemologies is a dream tinted with nightmarish undertones. Rather than seeking to subsume knowledges and ways of knowing into an overdetermined block, philosophy-in-the-wild advocates for an integrative threshold, which is able to ‘hold’ different epistemologies together without forcing them into a melting pot. A threshold allows a ‘staying-together,’ but not a mapping or a delineation. A threshold is not a border, it prevents the synthesis that maps allow. A wild threshold is not a synthesis of all existing discourses and contexts of the threshold, but a multi-dimensional object that allows a “hold” of both sides locked in a predatory mimesis.


Unlike borders, thresholds are not inherently oppositional, even though both operate on inherently spatial terms. A wild threshold assumes a non-wilderness somewhere, posing questions about how dominant epistemologies construct its excluded ‘others.’ Capitalist, industrial, colonial, modernist, and patriarchal epistemologies have been vigilant in delineating their borders of civilization and wilderness, reason and unreason, humanity and bestiality, positioning one as the realm of cultural representation and social discourses, and the other as a conceptually mute space from which resource and representation can be extracted, but which can never on its own act philosophically. Erecting a wild threshold is a matter of undoing this border. A wild threshold melts into its territory like a parasite, sinking its teeth into knowledges that need to be brought together in a patient practice of co-presence, rather than understanding.

On the on hand, wild thresholds want to be the contemporary epistemological (Eco, 1965) and aesthetic (Schmid, 2013) metaphor: the figure through which forms and structures are reflected in their most generic, broadest applications. On the other, wild thresholds are not frameworks. Non-philosophical practice as a non-standard media ethnography that happens across the nature / culture division is aimed not at producing theoretical and conceptual frameworks for art or politics. It rather detects through practice the already-present thresholds, hidden under dominant epistemologies like old roots sleeping.


Wild thresholds, as meeting points established across the nature / culture divide, function as places of refuge for both humans and nonhumans. Unlike borders, the establishment of which gives birth to meaning, thresholds protect their refugees from reresentationalism. A threshold is a movable and mutable point that resists representation, especially the kind of representation that perceives itself as sufficient. It is not the job of wild epistemology to reflect on anything or to represent anything. As places of refuge, thresholds protect human and nonhuman persons from the representations that seek to speak in their name. There are no stable subjects under wild epistemology, only wild populations thriving on unsettled thresholds. These subjects themselves mutate knowledge instead of being captured in its representational web. Wild thresholds are places of refuge protect their inhabitants from any attempts at mapping, delineation, analysis, or interpretation. No such borders will be placed around wild thresholds and those whom it hosts.


PINTHW does not reflect on wild thresholds. PINTHW is a wild threshold.


PINTHW does not reflect on wild thresholds. PINTHW is a wild threshold.


Modern survival...depends on the ability and efficiency of waste removal. Zygmunt Bauman, Wasted Lives

Matteo Salvini is the head of Italy’s right-wing Lega Nord party. He’s pretty verbose, especially in his complaints. Many of his complaints have to do with immigrants. He’s also got a knack for overstatement. So much so that a recent Italian meme features the face of a black man crying theatrically, with across his forehead written, “when you follow Salvini’s profile from Africa,” and then, just below his chin, “but once landed in Italy realise that the four star hotel and thirty euros a day was a total sham.” (It is said that one asylum seeker costs the state roughly 35 euros daily.) The modern world creates a lot of refuse. Some of it gets recycled, some of it gets placed in government regulated landfills, and some of it gets dumped in rivers, lakes, seas, or even old stone quarries outside of Naples. But when we talk about the waste we produce, we’re not just talking old receipts, refrigerators, industrial run-off: it’s this way with people, too. 20


MADAME WANG 2.3 Walking around, chatting, on the bus: every so often I’m overwhelmed by the impression that I know every single “recycled” sub-saharan African immigrant currently residing in the Italian peninsula. Suleman with his yogurt business. Cheikh with his farm. Mamadou, too. Assan the cultural mediator. A whole host of others. While this impression is patently false, it is demonstrative of how few opportunities there are for the new immigrants to be recycled in Italy. And the latest numbers are foreboding: the UNCHR says 170,631 people have so far arrived in Italy by sea this year. Italians would have to ditch their Mediterranean diets and start eating yogurt only, to give work to all of them... So what do these immigrants do? They sit in a little something called a centro di accoglienza. A “Welcome Centre.” These are the places Salvini describes as “four star hotels.” Really they’re mostly decrepit buildings, overcrowded, riddled with bedbugs, and placed in towns like Borgo Mezzanone, in Puglia, the heel of the boot, a town like a little speck on the leather (Made in Italy), with zero growth for decades and a couple hundred inhabitants now outnumbered by the migrants. Another is in Crotone, Calabria, the toe, with its clump of inert factories and port of sunken ships. In all there are fourteen centri di accoglienza. Official ones. As of September, 2015, though, La Repubblica listed 1,816 other, “temporary structures” being used by the asylum system. About these, though, there was no ulterior description. Coming into Lampedusa, or wherever it is you’re coming into as a seacrosser, you’ll get assigned to one of these centres. Then you go and you sit. “A month,” they say, “and your request for asylum will be processed.” In actuality it can take more than a year. So you sit. A family to feed? Projects to pursue? Dignity or self-respect? No matter—sit! This is known as the “first welcoming.” If you’re asylum request is accepted—that is, If you’re lucky (58% of asylum requests were rejected in 2015)—you have access to what is known as a SPRAR, a “second welcoming.” The idea behind the SPRAR is to provide “an organised process by which individuals can (re)construct their capacity to choose and to plan, (re)acquire the perception of their own worth, potential and opportunity.’ While these are noble words, and surely no goal to poke fun at, anyone used to the first welcoming will not expect much from the second. And, in fact, the management of these SPRAR is left to “local authorities with the precious help of third sector groups,” and new SPRAR can be opened by way of surreptitious “public” contracts. This, in Italy, spells disaster. Some SPRAR 21


do good work. Courses, workshops, job trainings. But this is the will of certain individuals, not the functioning of the system. When the Mafia Capitale scandal broke last winter the Italian public was shocked—or perhaps not so much—to learn that millions of euros allocated to the asylum system were being syphoned off by corrupt entities. So much for those 35 euros Salvini raves about! SPRARs have been opened all over the extreme peripheries of cities such as Rome areas where rents are cheap but there is little hope for integration. Kilometres out from where neo-realist films were once made. Two hours to the city centre by bus. On foot, half an hour to the nearest bar. No post office in sight. And then there was Tor Sapienza, a poor zone on Rome’s far-east side: marches, banners reading “enough with the savage immigrants,” angry riots instigated by neo-fascists. Many SPRAR serve breakfast of fake teas and coffees from a machine. Lunch of overcooked pasta. Dinner? That same pasta. No courses, no programs, no workshops, no contacts, no jobs, and no happy helpers: “we haven’t been paid for two months,” said one SPRAR worker, “and we can’t ask for holiday or sick leave...But we can’t explain this to the people living here. So they often see us as distant, bored, and in the long run we can’t even make contact with the human being, let alone the guest.” If these are the goverment regulated landfills for people, what happens to those people who sneak out of them, or were rejected in the first place, or get their documents in line but can’t find a job? What happens, that is, to all those who are dumped? We dispose of the scraps in the most radical, efficient way: make them invisible by not looking at them, and unthinkable by not thinking of them. (Bauman) Each summer thousands of migrants flood the Capitanata region of southern Italy. They are the scraps that follow the seasons. More than 30,000, by some counts, in quite a small area. The reason? Il pomodoro—the tomato, red gold. Bulgarians, Romanians, Gypsies, North Africans. Almost all live invisibly. Some are kept to their apartments by their “recruiters,” precariously picking; others make their homes of all the abandoned spaces. But it is the sub-Saharan Africans who I am most familiar with. Many end up fifteen kilometres from the city of Foggia, four hours by foot, in a place called the Gran Ghetto. To get to the Ghetto from the station of Foggia you must turn right out of the exit, follow the road past the buses, take the curve to the right, merge onto the main road, go up the bridge and past the abandoned grain silos, turn left 22


MADAME WANG 2.3 when it ends and cut across traffic. You must then head towards the cemetery, find the slip road and slip right on down it, head out behind the cemetery, continue on down and you’re passing fields now: grapes, corn, tomatoes, always tomatoes. Keep straight across the highway, follow the ensuing curve, watch out for long trucks that are fast, impatient and laden with products. Go under the bridge, go over the bridge, pass by more fields, everywhere are fields, keep left at the fork, keep right at the second one, and, if you’ve done it all correct, when trees line the road and the potholes deepen, turn right after the house, and you’re almost—I swear—there. The first time I took that last turn it was late July. Morning, but the sun scorched already. The fields were burnt stalks of harvested grain; a wide, harsh brittle. And through them trekked form after human form, their backs to me, dragging big bags laboriously across the soil. All in a single line, a single line, a single line...“This is the Trail of Tears,” I perhaps inaccurately thought. At its summer height the Ghetto is home to more than 3,000 people. Every day the Region of Puglia is supposed to bring a few cisterns of water that is supposedly potable. If that runs out, as it often does, in the afternoon, after work, when jerry-rigged trucks bought from the Bulgarians roll in and unload twenty, thirty thirsty people, at two different points of the place there are fountains with consistent water flow. Huge lines, swamp-like conditions. To boot: it’s agricultural water and to my knowledge no one’s ever done a test on it. When we bathe or wash our dishes it’s like hoping for the best. On its edges the Ghetto sprawls, for it is always getting larger, while a tightly-knit mass of streets and vicoli throb away at its centre. Besides five old, crumbling farmhouses, abandoned and now occupied, all residences are woodbranch framed, cardboard-walled and plastic covered. Barracks. Black irrigation tubes hold the plastic down, and their carefree placement forms patterns that are pleasant to the eye. Some of these barracks fit eighty beds—one is thirty euros for the season. These are for the newcomers: four rows of twenty, one after another, both longways and short: a solid, downy geometry. Hot as hell when the sun is hitting. Hell, too, stepping over every one. More consistent presence in the place merits, sometimes, something more like a studio apartment (there’s never any AC ‘cause there isn’t any electricity). Bouba shares one. For him, a new arrival, I would learn his luck was borne more of necessity. “So gays can get married here now?” he asked. The candle burned low on the makeshift counter above the gas tank. “Yea. Senegal?” 23


24


MADAME WANG 2.3

25


Two clicks from the sides of two mouths: Bouba and Demba in unison. The sound means an emphatic “no” in much of West Africa. There’s just a bed and the small cookspace for the two of them. “I don’t think it’ll ever be legal in Senegal.” Demba said. I laid down. Demba doesn’t have documents. Why doesn’t he have documents? They rejected his request. Why’d they reject his request? His story wasn’t good enough. What was his story? Wait—what was his story? I didn’t know it. These two both were always so vague in describing it. But now I watched the shadows dance on the white sheet strung across the cieling, and it all came together with the clues now resurfacing: “We’ve been friends since meeting in Senegal”; “Can Demba come too?”; “Let me go find Bouba.”

The room for just the two of them and now the questions, the silence.

There’s not much silent about the Ghetto. Cardboard walls never were good at keeping out sound. Plus, ever since the war in Libya, and the wave of Mediteranean migration it provoked, and the subsequent strain on the Italian asylum system, the Ghetto got a lot larger. From what was basically a worker’s dormitory a few years back, home to mostly Malians and Burkinabè—the “duri puri lavoratori,”(the pure, hard-nosed workers)—the Ghetto’s gone and gentrified. Dozens of bars dot the place. The bars are also brothels. In addition to the men there are maybe 200 Nigerian prostitutes. The brothels serve mostly Fanta, other soft drinks, the occasional Peroni, and strange Nigerian remedies in big bottles labelled in marker with names like “man power.” They also serve liquor, which no one seems to buy but me. For a euro they’ll pour you a glass of it, like juice. All through the night they pump out music, mainly Nigerian and Ivorian. The sheer extension of the place and the way the brothels dot it and the flatness of the plain and the silence of the night mean that from any given spot, such as your bed in your barrack, what floats to you in an audible way is this eerie, odd medley of polyrhythms. This “float” could also be more like a “barrage,” but that all depends on your real estate. Not that there’s anything quite like real estate. The Ghetto’s just a place where people find themselves, get along with the other people who find themselves there. What is exciting is that a new sort of democracy is cropping up. This is partly in response to the gentrification of the place. It’s gotten so big and so loud and so uncontrollable that young West Africans take the bus up from Bari just to have fun on the weekend. Young and old Italians come for the prostitutes. Every once and a while there’s a fight. Late last July, someone was even killed. The aggressor was mentally ill. 28


MADAME WANG 2.3 The papers said he was Ivorian but he was Malian. A few months prior he’d been kicked out of Germany for striking a police officer. With European laws, borders now closed and Italians still not eating yogurt, Italy’s like a cage, and if you’ve got no where to go, you go to the Ghetto. For it was mostly uncontrolled but that is changing now. There are certain residents called caporali who make a lot of money off the Ghetto. They are work intermediators. They know the landowners; they bring the workers. You, worker, pay five euros for transport, and, if the caporale’s not a nice guy, one euro for every crate you fill. One crate is 350 kilos of tomatoes. You, worker, get 3.50. It’s impossible to say how much an average worker picks on an average day because there are too many factors: the number of workers in the field and how you race against them; the number of trucks at the field for hard as you race, you can’t load on trucks that aren’t there; your relationship with the caporale, for if you complain he won’t take you; lack of rain, for then the machines pass and harvest; too much rain; and, finally, the general overabundance of people, for even in this place made by redundancy there is internal redundancy. Let it suffice to say that the average worker doesn’t make much, and that the caporale makes more. Certain caporale already formed a sort of power structure. Such power was more or less imperceptible (it took us four years to learn of it). Now, though, that the Ghetto is changing, they’re consolidating their power. A kind of police force has been formed. But all is not oligarchic: bi-weekly assemblies are now held, to which some of the Ghetto’s older merchants and residents are invited. Part of this gentrification is also me, us, a radio: Radio Ghetto. The idea of the project is to give a voice to these silenced people. We come down each year with a carful of electronics doomed to break from all the dust—the Ghetto’s on some pretty desertified land—and a bootleg antenna, which we hoist up in the sun with a whole crew of neighbours and tie it to what seems most sturdy in the vicinity. Later, during storms, we hope it doesn’t fall on us. This antenna allows the Radio to reach no more than a kilometre away, flying on the frequencies. No matter! Wouldn’t want to risk a fine, anyway. What happens on a day to day basis is that people come by, take the mic, speak, or sometimes just play music. It’s all cool the way we see it. Bambara, Wolof, Fula, Soninke, Creole, Mòoré, Djula. Many others of course. What comes out in Italian we record, send to radios, put on the internet. Same goes for French, only the radios are in West Africa. Anything can be debated, and it all is: what it’s like to be in Italy, in Europe, as an immigrant, and as an African. How to twiddle their thumbs in an asylum centre. How to get the hell out of there. How to meet an Italian. How to meet a single, dastardly Italian. ‘Cause that’s one thing Salvini doesn’t 29


understand when he talks about four star hotels and 35 euros, what society doesn’t understand when it tries to address the ever-growing rise of human refuse as if it were simply a financial problem. Some Africans come down to the Ghetto for vacation. Some Africans in the Ghetto have been in Italy for twenty years. Some are white-haired Senegalese that speak a perfect Brescian, or Bergamasco. Being told you are superfluous, after all, is not just a biological matter. It is not just food, clothes, shelter. It is the evening walk, hand in hand, with another man, no wary eyes on you. It is gripping the mic and staring out across the open sewers and the heaps of burning plastic always present, and, into the night, also staring, recounting the life of Einstein, of Lincoln, and saying, “I just want to leave a mark on this world.” It is hope: “to buy a tractor,” said Sama, “and drive it all the way to Mali.” It is those eyes of him that swam in such a way that proved he has already thought a way to make the thing amphibious, and who’s to say he hasn’t? The sea didn’t stop him once. I don’t think it will stop him the second time. Because in the Ghetto there are people. There are builders, electricians, mechanics, musicians. There is Aisha, all the beautiful girth of her, and how she sits and how she stands and how she hands you a plate, bulging with unfathomable Cameroon. There are tailors and there are butchers: ten minutes, a knife, some cardboard in the mud, and what was a sheep is now in chunks, spilling from three large buckets. There are stories told around communal plates of maffe then. There is Madoujan, tall, toothless, taking you by the hand with a whisper in your ear: “come.” And if you go he’s leading you away to a little niche you’ve never been, between the barracks where the sky opens up. “Look,” he says, and you do, with a gasp, for above you hangs the most silver, sickle, wonderfully silken moon you’ve ever laid your eyes on. And then there’s Abou. Radiant, irreplaceabe Abou. I just heard from him. “We’re out of water,” he said, “they haven’t brought it in a week.” For these people are treated like refuse, they are dumped like trash in the fields, but they will odour up. They smell of a new modernity. It’s a sweet smell, like melons. Some Italians don’t like it. No matter—they’ll be forced to. 30


For in the Ghetto there is Gift, who sells her body.

MADAME WANG 2.3

She is a loud Gift.

First photo - rebuilding the Ghetto after a fire destroyed 2/3 of it last February (within a week or two it was completely rebuilt) Last - a drawing by Ginevra, a little girl, Bukinabe, daughter of a woman who runs a restaurant. 31


Nønspace Transcript of a film LL: Linda Lai, Associate Professor, School of Creative Media, City University of Hong Kong AL: Andrew Lam, Director, Museum of Site KL: Kit Lam, Lecturer, Chinese University WL: Warren Leung, artist MO: Map Office, Laurent Gutierrez & ValÊrie Portefaix, artists / architects AY: Alvin Yip, Director, Design Institute for Social Innovation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

32


MADAME WANG 2.3

LL MO LL KL MO

: Space is a location, when someone is enacting, when someone is making sense of it, when someone is narrating, someone is doing something. So space is...

: ...an environment closed or open, inside or outside, where action takes place.

: ...from that perspective a more performative approach to space. Space is what I make it.

: We look at it, our ears, our eyes; even if you don’t use that space, if you look at there, it exist in your mind.

: An environment itself doesn’t define a space. If the actions become memory, depending on the individual sensibility, it becomes a place.

MO KL

: Space is rare, space is extremely valuable. It’s a lack of space. Everybody, every entity, every agency will say: “space is a luxury in Hong Kong”.

: You have thousands of people cramming in with each other; and it seems it’s normal, it’s our norm, but it’s not the norm for most other cities in this world.

33


WL MO KL

: I started to treasure the small spaces that we could afford – even if it’s not big. It’s good to look at how we can deal with it creatively, instead of complaining that we don’t have enough.

: At the same time because of this particular aspect of a dense situation, space has been manipulated and invented a new typology, a new layer of experience. They are existing, they have been invented.

: I may not be that extreme to say Hong Kong is developing against people, but I’m confident to say Hong Kong is developing without regard to people.

AY

: I think there’s a different value of space here, in Hong Kong, and that of course has to do with time, basically. Time is a good friend of space, particularly in Hong Kong. Time really animates the space; it asks for the space, it demands space, it consumes space. Basically, it’s ahead of space.

KL KL

: Hong Kong just rose-up within the 20th century, even after World War II, within thirty, forty years, you have this city shoot up really, from nowhere, from barren rocks.

AL

: Because they think that in Hong Kong it’s a city without memory, it’s a city without history.

: But precisely that’s the fatal weakness, I believe, of Hong Kong; and that’s the underground root of the space of Hong Kong, precisely, rootless.

AY KL

: There’s not a single book of history of Hong Kong architecture. Basically there’s not enough research from the several universities in Hong Kong about these things; or the history Hong Kong city or urban development.

: Hong Kong is a present continuous tense. In Hong Kong, there is hardly a future tense; not even past tense. Everything is present. Everything is this conduit into the present. Everything is short-term or spontaneous. That’s our strength, but exactly, it’s our fatal weakness.

34


WL

MADAME WANG 2.3

: When we were little, in this public housing estate, we did enjoy making our space by opening our doors; and then, all of a sudden, the communal space also becomes your own space – you extend it to the corridor, you extend it to the staircase, you extend it downstairs, you extend it to the playground; or you don’t really need to define it, and its kind of unlimited.

KL

: Very often, academics or in the government, when you talk about space, you sterilize it into that objective neutral space – the physical quality. So often people miss out one crucial aspect about spaces; if there are no people involved, or associated with that space, then it’s not really space in a city, in this sense.

WL

: When you see the old part of the city, street life is really essential to residential areas. But now you don’t have any street life in those new developments.

KL

: In the ‘60s, people would know almost everyone. Not just your neighbors, all on the same street; people would know at least one hundred people around their home. Now I would say not more than ten. Everyone became so much isolated, so lonely. The space in a sense is a container, but is also a facilitator, or it’s a force in itself to make people be broken apart. In sociology, we call it the ‘atomic society’.

KL

: The government privatized all the commercial properties of all public housing in Hong Kong and put them in that trust, The Link. And The Link after being listed, they executed very fearce privatization; or everything they aim is to achieve higher return, higher profit, and one consequence is to squeeze out all these old small shops.

WL

: I would imagine the community would just be so much better if they did something more considerate.

KL

: People are not happy, but what can you do? Everything is carried out legally. On the one hand, all of them are legal. On the other, all of them are in-line with our business philosophy – to make the most.

WL

: Space or living space here, is not only simple issues of living space, it’s also about that monetary, you know ideas behind it. It’s investment, it’s money, and it’s value.

35


KL

: Hong Kong really endorse and embrace the free market idea. In this sense, Hong Kong is even much more capitalistic than London and New York and Tokyo. The whole society, the central philosophy of Hong Kong is to make money, and to profit. It’s very materialistic, and also very secular. Space in Hong Kong has no place in itself – it has a very low position in terms of quality of life, and space is a means to make money.

KL AY KL

: In theory you can transmit, I believe, more than sixty percent or more than eighty percent of all the wealth of Hong Kong to elsewhere in one hour.

: Hong Kong people regard themselves as residents in Hong Kong, not as citizens. The sense of belonging to Hong Kong has always been very unique, also very delicate; and in a way, it’s not deeply rooted.

: Just take a look at our elites here – our political, business and academic elites. More than eighty percent of them have non-Hong Kong passports. Our elites can just take a plane and fly back to another one of their countries of residence or nationality. This happened in the SARS event; so Hong Kong is very fragile. It’s a fact, one of the most fragile cities in the world.

KL

: Before World War II, the British did not really pay much attention to planning and architecture. But after World War II, because of the population explosion, from lets say one million to three million in less than twenty years – one of the most impressive population growth in human history; you have to regulate them. It’s simply a matter of necessity.

MO KL

: One of the major factors, is the people that came to Hong Kong are migrants from China. They are the strong ones. They are not the ones that stay; they are the one that are pushing. They are the ones that take risk and so on.

: And then you come out to have this quite impressive mix between the British institutions and our population here.

36


MADAME WANG 2.3

KL

: The city is the hardware, it is the computer. The British can influence the computers’ hardware, but the program running the computer are still essentially Chinese. The program itself is simply the Chinese people, in many cases they counter the British rules and institutions by the Chinese conception. That’s how Hong Kong is a very peculiar, but also a very successful mix between British planning. Hong Kong’s urban planning and traffic and architecture, in that sense, the rules, the laws are all black and white British.

AY

: I think in ninty-nine percent of the cities outside of Hong Kong, even when you think of very rigorous cities like New York or London; when architects, if they’re asked to make a building, they presume that they are going to make something permanent. In Hong Kong, I think more or less, architects know that their buildings are going to be demolished in twenty, thirty years time.

KL

: In terms of academic publication, it’s very difficult to explain and to address this uniqueness or the speciality of Hong Kong for the Western audience.

KL MO

: The British did not do anything under the term ‘laissez-faire’, that French term, “leave them alone”. They knew these evil consequences of capitalism very well, but they left Hong Kong alone.

: It’s a political plot by the British to secure the masses. The new migrants from China, they have to work first, and then if they have a bit of free time they have to consume. Let’s provide them with public housing, space for consumption: a commercial center.

KL

: Every Western state have faced this challenge, this problem, and came up with others nonmarket, non-business values and forces at least to safeguard humanity. Not in Hong Kong.

AY

: You have heard the stories of the resistance and movements saying, ‘save the heritage’, talking about preservation, conservation, and so on. I think in Hong Kong, people really should not take so directly the Western, modern, a very European perception of what is the heritage, and what is the city and how do you deal with it. I think there’s a very unique Hong Kong cultural understanding of space.

37


LL

: I think there is no ideal space. But there is always idealism picking up forces turning people into active agents because we are upholding that kind of unfulfilled spacial practice.

AY MO

: I think that we should look deeper and then find our own way. We should be more inclusive in finding solutions, not at the two extremes: one, is the total conservatists, and then the other is the government approach of a total renewal strategy. So there is something in-between and we’ve done it somewhere.

: Public space do not born like that. It’s something that you create; and it’s usually created by government or a public agency or by a private agency. I don’t think that there is a reduction of social space, it’s just that social space does not necessarily happen within a qualified public space. It has been transferred a lot to so called ‘private space’.

LL

: Nor do I think that the binary of the private and the public is that productive.

MO

: One characteristic I will say about space in Hong Kong, is its ability to multiply or to layer itself, either through cross-programmation or temporal programmation. Let’s talk about this space; tonight it’s a space where we can sit and chat, but tomorrow morning, we put a machine in the middle and workers come and do meetings; in the evening it becomes a school, and at night it becomes a dormitory.

AY MO

: But I think there is something new that we have to discover, that we have to dig deeper rather than just standing on either side – the government or the other.

: The other approach to multi-layer is basically; this floor is for housing, this floor is for karaoke, this floor is for snooker, this floor is for factory, this one is for restaurant, within the same building. That’s what we call multi-programmation. And that’s happening in Hong Kong, and it’s still happening in Hong Kong.

LL KL

:So making space here means within a certain set of preambles, I can self-consciously play with some of the rules that is given into my hands and multiply its value or to subvert it.

38

: In fact, Hong Kong is not totally rootless. Our root are still very young and very weak. The Star Ferry and the Queen’s Pier events precisely reflect these roots of our younger population’s love for Hong Kong.


MADAME WANG 2.3

WL

: Personally I don’t see identity as something given. I think we all create our own identity in a way not to stress this identity. I take a more anthropological approach; you know whenever you have people living together, there must be culture. And even you don’t really talk about them, it’s there.

LL

: A very limited number or group of people, and also colleagues or people with authority who are delimiting my space, delimiting my free-flowing thoughts, etc. I feel I have this drive of being able to connect myself to rest of the world by even just being on the internet – to get in touch with something.

MO WL LL KL LL

: For a subversive mind, which I guess we belong to, there is always a way to escape.

: This is the space, not only physical space, but with that more space, you feel more comfortable to move around; and that kind of little freedom, may give you more possibilities in terms of thinking or concepts.

: And the effect of being able to assemble should not be undermined because that is the beginning of exchanging conversations, questioning, coming up with new ideas, shaping an identity, but this is now gradually diminishing.

: One generation of people cannot build a big city, a great city. In fact it takes generations, very often hundreds of years to make up a great city.

: Fiction refers to our imaginary space, so how we project the imaginary side of us is as real as the rational side.

39


40


MADAME WANG 2.3

41


42


MADAME WANG 2.3

43


44


MADAME WANG 2.3

45


After Occupy Yuk Hui Context: Lecture at the Zentrum für Kunst und Urbanistik, Berlin, 19 June, 2013 Version: 2nd draft Date: 04 August 2013 Edited: 06 October 2013, Ashley Wong “I'll begin with the following hypothesis: society has been completely urbanized. This hypothesis implies a definition: An urban society is a society that results from a process of complete urbanization. This urbanization is virtual today, but will become real in the future”. – Urban Revolution, Henri Lefebvre I want to talk about some ideas behind our edited book, Creative Space: Art and Spatial Resistance in East Asia (2013). It is interesting to discuss in this context, here in Berlin, about a book originally written in four languages (Korean, Chinese, Japanese, English) and finally translated into Chinese. The audience for the book was intended to be Chinese, since I believe China has the most serious problem with urbanization compared to other East Asian countries. It is not only because that resistance in China is illegal, but also the economic development has made people blind to most of the consequences that are taking place now. The urbanization process in East Asia is rigorous and aggressive, and it appears to be irreversible due to the homogenization of political and historical thought. In thinking about art and culture, people always sees Europe as the future of East Asia – a historical question – but maybe in terms of neoliberal development and urbanization, East Asia will be the future of Europe, though this time, a totally dark one. Future of Urbanism The idea for the book from the very beginning was to look at the possibility of space, and to look at how our lives have been conditioned by the construction of space especially in the context of urban development and new technologies. I wanted to do a theoretical study from Immanuel Kant to Peter Sloterdijk, and to look at intuitions and media rich environments, etc. I reached a turning point when I was helping someone working with Rem Koolhaas for his project in Hong Kong to build one of the largest art centers in East Asia, since I ran out of money (like most graduate students). It was at that moment I felt things were turning a bit crazy. I asked myself, why am I helping all these people who know nothing about this place to gentrify the city, especially an architect who is famous for his proposal of the generic city? A generic city is one that only gives difference through homogeneity, that makes differentiations on a surface. A generic city is no longer one to come, but a global phenomenon. Surprisingly those sociologists, geographers that I encountered, who often like to apply ‘criticality’ into every discipline, seemed to agree that the development of these art facilities were necessary. For Koolhaas, urbanism is no longer a question, but rather an illusion, as written in his book. He writes: “Urbanism doesn't exist. It is only an ideology in Marx's sense of the word. Architecture really exists, like Coca-Cola: Though coated with ideology, it is a real production, falsely satisfying a falsified need. Urbanism is comparable to the advertising propagated around Coca-Cola - pure spectacular ideology. Modern capitalism which organized the reduction of all social life to a spectacle, is incapable of presenting any spectacle other than that of our own alienation. Its urbanistic dream is its masterpiece.” In fact this quote doesn't come from Koolhaas but from a manifesto titled Basic Program of the Bureau of Unitary Urbanism appeared in Internationale Situationniste #6, 1961. But Koolhaas has in a way, hijacked it and used it as the founding stone for his 6


architectural work. It could be true that urbanism doesn't exist, but it may also be true that architecture doesn't exist as well. I am not sure if Coca-Cola would be still Coca-Cola without advertising. In the same token, I am not sure if architecture would still be architecture without urbanism. Sure enough, there will be buildings of wood, concrete, and all type of materials, but maybe it is no longer called ‘architecture’. Funny enough, Kojin Karatani recognized that Koolhaas is a real Marxist, his proposal is to destroy global capitalism through the generic city1. I have never been sure of this proposition, I think Karatani mixed up the different notion of “creative destruction” of Marx and Joseph Schumpeter. For Schumpeter, the success of capitalism is a step closer to its own destruction, while for Marx, creatively destroying its own condition of existence in order to create a new condition of survival, this is the slow revolution of capitalism. Art and cultural industries are becoming, if I can say, organons of gentrification. Artists play an increasingly important role in creating the social milieu of living. One finds oneself through engaging with art, not through the production and reproduction of art, but through taste and style such as food, wine, clothes, cars, furniture etc. Tetsuo Ogawa, a Japanese activist who has been involved in the past decades in fighting for the right of homeless people wrote, “In Japan an artistin-residence program means an art event for the sake of area rehabilitation, which is typically led by the authorities in collaboration with local businesses, and supported by the funding of corporations.” Unlike the happy family, the sad story of gentrification is the same everywhere. Often habitants are kicked out of their old neighborhoods by police, then tall and gated residential buildings are built next to nice, trendy restaurants, galleries, and museums. Artists and designers are invited to rent the gallery spaces for a relatively reasonable price for the first few years, then the high property price are justified and middle class or high-income families move in. Art and cultural industries are taking a new role not only in the organization of urban life, but also in the organization of urban space. It was last year a few days before Christmas, when I was walking along Ku'damm in Berlin, I saw inside a display box made of glass, two hand-written slogans. On one side read: Emancipation von Materiellen Sein (Emancipation of His Materiality); on the other side: Freiheit durch den Geist (Freedom of the Spirit). Were they not direct references to Marx and Hegel? On the one hand, historical materialism and on the other, dialectics of the spirit? The person who designed this must have studied some Marx and Hegel, or at least read about it on Wikipedia. Lets be kind, we assume that he or she is being ironic by juxtaposing Marx and Hegel amongst the consumerism of Berlin's largest shopping street. But doesn’t the irony of the statements, in the end remains a sad one? Because all gestures can be easily absorbed by the aesthetics of consumerism, and finally those who have the will to resist find themselves like fools amongst commodities. In fact, we are in the times of the society of spectacle. It is no longer art as techne that creates and gives us experience of beauty and communities as it did in ancient times, but taste and lifestyle that governs our body and takes individualization as its goal. As Thiery de Duve showed that in contemporary art, the noun art replaces the noun beauty of the 18th century proposed by thinkers such as Kant. Art becomes the generic, becomes a surface on which new forms of accumulation happens. Functionalism has been long bypassed in the aesthetic dimension of the culture industry, discussed by Adorno and Horkheimer in their Dialectics of Enlightenment - the new combination of aesthetics and functionalism concretized, for example in this MacBook Air, constitute a new politics of aesthetics and experience. It would be intriguing for us today to think of Henri Lefebvre and urbanists of his generation's critique of Le Corbusier. As Lefebvre wrote: “The street contains functions that were overlooked by Le Corbusier: the informative function, the symbolic function, the ludic function. The street is a place to play and learn. The street is disorder(18)”. The story goes, when we see how the whole discourse of Richard 1 In the preface of Karatani's preface to the Chinese translation of Architecture as Metaphor

6


Florida becomes a paradigm for urban development. How can more playful, art-and-designenriched neighborhoods be more productive than others? Productivity of Resistance The second move comes from the Occupy movement that started emerging around the world on the 16th October 2011. I went back to Hong Kong to visit my parents, and it was then that I was absorbed in the movement for more than three months, before I went back to work. During these three months, I tried to read and discuss together with the participants of Occupy Central in Hong Kong about alternative economies – particularly on topics around gift economy, potlatch, etc. It so happened that anthropologist David Graeber became very well-known in the movement. I had previously translated his works, and we have been in discussions about the situation in East Asia. During Occupy, he was updating me on the situation in New York. It came naturally that the work of Graeber became in fashion globally during the Occupy movement. It became clearer to me that in Hong Kong the Occupy movement is not about fighting an abstract entity called capitalism but rather a concrete problem concerning space. The global financial crisis is not simply the problem of the stock market, but also of urbanization and gentrification. It is evident when we think of the housing bubble that burst first in the UK and US. Financialization is not completely virtual; it is simply the desire to make land widely virtual so investors can speculate on them. Like financialization, urbanization is not a concrete substance. It is clear that it is a process of creative destruction, firstly as the urbanization of rural areas, and secondly as the on-going gentrification of urban areas to increase the property prices through the creation of a certain lifestyle. The specific problem in East Asia, especially in Hong Kong is that the free market has always been a myth; any intervention will be considered as a move towards socialism. Ideology creates great fear and threat to any alternative form of living and economic development. Rent prices can double in a years time, and property prices jump every three months. People in my generation are condemned to being slaves - to work all their lives to be able to afford a tiny apartment in one of the many highrises. But note here, gentrification is not a program that targets only residential areas, but it also penetrates into all public spaces. Gentrification is pervasive. In Tokyo’s Miyahita Park, Nike has been working with the Shibuya ward to try to rename the park to ‘Nike Park’ and to build skate park and climbing wall - allowing the multinational shoe brand to become the management authority of the park. Homeless people and artists are kicked out. There is virtually no space for us. There is only an adaptation of spaces, and these spaces become limitations and technics of control. The displaced populations in the park can always do other things to make a living no matter what it is, but the fact is, they are deprived of their right, their efforts, their lives. The ironic side is that there seems to be a trust in the ability of human beings: they can always find ways to survive, though it become more and more like bare life. The Occupy movement changed somewhat the direction of the book. If art is already the organon of gentrification, then what else can we do? What can happen when we use spectacle against spectacle? Occupy, is always to occupy space, to reclaim public spaces. But the problem is not that Occupy is not productive, but that it is too productive. It is too productive, so it easily becomes a spectacle. A spectacle is something that has the ability of reproduction. It doesn’t have much to do with art market, but rather the concept of art itself in the whole process of gentrification. Art is probably more flexible than capital in absorbing all type of gestures. When art works with capital, they can virtually absorb everything. The attempts to dissolve art by the Situationists in the 60s and 70s has been effectively reabsorbed into art production. After the Occupy movement, it is quite obvious that the word “Occupy” has become one of the most banal words of 2012, particularly when the Berlin Biennale and Documenta 13 incorporated the movement into their programs. It 6


makes Occupy itself an artistic gesture, no matter how radical it is; by the end it is simply a gesture. My hypothesis is that after the battle of Seattle in 1999, forms of resistance have been homogenized into two following the logic of spectacles. The ultimate problem is: nothing can maintain itself permanently as a mere spectacle. Spectacles are not exempted from creative destruction. Some of the contributions to this book are reflections, discussions on alternative strategies, and a critique of these forms of resistance. At the same time, some of these projects are already finished, have moved to another stage or are simply terminated. When I look closely into these urban movements, there seems to remain two blind spots to be examined in length, but here we can only discuss them very briefly. The first blind spot is the idea of a nomadic approach of resistance, that is always considered with a sand metaphor. The sand metaphor sees a social movement as an immediate response, or assembling of participants together, for example through social networks. This ability to congregate no matter whether in a peaceful or violent form, seems to be a very disembodied approach to the idea of community. Lefebvre has written “The Cartesian schema of primitive simplicity and the complication obtained by combining simple elements must be abandoned(45)”. After decades, this critique of simplicity and emphasis on emergence and complexity is taking a new direction. For example as the gesture of Hardt and Negri's multitude, that tends to detach itself from any organic setting and congregate through some commonalities such as language, affects, and sufferings. The second blind spot is the idea of festivals as resistance through Lefebvre, who sees it as a way to dissolve the social relations set up in the capitalistic system. It is probably not a coincidence when we consider the idea of having a potlatch of George Bataille, who took it instead from Marcel Mauss' anthropological study of the gift economy, or the idea of games and plays of Roger Caillois. The festival form of resistance as a way to liquidate social relations and existing economic categories in order to reproduce new forms of social relations based less on exchange, but on giving. This proposition for a totally different moral and economical practice is revolutionary. However, it is also the problem today when we think of squatting, occupation or even protests on the street. This party will have to end. It may not be immediately, but it will end; and then what will be possible? I am by no means rejecting the Occupy movement. For me, it is rather an educational program. It has to end, but it has to be restarted in a more profound form. This in turn poses two other questions: firstly, how can we develop a new imagination of communal life? Secondly, how can we develop a new practice of resistance that gives away the lightness and pick up the burden again after Nietzsche's Zarathustra? In the past few years, during the translation of Graeber's book, I found his return to Mauss' gift economy and his own research on the anarchistic nature of ancient communities fascinating. His description of the movement in Argentina, in the battle of Seattle, the mythical origin of communities haunted by gods, witches and dead spirits. On the other hand, I start to think of Kojin Karatani's analysis of the structure of the world history as a critique to Graeber's program. For Karatani, gift economy is the “return of the oppressed” in a psychoanalytical sense. His vision of the new economy or new world system has to be based on the gift economy, but at the same time overcomes it in a much broader and institutional level. For me, his imagination goes a bit far when he expects that nation states give away their own sovereignty as gifts, but at least we shouldn't only think of returning to gift economy, but push it much further. After Occupy – Towards an unproductive public ruin? These questions may lead us to those programs in the 18th century, Charles Fourier's phalanstère, William Morris' idea to make all works an artistic production or closer Mauss' co-operative movement, that I often find very fascinating. One of the projects that really stimulates me, and I 6


would like to further theorize is the practice of the Youth Autonomous Lab in Wuhan. It started when a group of friends rented a place in a small village. They are anarchists, but they are not allowed to call themselves as anarchists (since it is illegal). I remember my friend Mai Dian told me that once he invited a folk musician to play for the villagers. This singer was a heavy metal musician but now has a better career playing folk songs as one of China's most popular folk musicians today. One day Mai Dian received a call from a local newspaper who wanted to nominate him as one of ten most creative young people in the region because he himself is a punk musician and toured with his band in Europe in 2010. Mai Dian immediately refused, but of course the reporter didn't give a shit, and wrote the article anyway. The danger is immanent - sometimes you don't have the choice to be a spectacle or not. Mai Dian and I had some long discussions, the question for us is how do we escape from becoming spectacles? It is true that almost all artistic production can be easily absorbed as part of the aesthetic for the reproduction of social relations. What is at the center of Mai Dian’s project is to escape, to produce lines of flight, not into a spiritual world, but to a public ruin, to a ruin without productivity. A ruin is probably a place where you can have aesthetics without art - you can sense it but in most cases you don't want to possess it. Because it is the past, as Georg Simmel noted, it is the triumph of nature against the spiritual form of human works. Simmel sees a ruin as one of the most peaceful places, where he compares it with the idea of “returning home”. This concept of ‘Heimlich’ contrasts immediately with Freud's ‘Unheimliche’, meaning the Uncanny. On one hand, it is a dialectical moment of a ruin that can strike us with the destruction of human civilization, and hence produce an uncanny feeling of human existence; on the other hand, it also gives us a perceptual peace, which also means harmony. Mai Dian mentioned the concept of “repairing” a public ruin. For example, there is a platform next to the waterfront in Wuhan University where a young man died while swimming. His family decided to sue the university and the property company that manages the platform. By the end the unviersity had to pay a lot of money, but then also decided to close the platform by adding a huge iron fence. This is surely the easiest solution to resolve the problem, however, it doesn't exempt it from being a stupid one. Now the platform and the waterfront are abandoned and unused - it becomes a ruin. What they have been trying to do is re-open the space and allow people to use it again, by displaying welcome signs, maps, and routes to the place. I see this as a critical question, what does it mean by “repairing a public ruin”? Does it bring back productivity by reactivating the abandoned space? In this situation, we can imagine someone having a party to celebrate the fact that they have transgressed the taboos, or announce that they have reclaimed the public space, and it will become another spectacle. Or, we can ask, does it mean by making the ruin, the space remains a ruin on its own, that is to say to make it a “home” – paraphrasing Simmel's sense of “returning home” from ruins? One direction of this thinking, is no longer to discover the dialectical moment of consciousness – no longer a revelation nor a shock – but rather to make things invisible through quotidian practice. The traditional Marxist thought understands that the concept of class is only made clear during confrontation, but probably this confrontation should not be an exception but rather a immanent status of being – something not even being questioned. One can go there, do whatever one can, but say nothing. There is no site of resistance, because everywhere is the void, everywhere is the site. I am drawn to the question of silence, or even unconsciousness. Revolutions of capitalism have been always silent, it doesn't really tell you that there is going to be a revolution. It took decades or hundreds of years to realize the financial system as it exists today. Lets remember that the first credit card was produced in 1969, one year after the most revolutionary moments of the 20th century. Lets not forget that the introduction of the pension fund happened in the US in the 80s, when there wasn't much resistance against it. It would be too ambitious to give a new image of revolution here, 6


but I think to in order to think beyond Occupy today, it is necessary to confront this question. Let me end with another quote from the Programme élémentaire du Bureau d’Urbanisme Unitaire, and maybe we can take the idea of the revolution of everyday life qua appropriation in a quite different sense, if not even in reverse: “We are not contending that people must return to some stage previous to the era of conditioning, but rather that they must go beyond it. We have invented the architecture and the urbanism that cannot be realized without the revolution of everyday life — without the appropriation of conditioning by everyone, its endless enrichment and fulfilment” - Internationale Situationniste

6


Urban Exotic Dilemma

52


MADAME WANG 2.3

53


54


MADAME WANG 2.3

55


56


MADAME WANG 2.3

57


Our worlds are woven together

Josef Bares & Prayas Abhinav


Our worlds are woven together of structures and patterns. Our thoughts, our decisions, our environment with all its supporting networks –social, material and virtual. Thoughts are projected into designs which are turned into real life forms, possible to be shared with and imposed on others. Take our decision making processes: Our thoughts, which precede actions, are based within structures imprinted on our mind. They are formed through the participation in the educational system, based on a cumulative collective knowledge. We make decisions by picking from a set of possible, i.e. imaginable, solutions. How can we be surprised?

MADAME WANG 2.3

59


A similar pattern applies in case of our physical actions, which are based within limitations of material structures/ designs. Our physical movement is directed by boundaries set by urban maps and architectural designs. And these maps and designs are in turn nothing else than an imprint of mental decisions into physical material. Michel de Certeau talked about the dichotomy of strategies and tactics, where the former were related with grid-like structures and order and the latter were related to individual decision making and ways of coping with obstacles encountered during the pursuit of one’s desires within the environment. Yet the clear-cut distinctions obscure that each of us unites a designer and a user within one’s self. Our thoughts need structure and direction, but they equally need diversions and randomness.

Even though there is a necessity of living within a given set of rules, we are free agents, and have the freedom to break these rules and walk on a selfdefined curve instead of the predefined rectangle. The set of self evident choices we have is always just a part of an infinite list, restricted only by our own imagination.

60


MADAME WANG 2.3

61


Our world already has a shape. This shape did not form after a discussion with us, it was done as an act (of nature or otherwise, we don’t know). But we can alter the landscape by our behaviour. Usership is a word used to describe the status of a user of a web service on the Internet. The digital user is an agent who is negotiating a situation which is intensely governed by rules and logical structures. Digital heritage is built with the definition of rules. But digital heritage can be disturbed by acts which are contrary to the defining structure.

Teaching and performance have something in common. Performance works with all of experience as its material. And teaching works with the material of pedagogy. Brought together, the intent of these terms can breakthrough the culture of wanting to reduce the behaviour of the eventual user into a specific form. So teaching in a performative manner can be a way to facilitate emergence.

62


MADAME WANG 2.3 Genuine emergence is a situation in which we expect the drift to change. We consider for example, the possibility of a deflection. We consider the possibility of extension, of growth. But what kind of growth are we seeking? What are we after? We simply want something that we do not already have. We want to encounter a thought that falls outside the pattern of what we are capable of thinking. Or stated simply, we want to be surprised. And surprise is a valid desire, which is possible to engage with understanding and regard. If we do not get surprised, we have to make peace with living with old words, old forms and old codes guiding our mind. And that is not acceptable.

Improvisation is the key to changing actual experience. It is a concrete way of blending in unorthodox perspectives and diffusing the borders of the pigeon holes of knowledge a bit.

63


Bloom Collective Itinerant Systems 2016 WING Platform for Performance


M1 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 1 -1 3

METHOD 01 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1100 TO 1300. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE THE PRODUCT OF AN INTERPRETATION RELAY. IT IS THE MID POINT WITHIN AN ITERATIVE SYSTEM OF TOP DOWN SUGGESTION, AND GROUND UP CREATIVITY. IT IS OPEN AND FOR ALL. EACH COMPONENT IS ATTACHED CONSECUTIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING. MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. START AT E01 / E02, SEE R1.

M2 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

步驟一 1100 至 1300 的建築手冊 – 結構將會是通過圖紙理解及來回講解的成果,是說明及創意的折中,歡迎所 有人參與。構件順序從放射點排列,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展。放射點 E01 及E02,詳見R1

步驟二 1300 至 1500 的建築手冊 – 結構將會從E點向中央點發展,多層結構網格形成,創造不同的幾何型狀, 避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展

M01. WHERE

M02. WHERE

|_ . b f t e

FORM

= = = = = = =

component joint = A boundary floor time extents

|_ . b f t e

FORM

e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

= = = = = = =

M4 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 1 -1 3

METHOD 01 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1100 TO 1300. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE THE PRODUCT OF AN INTERPRETATION RELAY. IT IS THE MID POINT WITHIN AN ITERATIVE SYSTEM OF TOP DOWN SUGGESTION, AND GROUND UP CREATIVITY. IT IS OPEN AND FOR ALL. EACH COMPONENT IS ATTACHED CONSECUTIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING. MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. START AT E01 / E02, SEE R1. 步驟一 1100 至 1300 的建築手冊 – 結構將會是通過圖紙理解及來回講解的成果,是說明及創意的折中,歡迎所 有人參與。構件順序從放射點排列,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展。放射點 E01 及E02,詳見R1 M01. WHERE

|_ . b f t e

FORM

= = = = = =

component joint = A boundary floor time extents

=

e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M4 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 7-1 9

METHOD 04 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1700 TO 1900 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS M 2T=17J OWITH I N TJOINT F O RC, MSEE U LAGAIN A E - R2I T, IANMULTIPLE E R A N T BAY S Y STRUCTURE S T E M S WILL CONTINUE WITH t = 1 JOINTS 3 - 1 5 AT AT CLOSER PROGRESSION ALMOST TO AN OVERLAP. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD 02 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1300 TO 1500, THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED FROM 步驟四 POINT 至 E TOWARDS A CENTRAL POINT, AT T=13 A MULTIPLE BAY R2,更緊密,甚至重疊的多層結構網格形 STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS 1500 1700 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 AS EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A 成,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

t=1 7-1 9

METHOD 04 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1700 TO 1900 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS M 2T=17J O I N TJOINT FOR U LAGAIN A E - R2I T, IANMULTIPLE E R A N T BAY S YSTRUCTURE S T E M S WILL CONTINUE WITH t = 1 JOINTS 3 - 1 5 AT AT WITH C, M SEE CLOSER PROGRESSION ALMOST TO AN OVERLAP. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD 02 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1300 TO 1500, THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED FROM 步驟四 POINT至 E TOWARDS A CENTRAL POINT, AT T=13 A MULTIPLE BAYR2,更緊密,甚至重疊的多層結構網格形 STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS 1500 1700 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 AS EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A 成,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

步驟二 M04. 1300 至 1500 的建築手冊 – 結構將會從E點向中央點發展,多層結構網格形成,創造不同的幾何型狀, WHERE |_ = component 避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 . = joint = B b = boundary f = floor t = time M02. == extents WHERE e| _ component . = joint = A FORM == boundary e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) f = floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) t = time e = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x b(fxt) FORM = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt bb xx (fxt) (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt bb x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt)

e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

步驟三 M05. 1500 至 1700 – 結構將會采用連接點 B,詳見 R2,更緊密的多層結構網格形成,創造不同 WHERE | _ 的建築手冊 = component 的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 . = joint = C

b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

= boundary = floor = time == extents component = joint = B == boundary e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = time = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x b(fxt) = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt bb xx (fxt) (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b xb (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt bb x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 9 -2 0

METHOD 05 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1900 TO 2000 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS

M O I N JOINT T F OC,RSEE M UAGAIN L A ER2- , AI MULTIPLE T I N E R ABAY N TSTRUCTURE S Y S T E MWILL S CONTINUE WITH JOINTS t = 1 AT 5 -CLOSER 17 AT 3 T=19J WITH

PROGRESSION TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL 03 DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD

AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1500 TO 1700 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS 步驟五 AT T=15 WITH JOINT B, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER 1900 至 2000 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 PROGRESSION. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

M03. WHERE FORM

M6 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

步驟六 2000 至 2100 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展

FORM

FORM

FORM

b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

= joint = B == boundarye1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = time = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b xx (fxt) (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b bx x(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt bx x(fxt) (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

FORM

66 M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 9 -2 0

METHOD 05 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1900 TO 2000 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER

M6 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=2 0 -2 1

METHOD 06 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 2000 TO 2100 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH TO OVERLAP, F+N

t=2 0 -2 1

METHOD 06 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 2000 TO 2100 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE AS MAXIMUM WITH DENSITY. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

FORM

. b f t e

b f t e| _ . b f t e

FORM

M05. WHERE

joint = A boundarye1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) time extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt bb xx (fxt) (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xtb bx x(fxt) (fxt)

t=1 9 -2 0

METHOD 05 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1900 TO 2000 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS MT=19 3 JWITH O I NJOINT T F OC, RSEE MU L A ER2-, AIMULTIPLE T I N E R ABAY N TSTRUCTURE SYSTEM S CONTINUE WITH JOINTS t = 1AT 5 CLOSER -1 7 AT AGAIN WILL PROGRESSION TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD DIRECTION 03 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1500 TO 1700 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS 步驟五 AT T=15 WITH JOINT B, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER 1900 至 2000 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 PROGRESSION. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

步驟三 M05. 1500 – 結構將會采用連接點 B,詳見 R2,更緊密的多層結構網格形成,創造不同 WHERE至 1700 | _ 的建築手冊 = component 的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 . = joint = C b = boundary f = floor t = time M03. extents WHERE |e _ == component

= == = = =

e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

步驟二 M04. 1300 至 1500 的建築手冊 – 結構將會從E點向中央點發展,多層結構網格形成,創造不同的幾何型狀, WHERE |_ = component 避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 . = joint = B b = boundary f = floor t = time M02. e == extents WHERE |_ component . b f t e

component joint = A boundary floor time extents

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M1 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 3 -1 5

METHOD 02 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1300 TO 1500, THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED FROM POINT E TOWARDS A CENTRAL POINT, AT T=13 A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AS EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

|_ . b f t e

= = = = = = =

component joint = C boundary floor time extents e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)


b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

MADAME WANG 2.3 M4 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

M1 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 1 -1 3

METHOD 01 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1100 TO 1300. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE THE PRODUCT OF AN INTERPRETATION RELAY. IT IS THE MID POINT WITHIN AN ITERATIVE SYSTEM OF TOP DOWN SUGGESTION, AND GROUND UP CREATIVITY. IT IS OPEN AND FOR ALL. EACH COMPONENT IS ATTACHED CONSECUTIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING. MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. START AT E01 / E02, SEE R1. 步驟一 1100 至 1300 的建築手冊 – 結構將會是通過圖紙理解及來回講解的成果,是說明及創意的折中,歡迎所 有人參與。構件順序從放射點排列,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展。放射點 E01 及E02,詳見R1 M01. WHERE

|_ . b f t e

FORM

= = = = = = =

component joint = A boundary floor time extents e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

t=1 7-1 9

METHOD 04 AN STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS M 2INSTRUCTION J O I N T FFOR O RTHE M UCONSTRUCTOR L A E - I T I NFROM E R A1700 N T TOS Y1900 S T THE EMS t=1 3 -1 5 AT T=17 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER PROGRESSION ALMOST TO AN OVERLAP. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL 02 DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD

AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1300 TO 1500, THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED FROM 步驟四 POINT E TOWARDS A CENTRAL POINT, AT T=13 A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS 1500 至 COMPONENT 1700 的建築手冊 C,詳見 AS EACH PIECE –IS結構將會采用連接點 ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A R2,更緊密,甚至重疊的多層結構網格形 DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A 成,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. 步驟二 1300 至 1500 的建築手冊 – 結構將會從E點向中央點發展,多層結構網格形成,創造不同的幾何型狀, M04. 避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 WHERE |_ = component . = joint = B b = boundary f = floor M02. t = time WHERE |e _ == component extents . = joint = A b == boundarye1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) FORM f = floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) t = time b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) FORM = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt bb xx (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b bx x(fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M4 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

t=1 7-1 9

METHOD 04 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1700 TO 1900 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=17 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT M 2 J OPROGRESSION I N T F O R MALMOST U L A E TO - AN I T IOVERLAP. N E R A NEACH T S YCOMPONENT S T E M S PIECE IS ATTACHEDt =SUCCESSIVELY CLOSER 1 3 -1 5 AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. METHOD 步驟四 02 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1300 TO 1500, THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED FROM 1500 至 1700 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,更緊密,甚至重疊的多層結構網格形 POINT E TOWARDS A CENTRAL POINT, AT T=13 A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS 成,創造不同的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 AS EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. M04. 步驟二 WHERE | _ 的建築手冊 = component 1300 至 1500 – 結構將會從E點向中央點發展,多層結構網格形成,創造不同的幾何型狀, . = joint = B 避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 b = boundary f = floor t = time e = extents M02. WHERE FORM

|_ . b f t e

FORM

= component == joint = A e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = boundaryb|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = floor b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) = time = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt bbxx(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt)

M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

METHOD 03 步驟五 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1500 TO 1700 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS 1900 2000 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 AT T=15至 WITH JOINT B, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAYC,詳見 STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 PROGRESSION. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. M05. 步驟三 WHERE |_ = component 1500 至 1700 的建築手冊 B,詳見 R2,更緊密的多層結構網格形成,創造不同 . = joint–= 結構將會采用連接點 C 的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 b = boundary f = floor t = time e = extents M03.

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

WHERE FORM

|_ . b f t e

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

FORM

t=1 9 -2 0

t=1 9 -2 0

M6 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

步驟五 1900 至 2000 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展

步驟六 2000 至 2100 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展

M05. WHERE

M05. WHERE

FORM

=

component joint = C boundary floor time extents e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

FORM

|_ . b f t e

= = = = = = =

步驟六 2000 至 2100 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展

M05. WHERE

|_ . b f t e

= = = = = = =

component joint = C boundary floor time extents e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

t=2 0 -2 1

METHOD 06 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 2000 TO 2100 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE AS MAXIMUM WITH DENSITY. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

= = = = = =

t=2 0 -2 1

M6 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

METHOD 06 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 2000 TO 2100 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE AS MAXIMUM WITH DENSITY. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

FORM

METHOD 05 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1900 TO 2000 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER PROGRESSION TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

|_ . b f t e

步驟三 M05. 1500 至 1700 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 B,詳見 R2,更緊密的多層結構網格形成,創造不同 WHERE |_ = component 的幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 . = joint = C b = boundary f = floor M03. t = time WHERE |e _ == component extents . = joint = B b == boundarye1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) FORM f = floor b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) t = time b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) FORM = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt bb xx (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b bx x(fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

METHOD 05 AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1900 TO 2000 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER M 3 J O I N T TOF O R M U LF+N A E SHOULD - ITIN E R A N TEACH S Y COMPONENT S T E M S PIECE IS ATTACHEDt =SUCCESSIVELY 1 5 -1 7 PROGRESSION OVERLAP, INCREASE. AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE.

= component == joint = B e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = boundaryb|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) = floor b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) = time = extents b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b xb(fxt) = e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt bbx x(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt bbxx(fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b bx (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

METHOD 05 AN FROM M 3INSTRUCTION J O I N T FFOR O RTHE M UCONSTRUCTOR LAE - ITIN E R A1900 N T TOS 2000 Y S T ETHE M SSTRUCTURE WILL PROCEED t = 1 ONWARDS 5 -1 7 AT T=19 WITH JOINT C, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER PROGRESSION TO OVERLAP, F+N SHOULD INCREASE. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A METHOD 03 CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH EDGE. AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTOR FROM 1500 TO 1700 THE STRUCTURE WILL PROCEED ONWARDS AT T=15 WITH JOINT B, SEE AGAIN R2 , A MULTIPLE BAY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE WITH JOINTS AT CLOSER 步驟五 PROGRESSION. EACH COMPONENT PIECE IS ATTACHED SUCCESSIVELY AS A DIALOGUE FROM AN OUTSET 1900 至 2000 的建築手冊 – 結構將會采用連接點 C,詳見 R2,重疊的多層結構網格形成,創造不同的 TOWARDS A SETTING, MIX GEOMETRY, AVOID ROOM EDGES MOVE TO A CENTRAL DIRECTION FROM EACH 幾何型狀,避開房間邊緣并向房中央發展 EDGE.

b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

t=1 9 -2 0

M5 J O I N T F O R M U L A E - I T I N E R A N T S Y S T E M S

component joint = C boundary floor time extents e1 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|C_C|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|B_B|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt) e2 b|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|A_A|xt b x (fxt)

67


68


MADAME WANG 2.3

69


72


MADAME WANG 2.3

73


ITINERANT SYSTEMS ,2016 IS THE MERGING OF TWO SCULPTURAL GRID FORMS DEFINED AT SEPARATE INITIATION POINTS DEVELOPED BY CONSTRUCTORS, IT IS AN EXPERIMENT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF A SET OF RULES THAT DICTATE AN INTENSIFICATION OF COMPONENTS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE SEMI CHOREOGRAPHED PERFORMANCE.

SCENARIOS ARE PROPOSED AT INTERVALS THAT ARE INITIALLY AN INHABITATION OF THE SPACE, AS THE PIECE DEVELOPS TOWARDS ITS OPPOSING POLE AND OVERLAPS. THE ACT OF INTENSIFICATION IS PRESCRIBED THROUGH RULE SETS THAT ARE MERELY SUGGESTIONS OF A DIALOGUE, INDUCING A COLLABORATIVE NATURE TO THE SYSTEM.

THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CREATES A COMMUNAL EDIFICE FOR THE SPACE. THE SUCCESS OF THE COLLABORATION FORMS AN EVER INTENSE OVERLAY OF THE STRUCTURE - UP TO ITS DEMISE, FORMING A DEAD END OR ‘BARRIER’. - THE SYSTEM ITSELF BEGINS TO BLOCK ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT AS ITS OWN MANIFESTATION INTENSIFIES.

THE STRUCTURE IS THE MID POINT OF A SET OF IDEAS PASSED THROUGH NUMEROUS LEVELS OF THOUGHT AND INTERPRETATION. 3D SCANNERS WILL BE USED TO TRACK THE EVENT AHEAD OF A RIGOUROUS POST PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS.

THE PERFORMANCE IS AS MUCH A CRITIQUE ON CONTEMPORARY PLANNING NORMS AS IT IS A TESTING OF IDEALS. A RIGID SYSTEM IS AS SUCH EASIER TO FOLLOW, THE CHANGES TO THE GRID ARE THEN PERSUASIONS FROM THE REFERENCE DRAWINGS IN THE SPACE. THE METHOD DRAWINGS ARE A RULE SET AND A TIMED SKETCH PAD, TO BE USED BY THE VIEWER TO ORCHESTRATE THE PIECE... INTERACT WITH OR USED BY THE CONTRACTORS TO SKETCH DIAGRAMS.


MOWGLI’S REVENGE For Ram Chandra

Back a few years, the general talk was about whether if, being migrant, being immigrant, being male (mostly), being an outsider, being alien even to yourself, opened you more to the high likelihood of mental illness, the high liklihood of some small madness. Or, was it more that we are all working under the effects of biased research that can not, will not comprehend us? Well this story is nothing to do with that. This is the true story of Mowgli and what happened after. Surely he is an invention; a colonial fantasy, you say? Aren’t we all just characters from some or other empire’s story? Mowgli has yet to discover himself, but still, his mission is becoming clear. What’s the opposite of Metamorphosis? Not what’s not Metamorphosis; beyond staying the same; more intense than... The same as Metamorphosis but in the other direction, finding What you are Bit By bit But now my reflections have led me nowhere, So, to start again I propose ELEVATION; the acquisition Of height - even localized - of which will lend us some vertigo, of which, You will find, Is What is. But you knew that, and somewhere off you are cursing me And digging me a hole and Making up clever lies that I can’t deny - nor would I dare to. I am at your mercy. (Until I get the upper hand then) Then; then there will be vertigo; Even LOCALISED. ELEVATION (even localised) will change everything even while it all remains the same. We can only make plans and conquer our fear of ladders, balanced books, balanced plates, balanced bricks, poised fingers, arched enemies, citizens, the weak. (The Weak. Breaking up everything. Demanding we join them Demanding citizenship when there is no citizenship, Demanding pity and horror and purchase power even though there is no power. 86


MADAME WANG 2.3

Demanding I look on them as a mirror As a point of moral reflection, as a lesson and hope to future generations.) Mine is the story of what happened after After Kolkata, after Pan-Asia (After the forestry job.) This is the story that I cling to, the transition into a new era, Jugantar - transition sorrows disguised as transition hope, disguised as Mowgli disguised as Ram Chandra, Forgetting then beginning to remember What Is owed.

87


MOWGLI’S REVENGE

PANGS Pangs; ordinarily unanalysed, presumed regret-shame-guilt, presumed as much to do with character as weakness, as much the source as the symptom, regret-shame-guilt, resplendent at the hearth. Of the family, no doubt. Pangs also come at night unreflected, lurking, truncated, unconnected to memories. From these it would be better to stay unborn.

88


MOWGLI’S REVENGE

MADAME WANG 2.3

FREE FASHION Canabalism and other sexual appetites, Take to the streets proclaiming TV sufficient, fuck the Internet - everything is porn. Drag politicians’ still twitching torsos through the streets Gash-up the reformers Dress naked in kimonos, Dress in favorite things, new friends, platform shoes Make impromptu speeches about revenge and mastabation, love, myths, great food. New haircut, new boots, back to bed With police now working for you Order can be dispensed with, can be set aside To consider the alternatives before they are Murdered in their beds due to general lawlessness Still no one’s complaining, No one’s even sure where we are Where are we? So difficult to know now we are no longer anything to do with Where we were.

89


Contributors page 9: PINTHW Bogna Konior & Yvette Granata page 20: Jack Spittle page 32: NONSPACE 2-channel installation, dir. Nicolas Sauret & Ashley Wong, 23min, 2009. To view the full film visit: vimeo.com/19287551 page 40: BOTANICAL Sam Basu. Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden, Kolkata. page 46: AFTER OCCUPY Yuk Hui page 52: Urban Exotic Dilemma Craig Cooper, Untitled, marker on card, 2016 page 60: OUR WORLDS ARE WOVEN TOGETHER Josef Bares & Prayas Abhinav page 64: ITINERANT SYSTEMS Bloom collective at WING Platform for Performance. BLOOM Collective is a collaborative group of designers, architects and engineers working with notions of rapid structure, responsive systems and collaborative community sculptural works. www.bloomwrks.com page 86: MOWGLI’S REVENGE Sam Basu 2016, ongoing poem series 90


MADAME WANG 2.3

End pappers: Sam Basu with Kelwin Palmer & Liz Murray, from ‘The Project of Art’, an exploration of Aldo Rossi’s Vassivière art centre, 2016,

91


MADAME WANG 2.3

migrationTHRESHOLD

2017

Profile for Madame Wang

Madame Wang 2.3  

MADAME WANG Journal for geo-distributed collaboration. issue 2.3. Bogna Konior & Yvette Granata, Nicolas Sauret & Ashley Wong, Yuk Hui, BLOO...

Madame Wang 2.3  

MADAME WANG Journal for geo-distributed collaboration. issue 2.3. Bogna Konior & Yvette Granata, Nicolas Sauret & Ashley Wong, Yuk Hui, BLOO...

Advertisement