Deconstructing Domesticity: an experiment on the gendered practices of student homes.
Martha Minton 1
Deconstructing Domesticity: an experiment on the gendered practices of student homes.
Martha Minton 170157450 Sheffield School of Architecture Cover Illustration: By Author Word count: 4225 2
Figure 1: Domestic chaos
With thanks to Beatrice De Carli, for her support, encouragement and time, in circumstances so adverse. 3
Part One: Theoretical context
1.1 The Home as the Opressor
1.2 The Myth of an ‘Alternative’ Domestic Setup 11 1.3 Students and their Homes
Part Two: The Homes and their Inhabitants
2.1 The All-Female House
2.2 The All Male-House
Part Three: Process and Method
List of figures
Figure 2: Female House Façade Figure 3: Male House Façade.
Theoretically speaking, the home can be interpreted as a microcosm of the society within which it sits: the gender roles of the wider realm replicated on a micro scale. In terms of ever-evolving gender-based practice, obligation and struggle globally, the home is where this is shielded from public surveillance, yet perhaps also the most prominent; in its rawest form. The way men and women live domestically is vastly well researched, yet very thinly in the context of same-sex dwellings, or younger individuals, in fact, most fields that do not constitute the ‘nuclear family’. This study is a call to understand the relationship between the patriarchal ideals of a traditional home and the way students live; whether tradition plays any role at all in male and female domestic practices in single sex shared dwellings. Examining instances as far from the ‘traditional’ home as possible, the theories associated with convention and nonconformism will be introduced and analysed in order to understand what constitutes normality versus rebellion in the domestic sphere, and how these two constructs interact, most prominently based on gender.
“‘Home’ evokes small scale anguish of domestic drudgery and the claustrophobia of gender roles.” (Hatoum, 2001)
I, as a young woman studying Architecture, and living amongst those my age, am existentially conflicted about the place in which women stand within 21st century Britain. Sometimes I feel equal to my male counterparts, yet sometimes like we are extremely far off: as if patriarchy is firmly concreted into the pavements of society. I almost constantly challenge and question why my home rituals are the way they are; did I wash up that plate and dry it straight away because I am trained to be a ‘perfect housewife’ by the people and practices that raised me? Alternatively, did I leave that cup to mould in rebellion against this system of oppression? Or even, is the boys living room genuinely messier than ours purely because they are male? Alternatively, am I just applying an outdated stereotype to these mundane behaviours that are no longer even remotely relevant? These unanswered questions, however mundane and pernickety they seem, are what fuelled the following architectural investigation, so close (both metaphorically and physically) to home, based almost entirely upon primary research and experimentation. Mona Hatoum’s sculpture ‘Home’, as seen on the right, represents how a seemingly safe, kind, feminine concept- a kitchen- can be remodelled and reassigned menace, anger and threat. I, as well as many other women, am uncertain of where I stand between these two extremes; it is not only my place within society I question, but also my place within my own home. It is to be hoped that I will gage some clarity once this study is fulfilled. Figure 4: Home Mona Hatoum, 1999
This study is broken into two main parts. One focuses on the conceptual understanding of domesticity, through analysing works of contemporary architects, and feminist literates, in order to see how the design and the theory behind it converge. The second, driven by primary research, aims to grasp how this happens in reality, in a contemporary setting, as close to a ‘personal ordinary’ as possible. the primary section will be broken into two studies, one about the physicality of the genders, their bodies and the space around them, and the other about the more metaphorical concept of domestic space and how it is interpreted by the individual. Using methods largely in reference to Sarah Wigglesworth’s ‘Dining Table’ (Wigglesworth 2007) and various approaches from Duijzings and Campkin’s ‘Engaged Urbanism: Cities and methodologies’, (Duijzings and Campkin 2016) this study will be vastly experimental, conceptual and investigational, and largely based around the cherished concept that drawing is the most potent tool for clear understanding.
Part One: Theoretical Context
1.1: the home as the opressor
1.2: the myth of an ‘alternative’ domestic set up
Architecture can be utilised as form of control. Architectural educator Leslie Kanes Weisman outlines in her seminal publication ‘Discrimination by Design’ how through colonisation and consequently urbanisation, man gained order and power over large expanses of land and also people. Methods like the creation of a grid system: a ‘firmly bounded geometric plan’ (Downey and Mumford 1961: 12-13) are ways of systematically dividing, directing and controlling civilians to live, behave and move in a regimented way (Favro and Weisman 1994). Thus, as already outlined, the gender-based segregation of a traditional home is a succinct microcosm of the society in which it sits.
Following on from this concept of gender dynamics, there is a tendency within feminist criticisms of domestic space to focus on the husband and wife setup as a given normality within a home setting. This constant emphasis the traditional family thus creates a body of research that ‘excludes non-normative subjects’ (Heynen and Baydar 2005: 34) subconsciously reinforcing an outdated stereotype that is not, and never has been the ‘most common’ or ‘normal’ way of living on a global scale. Especially contemporarily speaking, there is a clear shift away from this dynamic, with many choosing to live alone, in same sex couples, or with friends to name a minute selection of alternate yet extremely usual examples. The ‘adult daughters, domestic servants, single women’, and the ‘bachelors, gay men and adult sons’ (Heynen and Baydar 2005: 33) should be just as heavily researched and relevant within the field of domestic research, as without them, a skewed image of the typical household has been created.
The typical 20th century American home, for example, is planned to control, keeping women and children separated from men, splitting the practical housework from intellectual endeavour. While women and children are confined to the kitchen and circulation spaces, men have access to the drawing room or living room, or even library (Colomina and Bloomer 1992), placing them on a pedestal in which they are considered more important than the rest of their family. Beatriz Colomina’s ‘sexuality and space’, more specifically her pivotal chapter ‘The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism’ focuses on how Architect Adolf Loos self-designed Müller House, Prague, is representative of how these theoretical divisions can be a lot more resolute and intentionally derogatory. As a pioneer of the modernist architectural movement, designing and inhabiting an interior representative of a female form, an ‘architecture of the womb’, Loo’s wife’s room is evocative of ‘a bag of fur and cloth’, ‘in which to wrap oneself’, an image suggestive of a woman’s reproductive organs. The ‘gender loaded’ division of the interior versus the ‘dinner jacket’, ‘male mask’ (Colomina and Bloomer 1992: 93-94) of the exterior separates the genders both physically, within the home itself, and also theoretically, sexualising the woman and assigning supremacy to the man. Loo’s vast stylistic influence therefore creates further uncompromising gender disparities, with people seeing his way of designing and living as ‘correct’ and therefore choosing to replicate it, illustrating a systematic division between the genders, that is reinforced by the home but in no way restricted to there.
Together with Baydar’s ‘Figures of wo/man in contemporary Architectural Discourse’, this study aims to challenge this, arguing that the student home may be a relevant and previously overlooked set up in the context of domestic gender studies.
Figure 6: Domestic Scene. David Hockney,1963
Figure 5: Femme Maison. Louise Bourgeois, 1946
1.3: Students and their homes Late adolescence is an incredibly significant and self-defining time in an individual’s life, if not the most critical. The notion of adolescents leaving their family home and moving to university is a relatively well researched transition. It is largely in the context of the effect on the individual and the adjustment to change which are reflected as the main aspects of this large developmental change (Holton, 2016). There is limited research, however, into the gender-based aspect of this concept. Students, largely leaving a family home typical of the ones so heavily researched in feminist domestic criticisms, then move into homes with others typically their own age, learning to navigate a completely new domestic setting without any authoritative figures or experience in how to live and behave. there is a small yet important field of research into the notion of ‘home’ and ‘domesticity’ among students (Cieraad, 2010), however, these studies do not delve into the disparities in this transition between the genders. It therefore must be asked, within this study: is the family set up influential upon the behaviour of the male or female once outside their original domestic context, and do they reject or take on the roles of their parents? When the new homes are split by gender, how do females and males behave both similarly and adversely? These are some of the questions I aim to challenge within this paper.
Figure 7: Jim Hawkins Leaves Home. Newell Convers Wyeth, 1911
Part Two: The homes and their Inhabitants: An introduction to the participants
Figure 9: Female house plan. Ground floor plan, First floor plan, Second floor plan 1:100 @ A3
The Female participants, and their corresponding rooms in plan 2.1: The All-Female House
Figure 8: Female House Façade
A Victorian, end of terrace ‘two up, two down’ red brick house. A covered alley way runs from front to back, making the first and decond floor wider than the ground. Originally the home of a working class couple or family with two bedrooms, the added loft extension and interior walls have created five bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper floors. Figure 10: Female Participants
Ground floor plan, First floor plan, Second floor plan 1:100 @ A3
Figure 11: Male house plan. Ground floor plan, First floor plan, Second floor plan 1:100 @ A3
The Male participants, and their corresponding rooms in plan 2.2: The All-Male House
Figure 12: Male Participants
A slightly larger, semi-detached house, made of sandstone rather than red brick. the orginial layout would have been a three bedroom house, with one upstairs bathroom. The dwelling has been altered to create 3 bathrooms and 6 bedrooms, one being half of the original living/drawing room, as seen in the adjacent plan.
Figure 13: Male house facade
Figure 14: Layered sequential drawing
Part Three: Process and method 18
3.1: ‘Body’ Time Lapse Photography Experiment 19
Question: To what extent does the spatial awareness of the respective genders differ within the home, and how? Theory
This section aims to examine whether the spatial awareness of an individual is dependent on their gender. It is a heavily researched and many times established concept that men are nurtured to be more spatially dominant.
This experiment used time lapse photography to establish whether there was a difference in the spatial awareness of male and female participants. Sarah Wigglesworth’s ‘dining table’ (see right) shows the before, during and after stages of a meal at a dining table, exhibiting the movement of the objects by creating layer upon layer of line as an object shifts. ‘Exploring how the relationship between diners around a table can be compared to the interactions between occupants in the home’ (Wigglesworth, 2007: ) it disengages the human presence within a domestic setting, showing the affect a person has on the space around them, rather than focussing on the person’s body itself. To see whether the concepts previously discussed are prominent or even detectable at all within male-only and female-only homes I reversed this approach, applying Wigglesworth’s techniques instead to how individual’s bodies engage with the space that surrounds them. I used a time lapse over 2 hours to record how the boys and girls respectively would occupy the space around them when watching a film in their living rooms.
The disparities between the behaviours of men and women in contemporary Western domestic settings are largely a result of deep rooted tradition and understanding. From ancient prehistoric civilisations from all parts of the world, such as the old testament, ancient Chinese cosmology, and Ancient Greece, male entitlement is engrained within the way society functions at both an urban and domestic scale and all in between. Therefore, through the process of colonisation and consequently urbanisation, man gained order and control of large expanses of land and also people (Favro & Weisman, 1994: 12). On a micro scale, this is replicated within the ‘traditional’ home setup, thus the house becomes a succinct embodiment of the society within which it sits. On a more individual scale, it is taught universally to children from an early age that girls are to cross their legs, while boys can sit with them open, once again allowing males to spatially dominate. I intend to see if this is true in a setting not previously considered, a student home, in order to understand if girls and boys, when removed from a ‘traditional’ domestic setting are still influenced by the patriarchal ideals that are so prominent outside the physical walls of their homes. The time lapse method chosen is developed from the repeat photography experiment used by Sabina Andron in ‘Paint. Buff. Shoot. Repeat’, chapter 14 of ‘Engaged Urbanism’, a ‘compendium of projects’ and ‘experimental methodologies to provide ‘new knowledge about cities’ (Duijzings & Campkin, 2016: VII). The experiment investigates, through re-photography, how street art evolves over the period of one year. Using this method of staggered recording, over one hour instead of one year, the evolutions of individuals movements can be investigated clearly and systematically.
Limitations The main limitation of this experiment was that the presence of the camera may have caused the participants to act differently to how they would without it. Additionally, the positioning of the camera differed between the houses as the layout of the respective living rooms couldn’t be manipulated to create the same angled image of a sofa. In the all-female house, the sofa angles are skewed, meaning the original intention of the experiment, to be a front elevational view of the sofa, couldn’t be achieved. This made analysing the images slightly more difficult than anticipated. The body itself is a far more complex in its movement and interaction with than objects on a dinner table. This made creating clear analytical images and diagrams to illustrate this extremely challenging. A trial and error system of experimentation was used in order to find the best way of doing this. On the following pages, after the original experiment, are some of the tested methods and a description of how they were made, and why they weren’t successful enough to be pursued.
Figure 15: The Dining Table Sarah Wigglesworth, 2007
Figure 17: Time Lapse- Male House. Figure 16: Time Lapse- Female House.
Time Lapse Stills: Female House 22
Time Lapse Stills: Male House 23
Figure 19: Layered study 2. Figure 18: Layered study 1
These images were created using the ‘image trace’ function on adobe illustrator. By layering up the traced photos, the movement of the individual bodies over time is suggested. However, the complexity of the photos meant the image became unclear and complicated, particularly in the female house time lapse, after only layering 3 of the 49 frames, therefore another method would need to be developed, perhaps by simplifying the images, deleting lines or just outlining the bodies. 24
Figure 21: Head Movement Figure 20: Layered study 3
This technique uses overlaying of the bodies at low opacity to see how they move over time. Only five layers were put together, as the more I added, the more unclear the image became, similar to the last experiement. The
In this experiment, the heads are abstracted into circles, and the movement of all 4 heads is mapped through the duration of the time lapse. This method was extremely time consuming to create, although the results are the most diagrammatic of all of the ones tested.
Figure 22: Layered study 4
Figure 23: Layered study 5
Layering individual drawings, drawn from outlines of the timelapse stills, was the method I found to be the most similar to Wigglesworth’s. The image on the left was a test of this, using colour, line thickness, and opacity changes to try and create variations between layers. The black layer is the first and the red is the final. the Image on the right was the finalised version of this stage of exprimentation. It was not pursued to create a comparative piece, due to its lack of visual clarity. 28
Figure 24: Sequential Drawing.
Figure 25: Layered Sequential Drawing.
These sequential studies seperate the drawings from page 27 to show the separate frames on the left, and the layering process on the right.
Reflection and discussion There was vast amounts of movement in both experiments. The females were more contained and settled within the space around them, and the people present didn’t change vastly. The males had two different guests on the sofa at different times. they used the sofa, within the hour, to eat 3 separate meals, and also drink, while the females sat relatively consistently for an hour after they had eaten in the kitchen. Lucy was working on her laptop for most of the experiment, with the others all using their phones at different points. The males however, didn’t use their phones at all during the experiment, suggesting despite the more hectic environment, they felt more socially connected to the people directly near them. While the females were engaging in casual conversation as the sole collective activity, the males were watching football and talking simultaneously. The males engaged far more obnoxiously with the camera taking note of it physically much more. They also used vulgar hand gestures and came very close to it. Although the way the bodies themselves interacted with the space around them were relatively similar in each experiment regardless of gender, it is undeniable that the presence of the camera affected the behaviour of the males far more than the females.
Figure 26: Female Order.
Figure 27: Male Disorder.
time Figure 28: Interpretive Graph of Bodily Movement.
Summary This experiment sheds light on the way the households function as a whole as well as the spatial awareness of the participants. It became more evident throughout that the sofa is a central part of domestic function and communal living. The all-male house particular use it as a point of meeting; to eat, sleep, socialise, study, sometimes all simultaneously.
None of the tested methods allowed me to portray the true complexity of the human bodies’ movements. above is an interpretative illustration of how the bodies moved over time. While it is not an accurate representation of all the movements, it is a distilled version of a complex and time based data set. The most accurate, and unreplicatable piece of data, however, is the time lapse footage itself, which can be viewed on the following link: https://drive.google. com/drive/u/1/folders/1V5xu_YLJJwMSLlu3i3mJ9U0SOg5nhvYN.
Figure 29: Selected Interiors.
3.2: ‘Space’ Participatory Photography Experiment 35
Question: In what area of the dwelling do participants feel the most ‘safe’ and the most ‘sociable’? Theory This experiment intended to establish whether the respective genders feel tied to certain parts of the house based on traditional gender stereotypes. Architectural design is commonly used to reinforce territorial power roles between groups, in this case, and most prominently globally, men and women. The likening of a home to a theatre is commonly alluded to; the women as the backstage workers to keep it running smoothly, hidden in the shadows, while the men effortlessly perform to the exposed world on the outside (Colomina & Bloomer, 1992) in order to cover the reality of the female-centric mechanisms within. As clarified in chapter 1 ‘the home as the oppressor’, the home itself reinforces divides of all scales both below and above a domestic scale. On the Indonesian island of Timor, the Antoni people classify the co-ordinates of the body into male positive and female negative categories, internalising this theoretically domestic division to one within the human body. Keanes Weisman explains how the organisation of space ‘of all scales’ is gender loaded, from ‘the house, to the village and city, to heaven where the God and father reigns supreme’ (Heynen & Baydar, 2005). The oppression of women within these feminine criticisms seems omnipresent and unavoidable, hence why this study seems so important. Do women, in an all-female home, truly feel entrapped, patronised and sexualised, and therefore drawn to certain spaces, even when free from the theoretical reigns of the patriarchy? And in turn, do men maintain a dominating role when only surrounded by other males, and how does their spatial preference reflect this?
Method Participatory photography was used in this experiment in an attempt to break the metaphorical barrier between researcher and participant. As rationalised in Frediani and Hirst’s participatory photography experiment in ‘Engaged Urbanism: Cities and Methodologies’, the placing of a camera in the hands of a partaker allows the result to be more personally revealing (Hirst and Frediani 2016). icipants were asked to photograph the space they found to be the most ‘safe’ and the place they found the most ‘social’. They then were asked to explain the reasoning behind each image. The images were then drawn and painted, as a way of letting me understand and look at each image more carefully. Subsequently, I zoned each image into its ‘key elements’ (window, water door soft hard light electricity body). These categories were chosen as they most accurately represent all the components of each image in a logical and orderly way. Objects and parts of the image could then be identified with a colour coding system and key.
Limitations Some participants were hesitant to take the photos. The all-male house was particularly difficult to chase up in some cases, probably due to the fact that it required a level of participation and action slightly higher than say an interview or surveillance-based research. This meant this particular experiment was more time consuming than expected, as it took a few weeks to gather all 22 images from each individual. Furthermore, the difference in image quality made drawing from them harder, and meant I had to make up certain areas of detail, particularly in the case of Sam’s responses. This slight alteration could be interpreted as an inaccurate sampling method. The nature of the experiment meant that participants could easily consult each other on their response ideas before taking the photos, perhaps altering an impulsive response in order to be more similar or different to their peers.
Safe: Female Response
Safe: Male Response
Figure 30: Safe- Female Response.
Figure 31: Safe- Male Response.
Social: Female Response
Social: Male Response
Figure 32: Social- Female Response.
Figure 33: Social- Male Response.
Safe: Female Response- drawn
Safe: Male Response- Drawn
Figure 35: Safe- Male Response Drawn
Figure 34: Safe- Female Response Drawn
Social: Female Response- Drawn
Social: Male Response- Drawn
Figure 36: Social- Female Response Drawn
Figure 37: Social- Male Response Drawn
Reflection and Discussion The layout of the female house meant the kitchen became their social space. they have normalised preparing food and eating collectively as the central aspect of their domestic social lives. This structure and clarity may allow them to feel more secure due to a more prominent sense of routine than in the all-male household, where there was a far more varied set of responses. While the living room was photographed by three participants, the kitchen and the doorstep were the responses of two members. This may suggest a less clear sense of unity within the home, and a more sporadic and disjointed environment where schedules of respective members line up less effectively. However, as mentioned previously, the potential for discussion between participants before taking the photos could have skewed the data. It must also be questioned whether the female kitchen-centric response was a subconscious conformation with the tradition of their ‘belonging’ there, carrying out the domestic tasks like washing, cooking and cleaning as the centre of their social lives, or whether it is purely due to the spaces effective function, or most likely, a combination of both. Despite the responses being quite similar in both cases, with the bedrooms and respective social spaces as the most common, there is a clear and defined difference between how each individual has chosen to represent the space visually through the use of their camera. While some took extreme care in portraying the spaces in a pleasant way, with the paces well organised and light, others evidently took the photo and didn’t consider this at all. For example, Ella’s photos versus Sam’s, the starkest difference In the presentation of the space between the participants.
Figure 38: Ella’s ‘Safe’ response versus Sam’s.
Figure 39: Ella’s ‘Social’ response versus Sam’s.
Thus, considering this difference, In order to gage a clearer understanding of whether the initially similar responses to the task are differing based on gender, the diagrams below break the photos into their basic elements, such as (furniture, windows, personal objects etc.) as mentioned in method. 49
Safe: Female Response- Zoning
Safe: Male Response- Zoning
Figure 41: Safe- Male Response- Zoning Figure 40: Safe- Female Response- Zoning
Key: window water doors soft hard light electricity people 50
Social: Female Response- Zoning
Social: Male Response- Zoning
Figure 43: Social- Male Response- Zoning Figure 42: Social- Female Response- Zoning
Key: window water doors soft hard light electricity people 52
Safe: Female Response Development
Figure 44: Safe: Female Response- Evolution
Safe: Male Response Development
Figure 45: Safe: Male Response- Evolution
Social: Female Response Development
Figure 46: Social: Female Response- Evolution
Social: Male Response Development
Figure 47: Social: Male Response- Evolution
the ‘safe’ space was largely the bedroom for both genders. However, Lauren and Jake both had their social and safe spaces as the same; the kitchen and the living room respectively.
Figure 48: Jake’s ‘social’ Response.
Figure 49: Lauren’s ‘social’ Response.
‘The living room is where I feel the most social and this social environment is also where I feel the most relaxed in the house’ -Jake
‘I’ve chosen the kitchen dining area for both as it’s where I socialise the most with friends and bring family when they visit. I have chosen it for my safe place as well, as over the summer when I was alone I would spend time in here the most. It is light, with big windows and makes me feel like secure and connected to the world.’ -Lauren
The overwhelming dominance of the bedroom and the communal living space as the responses to ‘safe’ and ‘social’ correspondingly illustrates the unanimous importance of a balance between privacy and community in the domestic sphere. The undisputed response of the kitchen as the social choice for the females must be noted; whether it would be explained more rationally by their gender, or the architectural layout of the house is debatable. However, the vast focus on routine and communal eating is almost definitely a ‘feminine’ trait that has been conditioned into them, in order to keep a functional household; a pseudo-family setup. 59
Conclusion This experiment intended to examine whether individuals reproduce traditional gender dynamics outside of a ‘typical’ domestic setup. They do, to an extent, but not in the predicted means. Relating the theories so extensively researched by feminist literates to my peers has been a thoroughly enlightening experience and has aided me to understand why and how I act and feel the way I do at home. To deepen and extend my understanding of the ever more complicated relationship between gender roles and the household, I would have gone on to interview my participants much more extensively. Using participatory photography did partially break down the metaphorical barrier between participant and researcher, however the lack of spoken feedback meant assumptions still had to be made from the images retrieved. A supplementary- specifically verbal- retrieval of information may have made this barrier ever more perforated, allowing for a comprehension of others far more profound. The foremost difference between the gendered households was the lack of routine and structure within the male’s house, compared to the sense of order and control within the female house, an outcome I. wasn’t expecting to have revealed to me through this study. This was illustrated in both experiments. In the ‘Body’ investigation, the constant change to the sofas purpose thoughout the hour, compared to the consistency of human presence in the female house, illustrated how the sofa meant different things for different members; there was no defined or clear use of it. In turn the consistency of the kitchen as the preferable place for socialising for the females, versus the varied responses of the males, illustrated that in a more literal, everyday sense, the preparing of food, has given the females collective structure. Women are still disadvantaged on a domestic scale, plainly because if they are in every other part of society, such as salary dissimilarities, why would the home exclude this? this is also, I’ve learned, due to a tendency towards personal responsibility, and the assumptions made of them by others: it still seems as though women even in the most progressive and contemporary settings, such as a student home, are still treated differently to their male counterparts. Whether this will change it is uncertain, yet the gap will continue to shrink as it becomes further understood. Despite this, I feel a firmer sense of purpose and belonging within my house, and wider society, as a result of carrying out my special study, as understanding of place and purpose is key to progression in all aspects of existence. Furthermore, although I haven’t had this entirely confirmed in my small piece of research, it is clear that the way in which men and women treat the space around them is different, implying living in very architecturally similar homes is not necessarily suitable any longer. The Victorian home, as well as many others, was conceptually designed to reinforce the seperation of the genders and the opression of women, by men. This study has influenced the way I will design domestic spaces going into practice, in order to create homes in which women and men feel equally empowered. 60
Andron, Sabina. 2016. “Paint. Buff. Shoot. Repeat”, Engaged Urbanism: Cities and Methodologies ed. by Duijzings, Gerlzachlus, and Campkin, Ben. (London: I.B.Tauris) pp.126-130 Aspan Frediani, Alexandre, and Hirst, Laura. 2016. “Critical Urban Learning Through Participaroty Photography” Engaged Urbanism: Cities and Methodologies ed. By Duijzings, Gerlzachlus, and Campkin, Ben. (London: I.B.Tauris) pp.132-138 Cieraad, Irene. 2010. “Homes from Home: Memories and Projections,” Home Cultures <https://doi.org/10.2752/175174210X12591523182788> [Accessed 15 March 2020] Colomina, Beatriz, and Jennifer Bloomer. 1992. “Domestic Voyeurism: The Split Wall”, Sexuality and Space (New York: Princeton Architectural Press) pp.76-94 Darling, Elizabeth. 2005. ““A citizen as well as a housewife”: new spaces of domesticity in 1930s London” Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture ed. By Heynen, Hilde, and Gulsum, Baydar (London: Routledge) pp. 49-65 Drew, Jane. 1945. Kitchen Planning (London: The Gas Industry) Downey, Glanville, and Lewis Mumford. 1961. “The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects,” The Classical World (San Diego: Harcourt, Brace and World) pp.12-13 Favro, Diane, and Leslie Kanes Weisman. 1994. “Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment.,” The Journal of American History (Illinois: University of Illinois Press) pp.10-26 Gulsum, Baydar. 2005. “Figures of wo/man in contemporary architectural discourse” Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture ed. by Heynen, Hilde, and Gulsum, Baydar (London: Routledge) pp.30-38 62
List of Figures
Hatoum, Mona. 2001. Domestic Disturbance (Massachusetts: Storey Books) pp. 68
Figure 1: Domestic Chaos. By Author. Ink on paper.
Holton, Mark. 2016. “Living Together in Student Accommodation: Performances, Boundaries and Homemaking,” Area, 48.1: 57–63 <https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12226> [Accessed 18 March 2020]
Figure 2: Female House Façade. By Author. Watercolour and ink on paper.
Holton, Mark, and Riley Mark. 2016. “Student geographies and homemaking: personal belonging(s) and identities” Social and Cultural Geography, 17.5: 623–45 <https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2015.1126626> [Accessed 28 February 2020] Llewellyn, Mark. 2004. “Designed by women and designing women: gender, planning and the geographies of the kitchen in Britain 1917- 1946” Cultural Geographies, 11.1: 42-60 <https://search-proquest-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/docview/37859559?accountid=13828> [Accessed 31 December 2019] Wigglesworth, Sarah. 2007. “Critical Practice,” in Critical Architecture ed. Rendell, Jane, Dorian, Mark and Fraser, Murray (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), pp. 309–17 <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203945667> [Accessed 1 March 2020]
Figure 3: Male House Façade. By Author. Watercolour and ink on paper. Figure 4: Home. Hatoum, Mona. 1999. Home, Sculpture, Tate, 2003, <https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hatoum-home-t07918> [Accessed 15 April 2020] Figure 5: Femme Maison. Bourgeois, Louise. 1946. Femme Maison, Painting, The Guardian, 2008, <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2008/oct/07/louise.bourgeois> [Accessed 19 February 2020] Figure 6: Domestic Scene Hockney, David. 1963. Domestic Scene, Painting, The Guardian, 2017, <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jan/13/los-angeles-lovers-and-light-david-hockney-at-80> [Accessed 20 February 2020] Figure 7: Jim Hawkins Leaves Home. Wyeth, Newell Convers. 1911. Jim Hawkins Leaves Home, Painting, Flickr, 2015, < https://www.flickr.com/photos/57440551@N03/19863531381> [Accessed 14 February 2020] Figure 8: See figure 2 By author. Watercolour and ink on paper. Figure 9: Female house plan. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from ink on paper. Figure 10: Female Participants.
By Author. Digital Graphics developed from ink on paper. Figure 11: Male house plan. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from ink on paper. Figure 12: Male Participants. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from ink on paper. Figure 13: See figure 3. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper. Figure 14: Layered sequential drawing. By author. Digital graphics developed from ink on paper. Figure 15: The Dining Table. Wigglesworth, Sarah. 2007. The Dining Table, Ink on paper, Architectural Review, 2018 <https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/folio/folio-sarah-wigglesworths-dining-tables/10035407.article> [Accessed 14 February 2020] Figure 16: Time lapse- Female house. By Author. Collated Photographs. Figure 17: Time Lapse- Male house. By Author. Collated Photographs. Figure 18: Layered study 1. By Author. Digital graphics developed from photographs. Figure 19: Layered study 2. By Author. Digital graphics developed from photographs. Figure 20: Layered study 3. By Author. Digital graphics developed from photographs. Figure 21: Head Movement. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from photographs.
Figure 22: Layered study 4. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from photographs.
Figure 36: Social- Female Response Drawn. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 23: Layered study 5. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from photographs.
Figure 37: Social- Male Response Drawn. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 24: Sequential Drawing. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from photographs.
Figure 38: Ella’s ‘Safe’ response versus Sam’s. By anonymous Participants. Collated Photographs.
Figure 25: Layered sequential drawing. By Author. Digital Graphics developed from photographs.
Figure 39: Ella’s ‘Social’ response versus Sam’s. By Anonymous Participants. Collated Photograph.
Figure 26: Female order. By Author. Collated Photographs.
Figure 40: Safe: Female Response- Zoning. By Author. Ink on paper.
Figure 27: Male Disorder. By Author. Digitally edited Collated Photographs.
Figure 41: Safe: Male Response- Zoning. By Author. Ink on paper.
Figure 28: Interpretive graph of bodily movement. By author. Digital Graphic developed from ink on paper.
Figure 42: Social: Female Response- Zoning. By Author. Ink on paper.
Figure 29: Selected Interiors. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 43: Social: Male Response- Zoning. By Author. Ink on paper.
Figure 30: Safe- Female Response. By Anonymous Participants. Collated Photographs.
Figure 44: Safe: Female Response- Evolution. See figures 29, 33, 39.
Figure 31: Safe- Male Response. By Anonymous Participants. Collated Photographs.
Figure 45: Safe: Male Response- Evolution. See figures 30, 34, 40.
Figure 32: Social- Female Response. By Anonymous Participants. Collated Photographs.
Figure 46: Social: Female Response- Evolution. See figures: 31, 35, 41.
Figure 33: Social- Male Response. By Anonymous Participants. Collated Photographs.
Figure 47: Social: Male Response- Evolution. See figures: 32, 36, 42.
Figure 34: Safe- Female Response- Drawn. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 48: Jake’s ‘social’ Response. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 35: Safe- Male Response- Drawn. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.
Figure 49: Lauren’s ‘social’ Response. By Author. Ink and watercolour on paper.