A VOID

A [...]

[2] SCAT Submission May 2021 Miranda Lyle Pérez

[

A Void noun ey·​void

plural A Voids

: the absence of things, the potential for everything

]

[

A Void verb

ey·​void​ : to manifest the opportunities presented in A Void

[3]

]

If there hadn’t been a global pandemic, and printing was still something that one did.

[

[

[4]

FRONT MATTER Introductions In my first year of architecture school, I had a rather peculiar meeting with a stranger.

On my way out of the train station a middle-aged, tweed-clad gentlemen asked for directions. As we walked side by side to our common destinations (and our mutual, awkward despair at the coincidence) the British niceties were exchanged and my position as a first-year architecture student came up.

To my surprise, and indignation, instead of raising his eyebrows with the usual interest, even respect, that people usually have for our subject, he guffawed and replied that, in reality, weren’t architects actually “glorified salesmen”.

tion are key if you aspire to architectural greatness (also being either white, male or wealthy helps, bonus points for all three).

Maybe the tweed-clad gentlemen had a point, after all.

In this time of great uncertainty, of great politicisation, can the current perception of the “salesman architect” proceed business as normal? Should it? If not, is a new approach to architecture forming? The following can be considered to be a journal of introspection through the observation and understanding of the paratextual field which weaves across Davidson’s Log, and how these might be key to discovering the pitch of the new architectural timbre.

During the last six years since, I, alongside my peers, have had instilled in us a variety of architectural values and values of architects, by both the educational and professional institutions. Each institution presenting a slightly (but sufficiently) different image of what an architect needs to be.

We study the socio-economic “failures” of modernism in the 20th century, we study the energising post-modernism, only to find the movement culminate (at least within popular culture) with the ‘starchitect’. One could argue that the lack of theory from the recent architectural zeitgeist, leaves us – the future generation of architects – not unlike the John Travolta meme from pulp fiction.

The socialist/liberal values instilled in us by education seems to be working against the neoliberal capitalist reality of the profession; wow-factor, image and public percep-

[5]

[6]

FRONT MATTER 5 TIMBRE OF LOG 9 ENTRY 01: WELCOME MAT(TER) 9 ENTRY 02: COMING TO TERM WITH ARCHITECTURE 11 ENTRY 03: MODERNISM IN THE MIRROR 13 ENTRY 04: ONEIRIC VOID 14 ENTRY 05: COMPLEX LOCATION 16 A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE 18 LIST OF FIGURES 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 28

[...]

[7]

[8] Figure 1: Notebook glossary

TIMBRE OF LOG

[

“Behind all things are reasons. Reasons can even explain the absurd. Do we have the time to learn the reasons behind the human being’s varied behavior? I think not. Some take time.”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 1: Traces To Nowhere

[

ENTRY 01: WELCOME MAT(TER) W01: 18.01.21

It has been a while since I last read with attention and time – impatiently struggling to understand what it is exactly which we are meant to “unpack”. In Gerard Genett, I found myself focusing on the “alien” of the text – words and phrases I did not understand. Ordering these and defining them in my notebook as the glossary which I wished had been included in the text.

fore-hand, you better throw down your book at once, for without much reading, by which reverence knows, I mean much knowledge, you will no more be able to penetrate the moral of the next marbled page…”2 The categories which Genett focuses on when explaining the spectrum of illocutionary force fascinated me on a personal level. Genett’s voice is so clear – confident and with unmistakable good humour. Similarly, Cynthia Davidson’s Front Matter in each Log provides a consistent voice throughout, tying the periodical together. Personally, it is the illocutionary force which I’ve always wanted to achieve in my writing, but has always been lacking. Maybe the result of a muddled bilingual upbringing; when writing, a Spanish mannerism mixes with English vocabulary and gives rise to a blurry voice.

Maybe it is this “blurriness” that I have been fighting against by categorising Genett’s writing and structure. But then categorising might be able to bring clarity to new ways of thinking: “The functions of the paratext therefore constitute a highly empirical and highly diversified object that must be brought into focus inductively, genre by genre and often species by species.”3

However, I felt in good company. Genett’s candid and tongue-in-cheek style softened the feeling on uncultured inadequacy which – often – I felt when reading his text. Moments like his referral to the table of contents as a method to understand, not only the layout of his book (and most books in existence), but of the definitions of the paratext itself helped my mind to break down and further understand the intricacies of paratext within each ‘category’/’chapter’. The table of contents also shows the author’s humour by having the structure of a conventional book – but with a self-awareness which is akin to the breaking of the fourth wall in film & tv.

The awareness of the author that his text is one which will be read, digested and analysed is evident in the introductory body of text when he continues discussing the approach one should – or could – take to extracting paratext, so that “the overall arrangement is not so strict as to be especially coercive, and those whose ordinarily read book by beginning at the end or in the middle will be able to apply the same method, if it is one, to this book, too.”1 Whilst Genett would be loathe to hand-hold – he does offer a gentle guiding to understand his own text, which often feels like the Macksey’s chosen epilogue from Sterne was a timely forewarning “I tell you be-

Maybe categorising for clarity is be a good place to start after all.

1 Gerard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Lewin, Literature, Culture, Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 3, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511549373.

2 Genette, Paratexts, xi, 3 Genette, Paratexts, 13 Word Count: 585

[9]

[10]

[

[

“As above, so below. The human being finds himself, or herself, in the middle. There is as much space outside the human, proportionately, as inside. Stars, moons, and planets remind us of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Is there a bigger being walking with all the stars within? Does our thinking affect what goes on outside us, and what goes on inside us? I think it does.”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 2: Coma

ENTRY 02: COMING TO TERM WITH ARCHITECTURE W02: 25.01.21 Giuliana Bruno explores the definition of architecture through the camera lens of Warhol’s Empire. The 8-hour film is taken as an atmospheric back-bone to her discursive and descriptive explorations of the essence of filmic architecture and the intrinsic connections of architecture in the real and the reel world.

Bruno takes us through her text with an extremely cyclical mode of writing, whilst still using seemingly abrupt ‘cuts’ by using layout techniques such as the rows of asterix between film descriptions, a formatting which is reminiscent of the clapperboards used between takes when filming. The rhythm of the textual clapperboard increases as she touches upon Warholian films (other than Empire) more concisely, giving the text itself a sense of timing through a rhythm; flowing between “reel time” and “real time” in order to form connecting arguments between scales.

Bruno continues to explore key themes – the geological time and the biological time, cinematic legacies with hints at the politicisation of architectures. Interestingly, it is the political trends which give further meaning to the motifs in the text “zero degree” and “ground zero”, especially when read in the context of Davidson’s editorial opening to Log No.2, which brings to attention the ‘goings-on’ of the world of architecture – by logging architecture, you log the “news” of humanity, including political and economic landscape. This continues to build an blurry, but very real, definition of what architecture is (through the reel). This is the encompassing theme of the text- and arguably the whole Log issue – “What is […]?”, true to theme, even Davidson’s own essay is titled “What’s in a Log?”.

Bruno continues exploring the definition of space by taking us from the geological eon to biological ticking, using architecture as a mediator, an embodiment or to encompass; “Taking on the time sex, food, or architecture, Warhol’s films take up a bodily landscape. Here, the atmosphere of dailiness is a space of incorporation.”1 In so doing, Bruno begins to define the void which architecture

creates and which human activity ‘fills’. Bruno establishes the ‘void’ of new stylistic opportunity which Warhol creates through filming Empire, Sleep and To Eat, which is ‘filled’ by subsequent directors, creating a legacy attributable to Warhol. Bruno closely explores one of his legacies: Tsai Ming-Liang. She uses Ming-Liang’s work as a prime example of filmic architecture and the creation of narrative from void, or nothingness: “This hole, and empty space, becomes filled with wonderful stories. It also becomes pregnant with gags.”2 This is a particularly interesting way to describe the void as an architecture of body: “pregnant” being such a mammalian term, a term that signifies an uncomfortable fullness3; a filling of the uterus as the ‘void’. At the same time a filling that is full of the opportunities of new life – new human stories to exist in the ‘voids’ of (reel or real) architecture – the potential of new forms of body (as embryonic cells divide) and new forms of space (as voids are divided?) which frame bodily activities that sleep, eat, etc, in an all-encompassing Empire of architecture.

And of course, as all pregnancies must come to term – a mammalian condition which is measured, by a predictable timeline – it is the timeline of the real – and for Bruno, the reel – that “not only expose[s] the architecture of time, but especially the idea that architecture itself is a matter of time, and not simply of space.”4 What is in Architecture? Much like a woman’s body can temporarily be the embodiment of potential, form and narrative, when one asks the question one might faintly hear the echoes through the void: “Architecture is the very dwelling of temporality, it’s very home”5.

1 Giuliana Bruno, “Architects of Time: Reel Images from Warhol to Tsai Ming-Ling.” Log, no.2 (Spring, 2004): 86.

2 Bruno. “Architects of Time”, 91.

3 The word “uncomfortable” here might betray that I write as a young woman who has heard of the “miracles” and “horrors” of pregnancy and childbirth – a heritage of societal expectation.

4 Bruno. “Architects of Time”, 93.

5 Bruno. “Architects of Time”, 93.

Word Count: 676

[11]

66 55 44 33 22 11

[12]

Leonídio,“Álvaro “ÁlvaroSiza SizaVieira: Vieira:Another AnotherVoid”, Void”,34.

34.

Leonídio, Leonídio,“Álvaro “ÁlvaroSiza SizaVieira: Vieira:Another AnotherVoid”, Void”,34.

34.

Leonídio, Leonídio,“Álvaro “ÁlvaroSiza SizaVieira: Vieira:Another AnotherVoid”, Void”,34.

34.

Leonídio, Leonídio,“Álvaro “ÁlvaroSiza SizaVieira: Vieira:Another AnotherVoid”, Void”,34.

34.

Leonídio, OtávioLeonídio, Leonídio,“Álvaro “ÁlvaroSiza SizaVieira: Vieira:Another AnotherVoid”, Void”,Log, Log,no. no.1616(2009): (2009):34.

34.

Otávio CynthiaDavidson, Davidson,“Front “FrontMatter”, Matter”,Log, Log,no. no.1616(2009) (2009) Cynthia

Oncethe themodernist modernist‘promenade ‘promenade Once

confrontsDada Dadaand andSurrealist Surrealistobjects.” objects.”6 confronts 6 same imagination required when one same imagination required when one Perception,and andExperience.

Experience. instrumentofofthe theimagination imagination––the the Perception, instrument three key arguments ion his text: Clarity, of knowledge but also becomes an three key arguments ion his text: Clarity, of knowledge but also becomes an through Siza’s project.

Leonídio weaves longer a device wholly at the service through Siza’s project. Leonídio weaves longer a device wholly at the service thatin-and-of-itself in-and-of-itselfreads readsas asaadream dream recalibratevision visionso sothat thatititisisno no that totorecalibrate review of The Foundation building visibility, however, it is simply necessary review of The Foundation building visibility, however, it is simply necessary Thereisissomething somethingabout aboutLeonídio’s Leonídio’s “Thisisisnot nottotoabandon abandonthe thefield fieldofof There “This provocation...”.3. provocation...”

3 transparentmodernism modernismisisalmost almostaa ofoftransparent “the broad and unrestricted visibility “the broad and unrestricted visibility andirrationality” irrationality”2and andininso-doing so-doing and 2 he may amplify aspects of discord he may amplify aspects of discord locating it within a tradition bywhich which locating it within a tradition by to that used by modern masters… to that used by modern masters… withaavocabulary vocabularyapparently apparentlyidentical identical with emerges: “Siza’s architecture operates emerges: “Siza’s architecture operates modernism, so a provocative reflection modernism, so a provocative reflection as a mirror-image to these icons as a mirror-image to these icons ofof Leonídiosets setshis hisarguments argumentson onSiza Siza Leonídio perception of them.

In so-doing, perception of them. In so-doing, eventhough thoughhe heoperates operatesfrom fromthe the even to show how Siza is unlike them, to show how Siza is unlike them, usingLe LeCorbusier Corbusierand andNiemeyer Niemeyer using Leonídio subtly breaks from thisby by Leonídio subtly breaks from this not. isisnot. is precedentused usedfor forwhat whatsomething something is precedent or aspects imitated (in design).

Rarely or aspects imitated (in design). Rarely are discussed (in reviews or critiques) are discussed (in reviews or critiques) asaatemplate, template,where wherecommonalities commonalities aaas or contemporary example usedmore more or contemporary example used as such, precedent is often a historical as such, precedent is often a historical straight-forwardcharacterisation. characterisation.Taken Taken straight-forward would be tempted to resist on such would be tempted to resist on such aa categorisesLeonídio’s Leonídio’stext textininthis thisI I categorises historical example” , although she historical example”1,1 although she and wanes, appearing most often as and wanes, appearing most often as typologies, its active presence waxes typologies, its active presence waxes editorial,“…only “…onlyininthe theidea ideaofof editorial, used, as Davidson identifies her used, as Davidson identifies ininher Foundation.

Precedent is most often Foundation. Precedent is most often in his analysis of Siza’s Ibere Camargo in his analysis of Siza’s Ibere Camargo waythat thathe hechooses choosestotouse useprecedent precedent way the expectation of the reader the the expectation of the reader ininthe way he describes Siza doing, defies way he describes Siza doing, defies OtávioLeonídio, Leonídio,ininmuch muchthe thesame same Otávio

beleft leftbefore beforeentering enteringthe thevoid. void. be defining feature, and perception defining feature, and perception isistoto sensationofofarchitecture architectureisisthe theone onekey, key, sensation of the known unknowables, where of the known unknowables, where partfrom fromform. form.This Thisisisthe theworld world isisaapart material, as much a part of form asitit material, as much a part of form as world modernism, the void is thick and world modernism, the void is thick and architect’s intention.

In this mirrorarchitect’s intention. In this mirrorunquestioningunderstanding understandingofofthe the unquestioning (in Siza’s own words) – demands (in Siza’s own words) – demands demand“inflexible “inflexibleknowledge” knowledge”5 totodemand 5 Director’s montage of forms order Director’s montage of forms ininorder sotightly tightlycontrolled controlledby bythe theArchitect Architect so architectural forms and promenades architectural forms and promenades –– clarityofofLe LeCorbusier Corbusierand andNiemeyer’s Niemeyer’s clarity one cannot trust what they see.The The one cannot trust what they see. where things are not what they seem, where things are not what they seem, thismirror-world mirror-worldmodernism, modernism, InInthis dreams.” dreams.”4 4 mustbring bringimagination, imagination,reverie, reverie,and and must and paradoxical architecture; one and paradoxical architecture; one enoughtotoaddress addressthis thisopaque opaque enough “An affirmation of vision …isisnot not “An affirmation of vision … reminiscentofofAdolf AdolfLoos’ Loos’work. work. reminiscent – of unease, as Leonídio puts – of unease, as Leonídio puts itit–– becomesan anarchitecture architectureofofsensation sensation becomes As such, the unclear architecture As such, the unclear architecture viewsand/or and/orarchitectural architecturalobject. object. ofofviews a ramp as a way-finder or exhibitor a ramp as a way-finder or exhibitor well-knownmodernist modernistlogic logicmotifsmotifsofofwell-known are.

Siza defies the user’s expectations are. Siza defies the user’s expectations unlikethe themodernist modernistprecedent precedentthey they unlike spaces which they navigate and howspaces which they navigate and howthrough different routes and the key through different routes and the key analysis of Siza’s project.

He walks us analysis of Siza’s project. He walks us continues on to give an in-depth continues on to give an in-depth comparativeframework, framework,Leonídio Leonídio comparative architecturale’ is established asthe the architecturale’ is established as

W04:08.02.21 08.02.21 W04:

ENTRY03: 03:MODERNISM MODERNISMIN INTHE THEMIRROR MIRROR ENTRY

beingintroduced introducedagainst againstour ourwill? will?Are Arethey they being Is it a dream, or a nightmare?

Are we Is it a dream, or a nightmare? Are we “Yes,look lookininthe themirror. mirror.What Whatdo doyou yousee? see?

“Yes,

[

[

[

“Yes, look in the mirror. What do you see? Is it a dream, or a nightmare? Are we being introduced against our will? Are they mirrors?”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 1: The One-Armed Man

[

ENTRY 03: MODERNISM IN THE MIRROR

W04: 08.02.21

Otávio Leonídio, in much the same way he describes Siza doing, defies the expectation of the reader in the way that he chooses to use precedent in his analysis of Siza’s Ibere Camargo Foundation. Precedent is most often used, as Davidson identifies in her editorial, “…only in the idea of typologies, its active presence waxes and wanes, appearing most often as historical example”1, although she categorises Leonídio’s text in this I would be tempted to resist on such a straight-forward characterisation. Taken as such, precedent is often a historical or contemporary example used more a as a template, where commonalities are discussed (in reviews or critiques) or aspects imitated (in design). Rarely is precedent used for what something is not.

Leonídio subtly breaks from this by using Le Corbusier and Niemeyer to show how Siza is unlike them, even though he operates from the perception of them. In so-doing, Leonídio sets his arguments on Siza as a mirror-image to these icons of modernism, so a provocative reflection emerges: “Siza’s architecture operates with a vocabulary apparently identical to that used by modern masters…locating it within a tradition by which he may amplify aspects of discord and irrationality”2 and in so-doing “the broad and unrestricted visibility of transparent modernism is almost a provocation...”3.

There is something about Leonídio’s review of The Foundation building that inand-of-itself reads as a dream through Siza’s project. Leonídio weaves three key arguments ion his text: Clarity, Perception, and Experience.

Once the modernist ‘promenade architecturale’ is established as the comparative framework, Leonídio continues on to give an in-depth analysis of Siza’s project. He walks us through different routes and the key spaces which they navigate and howunlike the modernist precedent they are.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Siza defies the user’s expectations of wellknown modernist logic motifs- a ramp as a way-finder or exhibitor of views and/or architectural object. As such, the unclear architecture becomes an architecture of sensation – of unease, as Leonídio puts it – reminiscent of Adolf Loos’ work.

“An affirmation of vision … is not enough to address this opaque and paradoxical architecture; one must bring imagination, reverie, and dreams.”4 In this mirror-world modernism, where things are not what they seem, one cannot trust what they see. The clarity of Le Corbusier and Niemeyer’s architectural forms and promenades – so tightly controlled by the Architect Director’s montage of forms in order to demand “inflexible knowledge”5 (in Siza’s own words) – demands unquestioning understanding of the architect’s intention. In this mirror-world modernism, the void is thick and material, as much a part of form as it is a part from form. This is the world of the known unknowables, where sensation of architecture is the one key, defining feature, and perception is to be left before entering the void.

“This is not to abandon the field of visibility, however, it is simply necessary to recalibrate vision so that it is no longer a device wholly at the service of knowledge but also becomes an instrument of the imagination – the same imagination required when one confronts Dada and Surrealist objects.”6 This architecture is expanded by the void of the architects which – through the formless – has a tangible effect on the experience of those walking the Siza promenade.

Cynthia Davidson, “Front Matter”, Log, no. 16 (2009) Otávio Leonídio, “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”, Log, no. 16 (2009): 34.

Leonídio, “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”, 34.

Leonídio, “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”, 34.

Leonídio, “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”, 34.

Leonídio, “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”, 34.

[13]

Word Count: 572

[14]

ENTRY 04: ONEIRIC VOID W05: 22.02.21

Though the curation of space is often thought of through a family of lens (eye, photograph, film) of a film or photography camera, Jean-Luis Cohen delves deeper into the philosophical, cinematic and psychoanalytical mechanism which drive the curation of space and, crucially, how architecture can be considered to have evolved in tandem with exhibition curation.

Cohen does not write conventionally; his writing is fluid. His oneiric style reflects perfectly the subject matter of his text, whilst still building up a clear narrative of his points, which he supports in an extremely reference-heavy manner.

Figure 2: Diagram of the curatorial role

Whilst he uses Paul Valéry’s personal opinion on museums as a triggering point for the intention of the essay; essentially to unpick “the contradiction between the didactic, knowledge-based, and often pedantic dimension [of exhibition] and one of play and pleasure.”1 It is the ‘backbone’ on which the essay is hung and woven from, Valéry only makes a second appearance at the end of the essay, but always maintains a presence throughout. Cohen continues to support each of his weaving theory – as arguments by referring to and using almost the entirety of a method 20th Century thinking: he uses philosophy and cinematic to catch the theory to establish the connection between exhibition and a u d i e n c e ’ s architecture after Faucault and Einsenstein, and delves into attention – the role of the curator through Freudian psychoanalysis, can only be even implicitly dipping a toe into semiotics after Lacan. s u c c e s s f u l l y

applied to an metaphor By using Faucault and Einsenstein in parallel, exhibition if one to explain Cohen ascertains that soviet montage breaks with “the how the fetishism of the “original” 1 Jean-Luis Cohen, “Mirror of Dreams”, curator, by Log, no. 20 (2010): 49. document” after Faucault. performing the act In doing so, one breaks away from of curating, distorts the original meaning of the exhibit, and Valéry’s dull experiences of exhibits as provides the opportunity for the visitor merely “ordering, collecting and public 2 to understand a new interpretation utility” , and introduces complexity and of the material on display, which is depth to the curatorial role, “In this different from the intentions of the process, the job of the curator can no original author. This “fruitful distortion longer be confused with the one of the 3 of reality”4 is possible only through the archivist or registrar.”

mechanic of the curator themselves.

One could begin to apply Cohen’s anamorphosis argument to Cynthia 4

Cohen, “Mirror of Dreams”, 51.

From there he begins to explore the curator curating as both an entity and an action, whereby he uses anamorphosis as a 2 3

Cohen, “Mirror of Dreams”, 49.

Cohen, “Mirror of Dreams”, 51.

Davidson’s introduction to Log No.20, where she distinctly differentiates the editor’s role from the curator’s role) as they both perform distortions of perception: this is brought to light in Log No.5, for example, where Davidson inserts herself as an opposing force to the guest editor’s issue, and makes the reader

aware of the curation behind all the Issues. That is to say, Log – like all things published – is but a collection of distortions through the perception of one human.

As

someone who has had a history of curating and Cohen exhibiting, interestingly volunteers himself as a study, steps into the psychoanalyst’s office, and rests his head on the chaise longue.

The reader of the text at once sees through the psychoanalyst’s eyes, simultaneously occupying the roles of reader, psychoanalyst, and finally as exhibition audience; in all these roles, their purpose is as interpreter of the curator’s “oneiric labour”.

Cohen beautifully identifies curation (of exhibition) as the mechanism through which object (architecture) is interpreted, and the opportunities that arise from the ‘gaps’ of such interpretation. The same catharsis which he achieves through his “oneiric labour” in exhibit is one that benefits architecture as a discipline.

The “cathartic” functions of dreamwork applied to architectural exhibition can identify hidden, supressed ideas and themes which might just jolt the discipline awake.

[

[

“In a dream, are all the characters really you? Different aspects of you? Do answers come in dreams?”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 2: May The Giant Be With You

Word Count: 662 [15]

[

[

[16]

“How many times have we heard: ‘it’s simple’. Nothing is simple.

We live in a world where nothing is simple. Each day, just when we think we have a handle on things, suddenly some new element is introduced, and everything is complicated once again.”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 2: Dispute Between Brothers

ENTRY 05: COMPLEX LOCATION W09: 22.03.21 After observing for 17 years, it took the year1 that was 2020 to alter Log’s course.

Log No.49, The Return of Nature is a manifesto if ever there was one. A call to arms for a design industry which, since the end of the 20th Century, has been navel-gazing.

For Manning, to break with “Simple Location” is to embrace the opportunities presented when the western system of valuation (as A relates to A nature) are broken with. Writing in 2020, but working closely to Whiteheadian process philosophy, the question arises – are the philosophical ideas of nearly 100 years ago truly the best we have to re-invigorate architectural thinking in the 21st Century?

Is this familiarity essential in re-thinking architectural theory and its effects on practice? Theory – or lack thereof – was what spurred Davidson to start Log in 2003. But I would argue that it is not simply a case of theorising for theory’s sake; for architects shouldn’t it be more of a case of how theory can support practice and vice versa? We think therefore we build, we build therefore we think.2 Agrest’s theoretical approach, having stemmed from her practice, had real1 I use the term “year” loosely; time seems to have seeped from 2020 to 2021 rather than passed.

2 To clumsily, shamelessly, appropriate Decartes…

Figure 3: Concept sketches; understanding A Nature

Manning certainly challenges the Western school of thought, but so does Diana Agrest in her projects and her theory (in that order) in her more recent projects at the end of the 20th century. Where Manning describes the total erasure of hierarchy and valuation, Agrest worked with the prevailing societal hierarchy to challenge them directly, and use them in her challenge by inverting the pyramid itself. One might say that the success of China Basin is both in its direct, unashamed challenge of convention, whilst exploiting the familiarity of existing power structures.

world complexities and played with our lived experience of the urban and of nature. Even adding tongue-incheek moves to highlight the inherently patriarchal (mechanical) context of the project. For Agrest: “I am not claiming to make feminine or feminist architecture, we’ve all been trained for years by a male brain, or many male brains…what is important to me is the exploration of the issues that appear. I have no problem with Euclidian geometry myself, I don’t think it is the cause of all evils, it is as much as any other geometries are. Any of these other mathematical orders of the universe are also the concoction of the male figure, so to me there is no difference if I use one or the other.”3 Agrest understands that she is working in and is a product of a male system, working with male tools. Human society has gender, racial, cultural hierarchies – societal constructs, yes – but to deny their existence is to deny human complexity.

More importantly, it is to (continue to) turn a blind eye to the very problems our society continues to suffer from and that have made 2020 a historical one. We are, by our own (white, cis-gendered, male, privileged) design, an unequal society.

Within our own ranks and within our relation to anything, anywhere, outside of our species.

Conversely, (and speaking of mathematical orders being the concoction of male figures) Manning builds on Whitehead that it is the extraction of experience from the field which makes matter ‘individual’, “to reduce experience to the individual, to say matter is “just there” is to posit an account devoid of relation, empty of ecology”…experience as ecology means concern for the field is never reducible to “my” concern. That would return us to nature overcoded by culture.”4 It is this “overcoding” which makes matter “simply located”.

One could argue that China Basin, as it had been conceived in its early development stages follows this resistance to be “simply located”, it removed the mechanistic/ urban encroachment, it prioritised the complex A nature fabric, challenging the capitalist valuation of the river-side location by having no object architecture.

And yet to Agrest the project at that stage “…was too nice, it was hippy I thought… and so I started thinking about the questions of nature and this conflict with the machine…and so it became more perverse, I made this level of movement underlying this blanket of green…so I had this apparent nice nature, which was in fact an artificial plane…”. For China Basin it was, in fact, the addition of distorted cultural hierarchies, the “perverse”, which gave this project the opportunity to find interest and complexity within itself.

The truth of the matter is that science moved away from the deterministic model which Whitehead based his philosophies on, culturally and theoretically when it comes to gender and race theory we have also moved away from the simplistic and erasure narrative, which is frankly an ‘opt-out’.

Manning’s resistance to simple location in theory actually manifests as truly simple location in practice, whereby the implied ‘complex’ location Manning calls for is, in fact, achieved in practice by embracing simple location’s complex cultural hierarchies and challenging them. Simple location is Complex location in the 21st Century.

3 AA School of Architecture, Diana Agrest - The Return of (The Repressed) Nature, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Pu0_SX65ixA. 4 Erin Manning, “Angular Perspective; Or, How Concern Shapes the Field”, Log, no. 49 (2020): 185.

Word Count: 888 [17]

ESSAY

[18]

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE Abstract To celebrate Log’s tenth year in publication, Cynthia Davidson arranged a conference in MoMA where a panel of architects and architectural critics discussed a selection of projects (presented by the architects in question) with the aim to pursue what the defining qualities of architecture and architectural theory in the 21st Century were. As ten architectures came and went, one practice in particular became a point of interest for the discussions in the afternoon; awkwardly perched side-by-side behind the pulpit, squeezed Hillary Sample and Michael Merideth, founders and director of MOS, presenting Element House. This essay aims to further understand the position of 21st Century architectural theory using MOS’ Element House as presented in the conference and in their log in Log 29, by using Pia Ednie-Brown’s review of the conference from Log 30 as a reference point, and building on her arguments on the “gutter” of MOS’ work by referencing interdisciplinary texts and theories from comics to process philosophy.

[

“There is a depression after an answer is given.

It was almost fun not knowing.”

— Log Lady, Twin Peaks, Season 2: Arbitrary Law

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[19]

]

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[20]

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

Figure 4: Element House in New Mexico site

There is a certain liberty in nowhere; the potential for anything and anywhere which is as inspiring as it is intimidating.

Where does one start in nowhere? Much like the dreaded blank page syndrome, the infinite possibility that blankness provides leaves creatives head-scratching for the next big thing. One might say, and after Log’s conference few would argue, this collective head-scratching epitomises the architectural field in the 21st Century. With this in mind, one needs to look no further than MOS’ Element House, somehow simultaneously a museum and a guest house, situated in the middle of nowhere, drawn in nowhere and built with nobody in mind.

Yet the resulting project has a vitality, an originality, which struck a chord with Pia Ednie-Brown as she sat at MoMA and watched the conference unfold. Amidst the unexpected tension of the event, as Cynthia Davidson concluded, “I think something has happened.”1 MOS presented a breath of fresh – if not somewhat disjointed air – with their presen-

tation of Element House. Far from the most technically complex building or the most cohesive presentation, “but because of the strange vitality they brought to the kinked table”2 this architect team provided a quirky relief valve.

Equally, what Ednie-Brown described as vitality, others perceived as “vapid” and critiqued MOS’ section on chimneys and roofs, comparable to “the kind of naive mistake a first year architecture student would make.”3 Nothing concrete came from the conference, or from the architect’s Log entries- all showing a large variety of projects, representations styles and motivations, but with little commonality. Where does architecture find itself in the “indistinguishable pool”4 of current critical thought? From seeing this, one might say that for now at least, architecture finds itself to be nowhere, with nowhere to go, and not a compass in sight. Isn’t that exciting?

When The Museum of Outdoor Arts first approached MOS with this project,

1 Pia Ednie-Brown, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 16 2 Pia Ednie-Brown, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 23 3 Andrew Ferentinos, “Critical Performance,”Archis, November 17, 2013, http://archis.org/volume/criticalperformance/.

4 Term used by Sam Jacob when describing the current state of architectural thinking, taken from Ednie-Brown (Ednie-Brown Pia, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 17)

the only constraint was the $300,000 budget5: there was no site, and no programme. This not only makes Element House a rare case in the world of professional architecture, but it enabled MOS to take an atypical approach to its design, though it needs to be said, one which is in-keeping within their practice’ body of work and methodologies.

The studio began the spatial planning of the project through the aggregation of shaped determined by the Fibonacci sequence. MOS accumulated a variety of studies of the triangular modular units, finally settling for a quirky arrangement of stubby, asymmetrical protrusions, jutting discordantly from a central space so that they read as a disparate whole with no ‘front’, ‘side’ or ‘back’. Ednie-Brown surmises the how the units relate to each-other: “they coexist as a cluster rather than integrate into the one move”6. This disjointed nature of the project further complicates locating it and its architects within a current architectural discipline – neither belonging to post-modernist or parametric school, yet also taking recognisable elements of both. Moreover, at the Log conference, as on their website, MOS further breaks with the tradition of architecture by choosing not to present the typical, accurate floor plan, section and elevation drawings. Instead, they present Element House with an equally disjointed series of drawings, amongst which were elusive plans more diagrammatic in nature, and more recognisable as a Fibonacci mathematical pattern drawing than an architectural floor plan. By doing so, they achieve a looser but deeper reading of their project where “Its perimeter remains unresolved, its figure incomplete”x creating a distinctive rift between the project’s representation and the very real, resolved building in New Mexico.

MOS’ representation of their project highlights the challenge which characterises all architectural projects in that architects are “never working directly with the object of their thought, always working at it through some intervening medium, almost always the drawing, while painters and sculptors…all end up

working on the thing itself which, naturally, absorbs most of their attention and effort.”7. The distinction from other artforms is that the drawing then becomes mediator between the desires of the architect and the final constructed project.

For the majority of the architectural profession, the purpose of the drawings is essentially one of design control, so that the final construction bears as much of a likeness as possible8. Evans identifies this as the “doctrine of essentialism”9.

This ‘stiffening’ of the drawing medium, though making construction easier for those who then must translate the architects’ wishes into brick-and-mortar buildings, also limits the potential richness of design which drawing can provide, flattening the potential which is created by exploiting the rift between drawing and building. As Evans puts it, “for any material object to obtain freedom is for its handler to lose control of it, and that does not happen”10 in the current professional architectural drawing tradition. In MOS’s case, the gaps between their drawing and the on-site condition enabled them to improvise on site: spontaneously deciding there and then to ramp up compacted gravel to what would become the entrance to Element House; by working directly with the material, a “front” becomes manifest in the directionless cluster.

Parallels can be identified between Evan’s study of de l’Orme’s dome and MOS’ choices of representation. In both cases what is evident is the “drawing expanding beyond the reach of unaided imagination”11. Where de l’Orme’s “drawing” could be considered the paving under the dome – which is used as a tool to ‘understand’ the dome’s looping ribs – MOS’s Fibonacci plan drawings similarly lead us to understand the forms of their project without necessarily directly representing the built product. Rather than translating, both de l’Orme and MOS use their drawings to transfigure, communicating ideas which enhance the final product, but do not necessarily represent its true likeness. In so doing they simultaneously embrace, bridge and highlight the gap between drawing and building. For MOS, Element house “is an open system that gener-

5 Log, “Michael Meredith and Hilary Sample, MOS – Element House” September 30, 2013, video, https://vimeo. com/75830556.

6 Pia Ednie-Brown, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 24 7 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building (United States: MIT Press, 1997), 156 8 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building (United States: MIT Press, 1997), 172 9 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building (United States: MIT Press, 1997), 181 10 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building (United States: MIT Press, 1997), 172 11 Robin Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building (United States: MIT Press, 1997), 180 A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[21]

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

Figure 5: Element House Fibonacci plans

Figure 6: Element House floor plan

Figure 7: Element House roof plan

[22]

ates growth”12 and so in developing the house with Fibonacci sequences MOS aimed to “…literally think of growth in a modular system or like nature, if you can get a house to think like nature…”13 thus they tapped into Whiteheadian philosophy where nature itself is conceived as a constantly changeable entity, devoid of any static quality which might be representable through drawing14. If growth is an un-drawable condition, it can be read in the drawings because of the tangible presence of the gap.

The name Element House doesn’t simply originate from the repetitive base mathematical units described earlier, is also indicative of the parallel studies and influences which inspired MOS’ design.

Both in their log and in the conference presentation, MOS chose to present these collections of images, films and studies in an incoherent, non-linear fashion, representing their ethos as a practice where they are “less interested in the singular project, the building, and more interested in a body of work”15.

Ednie-Brown unpacks their decision to present the project through this “assortment of images”16 cleverly identifying that the vitality which they brought to the conference stems from the from the fact that the assortment of images become coexisting elements which simultaneously exist in congruence, yet also as distinctly separate entities. This condition creates what Ednie-Brown calls “internal openness” which can be understood as “…something like what they call “gutters” in the world of comic strips: the gaps between images, where something happens that is never drawn”. These “gutters” belong in the same realm as the “schism” between Form and Shape, the “gap” between drawing and building, this “nowhere” space which is increasingly appears to be responsible for the vitality and depth that caught Pia Ednie-Brown’s attention.

Ednie-Brown likening MOS’ gutters to those of comics opens up avenues of study in order to understand what the 12 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 67 13 Museum of Outdoor Arts, “Element House Lecture with Michael Merideth and Hilary Sample” November 7, 2012, video, https://vimeo.com/53032134 14 “A Nature is a movement. In the act. “It is nonsense to conceive of nature as a static fact, even for an instant devoid of duration. There is no nature apart from transition, and there is no transition apart from temporal duration.” Alfred North Whitehead through Erin Manning (Erin Manning, “Angular Perspective; Or, How Concern Shapes the Field,” Log 49 (Summer 2020): 18) 15 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 68 16 Pia Ednie-Brown, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 25

“gutter” really is. Comic theory provides more accurate description on the gutter; after Dittmer, “gutters should be thought of as an anti-optical void – there is no story to be reconstitute in that space, no missing images, only a relationship to be formed in the reader’s mind.”17 rather than describing the gutter as the place “where something happens that is never drawn”, it is necessary to understand the space of the gutter as the void across which human imagination interacts in order to find meaning between co-existing elements. This entanglement of interactions in the void bears close resemblance to Erin Manning’s ‘nodal-mesh’ model of “A Nature”. Each node, known as an “occasion” or “event”, is formed by an accumulation (and simultaneously an exclusion) of “matterings”18, as “occasions” then continue on to perish; “What matters is that it [the “occasion”] passes and what remains of it is not the occasion as such, but the warp in which it agitated the universe”19, this “warp” which is constantly in flux, is the resonating trace elements creating a pulsating, living field of potential. It could then be considered, that if A Nature manifests when “occasions occasion” and perish, the field of potential – the void that is bridged by the resonances of “matterings” actualising could be considered to be a reflection, a mirror world to A Nature. It is this mirror space which might (cheekily) be considered to be A Void.20 A Void is metatemporal as well as atemporal; the field of potential, when subjected to an “occasion” is what locates it in what we understand to be spacetime, otherwise “time unspools within the breakdown of the page, specifically in the spaces…known as the gutter”21.

MOS’ whole ethos as a practice plays with this temporal duality, rejecting the “parade of singular buildings over the past decade(s)” and prioritising the interest that arises from the entirety of the work they produce as a practice, in other words, the culmination of a variety of nodes or “occasions” which are resonating with each other across A void. Their

overarching temporal ethos extends to the minutiae of their projects; “the idea that an object can be withdrawn from its condition of common use and retain traces of its history”22. In the case of Element House, the chimney and roof studies enrich the reading of the building by contextualising such elements and raising them to become “artifact[s] of the historical function”23. Once again, one can make a connection between MOS’ project and A void by defying the linear temporality as we know it, placing the project in a temporal dimension in which past, present, future and no time exist simultaneously. Only in A Void does time lose meaning, and so it is within A Void where they firmly plant themselves as a practice.

MOS and Element House exist in the uncomfortable “nowhere” of the A Void. Defying the insistence from both critical and architectural bodies to locate and label them in relation to current practice and theory norms. MOS is in a ‘situationship’ with architectural theory and practice, astutely described

by Ednie-Brown as “always uncomfortably situated – awkwardly positioned between conflicting things and tendencies”24, MOS defies placement. The duality and yet ‘nowhere-ness’ of their position is highlighted in their own log entry in Log 29, where they characterise exactly what the conflicting tendencies are: “The argument goes that Form is a system and Shape is, well, shape. The two are disciplinary frenemies: they act like friends from time to time, as part of the same clique, but in private they like to trash each other”, and yet Element House is “A small house in the middle of nowhere…indifferent to this.”25 A key distinction is made between two entities which co-exist but are absolute, MOS identifies them as Form (System) and Shape in their log, where Lavan verbalises these as “Architecture” and “Building”. A motif surrounding MOS and their work begins to build, where they contend with the larger picture (Form, System, Architecture) through their inter-

17 Jason Dittmer, “Comic book visualities: a methodological manifesto on geography, montage and narration”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, 2 (2010): 230, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14755661.2009.00376.x 18 Manning uses “matterings” as a term to describe the coalescing of universal experiences, an accumulation of which which can manifest as “occasions” or “events”, to be understood here as the coexistent entities 19 Erin Manning, “Angular Perspective; Or, How Concern Shapes the Field,” Log 49 (Summer 2020): 187 20 With a mind to avoid confusion, if A Nature is not simply a thing that is, but a thing that does; it is also A Naturing. It follows then, that if A Void is a mirror of A Nature A Naturing, then it is unavoidable that A Void A Voids.

21 Jason Dittmer, “Comic book visualities: a methodological manifesto on geography, montage and narration”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, 2 (2010): 230, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14755661.2009.00376.x 22 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 67 23 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 67 24 Pia Ednie-Brown, “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things,” Log 30 (Fall 2013): 24 25 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 67 A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[23]

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[24]

ventions (Shape, Building) in a way that is unlike most other practices. Element House is exists outside these categories, yet is inescapably a result of Architecture (Form, System) and Building (Shape). Element House is situated right in A Void, it “bridges the schism between Shapes and Systems”26 bringing to attention the tension between Form and Shape, between Architecture and Building, and in the case of the conference, between Critic and Architect. It might be because of this unique placement that the incoherence of MOS’ presentation might be misconstrued as vapid or amateurish, yet their acknowledgement of the “schism”, indeed their occupation of it, highlights the very issues that exist in pursuing the Architecture of the 21st Century.

Taking a glance at architecture today, it is understandable to be left feeling a little perplexed. On the surface, there is no uniform approach, no one manifesto from one man lighting the way for the next century of architecture. The architectural landscape is rough, and bumpy and incongruent and, well, not unlike Element house. Neither the architectural condition in its variety today, or Element House allows itself to be “smoothed” into a single category. Whilst it is true, as Ednie-Brown points out, that many buildings today suffer from the smoothing “wholesomeness”, the collection of the whole, all the buildings and theory, amount to something. A broad, diverse Ecology of Architecture, which slowly but surely is turning away from its navel-gazing and stretching to connect to the Ecology of Things [After Jane Bennett, “In the space created by this estrangement, a vital materiality can start to take place”27. If MOS’ practice can teach us one thing about pursuing architecture, it’s to forget the landscape: to understand the architecture of the 21st Century it is necessary to look beyond the images, the styles, the forms and the shapes. Instead, pay close attention to A Void which is created and simultaneously shared by the images, and styles, forms and shapes. Understand that it is the resonance within A Void we need to follow, allow our architectures to explore slippages into it, and begin to understand the architecture of today as part of an ecology not unlike Spinoza28 who unlike the modernist, post-modern and contemporary traditionalists, would see

architecture as alive – as part of the system of the world – in which building is not simply object. Architecture can no longer be driven and defined in narrow, stylistic and superficial terms. In Pursuit of Architecture did indeed find the architecture of the 21st Century; it is growing in the gutter.

Figure 8: Element House Axonometric

Word Count: 3,002 SCAT Submission May 2021 Miranda Lyle Pérez

26 MOS, “Element House” Log 29 (Fall 2013): 68 27 Jane Bennet, “Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things” (Duke University Press, 2010), vii, http://www. open.ac.uk/ccig/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ccig/files/Chapter%207%20’Political%20Ecologies’%20Vibrant%20Matter%20 (Jane%20Bennett).pdf 28 Gökhan Kodalak, “Spinoza and Architecture: The Air of the Future,” Log 49 (Summer 2020): 123

A VOIDING: MOS & THE GUTTERS OF ELEMENT HOUSE

[25]

[...]

[26]

[...]

Figure 1: Notebook glossary. Author’s own.

8 Figure 2: Diagram of the curatorial role. Author’s own.

14 Figure 3: Concept sketches; understanding A Nature. Author’s own. 16 Figure 4: Element House in New Mexico site. MOS. Photo. 2013.

Photograph. MOS. Accessed May 05, 2021. https://www.mos.nyc/project/elementhouse. 20 Figure 5: Element House Fibonacci plans MOS. Organization. 2013.

Image. MOS. Accessed May 05, 2021. https://www.mos.nyc/project/element-house.

22 Figure 6: Element House floor plan MOS. Plan. 2013. Image. MOS. Accessed May 05, 2021. https://www.mos.nyc/project/element-house.

22 Figure 7: Element House roof plan MOS. Roof Plan. 2013. Image. MOS. Accessed May 05, 2021. https://www.mos.nyc/project/element-house.

22 Figure 8: Element House Axonometric MOS. Screenshot. 2013. Image.

MOS. Accessed May 05, 2021. https://www.mos.nyc/project/element-house.

24

LIST OF FIGURES [27]

[28]

Agrest, Diana. “The Return of (The Repressed) Nature.” Lecture, Architectural Association, London, 2nd March, 1994, https:// youtu.be/Pu0_SX65ixA.Bennett, Jane Bennett. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. A John Hope Franklin Center Book. Duke University Press, 2010.

Bruno, Giuliana. “Architects of Time: Reel Images from Warhol To Tsai Ming-Liang”. Log, no. 2 (2004): 81–94.

Cohen, Jean-Louis. “Mirror of Dreams”. Log, no. 20 (Fall, 2010): 49–53.

Davidson, Cynthia. “Front Matter”. Log, no. 1 (2003). http:// www.jstor.org/stable/41764935.

———. “Front Matter”. Log, no. 2 (2004). http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41764964.

———. “Front Matter”. Log, no. 16 (2009). http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41765271.

———. “Front Matter”. Log, no. 20 (2010). http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41765359.

———. “Front Matter”. Log, no. 29 (2013). http://www.jstor.org/ stable/43631680.

———. “What’s in a Log?” Log, no. 1 (2003): 5–8.

Deriu, Davide. “Montage and Modern Architecture: “Montage and Modern Architecture: Giedion’s Implicit Manifesto”.

Architectural Theory Review 12, no. 1 (1 August 2007): 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820701553096.

Dittmer, Jason. “Comic Book Visualities: A Methodological Manifesto on Geography, Montage and Narration”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, no. 2 (2010): 222–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00376.x.

Ednie-Brown, Pia. “Architectural Coexistence: Twins, Logs, and the Ecology of Things”. Log, no. 30 (Winter, 2013): 14–28.

Evans, Robin. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. AA Documents. Architectural Association, 1997.

Accessed May 05, 2021. https://arts.berkeley.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2016/01/arc-of-life-Robin_Evans_Translations_From_ Drawing_to_Building1.pdf Ferentinos, Andrew. “Critical Performance”. Archis (blog), 17 November 2013. http://archis.org/volume/critical-performance/.

Genette, Gerard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation.

Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Literature, Culture, Theory.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511549373.

Groensteen, Thierry. The System of Comics. Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2007.

Leonídio, Otávio. “Álvaro Siza Vieira: Another Void”. Log, no. 16 (2009): 27–38.

Log. In Pursuit of Architecture - Discussion Part 3, 2013. https:// vimeo.com/75901639.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. In Pursuit of Architecture - Discussion Part 4, 2013. https://vimeo.com/75933591.

———. Michael Meredith and Hilary Sample, MOS – Element House; Element House, 2013. https://vimeo.com/75830556.

———. Umberto Napolitano, LAN - EDF Archives Center, 2013. https://vimeo.com/75777647.

Manning, A. ‘Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art’.

Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions On 41 (1 April 1998): 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1998.661632.

Manning, Erin. “Angular Perspective, or, How Concern Shapes the Field.” Log, No,49 (Summer, 2020): 183-195.

MOS. “Element House”. Log, no. 29 (2013): 66–75.

———. ‘House, No. 5, Element House’. Accessed 5 May 2021. . https://www.mos.nyc/project/element-house.

———. ‘Video, No. 09:53, Nowhere to Go’. Accessed 5 May . https://www.mos.nyc/project/nowhere-go.

Sousanis, Nick. ‘The Shape of Our Thoughts: A Meditation on & in Comics’. Visual Arts Research 38, no. 1 (2012): 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.5406/visuartsrese.38.1.0001.

———. Unflattening. Harvard University Press, 2015. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c84d7z.

[29]

VOID

A [...]

SCAT Submission May 2021 Miranda Lyle Pérez