“An Architecture of change”

Review of “An Architecture of change”

Gamez and Rogerd state that we are now in the post critical and post political age, the new age after postmodernism. The authors warn of this current situation where current architects tend to be politically blind. I agree that the field of architecture tends to separate from the field of politics. However, I guess it is not because architects have become politically blind but architects intend to make architecture free from power. I think this attitude is a critic against modernism which have strong connection with politics. For example, the public housing projects and urban planning in modernism had strong connections with political aim and it has failed. 

Gamez and Rogerd’s points out that current architecture does not contribute in real issues except for a few rich people who are only 2% of the population. For the improvement of this situation, the authors think that the field of architecture needs new theories that can transform architectural practice into the societal and political fields. I think it is necessary to engage with societal field but not sure with politics. The political project in architecture has already disappeared from main stream architecture. Why we now need to engage with politics?

I agree with the authors’ opinion that academia has important roles in filtering the idea or movement. So I think it is very variable to seek the ways in which architectural academy may engage with existing world issues. I believe that the field of architecture has possibility to contribute in solving or reducing issues but have not work well yet.

Gamez, Josel, S. and Rogers, Susan. “An Architecture of Change”.  Expanding Architecture: Design as activism. ed. Bell, Bryan and Wakeford, Katie. New York: Metropolis books, 2008: PP18-24.

“Is There Research in the Studio?”

Review of “Is There Research in the Studio?”

In my opinion, research should examine the fact, give us new finding, explain it clearly and logically, and expand our knowledge. I think the research studios help us to understanding the city or architectural thought but didn’t produce new knowledge. In my opinion, these research studios are like communication tool rather than research.

Same as the Eames’ film. I do not agree the film is research. I have watched Eames’ film ‘Power of Ten’ that Varnelis states as the best analogy for research studio. I felt the film shows the new images of the world which I do not imagine in ordinary life. The film gives us new awareness but does not have new findings. It is a specious idea that the film is research simply because it helps us to re-imagine the world. I do not think the film expands our knowledge even though I think the film could be architectural but not research.

According to Varnelis, new “projective architecture” against criticality and theories over last decade. Therefore, the research studios have become common. I think if the project doesn’t engaged with theory or criticality, it may no be called as research. In conclude, “research studio” could be new way of architectural communication but not research.

Varnelis, Kazys. “Is There Research in the Studio? ”.  Journal of Architectural Education. (2007): PP11-14.

"Other / Otherness"

Review of "Other / Otherness"

Stazak argued that otherness is produced by geographical differences such as physical anthropology and history. Differences in biological sex, religion, language, political structure, and skin color are also contributed to construct otherness. Does difference create others? If so, is difference problem?

I disagree Stazak’s that difference has been produced the other and otherness. I believe that what creates the others is people’s desire to identify themselves. When people use difference to create other for the purpose of domination, the issue of unfairness could happen. I believe that the issue is not difference but hierarchy which is produced by the concept of otherness.

According to Stazak, “Biological sex is difference, whether gender is otherness” I can accept the idea that my body is female which is different from male in terms of biology, because it would be in the realm of fact. On the other hand, it is not convincing that female hard to be architect in Japan. It is gender that belongs to the term of discourse. It is qualitative judgment that males can work as architect better than female. It has not quantified or proved. Gender issue is that people who are not male; who are excluded from “self”. I believe that difference is not the problem but some people’s desire of supremacy creates others from differences. 

My question is whether “other / otherness” is issue. According to Jean-Francois Stazak, otherness has been used as explanation of the morally rightness of domination by dominant group which was defined as “Us / Self”. The concept of otherness would be considered as a excuse of unfairness, injustice and inequality between “self” and “other”, for instance, Male/Female, Believers/ Non believers, white/ colors and so on. When I stand by his idea and then judged otherness from moral point of view, the concept of otherness seems like contributing many issues existing the world. However, I should remind that this is value judgment but not fact.

I think I need to consider what modernism and postmodernism have tried to do. Modernism believe universalism could be best solution of unfairness because unbalance society systems are created by difference.  However, it failed. Some people couldn’t stand to lose their identity. From this history, I think it is nearly impossible to not have concept of others.

In conclusion, concept of “other / otherness” is not be able to disappear as long as people want identify themselves. In my opinion, we should remind that diversity of groups has risks to create unfairness. Especially the categorizing into two groups; “Us / Self” and “Them / Others”. Essential problems are unfairness and unbalance but not difference, not the concept of others. 

「他者」という概念は、自然人類学的あるいは歴史的な地理上の「違い」によって生みだされるとスタザックは言う。生物的な性の違い、宗教、言語、政治構造、そして皮膚色の違いなどもそうだ。「違い」が「他者」という概念をほんとうにうみだしているのだろうか？ そうだとすれば、「違う」ということは問題なのだろうか?


私は「違い」が「他者」や「他者性」をうみだしつづけてきた、とは思わない。人間の自分自身のアイデンティティを確立したいという希求が他者という概念をうみだしたのだろう。人間が「違い」を、「他者を支配する」という目的のために使いはじめたときに、不公平という問題がおこりえる。私は「違い」が問題だとはおもわない。しかし「他者」という概念によってうみだされたヒエラルキー、階層構造は問題視すべきだと思う。


スタザックによれば『生物学的な性は「違い」であるがジェンダーは「他者性」である』という。なるほど確かに、わたしは私の身体が生物学的に男性とは違う女性であるということを受け入れることができる。なぜならそれは、事実という分野に属するからだ。一方で、日本では女性が建築家になることが難しい、ということにはなっとくがいかない。これは、論説の分野に属するジェンダーの問題であり、事実の分野にぞくする生物学的違いとは一線を画する。男性の方が女性よりも建築家としてよく働ける、というのはクオリティ的なジャッジメントである。ジェンダーの問題というのは、男性ではない人々、つまり「自己」「私たち」というグループから除外された人々への不公平という問題である。問題とすべきは「違い」ではなく「違い」を理由に優越感をもちたいという一部の、あるいは大部分の人間の欲求である、と思う。


では、「他者」という概念は問題なのだろうか。スタザックによれば、「他者」という概念は、「わたしたち」が「他者」を支配するときの理由、モラルのうえでの正当性として使われて来た。「他者性」とはつまり、「わたしたち」と「他者」の間にうまれる不公平、不平等に対する言い訳としてつかわれてきた、と言えるだろう。「自己、私たち」と「他者」、たとえば、男性と女性、信者とそうでない人、白人と有色人種など。スタザックの意見を前提に「他者」という概念をみてみると、「他者」という概念は、世界中のたくさんの社会問題に寄与して来た、問題の原因そのものであるかのように思える。


さて、私は、モダニズムと、その後のポストモダニズムが何をしようとしたのかを、ここで一度考えてみる必要があると思う。モダニズムは、不均衡な社会システムは違いによってもたらされいえいるので、ユニバーサリズム（普遍主義）が不公平の最も良い解決策であるかもしれないという信念に基づくものだったといえる。 しかしながら、それは失敗したように思う。 何人かの人々は、自分のアイデンティティを失いみんなと同じになることが耐えられなかった。 この歴史からは、私は、他者という概念をなくすというのは不可能ではないかと思う。


結論として、人々が自分自身がなにものであるかを知りたい、確立したいという人々の欲求がある限り、「他者/他者性」の概念が消えさることはないだろう。しかし、私たちは、違うグループにグループわけすることで、不公平をうみだすかもしれないというリスクがあることを忘れてはいけない。「わたしたち」と「かれら」つまり、自己と他者の二つにグループ分けするときは特に。本質的な問題は、違いでも他者という概念でもなく、不公平と不均衡にあるのではないだろうか。

Staszak,Jean-Francois. “Other/otherness”.  International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. (2008).

"The sex of the architecture 'Other' spaces and the 'Others' ”

Review of The sex of the architecture

“Other” spaces and the “Others”

Mary McLeod’s criticism of Michel Foucault and his architect-followers are harsh in this essay. I agreed her coherent argument that Foucault’s concept of the “other” is limited even though I respect Foucault’s attitude against power. However, I would like to criticize that McLeod’s idea as well as Foucault. I think her point is slanted and limited too.

Despite Foucault’s idea of heterotopia that is supposedly against power and to celebrate differences, McLeod pointed out that Foucault’s discussion of “other” spaces exclude women and children. From McLeod’s view Foucault seems to disregard not only women but also colonized society without conscious. I agreed the McLeod’s point of view that contemporary European and American architects and theorists, such as poststructuralist and deconstructivist, who have unconscious biases of Foucault, are blind to the other of the white western male culture. I think the fact of architecture conference could be one of the evidence. McLeod support Lefebvre and the followers feminists due to understanding daily life that is considered both of the what is include and exclude. McLeod also suggests to not exclude someone who doesn’t have architectural sophistication too.

However, in my opinion, McLeod also excluded something without conscious as well as Foucault. For instance, MacLeod’s discussion covers only people but not include animals or nature. MacLeod criticized Foucault and deconstructivist as a blind of non western male culture, but I can criticized MacLeod as a blind of non human world. 

In my opinion, even though the researcher or theorist pay attention on the way to categorize, they might exclude something without conscious.  I think any study of otherness is a little problematic. I think that the salient point is that awareness of the risks of the exclusion when we distinguish something from others.

McLeod, Mary. “”Other” Spaces and “Others””.  The sex of the architecture. ed.Agrest, Diana and Conway, Patricia and Weisman, Leslie. K. New York?: Harry N. Adrams, Inc., Publishers,1996: PP15-28.

Possible application into architecture./Urban poor, Yogyakarta Indonesia

The goal of my proposal in Design proposal for Yogyakaruta, Indonesia is to improve the quality of life of urban poor, so it could be activism. I would like to develop Smith’s research from the field of social science to architecture. I try to think of my architectural design as social activity rather than a concrete structure. Kurokawa aims to contribute to society by architecture, but I think his architecture is not tool of social activity but only result. I think the process of architecture should be considered carefully, because I support Travers’ discussion that process is highly important for social research as activism. Even though Kurokawa describes “architecture is not permanent art, but rather something that grows towards the future” in the concept of metabolism, the way of growing is highly authorized by Kurokawa. think this process is too singular to be accepted by current society, because the postmodern perspective has emphasized people’s differences. So I think passing the process of growing architecture to community’s hand is more suitable and acceptable. Therefore, in my opinion, architecture (as a result) proposed by architect might be very minimized, but it should stimulate involving local people or community into process of architecture. Involving community into architectural or urban planning processes such as collecting data of the area, analysis of various contexts of local life, design, construction, using, examining and modifying space, could be work as social activity. Same as Smith who expects the process of her social research will work as education or healing, I expect the process of architecture could give community opportunity to notice, learn and consider their living environment. If people learn from this project and use it to build or repair their housing, it could address some of the problems of urban poor in Yogyakarta that was produced by informal settlement without knowledge or planning. It could also address the improvement of their quality of life.

Epistemology is valid in Design proposal for Indonesia because it is hard to learn without knowledge about urban poor at Yogyakarta as I have never been to the site and I am not familiar with any culture, social life, climate, political matter and so on. Methodology is important. What method do I use in research or design process effect result. To avoid same mistake as modernism or postmodernism, it is better to use and combine two different methods which have opposite view points, into my own architectural research. Urban poor can be examined by objective and subjective. For example, the problems of physical environment like housing, infrastructure are objective matters. There may be subjective matter too. I need to research site by emancipatory viewpoint. I think I have to address both issues by architectural solution.

Groat, Linda and David Wang. Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, INC, 2002: PP21-43.

Kurokawa, Kisho. “From the age of Machine to Age of Life”. I’ARCA, International magazine of architecture and design, 219 no.1 (2006): PP2-11.

Robinson, Julia W. “Architectural research: Incorporating Myth and Science”. Journal of Architectural Education, 44 no.1 (1990): PP20-32.

Travers, Ann. “Postmodern Research, Postmodern Practice: Studying the Barriers to Cyberliteracy Among Mentally Disabled Women”. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, vol.4 no.4 (2002): PP279-291.

World news

When I was in Japan, I didn't care about "world news" so much. That may be because "the world" was really far from my reality world. I now have some friends from different countries, so "the world news" became more close to me.

My first nice friend (girl friend) in Tasmania is from Pakistan. When I found the word; Pakistan on news paper, my eyes are stopped and I started to read carefully.

"The world news" became "my world news".

There are always too many sad news on the news paper...

日本にいたときは、「ワールドニュース」のことなんてそんなに気にしたことがなかった。

たぶんそれは「ワールド」が私の現実のワールドからずいぶん遠かったから、なんだと思う。

今の私にはいろんな国出身の友達が居る。
だから、「ワールドニュース」はぐっと身近なものになった。

タスマニアに来て、はじめてできた女友達はパキスタン出身。

だから、新聞をパラパラめくっているときに、

パキスタンという文字を見つけると

私の目はそこに吸い寄せられ、それからじっくり記事を読む。

「ワールドニュース」は今や「私のワールドニュース」になった。

新聞にはあまりに多くのかなしいニュースが溢れている......

news paper

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/food-and-medicine-cannot-reach-flood-victims/story-e6frg6so-1225901290891 

“From the age of Machine to Age of Life,”

Review of Kisho Kurokawa, “From the age of Machine to Age of Life,”

After this two reading, I now understand clearer that the architectural movement was interlinked with parallel movements in other various fields. I think architects must read the contents of the time in the various fields, and need to reflect them. In this reading, I could see how Kurokawa translate the new ideas that emerged in other fields into his architectural theory and how he transformed his theory into architectural design. It is because I agree with his strong opinion that thought or theory is important for architecture, I disagree with some of his ideas written in 2006 including his theory and projects, as it seems like they do not fit with current thought.

For example, for me, it is hard to accept that he used the mega-structure, one of the design techniques developed from his theory; metabolism, into his latest national art center project (2006 completed). The building is composed of four core and super slabs these simple structures allow modification by the placing or removal of slabs. He describes that creating compact buildings and cities by building manmade land onto buildings, as the challenge to minimize the environmental impact. This is his discussion in his paper written in 2006. I feel that the idea - developing city in the vertical direction, to reduce the footprint of buildings and to separate natural environment- is more like dualism in modern period but not in 21^st century. Even though this building system has ability to “grow” or “develop”, the way is limited and highly controlled by strong power of Kurokawa’s design. It might be too authoritative for postmodernists, as the thought systems have already shifted. In my understanding, people became to prefer to choosing one answer from a lot of choice rather than finding one answer.

Other example I disagree is Kurokawa’s concept of life.  It is based on the discovering of the double helix structure of DNA. According to Fukuoka, the double helix structure means it can make copy by themselves. Therefore, the concept of life in the 60s were “life is the systems of copying themselves by themselves.”　Kurokawa explained that city of helix (1961) and Nakagin capsule tower (1970) have strong connection with DNA. I guess these architecture was sensational in 60’s to 70’s same as the discovery of the structure of DNA. However, I think this architectural theory is already too old-fashion to be used in 21^st Century. Firstly, the field of bioscience have advanced with new discoveries. The book “between life and non-life” written by Shinichi Fukuoka framed a new concept of life. In my opinion, it is the time to move from the thought of “DNA”.  As I have personal interest in this discussion about the concept of life in bioscience, I would like to research more and hopefully connect with architectural design.

 In conclusion, I think the theory and design Kurokawa had discussed in 60’s was sensational but not in the 21^st century, because philosophy, knowledge systems and other academic field like bioscience has changed. For the next generation, I have to know and read newest philosophy or any other field to reflect on my design works.

.
.
.

Finally, there is one big question for myself. I don’t have any answer.

In my opinion, Kurokawa’s “next age” is already past, it is old fashion.

If I try to catch up or lead “next age” at current situation,

Won’t it become old fashion in the “next age”?

If I could complete a newest architectural project in this situation,

The social situation might change soon in the future,

but the building might be still there as same as current situation.

I have a feeling that the speed of social change like thought and science is much faster than speed of the field of architecture.

Here’s another question.

There are lots of old fusion’s architecture which doesn’t fit with current philosophy, social contents or knowledge systems. These buildings exist. 

Are these problems or not?

Does the field of architecture really need to fit social change? Why?

If so, how can architecture fit with the faster changes which occur in the other fields?

This is question for myself. This is to criticize not only Kurokawa but to my own writings above.

黒川紀章さんの「機会の時代から生命の時代へ」を読んで
＊60年代に発表された彼自身の記事について2006年に書かれたもの


建築界でおこるムーブメントが、同時期に他の様々な分野でおこっているムーブメントと相互につよく関連しているのだと黒川紀章さんは説明している。なるほど、建築家は違う分野の動きにもセンサーを張り巡らし、それらを建築にはんえいしていかなければならないのだろうと思う。黒川紀章さんは彼がどんなふうに他の分野でうまれた新しいアイデアや思想を建築の文脈のなかに取り込んでいったか、そしてその理論をどのように具体的なかたちに落とし込んでいったのか、がこのエッセイのなかで語られている。私は黒川紀章さんの言う通り、思想や哲学、理論が建築にとって非常に重要であるという考え方に賛成だ。だからこそ、この2006年にかかれたこのエッセイのなかに見られる彼のいくつかのアイデア、理論とそのプロジェクトについて疑問を感じずにはいられない。その理論とデザインは、2006年現在の思想に一致していないのではないだろうか？


例えば、黒川紀章さんの新しいプロジェクト、国立新美術館(2006年完成)でつかわれている、メガストラクチャーは、著名な理論、メタボリズムの発展ということだが、私にはどうも受け入れ難い。この建築は四つのコアとスーパースラブと呼ばれる床からなるもので、このスラブを増やしたり除いたりすることで、建築自体の姿を変えることができる、というもの。メタボリズム＝新陳代謝である。この床を縦方向につみあげていく仕組みのコンパクトな建築は環境への負荷を最小限に押さえるだろうと黒川紀章さんは説明している。2006年完成の建築について2006年に書かれた記事の中で、である。都市を垂直方向に開発し、建築のフットプリントを減らし、自然環境と人工環境を分ける、という考え方は、まるでモダニズム時代の二元論のようであり、21世紀のものではない、と私は思う。たとえ建築のしくみが「成長」「変化」などを許容するとはいえども、それらは黒川紀章さんのデザインによる強力なコントロールによって、極端に制限されたうえでの「変化」である。これはすこし、支配的すぎるのではないだろうか。私たちはすでにモダニズムの時代にわかれを告げ、混沌としたポストモダニズムのなかにいるのである。誰かの掲示した、ただひとつの絶対なる答えに従うのではなく、多くの選択の中から自分らしい選択をしていくことを、人は好みはじめているのではないだろうか。


もうひとつ、私が賛成できないのは黒川紀章さんの生命に関する概念だ。これはDNAの二重螺旋構造の発見に端を発している。生物学者の福岡さんの言葉をかりれば、二重螺旋構造とはすなわち自己複製機能を意味する。したがって、60年代の生命のコンセプトは「生命とは自己複製する装置」であり、「自己複製の為の情報そのもの」であるのだ。黒川紀章さんはヘリックスシティや、中銀カプセルタワーのデザインとDNAの仕組みに強いつながりがあることを説明している。なるほどたしかに「複製（コピー）」による「成長」「変化」がこれらの建築にみられる。 わたしが予想するに、60年代70年代にこれらの建築が社会にあたえた衝撃はとても大きかったのだろう。DNAの二重螺旋構造の発見が世界に衝撃をあたえたように。しかし、この理論は21世紀である現在、すでにオールドファッションなのではないだろうか。まず第一に生物科学の分野では新たな発見とともに議論はつねに発展して行っている。分子生物学者の福岡伸一さんの著書「生物と無生物のあいだ(2007)」は新たなる生命の概念について描き出し、違う分野の様々なひとに新鮮な驚きをあたえた。６５万部以上をこえたベストセラーである。私は、今こそ「生命とは情報である」「生命とは自己複製する装置である」としたDNAの生命概念から、次のステージに動き出す時ではないのだろうか。私は個人的にこの生命の概念について興味があるので、もうすこし詳しく調べてみようと思う。


さて、まとめると
黒川紀章さんの議論は60年代においては非常にセンセーショナルだったが、21世紀の現在においてはそうはいかない。なぜなら、哲学も地の体系もそれから生物科学の様な他の分野も、もうすでに変わってしまっているからである。次の時代のために、私は最新の哲学やその他の分野の新しい考えや発見に目を配り、それらを読んで咀嚼しデザインにはんえいしていかなければならない。

最後に、ここにひとつ、疑問が残る。
私自身に対する大きな疑問だ。わたしは答えを持ち合わせていない。
わたしの考えでは、黒川紀章さんの言う「次の時代」は、もうすでに過ぎ去った、過去のものだ。
もし、私が現在の状況での「次の時代」に追いつこう、もしくはリードして行こうなどと考えたときに
その「次の時代」もあっというまにオールドファッションになってしまうのではないだろうか。
もし私が最新の建築的アイディアをもった最新のデザインのプロジェクトを完成させたとしても
将来、社会の状況は変わってしまうことだろう、
しかしそれでも、建築はそこに残り続けるのではないだろうか。そう、現在の状況のように。
建築分野の変化のスピードに比べ、
社会の変化、思想や科学の変化のスピードはもっとずっと早いような気がする。


もうひとつここに疑問がある。
現在の哲学、社会状況や知の体系などとはマッチしないオールドファッションの建築が
地球上にはおおく存在している。
それらの建築はたしかに存在している。
これらの建築は「問題」なのだろうか？
建築はほんとうに時代の変化に応じて変わらなければならないのだろうか？なぜ？
もしそうなら、建築はどうやって、この変化のはやい社会や他の分野にまけないスペードで
変わりつづけていくことができるのだろうか？


これは私自身への質問である。
黒川紀章さんにたいする批評だけではなく
私自身の上記のエッセイにたいする批評でもある。

Kurokawa, Kisho. “From the age of Machine to Age of Life”. I’ARCA, International magazine of architecture and design, 219 no.1 (2006): PP2-11.

“Postmodern Research, Postmodern Practice: Studying the Barriers to Cyberliteracy Among Mentally Disabled Women”

Review of Ann Travers, “Postmodern Research, Postmodern Practice: Studying the Barriers to Cyberliteracy Among Mentally Disabled Women”

This essay argues the postmodern challenge in social practice through the researches of Travers, Newman and Holzman, and Smith. Three of them aim to change society positively and criticized modernity, western science and academics which produce only knowledge. However, they have differing discussions within research and activism. Newman and Holzman are totally against epistemology and suggest learning the way child does and to do activity or performance to change society. In their opinion, social activism is not research. In Smith’s opinion, research process works as activism like education or healing. The author stand by Smith as her goal of research is social justice and democracy. She hopes to contribute to the mentally disabled women at the center by her research.

                   It is a very interesting and exciting idea that research process has a possibility to change society. In this paper, only social research is discussed, but I guess design process and building process could work as activism as research. The field of architecture could be more efficient and useful to not only to propose architecture as a result but also to use architectural process as tool to improve urban poor (our DS8 project). I think I could learn from Smith’s research project for indigenous people. For example, she believes social researchers have to consider the impact of research on community and challenge to involve community. I think architectural project also should address the issues of social justice. I would like to read her essays more and to find a way for architecture as performance for social change.

Travers, Ann. “Postmodern Research, Postmodern Practice: Studying the Barriers to Cyberliteracy Among Mentally Disabled Women”. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, vol.4 no.4 (2002): PP279-291.