El imaginario en la génesis del proyecto arquitectónico: La construcción de la realidad a través del mito, la utopía y la cibercultura

El término imaginario, nombra el principio y el tema central de una investigación del mundo arquitectónico, necesaria para entender las condiciones alrededor de un proceso proyectual íntimo, cargado de significaciones ideológicas y simbólicas. En diferentes interpretaciones, el inconsciente colectivo y personal, científico o social, aparece en el origen de cada pensamiento y comportamiento humano, constituyendo un universo cerrado y caótico, donde todas las ideas están en constante tensión y contradicción. Por esta razón existen nociones y construcciones lógicas y coherentes que estructuran el marco de la verisimilitud y por tanto el régimen de la realidad, mediante la verdad y la verificación. Para el proyecto arquitectónico estas configuraciones se expresan en la situación del espacio, el tiempo y el cuerpo, como elementos básicos de jerarquización de la habitabilidad y de la cohabitabilidad humana. Esta tesis pretende acotar y definir un ámbito de procesos verosímiles instalados dentro del imaginario mediante el patrimonio intangible del pensamiento mítico o utópico, donde no solamente se crean envolventes del pensamiento, de iconografía o de sociedades, sino de donde también se derivan modelos rígidos y excluyentes, desde teorías basadas en la heteronormatividad y la segregación según el sexo, el género, la clase y la capacidad dentro de la diversidad funcional. La experiencia del espacio arquitectónico ha sido tradicionalmente descrita mediante palabras e imágenes: el lógos y el símbolo han sido los grandes intermediadores entre los sujetos y el habitar. Los ámbitos cotidiano y urbano se han regido por modelos y normas absolutas aplicadas universalmente y el mundo arquitectónico se ha visto estancado en la polaridad dual, entre lo público y lo privado, el dentro y el fuera, el movimiento y el reposo, el hombre y la mujer. Si el espacio-tiempo, el cuerpo y sus interpretaciones son la base para los modelos absolutistas, universalistas y perfeccionistas que han dominado el pensamiento occidental y elaborado la noción de lo “normal” en su totalidad, restando complejidad y diversidad, en la era hipermoderna ya no tiene sentido hablar en términos que no contemplen la superposición y la contradicción de la multiplicidad caótica en igualdad y en equilibrio instable. La realidad se ha visto reinventada a través de situaciones intermedias, los lugares inbetween en los espacios, tiempos, identidades y nociones presupuestas, donde se ha tergiversado el orden establecido, afectando al imaginario. La cotidianidad ha superado la arquitectura y el tiempo ha aniquilado el espacio. La conectividad, las redes y el libre acceso a la información – allá donde los haya – componen el marco que ha permitido a los sujetos subalternos emerger y empezar a consolidarse en el discurso teórico y práctico. Nuevos referentes están apareciendo en el hiper-espacio/tiempo aumentado, infringiendo todas aquellas leyes e interpretaciones impuestas para controlar los hábitos, las conductas y las personas. La casa, la ciudad y la metrópolis al vaciarse de contenidos, han dejado de cumplir funciones morales y simbólicas. Los no-lugares, los no-space, los no-time (Amann, 2011) son las condiciones radicalmente fenoménicas que reemplazan la realidad de lo vivido y activan de forma directa a los sentidos; son lugares que excitan el cuerpo como termótopos (Sloterdijk, 2002), que impulsan el crecimiento de la economía y en gran medida la multinormatividad. Sin duda alguna, aquí y ahora se requiere un nuevo modo de emplear la palabra, la imagen y la tecnología, dentro de una temporalidad efímera y eterna simultáneamente. ABSTRACT The term imaginary marks the beginning and the main topic of this research into the architectural world, presented as the necessary condition to understand the design process in its intimate layers, loaded with ideological and symbolic meanings. Through different interpretations, the unconscious, personal and collective, scientific or social, is found in the origin of every human thought and behaviour, constituting a closed chaotic universe, where all ideas are in constant tension and contradiction. This is why there are logical and coherent notions or discursive constructions which organise the context of verisimilitude and therefore the regime of reality through truth and its verification. For the architectural project, these specific configurations are associated with space, time and body as basic elements of management and hierarchization of human habitability and co-habitability. This thesis aims to demarcate and define a field of verisimilar processes installed in the imaginary, through the intangible heritage of mythical or utopian thinking, where not only enclosures of thought, iconography or utopian ideals are created, but from where rigid and exclusive models are derived as well, from theories based on heteronormativity and segregation by sex, gender, class and functional diversity. The experience of the architectural space has been described traditionally through words and images: the language and the symbol have been intermediating between the user and his habitat. Everyday life and urban interactions have been governed by absolute, universally applied, models or standards, therefore the architectural world has been stalled in a constant dual polarity between the public and the private, the inside and the outside, the movement and the repose, the man and the woman. Certainly, if the space-time notion, along with the theorization of the body, are the basis for absolutist, universalist and perfectionist models that have dominated western thought and developed the concept of “normal” in its totality, deducting all complexity and diversity, in the hypermodern era it makes no longer sense to speak in terms that ignore the overlap and contradiction of the chaotic multiplicity that characterises equality and unstable balance. Reality has been reinvented through intermediate situations, the in-between spaces, time, identities, or other presupposed notions. The order of truth has been distorted, affecting and transforming the contemporary imaginary. Everyday practices have surpassed the architectural design and time has annihilated space. Connectivity, networks, free access to information -wherever it exists-, compose the framework that has allowed subaltern subjectivity to emerge and begin to consolidate into main theoretical and practical discourses. New models are appearing in the augmented hyper-space/ time, transgressing any rule and interpretation imposed to control habits, behaviours and people. The house, the city and the metropolis are empty of content; they no longer fulfil moral and symbolic functions. The non-places, non-space, non-time (Amann, 2011) are radically phenomenal conditions that replace the reality of the lived experience and activate the senses as places that excite the body, thermotopos (Sloterdijk, 2002), which boost economic growth and to a considerable extent the multinormativity. Undoubtedly, what is required here and now is a new way of employing the word, the image and the technology within an ephemeral yet eternal temporality.

Urbanism and dictatorship: perspectives of the field of urban studies

In 1933 public letter to Wilhelm Furtwängler, Joseph Goebbels synthesized the official understanding of the link between politics, art and society in the early steps of the Third Reich. By assuming the ethos of art, politics acquired a plastic agency to mold its objects —population and the state— as a unified entity in the form of a ‘national-popular community’ (Volksgemeinschaft); in turn, by infusing art with a political valence, it became part of a wider governmental apparatus that reshaped aesthetic discourses and practices. Similar remarks could be made about the ordering of cities and territories in this period. Dictatorial imaginations mobilized urbanism —including urban theory, urban design and planning— as a fundamental tool for social organization. Under their aegis the production of space became a moment in a wider production of society. Many authors suggest that this political-spatial nexus is intrinsic to modernity itself, beyond dictatorial regimes. In this light, I propose to use dictatorial urbanisms as an analytical opportunity to delve into some concealed features of modern urban design and planning. This chapter explores some of these aspects from a theoretical standpoint, focusing on the development of dictatorial planning mentalities and spatial rationalities and drawing links to other historical episodes in order to inscribe the former in a broader genealogy of urbanism. Needless to say, I don’t suggest that we use dictatorships as mere templates to understand modern productions of space. Instead, these cases provide a crude version of some fundamental drives in the operationalization of urbanism as an instrument of social regulation, showing how far the modern imagination of sociospatial orderings can go. Dictatorial urbanisms constituted a set of experiences where many dreams and aspirations of modern planning went to die. But not, as the conventional account would have it, because the former were the antithesis of the latter, but rather because they worked as the excess of a particular orientation of modern spatial governmentalities — namely, their focus on calculation, social engineering and disciplinary spatialities, and their attempt to subsume a wide range of everyday practices under institutional structuration by means of spatial mediations. In my opinion the interest of dictatorial urbanisms lies in their role as key regulatory episodes in a longer history of our urban present. They stand as a threshold between the advent of planning in the late 19th and early 20th century, and its final consolidation as a crucial state instrument after World War II. We need, therefore, to pay attention to these experiences vis-à-vis the alleged ‘normal’ development of the field in contemporary democratic countries in order to develop a full comprehension thereof.