The Edge of Danger: artificial lighting and the dialectics of domestic occupation in Philip Johnson's Glass and Guest Houses

In the first half of the twentieth century the dematerializing of boundaries between enclosure and exposure problematized traditional acts of “occupation” and understandings of the domestic environment. As a space of escalating technological control, the modern domestic interior offered new potential to re-define the meaning and means of habitation. This shift is clearly expressed in the transformation of electric lighting technology and applications for the modern interior in the mid-twentieth century. Addressing these issues, this paper examines the critical role of electric lighting in regulating and framing both the public and private occupation of Philip Johnson’s New Canaan estate. Exploring the dialectically paired transparent Glass House and opaque Guest House (both 1949), this study illustrates how Johnson employed artificial light to control the visual environment of the estate as well as to aestheticize the performance of domestic space. Looking closely at the use of artificial light to create emotive effects as well as to intensify the experience of occupation, this revisiting of the iconic Glass House and lesser-known Guest House provides a more complex understanding of Johnson’s work and the means with which he inhabited his own architecture. Calling attention to the importance of Johnson serving as both architect and client, and his particular interest in exploring the new potential of architectural lighting in this period, this paper investigates Johnson’s use of electric light to support architectural narratives, maintain visual order and control, and to suit the nuanced desires of domestic occupation.

Domestic violence on #qanda: The “Man” question in live Twitter discussion on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Q&A

Domestic violence is currently undergoing a period of heightened visibility in Australia. This article uses social media to analyze public discussions about this violence with respect to a specific theoretical frame, which Adrian Howe has called the “Man” question: where and how are men visible or invisible in narratives about their violence against women? The article presents a qualitative study of the Twitter conversation surrounding a special episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's television program Q&A, themed around family violence, which aired in February 2015. We found that the place of men in this conversation was contested. Some tweets privileged men's voices and concerns, as did the organization and production of the program. However, feminist voices were also highly visible via presenting facts, legitimating survivor voices, and recuperating anti-feminist memes to challenge hegemonic patriarchal discourses on men's violence against women. La violence conjugale connait actuellement une visibilité accrue en Australie. Les auteures du présent article utilisent les réseaux sociaux pour analyser les débats publics sur cette violence selon un cadre théorique précis, qu'Adrian Howe a appelé la question de « l'homme » : où et comment les hommes sont-ils visibles ou invisibles dans les récits de leur violence envers les femmes? L'article présente une étude qualitative d'une conversation sur Twitter au sujet d'un épisode axé sur la famille diffusé en février 2015 dans le cadre de l'émission Q & A, à la télévision nationale d'Australie. Nous avons remarqué que dans cette conversation la place des hommes était remise en question. Certains tweets privilégiaient les voix et les craintes des hommes, comme l'ont fait les organisateurs et les producteurs de l'émission. Cependant, il y avait une forte présence de voix féministes dans la présentation des faits, légitimant le point de vue des survivantes et relevant des éléments culturels antiféministes afin de défier les discours hégémoniques et patriarcaux sur la violence des hommes envers les femmes.