Architecture for a free subjectivity

In October 2012, Simone presented her book Architecture for a Free Subjectivity to the University of Michigan, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. This book explores the architectural significance of Deleuze’s philosophy of subjectivization, and Guattari’s overlooked dialogue on architecture and subjectivity. In doing so, it proposes that subjectivity is no longer the exclusive provenance of human beings, but extends to the architectural, the cinematic, the erotic, and the political. It defines a new position within the literature on Deleuze and architecture, while highlighting the neglected issue of subjectivity in contemporary discussion.

Architecture for a free subjectivity : Deleuze and Guattari at the Horizon of the Real

Architecture for a Free Subjectivity reformulates the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze's model of subjectivity for architecture, by surveying the prolific effects of architectural encounter, and the spaces that figure in them. For Deleuze and his Lacanian collaborator Félix Guattari, subjectivity does not refer to a person, but to the potential for and event of matter becoming subject, and the myriad ways for this to take place. By extension, this book theorizes architecture as a self-actuating or creative agency for the liberation of purely "impersonal effects." Imagine a chemical reaction, a riot in the banlieues, indeed a walk through a city. Simone Brott declares that the architectural object does not merely take part in the production of subjectivity, but that it constitutes its own.

Architecture post mortem : the diastolic architecture of decline, dystopia, and death

Architecture Post Mortem surveys architecture’s encounter with death, decline, and ruination following late capitalism. As the world moves closer to an economic abyss that many perceive to be the death of capital, contraction and crisis are no longer mere phases of normal market fluctuations, but rather the irruption of the unconscious of ideology itself. Post mortem is that historical moment wherein architecture’s symbolic contract with capital is put on stage, naked to all. Architecture is not irrelevant to fiscal and political contagion as is commonly believed; it is the victim and penetrating analytical agent of the current crisis. As the very apparatus for modernity’s guilt and unfulfilled drives-modernity’s debt-architecture is that ideological element that functions as a master signifier of its own destruction, ordering all other signifiers and modes of signification beneath it. It is under these conditions that architecture theory has retreated to an “Alamo” of history, a final desert outpost where history has been asked to transcend itself. For architecture’s hoped-for utopia always involves an apocalypse. This timely collection of essays reformulates architecture’s relation to modernity via the operational death-drive: architecture is but a passage between life and death. This collection includes essays by Kazi K. Ashraf, David Bertolini, Simone Brott, Peggy Deamer, Didem Ekici, Paul Emmons, Donald Kunze, Todd McGowan, Gevork Hartoonian, Nadir Lahiji, Erika Naginski, and Dennis Maher. Contents: Introduction: ‘the way things are’, Donald Kunze; Driven into the public: the psychic constitution of space, Todd McGowan; Dead or alive in Joburg, Simone Brott; Building in-between the two deaths: a post mortem manifesto, Nadir Lahiji; Kant, Sade, ethics and architecture, David Bertolini; Post mortem: building deconstruction, Kazi K. Ashraf; The slow-fast architecture of love in the ruins, Donald Kunze; Progress: re-building the ruins of architecture, Gevork Hartoonian; Adrian Stokes: surface suicide, Peggy Deamer; A window to the soul: depth in the early modern section drawing, Paul Emmons; Preliminary thoughts on Piranesi and Vico, Erika Naginski; architectural asceticism and austerity, Didem Ekici; 900 miles to Paradise, and other afterlives of architecture, Dennis Maher; Index.

The Brisbane Northbank Urban Film Studio : screening of shortlisted films

Research Statement: In this research project film groups of 4-5 students under my direction produced a 3-5 minute urban film that explored the Brisbane Northbank, and which would become the basis for an urban proposal and design of a small film studio for independent filmmakers in the site. The theoretical premise was that a film studio does not simply produce movies, it creates urban effects all around it and acts as a vortex of cultural activity and social life. For this modest facility where the cinema goes out into the street, the city itself becomes the studio. Students were called to observe the historical problematics of technique, image and effect that arise in the cinema, and to apply these to their own urban-film practice. A panel of judges working in film and architecture shortlisted the 12 best films in 2010 and a major public film screening event took place at the Tribal Cinema. The Shortlisted films today form a permanent "exhibit" in YouTube. The research project was funded by the Queensland University of Technology, School of Design and received accolades from film faculty in the Creative Industries Faculty. The diverse body of work that emanated from the screening contributed a unique analysis of the Northbank to Brisbane.

The subject and architecture

Invited Presentation on my book Architecture for a Free Subjectivity. In March of 1982, Skyline, the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies serial, published the landmark interview between Paul Rabinow, an American anthropologist, and Michel Foucault, which would only appear two years later under the title “Space, Knowledge, and Power,” in Rabinow’s edited book The Foucault Reader. Foucault said that in the spatialization of knowledge and power beginning in the 18th century, architecture is not a signifier or metaphor for power, it is rather the “technique for practising social organization.” The role of the IAUS in the architectural dissemination of Foucault’s ideas on the subject and space in the North American academy – such as the concept “heterotopia,” and Foucault’s writing on surveillance and Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, subsequently analysed by Georges Teyssot, who was teaching at the Venice School – is well known. Teyssot’s work is part of the historical canalization of Foucauldianism, and French subjectivity more broadly, along its dizzying path, via Italy, to American architecture schools, where it solidified in the 1980s paradigm that would come to be known as American architecture theory. Foucault was already writing on incarceration and prisons, from the 1970s. (In the 1975 lectures he said “architecture was responsible for the invention of madness.”) But this work was not properly incorporated into architectural discussion until the early ’80s. What is not immediately apparent, what this history suggests to me is that subjectivity was not a marginal topic within “theory”, but was perhaps a platform and entry point for architecture theory. One of the ideas that I’m working on is that “theory” can be viewed, historically, as the making of architectural subjectivity, something that can be traced back to the Frankfurt School critique which begins with the modern subject...

The Deleuze Spray, New York 1977 : an Interview with Sanford Kwinter, Professor of Architectural Theory and Criticism at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, on the Architectural Reception of Gilles Deleuze in America

So what do you want to know? I was in Paris between ‘75 and ‘78. But about half way through, Sylvère published the Anti-Oedipus issue of Semiotext(e) and, actually, that was for me one of the deciding events that made me decide to come to the United States, to come study at Columbia University. There appeared to be this little group working at Columbia working around these issues. In 1970, in Paris even, Deleuze was a cult – there was an incredibly small number of people following Deleuze... A transcript of my Interview with Kwinter about the Architectural Reception of Deleuze in America, which took place at Jerry’s,' Soho, New York, 15 January 2003. The transcript appeared as an Appendix at the back of my Masters Thesis undertaken at Yale School of Architecture, printed May 2003.

An Interview with John Rajchman, Department of Art History, Columbia University, on Architecture, Deleuze and Foucault

An Interview with John Rajchman, Department of Art History, Columbia University, on Architecture, Deleuze and Foucault at his apartment, Riverside Drive, New York City, February 10, 2003.

Subjectivizations : Deleuze and Architecture

My thesis is an exploration of the architectural production surrounding the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, specifically, through the overarching theme of Deleuze’s theory of subjectivity, which I will call subjectivization. I interpret this to mean the strange coalescence of matter, architectural subject, and event, in architectural experience and culture. I speculate that subjectivization presents a yet under-explored dimension of deleuzianism in architecture. In order to develop this I pursue two independent trajectories: firstly the narrative of architectural production surrounding Deleuze, from the 1970s until today, as it is an emergence of changing groupings, alliances, formations and disbandment in the pursuit of creative-intellectual tasks—what might be called the subjectivization of architecture—and, secondly, through a speculation about the architecture of subjectivization—that is, an attempt to explore, concretely, what might be the space and time of subjectivization. Chapter One traces an oral history of deleuzianism in architecture, through conversations with Sanford Kwinter and John Rajchman, describing how the Deleuze milieu makes its way into architectural practice and discussion—subjectivization as a social and cultural emergence—whereas Chapter Two theorizes the emergence of an architectural subjectivity where architecture constitutes its own affective event—what I call subjectivization or material becoming-subject.

Researching Theories of Modernity & the Subject-Critique of contemporary architecture under ideological capitalism-and Fascism & Modern Architecture

In this symposium I will discuss my work on three parallel projects I have been working on since 2010: Theories of Modernity & the Subject-Critique of contemporary architecture under ideological capitalism-and Fascism & Modern Architecture

How to write a book?

Symposium Book Writing: Presentation to Landscape Architecture at the School of Design QUT

Reflections on damaged modernity: Lessons from the iconic architecture industry

For Adorno writing in 1953, Hollywood cinema was a medium of “regression” based on infantile wish fulfillment manufactured by the industrial repetition of the filmic image that he called a modern “hieroglyphics”—like the archaic language of pictures in Ancient Egypt, which guaranteed immortality after death in Egyptian burial rites. From that 1953 essay Prolog zum Fernsehen to Das Schema der Massenkultur in 1981, Adorno likened film frames to cultural ideograms: What he called the filmic “language of images” (Bildersprache) constituted a Hieroglyphenschrift that visualised forbidden sexual impulses and ideations of death and domination in the unconscious of the mass spectator. In his famous passage he writes, “As image, the image-writing (Bilderschrift) is a medium of regression, where the producer and consumer coincide; as writing, film resurrects the archaic images of modernity.” In other words, cinema takes the spectator on a journey into his unconscious in order to control him from within. It works, because the spectator begins to believe the film is speaking to him in his very own image-language (the unconscious), making him do and buy whatever capitalism demands. Modernity for Adorno is precisely the instrumentalisation of the collective unconscious through the mediatic images of the culture industry.

"Båda är vi fördömda - låt oss gå tillsammans!" : Att läsa Brott och straff i en kristen teologisk kontext

Det huvudsakliga syftet med min uppsats var att läsa Brott och straff (1866) i en kristen teologisk kontext, där jag ville undersöka om de två trosinriktningarna i romanen förenades eller inte. Jag tog min utgångspunkt i att Raskolnikov gav uttryck för föreställningar inom Gud-är-död-teologin med betoning på Simone Weil och William Hamilton, och att Sonja gav uttryck för föreställningar inom den rysk-ortodoxa teologin. Vidare formulerade jag frågan: Kan man läsa Brott och straff som en egen gren inom kristen teologi? Jag tog hjälp av identitetsrekonstruktion som metod, med fokus på Ruard Ganzevoorts användning av termen. Resultatet är att man faktiskt kan läsa Brott och straff som en egen gren inom kristen teologi. Både Raskolnikov och Sonja har fått något i utbyte av varandra och sålunda rekonstruerat sina tidigare övertygelser och trosuppfattningar. Raskolnikovs identitet, som tidigare präglades av en övermänniskoteori och föreställningen om att Gud kanske inte finns, har påverkats av mötet med Sonja och övergett sina tidigare trosuppfattningar. Han har börjat tro. Sonja har också genomgått en förändring. Mötet med Raskolnikov har lett till att hon har börjat betrakta verkligheten med ett realistiskt synsätt. Hon har även kommit till insikt om att lidandet är ett ofrånkomligt faktum. Resultatet av den teologiska föreningen leder till en ny sorts teologi, som jag valt att kalla hoppets teologi. En teologi som förenar föreställningar från båda trosinriktningar.