THE REPRODUCTION OF ARCHITECTURE CV DE LIMA AMARAL PhD 2017

382 Pages·2017·7.65 MB·English

THE REPRODUCTION OF ARCHITECTURE

C. V. DE LIMA AMARAL

PhD

2017
THE REPRODUCTION OF ARCHITECTURE

A COGNITIVE MAP TO TRAVERSE THE DISCIPLINE

CAMILO VLADIMIR DE LIMA AMARAL

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the
University of East London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

June 2017
ABSTRACT

This thesis aims to develop a cognitive map of architectural reproduction to better
understand it as both a medium for and the end result of disciplinary practices. To this
end, the production of architectural space is understood as a form of mediation in which
social relations are reproduced. This analysis is undertaken in an original manner –
departing from live experiments in design workshops; using tools of Marxist cultural
theory, the sociology of art, and accounts of the production of subjectivity; and focusing
on the contradiction between ‘discipline’ and ‘dialectic’. The aim is to investigate
possible routes for counter-hegemonic architectural practices that confront ideology and
engage in politics. This cognitive map thus aims to clarify – in order to question – the
traditional myths of the field and the notion of the individual architectural genius as an
independent agent. To call these myths into question, we present an alternative to the
narrative of the individual architect as the engine of architectural history – namely,
transindividuality – and conceptualise architecture as the production of ‘things’ –
understanding such objects as reifications of social relations. Restoring architecture’s
dialectical relationship with the social mode of spatial production, the idea of a
‘reproduction of architecture’ reveals its triple meaning: society reproduces the
discipline; the discipline reproduces society; and architecture reproduces itself by
reproducing subjectivities. For this reason, architecture will be investigated in terms of
its processes of estrangement and the resulting reproduction. Estrangement will be
investigated in terms of its deadlocks, its discipline, and its conception of the subject.
Reproduction will be investigated in terms of its reification (production of things), its
fetish (the technique of hiding artifices), and its phantasies (narratives that justify
desire). The result is a cognitive map that is conceived as a tool for traversing the myths
that reproduce architecture – in the sense that it provides aesthetic perceptions of these
phenomena and enables self-reflexivity for collective subjects.

i
STUDENT DECLARATION
University of East London (UEL)
School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering
Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture

Declaration
This work has not previously been accepted for any degree, and it is not being
concurrently submitted for another degree.
This research is being submitted as partial fulfilment of UEL’s requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture.
This thesis is the result of my own work and investigation, except where otherwise
stated. Other sources are acknowledged through explicit references in the text. A full
reference list is included.
I hereby grant my permission for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for
photocopying and for inter-library loans and for the title and summary to be made
available to outside organisations.

Name: Camilo Vladimir de Lima Amaral
Signature: Date: 20th June 2017
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of figures v
List of accompanying materials vii
Acknowledgements x
Dedication xii

INTRODUCTION 1
The problem; Scope and particular universality; Fieldwork as
concrete groundwork; Defining what this thesis is not about; The
concept of ‘reproduction’; The meaning of the term ‘architecture’
as it is used within this thesis; The idea of a ‘cognitive mapping’ of
the architectural reproduction; A map of this thesis

PART 1: ARCHITECTURAL ESTRANGEMENT: discipline, dialectics and subjects 21

CHAPTER 1: The architectural deadlocks: to shape or not to shape 26
1.1. Dead ends: charity, resignation, escapism and protest 29
1.2. False dilemmas 38
1.3. The fallacy of autonomy 41
1.4. The denial of dialectics 43
1.5. The lack of reflexivity 48
1.6. The belly of the architect 50

CHAPTER 2: The reproduction of architecture: mapping discipline and dialectic 54
2.1. The reproduction of social relations 55
2.2. The conflict between discipline and dialectics 62
2.3. Discipline: a description of the field and its illusions 68
(1) Centralities; (2) Axes of habitus; (3) Social dimensions;
(4) Distinctions; (5) Illusios.
2.4. Dialectics: a cognitive map of architectural reproduction 84
2.5. Overcoming the subject–territory dichotomy in the map 95
2.6. One last sketch: A bird’s eye view of architectural subjectivity 102

CHAPTER 3: Subject to change: beyond and beneath the architect 108
3.1. The architect’s gap 109
3.2. Intermezzo: dead architects 110
3.3. Producing counternarratives 1114
3.4. Beyond agency 119
3.5. Subject to change: beneath (re)presentations 122
3.6. Beyond the individual: being becoming 126
A Copernican revolution on the principle of fundamental
narcissism; the production of individuations: preindividual and
transindividual; The production of transubjectivities
Conclusions 145

iii
PART 2: THE MEANS OF REPRODUCTION: reification, fetish and phantasies 147

CHAPTER 4: Disentangling reification: the social relations in architectural things 151
4.1. Getting one thing straight: things are social relations 154
Reworking things; a sure thing of all things; one thing led to
another; in the least little things; the grand scheme of things
4.2. Intermezzo: first things first – primitive enclosures 162
4.3. A thing or two we learned from the urban enclosure of London 164
4.4. Against ‘taking things easy’ 169
4.5. Getting into the swing of things 173
4.6. Putting things together: the route of fetish and desire 174

CHAPTER 5: Unveiling fetish: hidden artifices and techniques of phenomena 177
5.1. A dancing table 178
5.2. Intermezzo: magic blasphemies 179
5.3. The fetish of facts 183
5.4. Tracing fetish in the production of London 187
5.5. Regressions in the production of fetish 194
5.6. The techniques of phenomena: conceptualising fetish in architecture 202

CHAPTER 6: Traversing phantasies: the narratives of desire in architecture 208
6.1. The aim: traversing the phantastic character of architecture 210
6.2. Intermezzo: Strawberry Fields 214
6.3. Phantasies and the reproduction of ideological subjective senses 216
6.4. The prince phantasy: an architecture of the self 220
(1) The Machiavellian prince; (2) the Gramscian prince; (3) the
multitude; (4) the pathetikos prince; (5) the hysterical prince.
6.5. The inescapable condition of utopian phantasies: on present and absent
objects of desire 232
(1) Naive utopias; (2) virtual utopias; (3) u-utopias; (4) blind
utopias; (5) resigned utopias
6.6. Traversing architectural phantasies 247

CONCLUSION 252

REFERENCES 261

APPENDICES 290

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Diagram 1: Map of the thesis. Source: the author. 18
Diagram 2: Trivial and non-trivial machines. Source: the author (based on
– but not identical to – ideas from Von Foerster, 1972). 61
Diagram 3: Formal analysis and critical dialectics. Source: the author
(based on – but not identical to – ideas from Lessa, 1972). 67
Diagram 4: The multi-centrality of the field. Source: the author (based on –
but not identical to – ideas from Bourdieu, 1996c, and Lefebvre, 1991b) 71
Diagram 5: Centres of power in the field. Source: the author. 73
Diagram 6: The vortex momentum of the centres. Source: the author. 74
Diagram 7: Variations in food taste. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – images 9, 10 and 11 from Bourdieu, 1996b). 76
Diagram 8: Social dimensions of the field. Source: the author. 78
Diagram 9: Swinging illusios. Source: the author. 83
Diagram 10: Linear formal logic. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – ideas from Jameson, 2002). 85
Diagram 11: Variations of expressive causality. Source: the author (based
on – but not identical to – Jameson, 2002). 86
Diagram 12: Clavis universalis. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – Harvey, 2010; and Kapp, 2004). 87
Diagram 13: Structural logic. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – Jameson, 2002). 88
Diagram 14: The obsessive (absent) structure. Source: the author (based on
– but opposed to – Eco, 1991). 89
Diagram 15: Dialectical regulation. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – Soja, 2000; Harvey, 2010; and Jameson, 1991). 90
Diagram 16: Dialectical reproduction of space. Source: the author (based
on – but an alchemy of – Harvey, 2010; and Lefebvre, 1976). 91
Diagram 17: The ideal logic of the individual. Source: the author. 96
Diagram 18: Intersubjectivity. Source: the author (based on – but not
identical to – Simmel, in Stoetzler, 2016). 97
Diagram 19: The Machiavellian subject of history – the prince. Source: the
author (based on – but not identical to – Machiavelli, 2008, Althusser,
2000). 98
Diagram 20: The inception of estrangement. Source: the author (based on –
but not identical to – Marx, 1990, Žižek, 1997). 105
Diagram 21: The unconscious iceberg. Source: the author (based on the
early Freud – but not identical to the late Freud). 106
Diagram 22: The architectural unconscious. Source: the author. 107
Diagram 23: Orbit of planets before and after the Copernican revolution.
Source: the author. 130
Diagram 24: Deduction, Induction, Reduction, Transduction. Source: the
author (based on – but not equal to – Simondon, 2013, and Toscano, 2006). 139
v
Diagram 25: Ontogenesis of individuations. Source: the author (based on –
but not equal to – Simondon, 2013). 141
Diagram 26: Summary of London’s Enclosure. Source: the author. 165
Diagram 27: Dislocation of Heygate Estate Residents. Source: the author
(based on information from Better Elephant, 2013). 192
Diagram 28: Traversing map phantasies. Source: the author. 212
Diagram 29: Axes of the prince phantasies. Source: the author. 221
Diagram 30: Axes of utopian phantasies. Source: the author. 236
Diagram 31: Traversed pyramid: the secret passage. Source: the author. 251
Diagram 32: The research design. Source: the author. 310
Image 1: Example of a field investigation form. Source: the author. 318
Diagram 33: Public space enclosures in London. Source: the author. 323
Image 2: Film frames of enclosed spaces. Source: the author. 325
Diagram 34: Velvet ground/nest prison. Source: the author 326
Diagram 35: Tangled control. Source: the author. 327
Diagram 36: Driven spatial consumption. Source: the author. 328
Diagram 37: Hacking aesthetic. Source: the author. 343
Image 4: G. S. experiment. Source: G. S., 2012. 355
Image 5: Z. Y. experiment. Source: Z. Y., 2014. 356
Image 6: Z. Y. prototype. Source: Z. Y., 2014. 357
Image 7: Wood Street experiment 1. Source: the author. 361
Image 8: Wood Street experiment 2. Source: the author. 361
Image 9: Wood Street experiment 3. Source: the author. 362
Image 10: Wood Street experiment 4. Source: the author. 362

vi
LIST OF ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS
Appendices 290
(1) DOCUMENTS 291

Copy of University Research Ethics Committee Ethical Approval
Information sheet and consent form
Interview forms

(2) FIELDWORK I: COMMON PLACES IN LONDON 300

The context
First considerations
New common places in London
Background noise – urban experience and social relations

The methodology
The research design
General points on the methodology
Specific points on the methodology

Critical observations I: Outside Observation
First phase data
Second Phase Data: 3 dimensions of the new reified experience
Stake point 1: common places and the aesthetic of things

(3) FIELDWORK II: LIVE PROJECTS 330

The context
The live contradictions in architecture
The workshops’ choice
Other debates: Summary of counterarguments in conferences

The methodology
Laboratory life and live laboratories
Working hypotheses for live projects laboratory
Hacking
Micro-utopia
Interviews

Critical observations II: Participant Observation and Observation of Participation
Hacking: experiments in urban ecology
Stake point 2
Micro-utopias: the Wood Street Workshop
Stake point 3
Observations of participation: a view from within
Stake point 4

vii
List of published materials (produced by the author in relation to and in the
development of this thesis)
Book chapter
Prince complex: narcissism and reproduction of the architectural mirror. In: Stoppani,
T.; Ponzo, G.; Themistokleous, G. (Org.). This thing called theory. 1ed.Oxon:
Routledge, 2016, p. 273-282.
Journal article
Private control and public openness. The development of London’s public spaces since
the Mayor’s 2009 manifesto. The Journal of Public Space, v. 1, p. 129-146, 2016.
International merit awards
“Beng Turner Award” from the European Network of Housing Research for the paper:
Urban enclosure: contemporary strategies of dispossession and reification in London's
spatial production. In: European Network of Housing Research International
Conference – Housing and cities in a time of change. Lisbon: ENHR, 2015.
Local merit awards
“First Prize” at the UEL Research Conference for the poster: Micro-utopian projects as
hacking of the privatization of public spaces in London. London: UEL Postgraduate
Research Conference, 2014.
Guest/keynote lecture
Micro-utopias in the contemporary field of architecture. Keynote lecture at Bergen
School of Architecture, Architecture MA opening lecture, Bergen, 7 September 2015.
Conference papers
City reconfiguration: counter-architecture as hacking of objectified social relations in
the urban space. In: Autonomy reconsidered: ethics in architecture, urbanism and
landscape. Delft: Delft University of Technology, 2014. (with Karthaus, R.)
viii