On top of this, Diller and Scofidio add an extra-dimension to the piece through the presentation of black-and-white images of unknown people. Text that describes these figures and occasionally superimposes itself on the screen adds to the sense of specific voyeuristic surveillance. This is further emphasised and turned in on itself by the use of CCTV inside the stairwell. Connected to monitors that are continually running the live interior footage, the viewer becomes the viewed in a continual double take in the work’s theme and technique. As with other Diller and Scofidio projects described here, Loophole is a piece that forces us to consider the nature of the recording, condensing and repackaging of reality on screen, that sheds light on the nature of contemporary mediated perception and on our engagement with both physical and mediated realities. Due to their focus on CCTV and the politically charged question of surveillance it carries with it, these works also oblige us to question the extent to which visioning technologies have intruded into our lives. They become theoretical and politically charged hybrid media-object spaces.
Architecture: The Slow House
The hybrid nature of their performance and installation work is almost inevitably a major characteristic of their architecture which, although limited by other constraints, continues to ask questions about the contemporary built environment; an environment defined by François Penz as entering an age of “mediated space”.16 Both their built and unbuilt architectural projects show an integration of the moving image into the physical fabric of the building in a way that results in a form of hybrid architecture: structures that are half building, half image. One of their most recent and largest design proposals to illustrate this is the Eyebeam Atelier, New York, a project based on an undulating ribbon of metal and concrete which folds and refolds as it snakes upwards to create some seven floors of galleries. Conceived as a site for the projection of images onto walls and floors, the use of virtual reality technology to navigate spaces and, perhaps most notably, the use of a “mobile spider” equipped with video cams clipped onto the facade of the building, it was an ambitious combination of media and architecture.17
A less adventurous design that involved a similar combination of filmic imagery and physical building was their conversion of the Brasserie restaurant at the foot of Mies Van de Rohe’s Seagram Building, New York. Here, video cameras are placed outside the building and the resultant footage is relayed on a bank of monitors placed inside in another playful use of visioning technology to connect the exterior with the interior.18 These ideas were evident in the first building project for which the studio received much media attention, The Slow House, designed and partially built in 1988. It was conceived as the final stage of a journey from the city to the coast and was designed to end the car trip of the city-based client, with a framed view of the sea.19
Figure 3: Concept model: The Slow House.
Despite its possibly predictable focus on a view to the sea, this project was far from simple in its theoretical considerations, and is far more than a simple “room with a view”. As is typical of the desire of Diller and Scofidio to question the role of visioning technologies in contemporary societies, the direct view to the sea was to be accompanied by a filmic image of the same seascape. In front of the window was to hang a screen onto which would be projected an image of the view filmed by a camera placed inside the house.20 Picking up on an idea applied in Loophole, the real was to be compared, contrasted and overlaid with a filmic picture postcard-type image; an image that would always be a direct copy of the reality outside.
The most obvious commentary that The Slow House makes is to ridicule the “room with a view” idea. The construction of a house whose primary aim is to frame a view to the sea. It correlates to the use of architecture to separate the viewer from what they view. Diller and Scofidio question the authenticity of the experience we seek by creating a picture postcard window, and then a cinematic copy of it, thus placing us at two removes from the ever changing reality we have specifically come to experience.21 The use of the building to reveal a fixed and framed image that distances the viewer from the reality of the site is only one step away from using a camera. In both instances, the nuances of reality are lost in a controlled view of the landscape in which the conditions of viewing never change. Although there may be a storm or a sunrise on a December morning outside, it will always be warm and dry on the inside; the immediate surroundings will remain unchanged and our experience consequently standardised.
In this scenario, the reality of the beach is distanced and to an extent lost, as the sound of the waves, the chill of the air and the moisture of the atmosphere all become absent. The house then cannot only be read as a way of separating us from the reality we see, but also a way of “standardising” what and how we see it.22 This “standardisation” is augmented by the film that restricts point of view even further, eliminating even the possibility of moving around the room to gain different vantage points. When looking at the screen, no matter where one stands in the room, the view is identical with even the discrepancies of movement being minimised. The personal view and experience of the scene is thus replaced, initially by the building but subsequently by the filmed image. In short, two levels of artificial control are imposed on all those that choose to look – experience is standardised.
With regard to the use of the picture wall in this project, it could also be suggested that it functions as a parody on how modern architecture is sometimes led by the modern technology of visioning and surveillance.23 However, whether one develops an argument in this direction or not, it is clear that The Slow House is a project that invites us to consider the Virilio-like postulate that in contemporary technologically advanced societies there has been a standardisation of experience.24 Architecture is inevitably caught up in this standardisation of experience but may, as in this case, choose to comment upon it, work with and around it and, even, to celebrate it.
In all of the work produced by Diller and Scofidio over the past thirty years, whether performance, installation or architecture, what is evident is that these are architects grappling with some of the major theoretical questions concerning the presence and use of visioning technologies in everyday life, and how they may be “literally” incorporated into architecture. They ask questions about how represented images merge with and replace real experiences. They query whether, as a society, we are too dependent on the mediated image; and they create visual experiences that complicate an already intricate web of real and virtual imagery. On occasions, they use the camera to focus on particular aspects of a given physical space, whilst at others they replace the static building object with the variability of the moving image.
In some instances this involves inviting the public to inhabit more than one space at a time, and thus involves the creation of virtual and real spaces through which the human body weaves its way. Through their interplay of the lens and screen they are also capable of visually twisting, turning and folding buildings in and out upon themselves. In short, they distort architecture and our interaction with it through both the conceptual and practical use of filmic theory and praxis. Underlying all their work then, is the belief that maintaining the difference between the real and the mediated is not only impossible today, but largely academic. They insinuate that we now need to consider the contemporary world as an inherently hybrid entity in which our dependence upon the filmic image is part and parcel of everyday existence and, furthermore, fully integrated into our urban environment.
Notes
1Set up in 1979, the studio of Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio joined with Charles Renfro in 2004 to set up the studio Diller Scofidio + Renfro. For a general introduction to their work, see: Incerti, Guido, Ricchi, Daria and Simpson, Deane. Diller + Scofidio (+ Renfro). The Ciliary Function: Works and Projects 1979–2007, Skira, Boston, 2008; Diller, Elizabeth and Scofidio, Ricardo. Flesh: Architectural Probes, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1996.
2Introductory information on these projects
can be found in: Yoshida, Nobuyuki (ed). “Diller and Scofidio: Expo 202 Yverdon-lwes-Bains Arteplage: The Cloud”. A+U. No. 383, 2002. p. 28–32; Ryan, Zoe. “Architecture: Clear for Take Off”. Blueprint. No. 220, 2004. p. 23; Amelar, Sarah. “Projects: ICA, Boston”. Architectural Record. No. 03.07, 2007. p. 109–111.
3Incerti, G., Ricchi, D. and Simpson, D. Diller + Scofidio (+ Renfro). The Ciliary Function: Works and Projects 1979–2007, Skira, Boston, 2008. p. 33.
4Over the past thirty years, Paul Virilio has become synonymous with a line of intellectual inquiry that ranges from the technologies of war, the politics of industry, the social effects of television, the history of architecture, the realm of virtual reality and what underlines many of the issues of this book and certainly the work of Diller and Scofidio: “technologies of vision”. See Open Sky, Verso, London, 1997; The Vision Machine, Indiana University Press, 1994; The Aesthetic of Disappearance, Semiotext(e), New York, 1991; War and Cinema, Verso, London, 1989; Polar Inertia, SAGE Publications, New York, 2000.
5See: Ronconi, Luca. “Moving Target”. Lotus International. No. 122, 2004. p. 17–18; Barreneche, Raul. “Set Pieces”. Architectural Record. No. 09.03, 2003. p. 112–118.
6Usu, Tetsuo (ed). “Diller and Scofidio: Delay in Glass”. A+U. No. 307, 1996. p. 80–83.
7Kaye, Nick. Multi-Media: Video-Installation-Performance, Routledge, London, 2007. p. 194–198
8Yoshida, Nobuyuki. “Diller and Scofidio: Jet Lag”. A+U. No. 344, 1999. p. 44.
9Diller and Scofidio describe their interest in the piece as a response to Virilio’s comments who described Krasnoff as a “great American heroine”. See: Kaye, Nick. Multi-Media: Video-Installation-Performance, Ibid. p. 195.
10The piece was developed in conjunction with The Builder’s Association, a theatre group founded in 1994. Their artistic director, Marianne Weems, has argued that they are interested in reinstating narrative in theatre after its deconstruction through experimental theatre. They do this through the combination of the live performance and media, however, that characteristically splits spaces and events to create what they call a “dissonant unity”. See: Kaye, Nick. Multi-Media: Video-Installation-Performance, Ibid. p. 194.
11For a description, see: Diller, Elizabeth and Scofidio, Ricardo. Flesh: Architectural Probes – Diller and Scofidio, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1994. p. 163–197. Also, see: Incerti, Guido, Ricchi, Daria and Simpson, Deane. Diller + Scofidio (+ Renfro). The Ciliary Function: Works and Projects 1979–2007, Ibid. p. 35.
12Wines, Suzan. “Go with the Flow”. Domus. No. 801, 1998. p. 88.
13Abrams, Janet. “Art at the Armory: Occupied Territory”. Frieze Magazine. Issue No. 9, March–April, 1993.
14A fuller description is given in: Diller, Elizabeth and Scofidio, Ricardo. Flesh: Architectural Probes – Diller and Scofidio, Ibid., 1994. p. 138–140 and p. 162–163.
15Incerti, Guido. “Transgendered Media”. In: I. Gudo, D. Ricchi and D. Simpson (ed), Diller + Scofidio (+ Renfro). The Ciliary Function: Works and Projects 1979–2007, Ibid. p. 36
16Penz, François. “Introduction: What Is Urban Cinematics?”. In: F. Penz and A. Lu (ed), Urban Cinematics: Understanding Urban Phenomena Through the Moving Image, Intellect Publishing, Bristol, 2011. p. 15.
17For information on this project, see: Yoshida, Nobuyuki (ed). “Eyebeam Atelier’s Architectural Competition”. A+U. No. 380, 2002. p. 3; Zamet, Kate. “Scanning: The Aberrant Architecture of Diller + Scofidio”. Blueprint. No. 207, 2003, p. 117; Ryan, Zoe. “Fluid Spaces”. Blueprint. No. 196, 2002. p. 26.
18See: Yoshida, Nobuyuki (ed). “Diller + Scofidio: the Brasserie”. A+U. No. 368 2001. p. 70–71.
19The Slow House was commissioned as a weekend beach retreat by a wealthy New York art dealer but was never completed due to a lack of finance. For a description, see: Horn, Gillian. “Cross-Border Architecture”. Blueprint. No. 126, 1996. p. 25–26.
20 Incerti, Guido, Ricchi, Daria and Simpson, Deane. Diller + Scofidio (+ Renfro). The Ciliary Function: Works and Projects 1979–2007, Ibid. p. 80–82.
21Horn, Gillian. “Cross-Border Architecture”. Ibid. p. 26.
22Paul Virilio has coined the phrase “the standardisation of sight” to refer to the phenomena by which visioning technologies of all sorts have replaced the eye and, in addition, how the omniscience of the recorded image has led to ever increasing engagement with “real” events through mediated formats such as cinema, television, Internet, etc. Thus, argues Virilio, “the personal vision of an individual’s eye has been replaced by the shared visualisation of the lens”. See: Virilio, Paul. The Vision Machine, Indiana University Press, Indiana, 1994. p. 13.
23Running through the work of Diller and Scofidio is the question of surveillance. It is evident in the majority of their installation works and some of their performance pieces. It is certainly evident in The Slow House. For how this manifests itself in their work, see: Diller, Elizabeth and Scofidio, Ricardo. Flesh: Architectural Probes – Diller and Scofidio, Ibid. For a full overview of this general question in the context of architecture and the urban environment, see: Armstrong, Gary and Norris, Clive. The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV, Berg Publishers, London, 1999.
24See, in particular: Virilio, Paul. Open Sky. Verso, London, 1997. p. 89–102.
Cinematographic architecture: Exercises in theory and practice
Through the work of Hybrid Artworks we identified an attempt to merge the filmic with the architectural in the context of video installation, whilst through the prism of Diller and Scofidio we have seen that today similar concerns are also manifest directly in major architectural practice. Their attempts to move beyond a theoretical engagement with the medium of film in the architectural realm have been echoed in the educational arena where, in recent decades, numerous experiments have also been made to implement the praxis of film in architectural design. The ways this has been attempted are numerous and, to an extent, resonate with what Dietrich Neumann has identified as three general ways in which a dialogue between film and architecture can be developed: cinema as a reflection and commentary on architecture and the city; cinema as a testing ground for innovative architectural visions; and cinema as a field in which different methods of practice can be applied to the realisation of architectural projects.1
With regard to the use of cinema as “a commentary on architecture”, films such as Blade Runner, Playtime or Metropolis and, more recently, Los Angeles Plays Itself are exemplary; each one becoming points of reference for the architectural debates of their day. In the context of cinema as a “testing ground for innovative design ideas”, it is probably in the genre of science fiction films that one finds the best examples. Working on James Bond films for example, designers such as Ken Adam were able to realise architectural visions that, in the “real world” of architectural practice, would have been all but impossible; as too is the case with Jacques Lagrange’s sets on Playtime or, more recently, any number of sci-fi films such as Christopher Nolan’s Inception. Although both these ideas open up avenues that have also been followed in architectural education and practice, it is perhaps the last of Neumann’s concepts that best indicates a possible direction for a more praxis-based consideration of film in architectural design.
With respect to his “different methods of architectural practice”, Neumann describes stage sets that have a symbolic content, such as the German Expressionist sets of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, as typical examples. These involve the use or design of architecture that has more than a physical role to play in the film in question.2 Although Neumann centres on the stylistic and physical characteristics of these stage sets, he does hint at the fact that the way they are filmed is key to how they function. He thus references the territory that this work intends to operate in by identifying that, beyond the use of cinema as a representative medium, such films employ the cinematic medium to “manipulate our reading of the architecture they present”.
&n
bsp; Following this principle, the intention of what follows in this section is to examine exactly how the medium of film achieves this on-screen “manipulation” of space and, subsequently, to examine ways in which lessons taken from it can be reincorporated into the praxis of architectural design. It is an objective shared by numerous architects and theorists working in the context of education and practice who have developed different methodologies intended to achieve something similar; an understanding of film’s role in architectural practice that goes beyond mere analogy.3 It is an objective that has manifested itself at the scale of the interior, at the scale of the building and, with growing frequency in recent years, at the level of the city. In the city context, recent examples of the use of film in architectural research, practice and education include the City in Film Conference (Liverpool University, 2008), organised as part of a much bigger project to investigate the historical relationship between the urban condition, its representation, and indeed “construction” on film.4
A parallel project is Narrascape; a series of research activities run through the architecture department of Cambridge University by François Penz. At the 2009 conference5 held as part of this project, the relationship between the city and film was brought into focus from multiple perspectives: for example, in the need to reconfigure our “traditional” understanding of film as a documentary that represents the city6; in the distinction between the “soft city” of cinematic illusion and the “hard city” of maps and plans; through the role of video art in developing our reading of the urban condition; in the use of film to historically record the “ephemeral” architecture of the living metropolis; and in the employment of video and film as a practical tool in art and educational research – all themes dealt with in the post-conference publication, Urban Cinematics: Understanding Urban Phenomena Through the Moving Image, by Wowo Ding and Maureen Thomas.7
The Architecture of the Screen Page 17
