Snapchat in Bed
Have you ever thought about using Snapchat's face filters during sex? Try it, it could really up your role-playing game—now you can turn your partner into a Disney princess, a cat, or even a strawberry! As soon as this technology overcomes the obvious turn-off of holding a bulk piece of glass and rare-earth metals between you and your lover, augmented reality sex could become the next big kink thing.
Augmented reality (AR) uses a technological interface—such as a smartphone or Google Glass-ish goggles like Microsoft’s HoloLens—to overlay virtual images on top of your real vision, fusing a virtual world with your own. Snapchat filters and Pokemon Go have been the two breakout examples of a simplistic application of this tech, but Silicon Valley is only just getting started. This technology will soon saturate every part of our daily life, with brands using AR to display advertising everywhere you go.
But the implications of ubiquitous augmented reality will reach much further than new forms of advertising. Since AR allows us to apply whatever virtual images we want to the world around us it will release us from the permanence of our given biological features, allowing us to alter our appearance on the fly. Our Facebook Profile pictures will become our real life faces. The hardware might not be really there yet—although there is several interesting projects coming up, but the software is getting closer. Apple recently released their new AR sdk for iOS, expect a surge of new augmented reality apps in the coming future.
When we apply this tech to our most intimate moments it will also allow for the most quirkiest of our fantasies to become visually real.
This is an entirely different experience from virtual-reality sex. In VR sex, the totality of your real, intimate experience is replaced by a virtual one. In AR sex, however, your real, intimate experience is enriched and heightened through virtual overlays. The realness of the other is still there—the touch, the emotion, the energy—but you’ll be able to project whatever visuals you wish on top of them.
With photogrammetry software you can quickly create a 3D model of a person’s face from their photos. Coupled with today’s level of facial tracking, this technology could easily turn your partner into anyone: celebrities, fictional characters, your ex, or even your friend’s cute fiancé. Maybe Kanye’s ‘Famous’-video should be seen as less of a comment on the present and more a speculation of the future.
Netflix and chill 2.0
Ubiquitous AR will bring online dating to the next level. Visually, you could sleep with anyone. If you’re just looking for a hook-up, why worry about matching with the right person on Tinder when you could just apply whichever facial filter you want to the first person you swipe right on? Porn stars will sell access to detailed models of their faces and bodies, and new privacy laws will emerge to protect celebrities and citizens alike from their digitized forms being hacked and used as aphrodisiacs. “U up?” will become “I got a full-detail Kanye West fbx, 50k+ polygons. Come over?”
Forget facelifts, implants, or time-consuming make-up contouring: AR will be a cheaper, safer, non-permanent way to enhance your appearance—and your sex life. With this technology you will be able to overlay your fresh, tanned face from your last holiday for your next date—or why not have a program analyze your potential partner’s taste to determine the best possible cheekbone structure to make them fall for you? Professional dating experts and strategists can already assist you in creating a highly rated dating-app profile, so why not let them style your actual appearance, too?
We’ll become our own portraits of Dorian Gray, sparkly and vivid through the mask of layers of code, hollow and unrecognizable without it. Among excessive porn consumers sexuality is essentially rewired to be intrinsically linked to a hyper-polished screen-based experience, rendering actual intimacy and real bodies weird and disgusting. In the same way, will we get so used to augmentation that we one day are creeped out and put-off by our real faces? When the battery dies and you see your partner’s face for the first time in weeks, gloomy, bleak, and incongruously human.
You might not need to date a real human at all. Japan has already seen a surge in girlfriend bots that replace the uncomfortable compromises of a real-life relationship with the safe, predictable companionship of an AI, tirelessly supporting you through long work nights, always giving you a love when you need it the most.
If augmented audio follows the same trajectory as the rest of the technology anyone can be the mannequin upon which you craft your partner-bot, and you can be theirs. A relationship between two strangers, a loving couple sharing the same life as seen from the outside, but their own experiences of the relationship being completely different. You don’t even need to know each other’s real names, the only role you’ll fill for each other is to add what cannot be artificially created; the touch, the emotion, the energy of something human.
The end of the face as the ultimate signifier of who we are
There will inevitably be a backlash to the AR revolution. A counter-movement will arise, cherishing our biological bodies and arguing that these technologies are just another mask obstructing us from some fabled “true self.”
But, is this “true self” necessarily something desirable when it so often confines us to fixed societal positions tied to our physical appearance? Concepts like “natural” and “biological” are more often than not exploited as arguments for racism and sexism. For the most of humanity, the ability to change one’s gender, ethnicity, age and body on the fly would provide at least a temporary alleviation of discrimination in a deeply unfair world. This technology will of course not by itself remove any oppressive system, contrary to the view among certain techno-utopians. But what it will do is being used to circumvent inequality since it allow us much more control over first impressions and hence more control over how we are positioned within society. What if you could choose what face to use for your next job interview?
When this non-invasive and infinitely malleable control over ones appearance become available to all, we will be freed from our biological restraints and in real time be able to live up to the wicked beauty standards of the Photoshop era. This radically rewrites our visual conception of identity, making the flesh face obsolete as the ultimate signifier of who we are and allowing us to always be whoever we want; "Alienation is the labour of freedoms construction”, as Laboria Cuboniks writes in their Xenofeminist manifesto.
These technologies might initially produce a visually homogenous world as we all strive to look like the same idealized version of beauty, like in a Korean beauty contest. But they also carry the potential to produce a vastly more heterogeneous one if we allow ourselves to have some fun. It’s the 14th century Venice masquerade coming back in style; your morning subway ride a fancy-dress party with celebrities, superheroes, and surreal creatures, you’d buy your coffee from Skeletor on the corner, making small talk at the stoplights with a weird fusion of Amy Winehouse and Stephen Fry while dodging a dozen smiling Trumps beasts on the street. Second Life turned into First Life, but without the shitty interface.
A wall is a filter of the chaos of reality, a focus on the everythingness/nothingness that makes up the fabric of existence. This focus allows for ‘making sense’ of the chaos, it allows for inhabitation. A certain perspective on the chaos categorise it into usable information, we can distinguish food from friends and foes etc. Intelligence/identity is a product of a cluster of different perspectives. ‘We’ are a product of the many clusters of filtration systems/perspectives we use to make ‘sense’ of the world and make it inhabitable for us. All our senses and the way we process information is a product of making sense of the chaos. E.g. our vision premieres information with high light contrast or high speed since this information is generally more essential to our survival - the colourful fruit in the tree, the fast moving black shadow of a predator in the bushes.
These clusters of perspectives grows like cancers in the chaos, we collect/perspect more and more and grow more and more complex. From our perspective, it seems like we are striving towards more complexity - just because it is that perspective we maintain to perceive this complexity. Our expansion is dependant on us acquiring new perspectives, to maintain ourselves - our perspective-cluster - in a constant state of expansion.
Intelligence/identity is a gradual scale of complexity of perspective clusters.
A wall is a perspective, since it filter parts of the everythingness/nothingness from others, hence making the perspective. The brick wall filter weather from our home, while the window permits sunlight, and so on;
…walls are the martial declaration of the intent to repel all delinquent perception and all illicit communion. They are not simple barriers to energy-transfer, but barricades that prevent entropy of our dream world, be it a personal or a universal dream, by eliminating that part of the other more disparate world which fails to conform to it.
I don’t want words that other people have invented. […] Each thing has its word, but the word has become a thing by itself. Why shouldn’t I find it? Why can’t a tree be called Pluplusch, and Pluplubasch when it has been raining? The word, the word, the word outside your domain, your stuffiness, this laughable impotence, your stupendous smugness, outside all the parrotry of your self-evident limitedness. The word, gentlemen, is a public concern of the first importance.
As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure.
The idea of calm exists in a sitting cat.
…the material as such, being relatively formless, is relatively ugly. Art implies a transformation of the material, the impression of a new form on material that had been more or less formless; and it is precisely in this sense that the creation of the world from a completely formless matter is called a “work of adornment.”
Philosophers introduce new concepts, they explain them, but they don’t tell us, not completely anyway, the problems to which those concepts are a response. […] The history of philosophy, rather than repeating what a philosopher says, has to say what he must have taken for granted, what he didn’t say but is nonetheless present in what he did say.
I interviewed a friend, who explained how the act of wearing an earring as a man in public in highly conservative Moldova made him feel safe. Even though everyone looked suspiciously at him and people shouted after him he felt that he felt safer being himself than being who they expected him to be. This is an inhabitable wrecking ball.
Let’s assume that technology does spawn “cities that grows like snowflakes overnight”; we ought to consider that when these urbanities-to-satisfy-our-every-need is implemented in our current stratified society they will freeze into ice castles preventing any social mobility and nomadic subjectivity. The actors in the interactions initiating these responses become the new architects; these interactions need to be hacked to prevent the crystallization of culture. Varanasi is as stratified as a fever dream and as quantifiable as a glitch; a snowflake-city in this context responding to an anti-tinder date generates a parametrical snow crash of contradictory architecture actualizing the total plurality of its conflictual sociocultural differences.
Anti-tinder dates in the ancient ruin. The ruin browses for irrational/pataphysical sociotechnical connections to group different identities in conflictual situations, these situations spawn contradictory architectural responses manifested in new unpredictable eidolons.
Beyond thy lectures learn’d professor,
Beyond thy telescope or spectroscope observer keen, beyond all mathematics,
Beyond the doctor’s surgery, anatomy, beyond the chemist with his chemistry,
The entities of entities, eidolons.
Inhabitable Wrecking Balls
An essay on Couchsurfing, Tumblerinas and the necessity of an Architecture that initiates others Architecture.
inhabitableadjectivesuitable to live in; habitable: soon we will run out of inhabitable space on the planet.wrecking ballnouna heavy metal ball swung from a crane into a building to demolish it.
What is a wall?
A wrecking ball is a machine to demolish – or rather; dismantle a wall. A wall is in its most basic definition a system of filtering desirables from undesirables, which we apply to facilitate our ascendance on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; i.e. we apply walls as a barrier between us and what is/might be an obstacle on our path to what we believe be a better life. We inhabit the space between these barriers, e.g. we put up walls to make a space inhabitable - this space constitutes in its abstract definition a social context.
In the physical/corporeal reality - nature a wall constitutes a material barrier that filters certain aspects of naturefrom others - e.g. wind and/or cold - and envelopes a socio-spatial context. A complex society divides into separate contexts specialized in adhering to different aspects of the hierarchy-of-needs, where the architect’s specialization is the design of the wall-as-material-barrier. This specialization in combination with the implied hierarchy of needs and the inherent permanence of the wall-as-material-barrier inadvertently stratifies society into a multitude of separate and stagnated socio-spatial contexts.
Hugo Ball’s Karawane is a wrecking ball-poem in the sense that its words are devoid of meaning, instead they create a new non-meaning unique to each reader. “I don’t want words that other people have created”Ball proclaimed in his Dadaist manifesto from the same year. As a wrecking ball it is not inhabitable except in the sense of Ball’s own self-actualization, it is not useful as communication since every reader interpret it differently. An example of a linguistic inhabitable wrecking ball could be the French slang Verlan which swaps places of the end and the beginning of a word to create a new nonsensical word that still carries information.
Language is a wall!
In the conceptual reality – perception of nature a wall takes the form of language. Every intelligence is based on the ability to through abstraction map/perceive its surroundings and divide the contents into different categories, e.g. friend or foe, food or not food. This abstraction is a wall that filters what is relevant - desired knowledge for us from what is irrelevant - undesired knowledge, an abstract barrier enveloping a context of relevance. In this sense language is a wall-as-intelligible-barrier, the difference from a physical wall being that we seldom can perceive what is behind it - try finding a word without relevant meaning but that isn’t nonsense*. We perceive this wall as a limit in difference from an obstacle (which can be overcome).
*This is a paradox of course - which is exactly why this wall is difficult to penetrate. As an example; this is why dreams and hallucinations are so difficult to explain in words, since they are “imagined” they are irrelevant to our mapping of our surroundings - and we have no words to explain this irrelevance.
Facebook is a wall ;)
In the nascent digital reality – internet a wall takes the shape of algorithms that defines what content you perceive, whether it be what news outlets you have liked on Facebook or Google’s algorithms trying to find what advertising you might be interested in. These walls-as-content-filters filters desirable content/information from undesirable content/information, and are crudely quantifiable examples of the intangible walls enveloping your – multi-layered, volatile, fluid and ever-negotiated – social contexts (vibe/flavour/taste), the extent - and limit of your perception of the world*. A partial quantification of the 4th skin/wall of Hundertwasser’s diagram “the five skins of man” - identity.
*Excuse me for stating the obvious but the wall-as-envelope-of-your-social-context/identity is different from the wall-as-material-barrier and wall-as-intelligible-barrier since it is per definition impossible to penetrate without expanding your social context and hence moving the wall further. A socio-contextual wrecking ball expands, not demolish.
My body is not a wall
In her 1994 essay ‘Volatile Bodies’, Elisabeth Grosz explains the concept of our body as a Möbius strip in constant negation between the mind (interior/perception) and the reality (exterior/the perceived), “as the threshold or borderline concept that hovers perilously and undecidably at the pivotal point of binary pairs” opposed to the traditional western mind/body dualism. The tangible (skin color/gender/ability) and intangible (class/social/language) corporeal aspects of the body I inhabit ultimately determines what social contexts I am invited to participate in, hence my perception of reality – which form the “me” (”I”) is derived from the walls which envelopes the space I inhabit, and vice versa. This redefines the body from epidermic-wall/container-for-the-mind as a tool for the mind in understanding reality - perception. This implies that any attempt to destratify ourself from our social strata and further understand reality we need to travel outside/expand our social context - being social nomads - inhabiting socio-contextual wrecking balls. How can architecture initiate and facilitate this nomadization?
The necessity of the wrecking ball
We put up walls to create inhabitable spaces that facilitate our ascendance on the hierarchy-of-needs – we build walls to help us achieve self-actualization. Many of these walls are inadvertently and often intentionally exclusive of others self-actualization, e.g. because of resource scarcity. These walls – and their inherent exclusiveness - are/were more or less vital for a functional utilitarian human society, just as specialization is inherently stratifying. Today, however, we are standing on the supposed edge of the automation-of-everything and the abolition of resource scarcity, in this context the fluidization, i.e. the dismantling of the rigidity, permanence and exclusiveness of the walls we inhabit is imperative in transcending into a socially sustainable society:
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Walls are of course essential to human existence and evolution (we do need shelter from the wind and to communicate information, and I want to read relevant articles on Facebook), and they will always be somewhat exclusive (since of their inherent function as a separating/protective barrier); hence they need to be fluid, in constant negotiation, remixed* and reused. If our walls are as volatile and fast as our perception of reality the detrimental factors of their exclusiveness is eliminated due to the speed of which they transform. The walls of the physical city are yet irremixable because of their physicality, but the digital city (internet) doesn’t require permanent/stagnant walls, there is no wind, no rain, no scarcity of code. Outside-our-social-context experiences in a fluidized digital city will bring about changes of our perception of the physical city in the same way as the diehierarchized networks of social media was a prerequisite for the ‘hipster’ or start-up economy. The reclamation of one map will spawn the reclamation of others (there is a whole lot written about the sociology behind chatroulette but what I’m aiming at is more deeper, permanent experiences…).
*I use the term ”remix” to refer to the changes that have happened to our generation’s view on intellectual property in the digital reality; sampling, remixing and so on. Could the same pirate revolution happen to our view on walls?
The flaneur became the tumblerina
The practice of rewriting/remixing/reinterpreting/reclaiming the map of the city/sociality/language/perception is fundamental in every approach to dehierarchize the status quo – which is the essence of the situationists strategy. Their practice of psychogeography approached the fabric of the city with a perspective free from preconceptions, meandering aimlessly, lead by whatever catches your interest, freeing your psyche in creating its own geography of the urban landscape. This practice practicalizes Walter Benjamin’s concept of the flaneur from the 30s, who causally wandered the streets of the modern Paris, at once overwhelmed and amused by the lush multitude of impressions. Benjamin interpreted flaneurie as an essentially subversive practice, the resistance of the daydreamer:
Boredom in the production process originates with its speed-up (through machines).The flaneur with his ostentatious composure protests against the production process.
Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project
Today the flaneur is more ubiquitous than ever, practicing the art from a couch or a bed or a train seat, scrolling supposedly aimlessly through their personalized news-feeds, meandering supposedly desultory through the vast spectacle that comprise the internet, simultaneously amused and bored, never a laugh more than a smile, eyes fixed mercilessly to the screen, the new window of the coffee shop through which we peer onto the new street of reality. The multitude of the unfiltered impressions in Baudelaire’s, Benjamin’s or Poe’s writings are long gone, replaced by an algorithmically filtered influx of content to suit my consumer profile. But this nostalgic vision of objectivity was of course always filtered through the filters of your social context (through your eyes), however with the constant possibility for being thrown out of your comfort zone since you were physically involved in the spectacle – the streets of 19th century London had no NSFW tags, a statement anyone who have been to any big Indian city can endorse. In this new mode of self-actualization as the digital flaneur – the tumblerina or the redditor, every physical obstacle is surpassed. What remains is only the cognitive experience of the spectacle; the dreamers of the Matrix but with the terms&conditions approved.
The homeless is the involuntarily flaneur
Both are itinerant metaphors that register the city as a text to be inscribed, read, rewritten and reread. The flâneur walks idly through the city, listening to its narrative. The rag-picker too moves across the urban landscape, but as a scavenger, collecting, rereading and rewriting its history.
Deborah Parsons, ‘Streetwalking the Metropolis: Women, the City and Modernity’
Walter Benjamin divided the concept of the flaneur into two categories, the flaneur and the rag-picker. The rag-picker is supposedly involuntarily inhabiting the position as the flaneur, driven to the streets by unknown circumstances, forced to live off the crumbles left by the city. Out of necessity and urgency the rag-picker have to reinterpret the map of the city after their own needs, they have to practice psychogeography. This is not an inhabitable wrecking ball since this situation is not inhabitable - it is not alleviating the subjects path to self-actualization – not because of the spatial situation as such, but because of the walls which the subjects finds themselves outside. The rag-picker is fervently trying to subsist through the creation of their own walls to inhabit, but because of scarcity of resources and space these walls are dysfunctional, all have already been claimed - instead the rag-picker redefine their second skin as their third as well. They are left to what is deemed irrelevant to the rest of the city, they live in Irrelevantopolis. You can explore Irrelevantopolis today by using a public computer to search for random keywords and hashtags, aimlessly meandering through the vast sea of dog pics, amateur make up tutorials, clickbait news, uninformed rants and dank memes – but who would voluntarily give up the comfort of their algorithmically defined social context to become this type of alien social nomad?
The flaneur self-actualizes through the practice of being audience in the spectacle, even if this audienceship is supposedly individualized and subversive in the psychogeographic adaption. Psychogeography is in the situationist interpretation in itself uninhabitable, it is a subversive practice with the intent of the subject self-actualizing through their own mapping of the city/status quo, but the subject is still depending on the city/status quo for the fulfillment of the other steps on the hierarchy-of-needs. Traditional psychogeography fail to realize the paradox of critiquing an inhabitable practice through an uninhabitable practice, it is a great tool to re:percieve the city, but it cannot reclaim it. The same failure is applicable to the great situationist architectural masterpiece; Constant’s New Babylon:
New Babylon is the old Babylon
New Babylon is Constant Nieuwenhuys’ visualisation of a world encompassing utopian post-capitalist city, where man have transcended from Homo Faber – the working man – to Homo Ludens – the playing man. He anticipated a future of full automation of every prerequisite for human self-actualization, and to facilitate this he envisioned a set of massive mega-structures; sectors, that hovered above the ground on thick steel supports, being completely sealed of from nature to grant Homo Ludens full control over his environment, providing full creative ludic freedom. Like being locked in a room with Lego for the rest of your life. Alan Watts famous quote comes to mind:
“So then, let’s suppose that you were able every night to dream any dream you wanted to dream, and that you could for example have the power within one night to dream 75 years of time, or any length of time you wanted to have.
And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, you would fulfill all your wishes. You would have every kind of pleasure during your sleep. And after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure each you would say “Well that was pretty great”. But now let’s have a surprise, let’s have a dream which isn’t under control, where something is gonna happen to me that I don’t know what it’s gonna be.
And you would dig that and would come out of that and you would say “Wow that was a close shave, wasn’t it?”. Then you would get more and more adventurous and you would make further- and further-out gambles what you would dream. And finally, you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of living the life that you are actually living today.”
The act of self-actualization is not a final, epitomic essence of human existence that only can be achieved after fulfilling the earlier steps on the hierarchy-of-needs, instead self-actualization is the act in itself of fulfilling those needs, i.e. no step on the hierarchy of needs is instrumental, they are equally important. Homo Ludens does not play inside walls, Homo Ludens plays through creating walls - we just need to keep these walls in motion so that everyone is invited to play (which is facilitated by the prospect of automations abolition of resource scarcity). We are a ludic society, we just need to recognize it – not through creating the perfect environment for ludism, but through seeing ludism in every act of creation. Determinism – even if its only on the infrastructural level – is what fails New Babylon, a ludic society is intrinsically indeterministic since the ludic aspect need to saturate every step on the hierarchy-of-needs. I am not arguing against automation, some aspects of human life is per definition undesired – not ludic, and technological advancements will hopefully sort out the majority of these. What I’m trying to aim at is that there is no difference between New Babylon and our current status quo, since they both are instrumental as facilitators of either the self-actualization of Homo Faber or of Homo Ludens, instead of being products of these self-actualizations in itself.
This implies a redefinition of self-actualization as a result of the fulfillment of the necessary requirements of achieving self-actualization to self-actualization as the act of the fulfillment of these requirements in themselves. Which in turn implies:
a re:erotication of everyday life;
a reunderstanding of design as solving problems to problematizing solutions;
Couchsurfing is an online platform where traveling users are invited to stay at hosting users couch when they happen to pass by their city, free of charge with the sole purpose of creating new relations bridging generation, income and cultural gaps. “You pay for the accommodation with expanding your mind”, “the hosts don’t only provide you with a place to stay, they also invite you into their life”. This is an inhabitable socio-contextual wrecking ball, and is a perfect interpretation of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s nomadic subjectivity. This tool of remixing/remapping differ from psychogeography because of its inhabitability. The couchsurfer is in the same (albeit normally much more safe) situation as Benjamin’s rag-picker, dealing with an uncharted terrain – a multitude of social impressions where they need to redefine the map of their own social context (themselves) to function. This is digitally induced outside-our-social-context-experiences changing our perception of the physical city, without the tool the internet this would not be possible.
When taking couchsurfers out for drinks I quite often feel more free than I do with friends, they have no expectations on me, I can be who ever I want but still have a great time, the community functions in that way that the people you wouldn’t want to stay at your couch quickly are filtered out.
A friend and couchsurfer host in Istanbul
The flâneur has no specific relationship with any individual, yet he establishes a temporary, yet deeply empathetic and intimate relationship with all that he sees–an intimacy bordering on the conjugal–writing a bit of himself into the margins of the text in which he is immersed, a text devised by selective disjunction.
Both the surfer and the host venture out into irrelevantopolis, with the only reassurance that in difference from the flaneur they are not alone, they will meet other social nomads. They redefine the limit of their social contexts as an obstacle which they vault over, and at the same time fluidize every wall that they inhabit by opening it up for the other to inhabit. By self-actualizing through the act of fulfilling others needs they de:determine their own self-actualization, recasting it as the art of helping - and in this process they initiate the others self-actualization as the same, and so on. The art of initiating others art- initiateism? This is similar to the way an organization like e.g. Burners without Borders are unleashing and initiating communities own creativity in solving their own problems - redefining the limits of the status quo as an obstacle and overcome it. Giving man back the right to create/define his third skin/wall - as Hundertwasser nakedly proclaimed - is essentially an accelerationist approach since it unleashes the power of the techno-socio-contextual body/corporeality.
Make bricks not walls
How do we as specialized architects actualize the approach to design as initiating others design? By redefining self-actualization through a given specialization into the actual meaning of the word - to actualize one-self, i.e. build ones own walls through the consequential prerequisite of demolishing the existing walls - i.e. inhabitable wrecking balls. Don’t get me wrong, of course we need specialization because of the limits of the human brain (just as we need walls to keep us warm), but the defining factor for your self-actualization-through-specialization should be defined by just that - the limits of your brain, and not the limits that contains it*. If our aim is subversive our designs ought to be initiating – tools - instead of deterministic. Isnt this parametricism? - not on the level of the built or the political, but on the level of identity;
Build a man a house and he will have a home
Teach a man to build a house and he will have a life
This remixed proverb captures my definition of an inhabitable wrecking ball; it wrecks the reductive concept of self-actualization as specialization and the inevitably rigid and stratifying structures that grows from such specialization. Architecture still seem to scramble for an architectural vision of post-capitalism and “a convergence of the shambolic brainstorming of post-modernism”. If an accelerationist architecture is actualized in the concept of an inhabitable wrecking ball, then maybe we should be more focused on designing bricks instead of walls.
*At least in Architecture automation leads to a de-specialization of the profession, computers deal with the tedious shit while we can play with the fun stuff, hence everyone can be their own architect and so on.
I am the image of myself, a volatile representation of my sensorial inputs. My body’s tailored lifeline, on the hand with which I decide my taste, my vibe, my self. I am the derivation of the walls that which contain me, the baby of the room that keeps me warm and safe, the emergence of the filters that sustain my senses, the essence of my idea of relevance, myself my own deliverance. I am in every moment instrumental, reiterations of reiterations of the contexts which curates me, that discerns what is relevant to me as me in the mass of irrelevant nonsense.
You are, imagined by the algorithms of my past experience, a non-person, defaced, a curiosity. Reality exotified, a liquid body in my kind hands, unreal behind our window. But the intersections of our walls initiates us, our overlapping algorithms let the nomads flee their gilded cage.
…flee into the vast sea outside our radar; Irrelevantism, the storm of random inputs, the hurricane of nothing, the bitter flavour that I search for when I try to deviate.
Irrelevantopolis, the slums down deep underneath my spectacle, the bugs crawling through the compost of the theatre, an unfiltered mass of life.
Irreleviathan, the monstrous god of nonsense, the deep dark depths of dumbness, the freezing numbing unknown contained in every storm. And when this storm it roars outside, and my room is snug and warm, I wont demolish any walls, I will do everything I can, to stay safe from wind and rain.
I only have one map, and I wouldn’t notice any else, since I already know my safe path home. This map is an infinity pool without white spots, not even in the suns reflection can I let myself be blind. Only uncertainty makes me doubt our vision, when the power grid goes off I loose my step and pace, break the window and unfind the wall.
We are surface creatures, we cant breath down in the depths our out in space. Lets irrelevantize ourselves, let our experience collide and help the nomads flee their gilded cage. If there is no storm that roars outside, what do I then need a safe room for?