Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture

With very few exceptions since Ancient Greece, architecture has ignored for most of its history, its relation to power and politics, focusing instead on different ideals of beauty, perfection and purity of forms. It is no surprise then that architecture was used for political purposes mainly by peo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sabin Borş, Dragoş Dascălu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universitatea "Stefan cel Mare" Suceava 2013-12-01
Series:Annals of Philosophy, Social and Human Disciplines
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.apshus.usv.ro/arhiva/2013II/007.%20pp.%2099-121.pdf
id doaj-7bf25ba570874d2c9e3324258da9081a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7bf25ba570874d2c9e3324258da9081a2020-11-24T23:40:21ZengUniversitatea "Stefan cel Mare" SuceavaAnnals of Philosophy, Social and Human Disciplines 2069-40082069-40162013-12-01II99121Notes towards a Theory of Contestational ArchitectureSabin Borş0Dragoş Dascălu1Curator, Ph.D student, “Babeş-Bolyai” University Cluj-Napoca Architect, Ph.D student, Technical University of Cluj-NapocaWith very few exceptions since Ancient Greece, architecture has ignored for most of its history, its relation to power and politics, focusing instead on different ideals of beauty, perfection and purity of forms. It is no surprise then that architecture was used for political purposes mainly by people who are not architects, like Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, N.A. Miliutyn, to name just a few. Architecture is, and always was, linked to power, power holders, and to the idea of organizing the lives of groups or individuals. In the recent years, when the economic crisis hit stronger the residential sector and other real estate developments, the architects’ role in the perpetuation of the established economic and political system has been put to scrutiny. Critics argue that architecture and architects lost their social role, or even more radically, that it can be considered an accomplice of power holders in the perpetuation of the current system. Critical architectural practices, based on the philosophy of conflict and the rejection of the idea of consensus, challenge the existing power structures and have gained in the recent years more and more ground both inside the profession and outside. But these practices are marginal more often than not, with a very limited impact, because however idealistic and well intentioned these practices are, architecture is still dependent on capital. How can architects produce spaces which are less about the power holders which finance and/or own them and more about the users? How can contestational architectures create anticipative geographies without remaining marginal?http://www.apshus.usv.ro/arhiva/2013II/007.%20pp.%2099-121.pdfArchitectureConsensusPhilosophy of ConflictUrban TacticsContestational Strategies.
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sabin Borş
Dragoş Dascălu
spellingShingle Sabin Borş
Dragoş Dascălu
Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
Annals of Philosophy, Social and Human Disciplines
Architecture
Consensus
Philosophy of Conflict
Urban Tactics
Contestational Strategies.
author_facet Sabin Borş
Dragoş Dascălu
author_sort Sabin Borş
title Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
title_short Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
title_full Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
title_fullStr Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
title_full_unstemmed Notes towards a Theory of Contestational Architecture
title_sort notes towards a theory of contestational architecture
publisher Universitatea "Stefan cel Mare" Suceava
series Annals of Philosophy, Social and Human Disciplines
issn 2069-4008
2069-4016
publishDate 2013-12-01
description With very few exceptions since Ancient Greece, architecture has ignored for most of its history, its relation to power and politics, focusing instead on different ideals of beauty, perfection and purity of forms. It is no surprise then that architecture was used for political purposes mainly by people who are not architects, like Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, N.A. Miliutyn, to name just a few. Architecture is, and always was, linked to power, power holders, and to the idea of organizing the lives of groups or individuals. In the recent years, when the economic crisis hit stronger the residential sector and other real estate developments, the architects’ role in the perpetuation of the established economic and political system has been put to scrutiny. Critics argue that architecture and architects lost their social role, or even more radically, that it can be considered an accomplice of power holders in the perpetuation of the current system. Critical architectural practices, based on the philosophy of conflict and the rejection of the idea of consensus, challenge the existing power structures and have gained in the recent years more and more ground both inside the profession and outside. But these practices are marginal more often than not, with a very limited impact, because however idealistic and well intentioned these practices are, architecture is still dependent on capital. How can architects produce spaces which are less about the power holders which finance and/or own them and more about the users? How can contestational architectures create anticipative geographies without remaining marginal?
topic Architecture
Consensus
Philosophy of Conflict
Urban Tactics
Contestational Strategies.
url http://www.apshus.usv.ro/arhiva/2013II/007.%20pp.%2099-121.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT sabinbors notestowardsatheoryofcontestationalarchitecture
AT dragosdascalu notestowardsatheoryofcontestationalarchitecture
_version_ 1725509908675166208