JČ
J. Čulek
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
5 records found
1
Utopia as Critical Method
A Comparative Analysis of Six Architectural and Literary Utopias
Utopia as a Critical Method is a comparative analysis performed through drawing and text, in which six architectural and literary utopias were examined together with the three historical contexts in which they were created. Looking at utopian works created roughly within the last century, the research examined the different worlds which the utopian authors imagined as a critical response to the issues and topics arising within their own historical contexts. The study addressed not only on the works as a whole, but also focused on their parts – namely the numerous social and spatial forms the authors have imagined and depicted. In this way, the dissertation was able to identify both the common and the discipline-specific forms which the utopian authors used, the various tools and techniques through which the critical aspect of their utopian works was developed (use of dichotomous relationships, mereological approaches, world reduction, and contextual verticals), as well as some of the most common topics which the utopian works addressed or revolved around (such as those of housing, work and production, technology, and governance). By distributing the social and spatial forms identified both within the utopian works as well as their respective contexts into three predominant scales – the small, medium and large – the research was also able to address and identify (in)commensurabilities between the different foci of utopian works across the fields of architecture and literature, as well as in relation to their three different historical periods. And while the use of utopia as a critical method through which we can simultaneously reflect on our own present, while speculating on potential futures has significantly declined (if not disappeared) in the architectural field, one of the goals of this research was to reignite the creative architectural interest in producing these imaginative and critical projects as a response to the numerous and multifaceted crises of our time.
...
Utopia as a Critical Method is a comparative analysis performed through drawing and text, in which six architectural and literary utopias were examined together with the three historical contexts in which they were created. Looking at utopian works created roughly within the last century, the research examined the different worlds which the utopian authors imagined as a critical response to the issues and topics arising within their own historical contexts. The study addressed not only on the works as a whole, but also focused on their parts – namely the numerous social and spatial forms the authors have imagined and depicted. In this way, the dissertation was able to identify both the common and the discipline-specific forms which the utopian authors used, the various tools and techniques through which the critical aspect of their utopian works was developed (use of dichotomous relationships, mereological approaches, world reduction, and contextual verticals), as well as some of the most common topics which the utopian works addressed or revolved around (such as those of housing, work and production, technology, and governance). By distributing the social and spatial forms identified both within the utopian works as well as their respective contexts into three predominant scales – the small, medium and large – the research was also able to address and identify (in)commensurabilities between the different foci of utopian works across the fields of architecture and literature, as well as in relation to their three different historical periods. And while the use of utopia as a critical method through which we can simultaneously reflect on our own present, while speculating on potential futures has significantly declined (if not disappeared) in the architectural field, one of the goals of this research was to reignite the creative architectural interest in producing these imaginative and critical projects as a response to the numerous and multifaceted crises of our time.
(Re)Defining Utopia
The Changing Concept of an Ideal World
Utopia, seen not only as a creative and imaginative form, but as a critical and speculative method of devising worlds, spaces, and societal structures different than our own has existed long before receiving its name based on Thomas More’s 1516 book Utopia. Originating in the literary field, utopia has since been used in various creative disciplines, including architecture. Presented as a textual and/or visual narrative, often set in an unspecified future and a remote location, utopias describe worlds in which many or all ails of its author’s historical context have been solved through a thorough reconstitution of the built environment and its inhabitants.
And while what constitutes a utopian work has changed over centuries, it has for the better part of history remained a positively charged notion, signaling new hope and new ideas for the future. However, from an architectural perspective, the notion of utopia has taken on more negative and even pejorative connotations, often signifying a project or idea which is so far off from any concept of reality that it can automatically be dismissed as trivial or inconsequential.
Observing utopia from an architecture standpoint, focusing mostly on its development within the last century, this paper will address some of the changes which have occurred in the meaning, understanding, and connotation of utopia within the architectural field. Correlating these changes with the rich and multilayered understanding of utopia as a literary concept, deepened with its numerous sub-forms and genres (i.e. dystopias, anti-utopias, critical utopias, etc.), the paper will argue that utopia as a form, although often viewed as straightforward in its meaning, actually allows for and has demonstrated a capacity for change and variety, adapting itself within numerous historical periods and creative fields in order to critically and speculatively respond to everchanging political, societal, cultural, and economic challenges.
...
Utopia, seen not only as a creative and imaginative form, but as a critical and speculative method of devising worlds, spaces, and societal structures different than our own has existed long before receiving its name based on Thomas More’s 1516 book Utopia. Originating in the literary field, utopia has since been used in various creative disciplines, including architecture. Presented as a textual and/or visual narrative, often set in an unspecified future and a remote location, utopias describe worlds in which many or all ails of its author’s historical context have been solved through a thorough reconstitution of the built environment and its inhabitants.
And while what constitutes a utopian work has changed over centuries, it has for the better part of history remained a positively charged notion, signaling new hope and new ideas for the future. However, from an architectural perspective, the notion of utopia has taken on more negative and even pejorative connotations, often signifying a project or idea which is so far off from any concept of reality that it can automatically be dismissed as trivial or inconsequential.
Observing utopia from an architecture standpoint, focusing mostly on its development within the last century, this paper will address some of the changes which have occurred in the meaning, understanding, and connotation of utopia within the architectural field. Correlating these changes with the rich and multilayered understanding of utopia as a literary concept, deepened with its numerous sub-forms and genres (i.e. dystopias, anti-utopias, critical utopias, etc.), the paper will argue that utopia as a form, although often viewed as straightforward in its meaning, actually allows for and has demonstrated a capacity for change and variety, adapting itself within numerous historical periods and creative fields in order to critically and speculatively respond to everchanging political, societal, cultural, and economic challenges.
Examining Utopias
Comparative Scales as a Transdisciplinary Research Method
Utopia, in the context of my research, is seen as a critical method, an unattainable ideal which is not meant to be realized. In the same way that utopian literature is not meant to provide an applicable script for an ideal society, utopian architecture does not intend to provide blueprints. Utopias are a collection of ideals, working together to provide a theoretical testing ground, not with the aim of realization, but rather to provide reflection and critique to their historical context. Working with utopian projects from two different fields – architecture and literature – and comparing them is problematic, since the methods and mediums through which the works are produced differ. Architectural utopias presented mostly through drawings, generally focus on spatial changes of different scale, with the population described in toto and in relation to their interaction with the built environment. Literary utopias, conversely, are created as a fictional text, with rarely any graphic representation. In order to describe the imagined world, the various changes which the utopian work proposes in relation to our “reality” are depicted on the level of social interactions and spatial conditions. The built environment is described through the narrative, as a set in which the plot unfolds.
To productively compare case studies from both fields, elucidating the various methods utopias employ to critique and reflect on their socio-spatial contexts, I developed a comparative method based on juxtaposing social and spatial elements on different scales. The method was initially based on the work of literary comparatist Caroline Levine – Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network (2015). Levine states that, when comparing literature, the traditional formal analysis of a text through a close reading should not only examine the forms of the text itself, but rather broaden its scope to include social and political patterns and experiences. While a formal analysis in itself is not a novelty in the architectural field, the inclusion of social elements and experiences is. Therefore, the combination of both social and spatial elements in the comparison becomes key to bridging the gap between two fields. Including both social and spatial aspects of the works, the method then dissects the utopia into its building blocks which are further distributed into three scales: the small scale which encompasses the individual or the single unit, the medium scale which consists of groups and buildings, and the large scale which depicts the society and the city. Drawing, which becomes an integral part of the comparison, works together with the text in order to depict the conditions surrounding the three scales. Breaking the utopian works down to their building blocks allows for the transdisciplinary comparison which can be performed through each scale separately. Looking not only into the proposed utopian elements, but also how they relate to same-scale elements of their historical contexts, allows us to see what types of utopian changes lead to what types of results with the aim of identifying which social and spatial forms shape utopian worlds and which forms are, in turn, shaped by utopias.
...
Utopia, in the context of my research, is seen as a critical method, an unattainable ideal which is not meant to be realized. In the same way that utopian literature is not meant to provide an applicable script for an ideal society, utopian architecture does not intend to provide blueprints. Utopias are a collection of ideals, working together to provide a theoretical testing ground, not with the aim of realization, but rather to provide reflection and critique to their historical context. Working with utopian projects from two different fields – architecture and literature – and comparing them is problematic, since the methods and mediums through which the works are produced differ. Architectural utopias presented mostly through drawings, generally focus on spatial changes of different scale, with the population described in toto and in relation to their interaction with the built environment. Literary utopias, conversely, are created as a fictional text, with rarely any graphic representation. In order to describe the imagined world, the various changes which the utopian work proposes in relation to our “reality” are depicted on the level of social interactions and spatial conditions. The built environment is described through the narrative, as a set in which the plot unfolds.
To productively compare case studies from both fields, elucidating the various methods utopias employ to critique and reflect on their socio-spatial contexts, I developed a comparative method based on juxtaposing social and spatial elements on different scales. The method was initially based on the work of literary comparatist Caroline Levine – Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network (2015). Levine states that, when comparing literature, the traditional formal analysis of a text through a close reading should not only examine the forms of the text itself, but rather broaden its scope to include social and political patterns and experiences. While a formal analysis in itself is not a novelty in the architectural field, the inclusion of social elements and experiences is. Therefore, the combination of both social and spatial elements in the comparison becomes key to bridging the gap between two fields. Including both social and spatial aspects of the works, the method then dissects the utopia into its building blocks which are further distributed into three scales: the small scale which encompasses the individual or the single unit, the medium scale which consists of groups and buildings, and the large scale which depicts the society and the city. Drawing, which becomes an integral part of the comparison, works together with the text in order to depict the conditions surrounding the three scales. Breaking the utopian works down to their building blocks allows for the transdisciplinary comparison which can be performed through each scale separately. Looking not only into the proposed utopian elements, but also how they relate to same-scale elements of their historical contexts, allows us to see what types of utopian changes lead to what types of results with the aim of identifying which social and spatial forms shape utopian worlds and which forms are, in turn, shaped by utopias.
Forms of Utopia
The Social and Spatial Forms of We and Metropolisarchitecture
“Forms of Utopia” is part of a larger research investigating critical and speculative methods used in architectural and literary utopian and dystopian works of the 20th century. It presents one of several case study pairings featuring a work of architectural and literary fiction, which were created within a similar historical and societal context and which deal with similar issues. The text investigates and juxtaposes two fictional worlds created in the first part of the 20th century, namely Ludwig Hilberseimer’s architectural proposal Metropolisarchitecture, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s literary work We. Taking into consideration various issues which arise while examining works from two different fields, a comparative method was devised which combines approaches taken from both the literary and architectural field. The developed method is based on a combination of Carline Levine’s approach proposed in her book Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network (Princeton UP, 2015) and an architectural typological analysis. By using this method, the text examines various forms and patterns of spatial and social experience which are described in the works and through which the utopian and dystopian worlds are structured. Focusing on two main types of forms identified by Levine – namely bounded wholes and rhythms – the text distills common threads, investigates how the authors propose and generate a built and social environment, and how this environment is ideologically and critically charged. While examining the various social and spatial forms which are used to build both fictional worlds, the text also explores the fact that, even though the two worlds are sometimes based on same spatial forms, one author views his project as utopian while the other proposes a dystopian future.
...
“Forms of Utopia” is part of a larger research investigating critical and speculative methods used in architectural and literary utopian and dystopian works of the 20th century. It presents one of several case study pairings featuring a work of architectural and literary fiction, which were created within a similar historical and societal context and which deal with similar issues. The text investigates and juxtaposes two fictional worlds created in the first part of the 20th century, namely Ludwig Hilberseimer’s architectural proposal Metropolisarchitecture, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s literary work We. Taking into consideration various issues which arise while examining works from two different fields, a comparative method was devised which combines approaches taken from both the literary and architectural field. The developed method is based on a combination of Carline Levine’s approach proposed in her book Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network (Princeton UP, 2015) and an architectural typological analysis. By using this method, the text examines various forms and patterns of spatial and social experience which are described in the works and through which the utopian and dystopian worlds are structured. Focusing on two main types of forms identified by Levine – namely bounded wholes and rhythms – the text distills common threads, investigates how the authors propose and generate a built and social environment, and how this environment is ideologically and critically charged. While examining the various social and spatial forms which are used to build both fictional worlds, the text also explores the fact that, even though the two worlds are sometimes based on same spatial forms, one author views his project as utopian while the other proposes a dystopian future.
The publication contains drawings created by Jana Culek for the architectural competition which aimed to design a museum for the abstract expressionist painter Hilma af Klint.
...
The publication contains drawings created by Jana Culek for the architectural competition which aimed to design a museum for the abstract expressionist painter Hilma af Klint.