#donttellmehowtodress | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

y4s2-20192020 · 4 years

Photo

Touch, look, interaction, sensibility, senses, proxemics, distance ... how could all of these be perceived ? What is the focal point of looking at them? Where could these occasions lead us to? How could we generalize them? Or should we? And if we should then why ?

The starting point is the exploration of boundaries starting from Bangkok, where the most common event with most blurred personal boundaries happens to be Songkran - Thai new year. While looking at a certain event or occasion there is always a main point and idea that it carries but what is most interesting about events is what hides behind the idea, what happens behind “closed doors”, what is the darkside, secret, mystery, that nobody speaks, writes or thinks about, or does but society gets to ignore it. This is a perfect occasion in exploring first key points mentioned above, as Songkran apart from fun and religious beliefs does have its dark side - Sexual harassment, about which many statistics, research and studies have been made where majority of visitors despite their gender identity, sexual orientation, go through harassment

One of the topics of study is an event that is not directly embedded inside Songkran, but has originated from it - Pain To Power #donttellmehowtodress - a demonstration leaded by Thai model Cindy Bishop, the point of event was to tell government to stop telling woman not to dress attractively during the event but to tell violent people to stop being violent.

My own research about violence starts from psychological exploration of an individual and the crowd. What is the vulnerability of the crowd? What makes individual (part of crowd) vulnerable? Does the psychology/actions of individual changed under the effect of the crowd?

This is where it gets impossible to have one sharp and clear answer on each of these questions, but if we survey famous scholar psychologists they do have an answer, like Momboisse and Berlonghis research about types of crowds where they name four different types: Casual, Conventional, Expressive and Aggressive, from which we can conclude that Songkran falls under Expressive and Aggressive types as first expresses one or more emotions based on religious beliefs, political rally and so on, while the second is where crowd turns into aggressive mobs and becomes violent.

Meanwhile Le Bon and Charles Robert Darwin focus on individual or plural psychology and criminology reasons, where Le Bon identifies three stages of the crowd: Submergence, Contagion, Suggestion, depending on which we could say that Songkran falls under Submergence and Contagion as these two explore how the individuals in the crowd lose their sense of individual self and personal responsibility, as well as individuals in the crowd tend to unquestioningly follow the predominant ideas and emotions of the crowd. As for second study of Charles Robert Darwin - anthropological criminology explains how crowd behaviors is heavily influenced by the loss of responsibility of individual and impression of universality of behavior.

What actually drives the individual to violence as being part of the crowd? Could it be culture? Lack of interpersonal distance? Nudity? After comprehensive study made based on important sources it could be said that generally culture is based on seeing woman or any person having what is considered female behavior more weak as through past centuries women were seen only at home, not being able to have work or to be independent individuals.

Lack of interpersonal distance is based on study of proxemics where there are several stages of distances which are not respected though public events.

As for nudity depending on study it is considered that people exposing more skin are seen more vulnerable rather than ones that are more covered.

If we explore all these studies and examples mentioned in this text closer we will understand that nudity and culture could be one of the influences of interactions but eventually almost everything is based on many individuals gathering and tightening up in one space where the physical distance defines their positive or negative behaviors. Therefore the path of investigation leads us to one generalized word representing discussion mentioned above - Intimacy.

As intimacy contains proxemics, view of culture, desire or rejection of nudity, ignorance or lack of individuality in the crowd or separately individual behavior itself.

After arriving to the main focus of research interviews and experiments were conducted based on the main topic-intimacy. Where discovery was made that for each person intimacy and whole interpretation of it is very different, based on interview for some it is positive, for some negative, for some its alive organism, others material or mental, for almost all the respondents color of intimacy is very dark regardless of if seen positive or negative, it is outstanding color, noticeable, in this way we could conclude that intimacy plays very important role in human beings everyday life physically and mentally as well.

So could we see intimacy as love? Violence? Freedom? Proxemics? Individual? Personal? Public? All or none? And what tools do we need to explore intimacy deeper? Could intimacy be objectified? Could it be transformed into skin and bones? Space? Could we let people have artificial and different experience of intimacy based on their own desires? And finally could intimacy lead to creation of something brand new?

This is a sum up diagram of the projects so far collecting all research. After which I started thinking how to answer all those questions based on intimacy today. I have arrived to the scholars exploring standards of a human being to understand how could this be interpreted today and if this interpretation would serve for creation of something new based on todays world.

VITRUVIAN MAN 1940 Leonardo da Vinci

“The proportions of the human body according to Vitruvius” “For the human body is so designed by nature that the face, from the chin to the top of the forehead and the lowest roots of the hair, is a tenth part of the whole height; the open hand from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger is just the same; the head from the chin to the crown is an eighth, and with the neck and shoulder from the top of the breast to the lowest roots of the hair is a sixth; from the middle of the breast to the summit of the crown is a fourth. If we take the height of the face itself, the distance from the bottom of the chin to the under side of the nostrils is one third of it; the nose from the under side of the nostrils to a line between the eyebrows is the same; from there to the lowest roots of the hair is also a third, comprising the forehead. The length of the foot is one sixth of the height of the body; of the forearm, one fourth; and the breadth of the breast is also one fourth. The other members, too, have their own symmetrical proportions, and it was by employing them that the famous painters and sculptors of antiquity attained to great and endless renown. Similarly, in the members of a temple there ought to be the greatest harmony in the symmetrical relations of the different parts to the general magnitude of the whole. Then again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centred at his navel, the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle described therefrom.”

MODULOR 1943 Le Corbusier

Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture. The system is based on human measurements, the double unit, the Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio. Le Corbus- ier described it as a “range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things”.

Vitruvian + Modulor

With the Modulor, Le Corbusier sought to introduce a scale of visual measures that would unite two virtually incompatible systems: the Anglo Sax- on foot and inch and the French metric system. Whilst he was intrigued by ancient civilisations who used measuring systems linked to the human body: elbow (cubit), finger (digit), thumb (inch) etc., he was troubled by the metre as a measure that was a forty-millionth part of the meridian of the earth

Nowadays/Proxemics/2020

Nowadays we are not only speaking about a man separately or the architectural space in correspondance with human body but also envirnment aound the man that does not concern only architecture but is a conceptual, intangible environment based on psychology and confortability.

Finally we arrive to the man of today which is the mic of Vitruvian man, modulor in contemporary world, defining the proxemics of a man of today.

Now to start exploring the design process itself I have created a narrative image representing the qualities and aims of the project itself. Each image has an author and is chosen carefully. The exploration starts from the crowd continues with density - group - space - talking architecture - proxemics and continues with translating into the new space. Where in the middle we have some important examples like performance of Marina Abramovic and Ulai where they have stood in the narrow entrance of exhibit space nude - whats interesting here is the behaviors of the people - how they felt uncomfortable but firstly starting passing though them very slowly but suddenly one couple passed fast and rest of the crowd started mimicking their behavior and curculation because faster and faster though them.

Or in example of the book Learning from Las Vegas, how sometimes architecture speaks for itself and becomes very clear to people.

Also the project by Rebecca Horn, who dedicated whole carrier exploring the limits of human body, where in one of her projects created a transparent box full of metal tubes and stood in it to indicate that is exactly the limit of her own body.

Another important example is work by Bruce Nauman - Green Corridor, where he had created very narrow corridor exactly 50cm as proxemic intimate space, where people were passing though and felt extremely uncomfortable due to the size and color as well.

Or Walter De Maria, Mile Long Chalk Drawing - we see Walter himself lying on floor and his feet touches line from chock and distance of lines is double of hight of him. Two lines are 1 mile long. So there is a comparison between measure of body and measure of geography, scale of individual and scale of earth thats why also its considered as land art.

And many other examples of same type.

As you can see while explaining on the right side there is timeline kind of grouping all these images into a cluster. Like proxemic, people/space, freedom clautripoobia, inside/outside, threshold and how all of it could result into social behavior.

The design invades the spatial typology of Bangkok that represents continuity in terms of crowd that is not shaped in any way. It becomes a way of designing behavior of the people, it is what space defines rather than what is a definition of the space.

Summing up the research based on human proxemics influencing different social behavior has led to a shape mimicking the proxemic rules.

Here we see the representation of the size of proxemics, followed by combination with new human standard, with shape of movement respecting the rules, then transformation of these measure into three platforms and framing them - in this way we have three immobile spaces - intimate, personal and social. In the final result it is the combination of all three into one mobile space varying from intimate to public, providing threshold for people placed in dense spaces.

First site choice is open space - Khaosan road - one of the most crowded streets in Bangkok during the day as well as during the night. The street where all the rules of interpersonal distance are absolutely disrespected.

The design is influencing social behaviors, giving shape to a crowd, exploring different ways of reactions and choices, spotting sequence of moving bodies in reference to proxemic rules provided by mobile spaces.

We see how the space, notion of the crowd becomes an experience. There might be a desire to be part of the crowd cited by this space or there might be not.

The second choice of site was to challenge the design to adjust to more enclosed space where people are not given too much freedom avoiding the “black box” passage. The space varies from intimate space which is on three sides - centre, right and left and personal distance in the middle. The size, span of time and movement is organized in a way that the whole space ends up narrow disrespecting the interpersonal distance at all times in order to influence and study human behaviors responding to this specific space.

It is not a conventional space, there is no specific aim of being in it, no specific desire of accomplishing something, it is up to people to decide weather it is connecting something of separating. What space does is brings people with no aim together in a neutral space experiencing the social distances. It is the idea of human body passing the threshold, human body reacting negatively or positively or even indifferently to threshold.

So in both cases we see the circulation of the crowd depending on how the layout of threshold would be in that specific timing the crowd automatically shapes itself according to it, not only being part of threshold but also after passing it people would tend to maintain the behavior at least for some seconds.

Here is represented the space containing the black box - the black box is most important element having measure of intimate space which is immobile, and the outer spaces move in and out of the black box making different variations of proxemic. The span of the space passing though each proxemic phase happens in 4 minutes and 30 seconds, spanning from one to another for one minute and half. Where here we see span from public - social - personal and intimate.

As well as the same happened in enclosed space in Silom road, but instead of C shaped elements are vertical slabs that stop on sides on intimate space, giving less freedom in terms of open space.

Elements are composed from lightweight scaffolding framed into a eco virgin plastic.

So if people always have possibility in choice weather to experience dense and claustrophobic environment or pass though free spatial arrangements that lasts for some minutes.

Spacial behavior predicts social behavior, they are directly connected. If in other cases for example domestic architecture is being built depending on human needs and after deep exploration of human behaviors, this case is organized other way around, first we build limits and then explore human social behaviors according to them.

The exploration is how do people use the space in reference to the limits and very importantly - in reference to one another.

It is known for example by the narrative references of Bruce Nauman that the narrow space resulted into extreme uncomfortability in human beings - this space being the same measure as in my own project, also important aspect of contagion of the behavior in case fo Marian Abramovic and Ulai. For example how in the narrow space we see only one person but depending on the culture of contagion we can assume that despite of uncomfortably people do tend to mimic each other, so even if the space is uncomfortable it could be contagious, as well as comfortable which is more easier to be contagious which we see in upper example of the public space how people tend to grow and grow in density. So generally the usage of the space can span from individual to collective and that 100% depends on the limits that space provides + the behavior that people choose.

So basically the strategy of occupying the space is completely free, even though it provides limits it does promote the form of liberation - the question is how? Firstly people represented in the image do not have a gender, social status, religion due to diversity of the crowd that appears to be in spaces like khaosan road or Silom, they are just - people - free people.

so More free people are, better we can realize their social behaviors, the deign of the space does impose the rules - which are proxemic rules, building up the limits which does shape the crowd, puts the people into specific point, specific position, condition, make them experience specific emotions, but in the end the deign is not violent, it doesn’t force people to end up in an open or enclosed space, there is always another choice of avoidance - this is what interesting about the space, all the possible variations of reactions, as Socrates said: “sometimes you put walls up not to keep people out, but to see who cares enough to break them down.” - so the design does impose the the limits in face of walls but it is 100% up to people how to react to it. The threshold in the end could result into overcrowded occupation shaping the crowd while being in threshold or after passing it or being completely empty shaping absolutely nothing - and the most important point is that each scenario would be a success, because both responses are the specific reaction to the space that predicts the space itself between one person to another by a free choice. So today architecture is nothing else but the creation of proxemic limits chosen to be experienced or not.

#Tijn van de Wijdeven #9 Masha Mariam Chigvinadze #phase 3 #phase4

0 notes