Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회논문집)

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Architecture as Image-abilities: Analyzing The Shed (2019) by Diller, Scofidio + Renfro

이미지-어빌리티로서의 건축: 딜러, 스코피디오 + 렌프로의 <셰드> (2019) 분석을 중심으로

  • Received : 2024.01.30
  • Accepted : 2024.04.03
  • Published : 2024.04.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the work of Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, often abbreviated as ds+r. It aims to explore the intricate relationship between 'the politics of seeing' and 'the democratization of space', which are two fundamental concepts embodying the firm's design philosophy. The politics of seeing reflects its focus on activating architecture by assembling various elements such as materials, ideas, images, and experiential dimensions. This approach challenges existing criteria and promotes institutional critique. On the other hand, the democratization of space, as articulated by Elizabeth Diller, addresses the architect's role in the neoliberal context. The firm's projects, characterized by their public engagement, including parks, lobbies, and squares, demonstrate their ongoing commitments to making architecture accessible to the public. While these two agendas may seem interconnected, this paper argues that this is not always the case. Some recent projects, such as The MoMA Renovation and The Shed, aim to achieve both dimensions but tend to lean towards conservatism or practicality. As a result, the criticality that was prevalent in their earlier works before 2000 is sometimes compromised in ways that are not fully able to release their intricate capacities of mediating the neoliberal world.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 부산대학교 기본연구지원사업(2년)에 의하여 연구되었음(연구기간: 2022.03.01. - 2024.02.29.)

References

  1. Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1972). Dialectic of Enlightenment (J. Cumming). New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, 120-167.
  2. AV (2020). Diller Scofidio + Renfro: 2000-2020, Madrid: Arquitectura Viva, 221.
  3. Bennett, J. (2001). The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachment, Crossings, and Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 111-130.
  4. Berman, C. (2023). The Shed: an intersection of disciplines, Technology/Architecture + Design, 7, 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2023.2176133
  5. Bishop, C. (2018). Palace in plunderland: Clair Bishop on the Shed, Artforum, 57(1), 93-97.
  6. Diller, E. (2018, August 7). 'Architects should protect as much space as possible for the public' says Elizabeth Diller, Webpage of the World Architecture Community, Retrieved April 8, 2024 from https://worldarchitecture.org/architecture-news/ehghe/exclusive-architects-should-protect-as-much-space-as-possible-for-the-public-says-elizabeth-diller.html
  7. Diller, E., Scofidio, R., Renfro, C., & Gilmartin, B. (2019). Democratizing space, Architecture and Urbanism, 584, 6-17.
  8. Foster, H. (2011). The Art-Architecture Complex, New York: Verso, 6 & 96.
  9. Hantelmann, D. (2018). What is the new ritual space for the 21st century? Webpage of The Shed, Retrieved April 8, 2024 from https://www.theshed.org/program/series/2-a-prelude-to-the-shed/new-ritual-space-21st-century
  10. Harriss, H., & House, N. (2022). Working at the Intersection: Architecture after the Anthropocene, London: RIBA Publishing, 21-32.
  11. Hays, M. (2019). Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form, in: The Critical vs. The Post-critical: Discourses of Contemporary Architecture in the 2000s. (S. Cho, Trans.). Seoul: Architext, 33-67. (Original work published 1984)
  12. Kazi, O. (2009). Architecture as a dissident practice: an interview with Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Architectural Design, 79(1), 56-59.
  13. Kovacs, A. (2023). Very big art: follies, the public and multispace, Architectural Design, November, 86-93.
  14. Latour, B., & Hermant, E. (2006). Paris: Invisible City (L. Carey-Libbrecht Trans.). Paris: Institut Synthelabo, Retrieved April 8, 2024 from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/95
  15. Lee, K. (2013). A study on critical/post-critical debate of contemporary anglo-american architectural community, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 29(1), 143-150.
  16. Meeteren, L., & Wissink, B. (2019). Public art in the private city: control, complicity and criticality in Hong Kong, Open Philosophy, 2, 280-298. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2019-0020
  17. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1996). What do pictures 'really' want? October, 77, 71-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/778960
  18. Mitchell, W. J. T. (2002). Showing seeing: a critique of visual culture, Journal of Visual Culture, 1(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/147041290200100202
  19. MoMA. (n.d.). Cedric Price, Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood Project, Stratford East, London, England (Perspective), 1959-1961, Webpage of the Museum of Modern Art, Retrieved April 8, 2024 fromhttps://www.moma.org/collection/works/842?locale=en
  20. Rose, J., & Diller, E. (2017). Machine age. Artforum International, 56(3), Retrieved April 8, 2024 from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2047113433?accountid=15179&forcedol=true&forcedol=true
  21. Somol, R., & Whiting, S. (2019). Notes around the Doppler Effect and other moods of modernism, in: The Critical vs. The Post-critical: Discourses of Contemporary Architecture in the 2000s. (K. Lee, Trans.). Seoul, Architext, 33-67. (Original work published 2002)
  22. Teyssot, G. (1994). The mutant body of architecture, in: Flesh: Architectural Probes (E. Diller & R. Scofidio). Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 8-35.
  23. Zeiger, M. (2019). Feedback loops: or, past futures haunt architecture's present, Architectural Design, July, 46-53.