Andrea Zittel x
Foucault
- How
does Zittel’s work address constraints on the body as suggested by
Foucault?
- Why
and how is there a connection between Zittel’s desire for convenience and
Foucault’s idea of authority and control?
- How
does the limitation of space constrict the body, through Zittel’s work?
ANDREA
ZITTEL
- Mobile Living Units
o
Built
for convenience/personalized to minimum space but maximum utilities
o Ironically actually limits the body by confining it within a specific boundary
o Doesn't matter where you put the living unit, its boundaries will stay the same
- Carpet Furniture
o
Illusion
of what we attribute certain tasks to
o In reality it is an open three dimensional space, but limited mentally by the 2D to obstacles in the space
o Habit attributed limitations to the body
o
Power
of a simple outline – relate to Sandback
FOUCAULT-
Docile Bodies
- o Control and
organization of space of individuals
- o Setting up individual
spaces, distributing individual work
- o Perfection of a tasks
increases efficiency
You've got some strong initial observations here as in your response to Zittel in your previous post. Interestingly, you've left out the notion of ambiguity of form that you suggested was a feature of Carpet Furniture (and tied in to her statement about it). I think this suggests a much more nuanced reading of the work than simply seeing it as only conventionally inhabitable. I would suggest setting up some much more developed questions that help you to get beyond reading it in just this way. It may be something that could be better framed in terms of how it foregrounds our spatial relationships in terms of furniture and the boundaries created by them, as well as what happens when something dimensional and inhabitable is reduced simply to representation (as you suggest when you read it like an architecture drawing). (And it isn't as if this flattened surface doesn't have precedence in other cultures less invested in chairs and the raising of bodies off of the floor). I would suggest doing a lot more reading of the texts on Zittel's site for some of the literature and related "advertising," as well as for Zittel's own stance on the mobile homes. The mobility you note in your response as nomadic is not necessarily separate from the size of the units which you interpret only in terms of limits on the body. Think of the freedom of living small, what it may engender in terms of movement and inhabitation, redefining spatiality against normative notions of home and dwelling. How much space do we need to live? The spatial story is in the way these works are framed and conceptualized, lived as mobile (or not) in Zittel's own life, work, and practices, so be attentive to that in your questions as you develop them. Use more concrete concepts from de Certeau and Foucault to help you frame your questions.
ReplyDelete