3/31 Style Wars

The title of the film itself, "Style Wars" accurately describes the juxtaposition of views on graffiti from both sides. The graffiti artists show such passion and purpose in what others view as destructive vandalism. For the graffiti artists, they are not out to destroy the city and subways, but as an interviewee said, "it's a matter of knowing I can do it, it's for me, and knowing we can read it". The art of 'bombing" is writing one name over and over again, essentially seeing how big you can make this name. By choosing the subways as their canvas, these graffitis are carried all over the city day and night repetitively. The graffiti thus is significant in the way they take the artist's name, and bring it to the eyes of many to be recognized. It serves as an occupation of space following the subway lines. One graffiti artist spoke of "bombing" at least one train on every line. 

The spatial occupation of the graffiti does not merely follow the trajectory of the subway itself, but because it is a visual tool, it links anybody who catches sight of the graffiti. Furthermore, the language of graffiti is only legible and beautiful in the eyes of another graffiti artist. Taking the graffiti throughout the city connects different artists, in a sense their "intertwined paths give their shape spaces. They weave places together" as suggested by De Certeau (97). The graffiti provides a connection between spaces. Instead of just a subway travelling on its course, the subway is transformed into a tool with the purpose to occupy and mark out space. 

3/16 Zittel x Foucault Essay

Controlled Convenience:

Docility of the body as a product of Andrea Zittel’s artworks originally created for convenience of the body

 

“What you own, owns you” (Andrea Zittel). Artist Andrea Zittel works at a very personal level to redesign the daily objects of life that are often taken for granted in the form they were originally designed. Inspired by her own specific needs, Zittel creates artworks that adhere to her lifestyle. However, ironically by creating work that perfectly adheres to individuals, it becomes a very limiting boundary that will only allow the specific person to perform the specific actions Zittel designed for. This specification relates to Foucault’s “Docile Bodies”, particularly through the way Zittel’s work actually utilizes several of the methods Michel Foucault suggests can control bodies and actions. Zittel’s works “Mobile Living Units” (1993-1994) and “Carpet Furniture” (1992-1993) demonstrate this ironic restriction where a tool for personalized convenience becomes a tool to create limited docile bodies.

 

Andrea Zittel is an artist who works in several mediums, scales, and locations. As mentioned, Zittel works at a very personal level, creating things to fit to her or her clients’ needs. Zittel’s works often consist of customized pieces, for example furniture, small living units, and so on. Due to the personalization of her works, Zittel’s projects are born out of the convenience for their users or occupants. In support, Michel Foucault’s writing in “Docile Bodies” centers around the concept of how discipline and punishment can be used to control people. Foucault observes how the most obedient bodies are achieved through various deliberate and external measures by an authority figure. For instance, Foucault argues that division and organization is an essential aspect to controlling individuals by breaking up communities. This gives each individual a personal place where they are separately assigned their tasks. Furthermore, Foucault describes how making a habit out of a task of an individual controls them as they are physically docile, and accustomed, to the action. Although not Zittel’s original intention, Zittel’s works act as an authority figure, or boundary, that controls its’ users actions.

 

            Zittel’s work “Mobile Living Units” was inspired by her own experience of having to move from a large house in California to a small and cramped up apartment in New York. Zittel began considering the effect of one’s spatial boundaries in their daily activities. Furthermore, she had taken for granted a large living space, but was now confined to a much smaller space. Yet still, the much smaller space functions to adhere to all her needs. Thus Zittel created the “Mobile Living Units”, a project of minimum space but maximum utility. “The units typically provide a bed, closet and storage space, table and cooking area, all of which collapse into one self-contained unit on wheels for easy transport, like a pop-up camping trailer. One can’t help but notice that, in Zittel’s search for functionality, streamlined simplicity and efficiency, comfort often seems to be sacrificed” (Cash, 128). Simple functionality is the main purpose of these living units. The living units do not even have building rules to conform to; they are created only to consider its occupants’ needs. This is suggestive of how these living units are in fact very liberating and free of rules. However, still they have the effect of limiting their occupant according to the boundaries of its functionality.

 

            Zittel’s living units serve as methods for controlling bodies as Foucault suggests, through the use of enclosure, separation, and utility.  The living units create an enclosed and separated space for its specific inhabitants. “Discipline sometimes requires enclosure, the specification of a place heterogeneous to all others and closed in upon itself,”(Foucault, 74) the living units serve as a closed space regardless of where it is because of its mobile nature. In theory, the living unit could be set up anywhere and regardless of what was happening outside, the inhabitant inside could continue their daily routines normally. Furthermore, in these small compartments, “each individual has his own place; and each place is individual” (Foucault, 75). This characteristic of the living units isolates the inhabitant and confines them to the boundary of the unit. This “individual place” becomes the limitations to the inhabitant. Hence, the body is docile to the unit. Zittel did not begin the project to control one’s body, but rather for one’s convenience in a small space. However, the units actually serve to discipline one’s body. Foucault states, “a disciplined body is the prerequisite of an efficient gesture” (Foucault, 82). This statement links back to Zittel’s original intent- to create a space that was efficient in its functions for specific individuals.

 

Another piece by Zittel titled “Carpet Furniture” done in 1992-1993 also serves to confine the body to space. However, unlike the “Mobile Living Units” where the space within the unit was clearly the boundary, “Carpet Furniture” controls the body through two dimensional means. We are accustomed to the sight of common furniture such as bed and chairs, and we can easily recognize the two dimensional outlines of these objects. Zittel takes the top view of furniture and creates carpets of different compositions. “Striking carpets with geometric forms that indicate aerial views of a “bed”, “chair” or “table,” allows floorbound users to change a room’s function simply by switching the rug. Like the emperor’s new clothes or a children’s game of house, the virtual furniture takes a leap of faith, essentially bringing order to the air in a room” (Cash, 128). In this piece, the spatial quality of the room is instantaneously changed by the carpet placed on the floor. The carpet which is the confining boundary is actually set by our own habitual attributions of object to function.

 

In reality, there is a room of open three dimensional space, but mentally it is limited by the two dimensional patterns. This project brings out how our bodies are in fact already controlled and docile to certain things. Like Foucault’s example of a soldier’s posture, some actions become a habit, “the machine required can be constructed; posture is gradually corrected; a calculated constraint runs slowly through each part of the body, mastering it, making it pliable, ready at all times, turning silently into the automatism of habit” (Foucault, 75). It is our habit to recognize a bed as a place to lie down, a chair as a place to sit and so on. We are trained to recognize these objects, to such an extent that even two dimensional representations can activate these habits. While just changing a flat carpet in an empty room, really there are boundaries and limitations being set up in the room because of our habitual attributions of functions.

 

Although Zittel’s “Carpet Furniture” seem to restrict the body because of human habit to recognize outlines, the counterargument is that this form of restriction is in fact liberating through its limitations. Zittel’s list of “These Things I Know For Sure” addresses the conflict between liberation and limitation. Number 10 states that “What makes us feel liberated is not total freedom, but rather living in a set of limitations that we have created and prescribed for ourselves”. Zittel suggests that although in Foucault’s terms her work may be restrictive, creating docile bodies, this restriction is actually positive as the individual does not feel that they are being restricted. Zittel further reiterates this point in number 11, “Things that we think are liberating can ultimately become restrictive, and things that we initially think are controlling can sometimes give us a sense of comfort and security”. Not only is restriction comforting, but in fact the empty room with a meaningless carpet is actually unsettling.

 

Zittel’s work is in some way ironic because although born for a means of convenience and simplicity, they really serve as constrictions to the body. Zittel once said, “I want to create a world and live in it completely”. This statement shines throughout her work, where she builds things to fulfill the needs of her world, yet building a specific world confines one to the very specific things it was built for, creating a docile body in Foucault’s terms.

 

 

 

Citations

Foucault, Michel. "Docile Bodies." Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977. 75-95. Print.

Cash, Stephanie. "A-Z And Everything In Between." Art in America Apr. 2006: 124-131. Print.

3/10 Controlled Convenience

Ann Chai

Lit and Crit/ Prof Sacha Frey

Controlled Convenience

“What you own, owns you” (Andrea Zittel). Artist Andrea Zittel works at a very personal level to redesign the daily objects of life that are often taken for granted in the form they were originally designed. Inspired by her own specific needs, Zittel creates artworks that adhere to her lifestyle. However, ironically by creating work that perfectly adheres to individuals, it becomes a very limiting boundary that will only allow the specific person to perform the specific actions Zittel designed for. This specification relates to Foucault’s “Docile Bodies”, particularly through the way Zittel’s work actually utilizes several of the methods Michel Foucault suggests can control bodies and actions. Zittel’s works “Mobile Living Units” (1993-1994) and “Carpet Furniture” (1992-1993) demonstrate this ironic restriction where a tool for personalized convenience becomes a tool to create limited docile bodies.

            Zittel’s work “Mobile Living Units” was inspired by her own experience of having to move from a large house in California to a small and cramped up apartment in New York. Zittel began considering the effect of one’s living spatial boundaries on their daily activities. Furthermore, she had taken for granted a large living space, but was now confined to a much smaller space. Yet still, the much smaller space functions to adhere to all her needs. Thus Zittel created the “Mobile Living Units”, a project of minimum space but maximum utility. “The units typically provide a bed, closet and storage space, table and cooking area, all of which collapse into one self-contained unit on wheels for easy transport, like a pop-up camping trailer. One can’t help but notice that, in Zittel’s search for functionality, streamlined simplicity and efficiency, comfort often seems to be sacrificed” (Stephanie Cash, 128). Functionality is the main purpose of these living units.

            Zittel’s living units serve as methods for controlling bodies as Foucault suggests, through the use of enclosure, separation, and utility.  The living units create an enclosed and separated space for its specific inhabitants. “Discipline sometimes requires enclosure, the specification of a place heterogeneous to all others and closed in upon itself,”(74) the living units serve as a closed space regardless of where it is because of its mobile nature. In theory, the living unit could be set up anywhere and regardless of what was happening outside, the inhabitant inside could continue their daily routines normally. Furthermore, in these small compartments, “each individual has his own place; and each place is individual” (75). This characteristic of the living units isolates the inhabitant and confines them to the boundary of the unit. This “individual place” becomes the limitations to the inhabitant. Hence, the body is docile to the unit. Zittel did not begin the project to control one’s body, but rather for one’s convenience in a small space. However, the units actually serve to discipline one’s body. Foucault states, “a disciplined body is the prerequisite of an efficient gesture” (82). This statement links back to Zittel’s original intent- to create a space that was efficient in its functions for specific individuals.

Another piece by Zittel titled “Carpet Furniture” done in 1992-1993 also serves to confine the body to space. However, unlike the “Mobile Living Units” where the space within the unit was clearly the boundary, “Carpet Furniture” controls the body through two dimensional means. We are accustomed to the sight of common furniture such as bed and chairs, and we can easily recognize the two dimensional outlines of these objects. Zittel takes the top view of furniture and creates carpets of different compositions. “Striking carpets with geometric forms that indicate aerial views of a “bed”, “chair” or “table,” allows floorbound users to change a room’s function simply by switching the rug. Like the emperor’s new clothes or a children’s game of house, the virtual furniture takes a leap of faith, essentially bringing order to the air in a room” (Cash, 128). In this piece, the confining boundary is set by our own habitual attributions of object to function.

In reality, there is a room of open three dimensional space, but mentally it is limited by the two dimensional patterns. This project brings out how our bodies are in fact already controlled and docile to certain things. Like Foucault’s example of a soldier’s posture, some actions become a habit, “the machine required can be constructed; posture is gradually corrected; a calculated constraint runs slowly through each part of the body, mastering it, making it pliable, ready at all times, turning silently into the automatism of habit” (75). It is our habit to recognize a bed as a place to lie down, a chair as a place to sit and so on. We are trained to recognize these objects, to such an extent that even two dimensional representations can activate these habits. While just changing a flat carpet in an empty room, really there are boundaries and limitations being set up in the room because of our habitual attributions of functions.

Zittel’s work is in some way ironic because although born for a means of convenience and simplicity, they really serve as constrictions to the body. Zittel once said, “I want to create a world and live in it completely”. This statement shines throughout her work, where she builds things to fulfill the needs of her world, yet building a specific world confines one to the very specific things it was built for, creating a docile body in Foucault’s terms.

3/5 Zittel Essay Proposal

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 

2/26 Responses

ANDREA ZITTEL
In what way does Andrea Zittel's work tell a spatial story? What are the characteristics of that story, and what does it suggest about her definition of space? In what way does Andrea Zittel's work deal with the constraints on the body that Foucault suggests? (Consider projects like mobile living units, uniform project, wagon stations, Time Lapse Studies). In what way does her work function to "authorize the establishment, displacement, or transcendence of limits" (de Certeau 123) in relation to various spatial and temporal constraints on the body?

Andrea Zittel works operate on a very personal level that creates a spatial story for individual people. Zittel’s creations are meant to be tailored to the bodies and spatial needs of individuals, which may appear as a very convenient thing. However, these perfectly tailored works in turn limit one’s body and subsequent spatial stories to be constricted only to the original intention. Zittel creates what is initially a helpful tool, yet becomes a limitation or boundary. Such effects are evident in Zittel’s works “Carpet Furniture” and “Mobile Living Units”.

In Andrea Zittel's work "Carpet Furniture", carpet designs show the top view of all sorts of furniture, namely beds, desks, and tables. Zittel even goes to the extent of completing the details by adding "true" elements to the carpets, for example putting a vase of flowers on the carpet desk. Interestingly, Zittel's carpet designs essentially imitate what an architecture plan showing the interior furniture would look like. However we know that this is a two dimensional representation and contains no solid volumes that form what we know as furniture. Still, the two dimensional outlines are still recognizable to us as furniture, thus the carpet is no longer just a carpet, but a divider of space. There is where the bed is, and where the desk is. As seen in Zittel's images, people are resting on the "beds". If I walked into this room and were to sleep, I would likely sleep on the "bed" instead of just anywhere on the rug as well. We are conditioned to set function and value to certain objects, even if it's an illusion.

In terms of De Certeau, Zittel's piece deals with the idea of spatial boundaries and its division. It is as if each outline creates a threshold that limits one's actions. People automatically attribute "spatial stories" to familiar objects, for instance as mentioned earlier, one would attribute "sleeping" to "bed", even if this space is not actually a bed. Zittel's work on carpet furniture really reminds me of Sanback's work - using simple visual illusion to divide space and limit one's spatial movement. Just because the carpet outlines certain furniture, people tend to associate its function with the three dimensional objects that are actually not present.


            Another example of establishing limits through the intention of bringing convenience is seen in Zittel’s work “Mobile Living Units”. This was a very personal project Zittel created for herself. She had been observing her own daily living needs in a small space, the boundaries inflicted on her, the boundaries she creates for herself, the spatial stories generated in these boundaries, and such. With this, Zittel designed and eventually perfected a small living unit that included everything she needed in the smallest amount of space. At a glance this is a very practical project that saves space, time, and energy. However, actually living in this small unit for a prolonged period of time could be very uncomfortable. By setting up one’s own daily spatial boundaries to such confined limits, Zittel’s work of convenience becomes a paralyzing boundary.

Zittel’s Mobile Living Unit serves to “authorize the establishment…of limits” (de Certeau 123). The fact that Zittel titled this piece a “mobile” living unit, shows how this unit has a very temporary and nomad quality to it. A self-inflicted limiting boundary, Zittel confines all her spatial actions into a few square feet. However at the same time, this living unit could be placed anywhere that could house it. In a sense Zittel has created a unit that is unlimited in its mobility, but very limited in its own spatial boundaries. Essentially this mobile living unit is a stage for Zittel’s daily spatial stories.

TRAIN DREAMS
In what way does Denis Johnson's book create a spatial story from the framework of  historical narrative that frames this book? What boundaries are marked or transgressed, how is the frontier established or confused?  Look at de Certeau to help you with the definitions of these terms. What does Johnson's narrative tell us about the various constraints on the body suggested by Foucault, especially in the framework  of American expansionism, and its concomitant stories of exploitation and loss? Consider the way Johnson uses narrative (and narrative figures like the "frontier and the bridge")  to "set and transgress limits" of the spatial history of the United States.

Denis Johnson’s “Train Dreams” illustrates the extraordinary time frame of the twentieth century in the American West. Robert Grainer, an ordinary man in this framework, tries to make sense of this historical period. Boundaries and frontiers in “Train Dreams” are the time frames. American expansionism was a period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century where America believed it had to keep expanding its borders to continue running strong. What is interesting about Grainier’s character is that he has crossed the frontier because he has been to both sides, before and after the twentieth century and its changes. Another border in the novel is that between the Americans and foreigners. For example the Chinese man in the first chapter and the Kootenai Bob. The Americans obviously treated these foreigners with less value, as seen from the first chapter where Grainier and the other men did not have qualms about killing the Chinese man.  Another boundary is Grainier’s ties to the train and railroad. He has “been all over this country. Canada, too. Never a hundred yards from these rails and ties”. Grainier’s spatial activity is limited by the constant track of the train.

Critical Discussion Questions 

How is death and human suffering understood by Grainier?
What aspects of life in the West stayed the same for Grainier and what changed, did he change with these things? 

2/19 Andrea Zittel "Carpet Furniture"

In Andrea Zittel's work "Carpet Furniture", carpet designs show the top view of all sorts of furniture, namely beds, desks, and tables. Zittel even goes to the extent of completing the details by adding "true" elements to the carpets, for example putting a vase of flowers on the carpet desk. Interestingly, Zittel's carpet designs essentially imitate what an architecture plan showing the interior furniture would look like. However we know that this is a two dimensional representation and contains no solid volumes that form what we know as furniture. Still, the two dimensional outlines are still recognizable to us as furniture, thus the carpet is no longer just a carpet, but a divider of space. There is where the bed is, and where the desk is. As seen in Zittel's images, people are resting on the "beds". If I walked into this room and were to sleep, I would likely sleep on the "bed" instead of just anywhere on the rug as well. We are conditioned to set function and value to certain objects, even if it's an illusion.

I chose the aphorism "ambiguity in visual design ultimately leads to a great variety of functions than designs that are functionally fixed". Zittel's design here gives the audience the option to view the carpet as they wish - as a simple carpet, or as boundaries of space. It can be used both ways, and it is completely dependent upon the audience. This gives the audience the freedom to create a function for the carpet furniture, instead of the fixated functions of "sitting on a chair" or "lying down on the bed".

In terms of De Certeau, Zittel's piece deals with the idea of spatial boundaries and its division. It is as if each outline creates a threshold that limits one's actions. People automatically attribute "spatial stories" to familiar objects, for instance as mentioned earlier, one would attribute "sleeping" to "bed", even if this space is not actually a bed. Zittel's work on carpet furniture really reminds me of Sanback's work - using simple visual illusion to divide space and limit one's spatial movement. Just because the carpet outlines certain furniture, people tend to associate its function with the three dimensional objects that are actually not present.
sandback

2/17 Foucault Summary

One can sense from afar a soldier’s presence through his stance, demeanor, and figure. Soldiers serve as an example of an ideally conditioned and tailored population. In “Docile Bodies”, Focault introduces the concept of easily manipulated populations. Focault proposes various methods of controlling a body, related to enclosure, organization, time, distribution, and activity.

 

Enclosure of each individual is Focault’s first proposed key of creating discipline in a population. Enclosure creates a “protected place of disciplinary monotony” (78). Creating a monastic cell not only gives each individual their own space and place, it also partitions the population. This partitioning breaks up the communities in the population. Communities are detrimental to creating docile bodies as it gives the subjects of control their own control. Furthermore, enclosed partitioning  “establishes presences and absences” so that the ones in control can keep tabs on the subjects (79).

 

The organization of the enclosed population is also integral to control. “It is spaces that provide fixed positions and permit circulation; they carve out individual segments and establish operational links; they mark places and indicate values; they guarantee the obedience of individuals” (81). Circulation is key to the organization of enclosure as it determines the pathway of each individual.  For example, every worker would have to pass a particular sign to go to the work site, or a guard’s station would be elvated from cells to overlook the inmates. How a space is organized determines how it is used.

 

 To develop discipline, a rigorous and strict time table must be employed, “Precision and application are, with regularity, the fundamental virtues of disciplinary time”(83). A time table or schedule can most efficiently organize and control each individual’s use of time. Dividing work with time creates predetermined actions that each most perform at specific times.

 

              Distribution of work also plays a role in Foucault’s argument as he explains how idle time is wasted time. Enclosure is important to eliminate idle time, “By assigning individual places it made possible the supervision of each individual and the simultaneous work of all” (81). Each individual not only has his or her own space, but they have their own task in this particular enclosure. This organized system is easy to control and clear to understand. It is also much more productive.

 

Lastly, perfection of activity or gesture is also a means to create mechanical and efficient workers. Foucault uses the example of perfect handwriting, and how it involves not only the hand but the entire body and its posture and control. Establishing this type of control in one’s action trains their body to become docile, and at the same time increases production because correct activity allows maximum productivity.