Context

The essay discusses representation and architectural theory through the lens of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), a framework developed by Bruno Latour, and others. ANT emphasizes that meaning and definition come from relationships and that those are forever shifting. Therefore, the dynamic and interconnected nature of social and material worlds challenges the sometimes static or isolated views of objects. The essay was published in 2017, a period marked by increasing interest in interdisciplinary approaches in architecture. ANT had already gained popularity since the late 1980s for its appeal in recognizing non-human engagement.

Author

Albena Yaneva is an architectural theorist and sociologist. She held various academic positions, including professorships at the University of Manchester and the Politecnico di Torino. Her research spans science studies, cognitive anthropology, architectural theory, and political philosophy.

Summary

In the essay, Yaneva draws an analogy between Etienne Jules Marey’s physiology of movement, which captured the movement of guns or birds in successive freeze-frames, and the need for a similar conceptual tool in architecture. She argues that buildings are often perceived as static objects, but in reality, they are dynamic entities that undergo perpetual transformation. Current architectural drawings in Euclidian space do not account for the continuous flow in which buildings always are. In short, drawn space is neither built space nor lived space. The world of representation in Descartes’ Res Extensa attempts to reduce materiality to objectivity but omits factors such as zoning limits, financing schemes, citizen protests, material behavior, trends, and client concerns since they are not translated in construction documents.

Yaneva furthers that the maintenance and agency of buildings-in-flight requires representation beyond perspective drawings and projective geometry. A reviewed and less limiting visual vocabulary would help designers imagine buildings as “moving modulators” regulating different engagements and forces. By applying ANT, Yaneva suggests that we can better understand buildings as networks of interactions and processes rather than fixed structures. This perspective allows for a more nuanced appreciation of the fluid and evolving nature of architectural projects and a recognition of the value of transformation.

Criticism

The promise of less human-centered approaches in humanities and sciences had a profound impact on the ontological understanding of architectural theory. Nonetheless, ontological approaches like OOO and ANT currently lack applicability in practice. Some critics argue that Yaneva’s application of ANT to architecture is overly theoretical. Others appreciate the innovative approach but question the feasibility of fully capturing the dynamic nature of buildings through existing practices and representations.

I recommend this essay to those interested in Actor-Network Theory. It provides a unique perspective on architecture, emphasizing the interconnectedness and fluidity of buildings. Yaneva’s insights challenge traditional views and encourage readers to think critically about representation and the dynamic processes that shape architectural spaces. The essay is worthwhile to anyone exploring the application of theorists like Whitehead, Guattari, Vesely, and Latour in more recent discourse.