Tagsadvertisement
architecture
art
assignment
Barack Obama
Comics
design
fashion
film
graphic design
Hillary Clinton
Humor
In-class Exercise
information design
Iraq
Maps
news
Pedagogy
pedagogy examples
photography
photography
Political Propaganda
politics
Propaganda
science
visual art
Visual Rhetoric
war
Writing Exercise
youtube
NavigationDisclaimerThese blog entries represent the views of their authors, not necessarily those of the CWRL, the University of Texas at Austin, or any of its affiliated entities. |
The rhetoric of wandering around your apartment in your bathrobeSubmitted by John Jones on Wed, 2007-11-07 15:33.architecture | rhetoric of | voyeurism
The New York Times has an article on architects Jeremy Fletcher and Alejandra Lillo of Graft, who have designed a new condo tower in Manhattan, the W Downtown, with glass walls. According to Fletcher and Lillo, the purpose of the see-through design is to “[work] out a dialogue between voyeurism and exhibitionism”:
My first thought when reading this piece was that if someone wanted to expose his or herself to a roommate or family member, it could be done without peekaboo windows. More germane to this blog, I find the focus on performance to be very interesting. The author of the article, Penelope Green, connects this trend in architecture to Facebook and YouTube, where users regularly “expose” the intimate details of their lives for all the world to see. The difference between the two, Green points out, is that the information users post to these sites is “conscious,” that is, carefully chosen and scripted to present an image that the user wants to project, while the mundane details of day-to-day living is “unconscious.” Fletcher points out that his and Lillo’s design is open to the kind of careful choreography available online:
However, the reality of living in a glass house seems more likely to lend itself to this experience:
The article then ventures into questions of what we will do if we have to perform all the time, without having a private retreat to some place where we can drape our towels with abandon. It’s an interesting read. Trackback URL for this post:http://viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/trackback/180
|
Recent comments
|

The questions about perpetual performance and the dissolution of Goffman's backstage spaces is interesting, but the real question I think the building begs scholars to answer is what happens to the categories of exhibitionism and voyeurism when those brands of showing and watching are no longer intentional violations but conditions of everyday life. Maybe that's the building's point, but when the friction of violating a norm is removed, when voyeurism and exhibitionism aren't transgressions against decorum but a mere fact of living, it seems that we come close to giving a semi-legitimate name to a totalizing and potentially oppressive surveillance.