Upon having to reflect on reading after reading, I have started to see the relation to some of keywords and topics. In this reading, there was talk about architecture being built for, and experienced by bodies, and how Lozano-Hemmer’s work challenges the supposition that buildings control bodies. It was similar to the reading Space and Place, which talked about space being relevant to the body, and how a space is kind of configured to work certain ways, and to have certain affordances. It was also similar to how Peter Zumthor’s Atmospheres were a lot about feelings and emotions, aside from the physical complexities that came with architecture.

Then there was the addition of technology, in addition to the way one could perceive architectures and spaces among bodies. “Bodies, buildings, cities and technologies are conceptually and functionally interconnected.” I felt like it was an important quote that talks about any sort of space to be honest, given the day and age we were in. I would have said “interactive, or not” but really, most spaces were already supposed to be interactive in being able to afford different things. To be in a space is to interact with it, but to create interactivity through artistic forms is something that Lozano-Hemmer talks about.

“Relational architecture”. Lozano-Hemmer talks about wanting to transform the dominant narratives of a specific building or urban setting, by “superimposing audiovisual elements to affect it, effect it and recontextualise it”. From my understanding, it’s to make a place believable. A space does not have to be physical walls and ceilings, but virtually made as well. Through the use of technology, a space can be virtually created, and in a sense, “simulated”. But as I read on, Lozano-Hemmer talks about not liking life to be reduced to a simulation, and in fact, creates anti-monuments for dissimulation. So to be honest, I don’t really get it. Can we not create a simulated space to create a new experience? Or was he talking about creating these experiences by perceiving them differently?

Moving on, the article goes on to talk about Lozano-Hemmer’s Body Movies: Relational Architecture 6 (2001), which makes use of shadows and public interaction. There were numerous discoveries made upon moving from location to location. Guesses were made based on location culture, but were often wrong. Where people were expected to be more rigid and strict, they started to play with their shadows. There was so much to play around with the interactivity of shadows, and how humans would think of their bodies as stable entities. This again brings back the concept of how bodies were interrelated with its surroundings and technologies.

“Interactive digital art requires the bodily participation of the viewer in order to manifest and behave.” Without the body, there is no interactivity, and no ability for response or change. It makes sense, of course, because how else were we supposed to perceive things of a physical space without being there? But of course, the participant must also be willing to play their part, which is a key point in Lozano-Hemmer’s designs of relational architecture. For something in a machine to change and be perceived different it has to be act upon by the human. This is how body, building, and technology has to work together.