This project is the subject of the master's thesis in architecture at the University of the Arts Berlin, supervised by Dagmar Pelger, Prof. Markus Bader, and Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christoph Gengnagel.
A bouquet of drawings whose lines the wind carries is a poem about the re-enactment of a fragment of Chris Marker's Immemory. A fragment made up of an image and words.
At a glance, in a few sentences, it would be possible to describe the situation captured by this photograph. But already the artist's words to present this CD-ROM project from which the image would be derived complicate this situation. How to re-enact this fragment? What happened before and after the taking of this photograph? What are the relationships between the image and the words? How to bring to life the plurality of interpretations? Chris Marker articulates an entry point to explore the intertwining of memory, space, and time. Imagining how to re-enact it is to imagine, in a certain way, the space of memory, the memory of space.
A complex simplicity is thus wagered in order to optimize experimentation with the open form, capable of harmonizing micro-politics. The intention is to envisage a future of spatial practice that is more just. To sketch an image of inclusive participation by facilitating the diversification of its appropriation. The reconstruction of this fragment starts from the hypothesis that if this concrete abstraction is not accessible to everyone, anyone can access it. What is formulated may be a risky but curious selection criterion. An engaged and engaging approach to a wide audience, which ventures with randomness and fantasy to avoid falling into the trap of labeling.
The hook experienced in view of this fragment makes it a guide to venture into unheard-of territories. It plays the role of baggage or companion to the spirit of invention that sees composition more as a journey. This anchoring serves as a reference point and allows experiencing architecture as an experimental practice based on exploratory research oriented towards the process. To experiment with its limits and potentials. The project aims to be an active form, where conception and realization are one. A space of undetermined spontaneity. A fertile land from which countless possibilities emerge, embracing the unexpected. Where in architecture we plan, draw plans, etc., here it is about already inhabiting the instant.
Forcing people to come closer often has the opposite effect. The superficiality that results from it is not truly susceptible to depth. Here, besides leaving room for interpretation, what is interesting in the re-enactment of an artistic body are the chances of experiencing something that pierces us. Since it is by touching one of my own vulnerabilities that Chris Marker's fragment gave life to the project, affect centers the object of its itinerant quest. This re-enactment aims to transmit this liminal piercing. In this, it is a generous and radical gesture. An act that puts its finger on the essence of resonance. Why do we resonate and how? What is resonance capable of and what do we seek to bring it to life? Going beyond common human relationships, the project weaves among its participants a relationship of its own. An authentic relationship made alive by the encounter and sharing of a sincere moment around the project.
As part of the Master's thesis in architecture at the Berlin University of the Arts Berlin, this project reappropriates the subject of the master's thesis in architecture, which it sees not as a space of knowledge but as a space of learning. A space that, perhaps, welcomes the expression of curiosity by taking care of it. It is a question of reflecting on the fragility of openness, a courageous openness. On the essence of conviviality and the architecture of human relations. This project aims to be an opportunity to set aside the filtered and ideal versions of ourselves in favor of what makes us troubled but profoundly human, and above all profoundly unique. Perhaps the essential thing is to know ourselves well enough to respect our differences. Authentic openness to the other is understood as a first step towards composing truly sustainable environments.
Beyond conceiving a safe space, the architect lives it. The safe space here seeks to offer everyone the opportunity to recognize their own intuitions, which may be fragile, to take care both of their expressions to others and of taking into account the expression of others. Attention extends where the encounter with diversity and its generative power can invent new modes of coexistence. Critical spatial practice is the performance of a space open to constructive criticism. Which welcomes and arranges it. A space of negotiations made of uncertain but precious compromises from which surprise becomes inevitable. A certain role of the architect is defended: that of enveloping a space of sensitivity and empathy. The concern for harmony here goes beyond spatial confinement, returning to the embedded and embodied architectural dimension. Recognizing human wandering and the scope of support, the aim is to move towards places of intimacy, complicity, and tenderness capable of creating radically sympathetic moments. It is through radical sympathy that interrelation is felt, arranging a position of attention to the other. This architect's stance as mediator allows for reimagining the methods and resources of spatial practices by paying attention to more complex understandings of relationships between beings, in order to broaden the current vocabulary of architecture. This re-enactment is an invitation to experience architecture in terms of a force that embraces.
In this perspective, the university is taken as a space to learn to grasp what one has to offer to its object of study. Learning to discern its singularity in order to position itself. This personal search for fulfillment and emancipation resonated among the participants. Where are we carried when we coincide our interests and our own competencies? What possible emergences between various coincidences?
The project's form itself resembles that of a seminar, but a seminar that, not being defined as such, was able to detach itself from its conditioning, to experiment with its limits and potentials. Group communication is stretched towards abstraction. How far can it poetically go? The felt difficulty of all coming together for a moment seems to stem from the sought dissolution of any work frame, in order to adapt the project to each individual. This flexibility was nevertheless deeply appreciated overall. At the risk that no one would devote time to the project, there is the chance that everyone would let themselves go. The project initiator does not present themselves as the teacher, nor do they formulate the object of their teaching beforehand. Hierarchies and expectations disintegrate to be reappropriated. By betting that the re-enactment of Chris Marker's fragment would teach us about life, life had to be allowed to happen. It is in this sense that the project initiator leaves their position as the center of gravity to take on that of gravitational force, the initial intention being to make this project a common project. This is how we accompanied each other along a certain sinuosity.
Throughout my architectural studies, I came across various concepts that intrigued me and that I wanted to put into practice in the context of the master's thesis by re-enacting this fragment onto which I projected them. A practical application of theory, literally. What is the reality of words? How to live them? The boundaries of the discipline of architecture risked being touched as its concepts were questioned. This critical reflection aimed to be constructive insofar as it raises questions while proposing possibilities, as evidenced by the project.
What manifests is an art of inquiry that is dynamically engaged with various languages, carriers of affection, enthusiasm, and subjectivity. The methodology of this project is intimately linked to the act of coming together around Chris Marker's fragment, its re-enactment emanating only from these occasions of being together, on the fly. A re-enactment of any kind. So many experiments that are based on the exploration of intuition, its modes of existence, its complexities. Since memory seems to step into the sub/unconscious landscape, it is with dialogue, a living, spontaneous, and instinctive expression, that it is widely explored here. Conversation as a method and listening as an approach have been essential to surpassing any prejudice and expectation. While language may be exclusive, deep listening may not be. Intimate exchange forms the heart of this care practice. In this way, conversation has guided the content, and the questions have arisen from their subjects and concerns. Stories are important because of their specificity and their complex connections to current debates. All the gathered knowledge participates in a network of thoughts and in some way connects us to a community of minds.
The practice of performative cartographic drawing is also discovered. Cartographic insofar as we trace the map of what remains in us from moments spent together. The limitation of the medium implies a certain selection. The richness of the anecdotal is revealed: intuitive fragments in their contexts. A moment for oneself to become aware of what is ultimately important for each one, and perhaps to orient ourselves more towards it. Performative in the sense that these cartographic drawings are meant to be shared, triggering new significant moments and their sequence. In this sense, what is drawn is the memory of a future. This performative cartographic drawing suggests how an archive can be a bearer of new archives. Especially by tracing the conditions under which such practices become constitutive of real moments. Beyond composing a memoir about memory in memory of Chris Marker, it focuses on each individual's universes and on the encounter and coexistence of these universes. The drawings reveal, among other things, group dynamics. Any difficulties experienced are transferred to the medium, which can be liberating. They appear in another form, a sensitive form. Which is only there to suggest, evoke. The sign of vulnerability transcends into a sign of detachment. This abstraction and corporality harmonize potential confrontations. The effort of drawing and the courage to share it are already recognized. It's a preventive act, a gesture that takes care of the assembly. We focus on fragility rather than leaving it aside. Drawing not only serves as a mediator between perception and reflection but also as a mediator between the various parties.
A moment of (re)discovery emerges during the transfer of all these various delicate fragments onto the canvas of the flying structure. In addition to bearing its imprint, the flying object is imbued with fragility due to its canvas and structure. Handmade, from papers, sticks, and threads, it requires palpable attention. The trial-and-error method we used to develop it solicits the participation of everyone in the development of the flying structure and supports the open form of the project. A risk-taking that rhymes with dependence on weather and acknowledges weather forecasts. The launching of this cartography into the air is an emancipatory gesture. A carrying lightness finally embraces this liberated fragility. It escapes us. The event of the re-enactment transforms into a celebration. It becomes a symbolic act.
It's also a way of getting to know each other. A certain beauty emanates from it. In addition to giving meaning to the project, revealing what makes it a common (project), it reveals the being-in-common that emanates from it. Varying the conditions of this practice to diversify it is a guarantee of fruitful experiments. If several of us experiment around this exercise, other forms of expression are encouraged. A performative cartography rises, like a form of joyful protest. Being able to be assembled and disassembled, what appears is an ephemeral architecture, of the moment, capable of seeing beyond its temporary and provisional utility, through the analysis of the movements that accompany it. These detours around Chris Marker's fragment postulate the existence of a plausible world. Something strange and bizarre manifests. It's a disruptive intervention. A conflictual aesthetics that interrupts, that leaves a mark. This re-enactment involves the act of reinterpretation as a form of spatial and temporal diversion. Sharing this action is part of a desire to cultivate it, notably by taking a form that seeks to arouse curiosity.
Full of self-reflection and self-criticism, this progress takes the time it needs. Eventually, it resembles what true change can be, lasting change in the long term. A change on our scale: the human scale. From drawing to sharing drawings, to transferring drawings onto the canvas of the flying structure, everything is filmed. Due to the difficulty of gathering all project participants simultaneously, methods are deployed to facilitate access to all collected archives. However, their digitization was a hindrance to their appropriation. By examining access to information, we are also looking at its role in the micro-politics of the project. The hypothesis that an archive is not only a storage place but also a production site allows us to grasp documentary practice as a moment of negotiation and expression. Each meeting around the project is recorded, assuming a certain selection. If archiving lacks democratization, the use of accessible and therefore appropriable recording technology democratizes viewpoints. The film reveals what cannot be revealed either by performative cartographic drawing or by the flying structure. Touching moments of resonance, instances of sharing, and support were collected through continuous recording. The DIY aesthetic of the film reflects the DIY democratization of this fragile intuition. What this film potentially underlines is the atmosphere of our meetings. It is also the portrait of each one that emerges.
The screening of the film allows sharing with the entire group the experience hitherto somewhat fragmented of the project initiator with each of the participants. In doing so, it becomes a collective experience that gives visibility not only to enriching, stimulating, and emancipatory practices but also to the beauty of each having taken part. This screening is a way to thank both all direct and indirect actors without whom this project would not have come to life, and the various spaces that welcomed us to experience it. The film offers a look at the background: the various spaces and their practitioners who, each in their own way, accompanied the project. Too often taken for granted, it is also their potential and limits that are revealed. The role of the architect extends to that of an ethnographer or even an auto-ethnographer who identifies the various solidarity initiatives and the complex networks that underlie them. The screening of the film at the sites where the project developed is part of this desire to move away from the institutional island of the architecture university to greet the vibrant living environments it studies and from which it teaches its students something every day.
The transition from a photograph to a film is the essence of this re-enactment project. By documenting the entire action, the film aims to tell the story of the project: its process and the complexity of its mechanisms, avoiding falling into romanticism. The fictional narration of Chris Marker's fragment intertwines with the documentation of its re-enactment. The documentary film constitutes a complete mapping. By pushing the boundaries of architecture, this project may also push the boundaries of cinematography. It aims to be transdisciplinary, even anti-disciplinary, in order to more accurately embrace the complexity of life. Life unfolds in the spaces that architects design, and this life is complex. The film, the performative cartographic drawing, and the flying structure are all facets that highlight the intention to address a broader audience and affirm the architect's predisposition to explore diverse languages. The project occupies space and influences it. It is a space in itself, a space for inclusion and diversity, a living space capable of serendipity. Projecting the film onto the canvas of the flying structure, onto which the performative cartographic drawing is transferred, brings cohesion to the whole. This project emphasizes the aesthetics of ambiguity and fluidity. Exploring the in-betweens, intersections, crossings, and overlaps, the re-enactment of this fragment travels through a variety of forms to tell the nuances of its story.
This project speaks of (im)possibility. A (im)possibility that underscores the need to reclaim our imagination and creativity. Re-enacting Chris Marker's fragment allows us to seize the narrative power of fiction, to activate its metaphorical potential to make and remake worlds. Enriching social imagination, potentially constitutive of social reality, is at the heart of this project. If the project may not be architectural in essence, it is certainly a celebration of architecture. It speaks with emergency of the emergence of other kind of spatial practices.
This project was carried out in 2023 by Chloé Binh-Cirlot, with Theodora Boese, Sofia Ogarkova, Jeanne Massacrier, Armando Emanuele and Naomi Cassim.
Many thanks to all those who, each in their own way, helped this project to come to life: Dagmar Pelger, Markus Bader, Christoph Gengnagel, Anna Kokalanova, Juan Chacon, Silvia Gioberti, Giovanni Betti, Eddie Farrell, Nadja Müller, Martin Baier, Elias Eichhorn, Philippe Binh-Cirlot, Daphné Lejeune, Ehua Kassi, Inga Ivanova, Arthur Violain-Jarry, Emma Seach, Lisa Marie Bador, Louis Fralin, Moritz Zeisner, Pablo Diserens, Cecilia Muurgia, Sofia Lambrou, Aude Vignac, Paul Thomas, Oliver Gudzowski, Jakob Köchert, Zoya Solovieva, Ilya Soloviev, Alfredo Bonomo, Markus Krispel, Dina Vainchtein, Menes Zlatoper, Suzana Benesova, Corinne Diserens, André Roboredo, Vetra Bikes, Backsteinboot, Raum für Kunst e. V., ROQUEBRUNE 83, Universität der Künste Berlin.