Architecture are artefacts that remain. They are prescriptive by nature – a design that plans a space, proposes behaviours and determines conducts. A design plots, projects itself from a distance in an attempt to organise life, which, in its everyday struggle, hits back, subverts, reprograms and resignifies.
Confrontations that inform these kinds of design will inevitably have their original intentions betrayed by forms of use. Architectures are reorganised by bodies and human activity, constantly overlapping and in rhetorical contention with the physical model.
Taken as a symptom of ideologies, architecture can rekindle utopic ideals, let itself be intersected by other elements and presences, act as social-political exercise and scrutiny. A plenary, a known architectural form, a national symbol, which, replicated ad nauseam, becomes a worn out, far away image, like a set in a media event. In opposition, an installation informed by this plenary reedits that form as a non-affirmative model to be occupied.
To arrange what is necessary, to give rise to different and dissenting voices. To trigger potential reversals so that the unpredictable might flourish in an unstable and democratic process, as proven by the “the game of power” .
To propose a rig party against rigging: where children slide, actors move, under ramps and hiding places, to meditate on a night of celebration, among the objects we keep, display or bring with us, of so many silenced female voices, on what we grow and eat, before the challenge of black bodies in a white world, for the free and present movement of senior citizens in the city, after the regular visitor’s siesta, without a blue chip, from Brasília, to London, before the Ipiranga.