Symposium I
Symposium II
Exhibition / 52-Hour-Lab
Jean-Baptiste Joly
Vorbemerkungen zu
»Dealing with Fear«

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht
Since When and Why Are We Afraid
of the Future?

Bertrand Bacqué, Ingrid Wildi Merino
Beetween Fear as a Spectacle
and Interiorized Fear

Vadim Bolshakov
Genetic Roots of Instinctive
and Learned Fear

David N. Bresch
Von irrationalen Ängsten
zu versicherbaren Risiken

Paula Diehl
Dealing with Fear
The Mise en Scène of the SS
in National Socialist Propaganda

Björn Franke
Violent Machines for Troubled Times

Teresa Hubbard, Beate Söntgen
Home and Fear
An Email-Conversation
after the Symposium’s Talk

Iassen Markov, Stephan Trüby
Temple of Janus 2.0
The 5 Codes_Space of Conflict

Jürgen Mayer H., Henry Urbach
Mind the Gap
A Transcript of the Symposium’s Talk

Matthias Aron Megyeri
Sweet Dreams Security® Est. 2003
Notes from an Orwellian City

Jasmeen Patheja, Hemangini Gupta
Fear as Experienced
by Women in Their Cities

Ortwin Renn, Andreas Klinke
Von Prometheus zur Nanotechnologie
Der gesellschaftliche Umgang
mit Risiken und Bedrohungen

Gabi Schillig
The Politics of Lines.
On Architecture/War/Boundaries
and the Production of Space

Gerald Siegmund, Maren Rieger
Die Another Day: Dealing with Fear

Jens Martin Skibsted, Adam Thorpe
Liberty versus Security:
Bikes versus Bombs

Helene Sommer
High over the Borders
Stories of Hummingbirds, Crying Wolves,
and the Bird’s Eye View

Yi Shin Tang
Dealing with the Fear of Abuse
of Intellectual Property Rights
in a Globalized Economy

Margarete Vöhringer
Keine Angst im Labor
Nikolaj Ladovskijs psychotechnische
Architektur im postrevolutionären Moskau

Susanne M. Winterling
Dealing with Fear: an Inside
and an Outside Perspective

Photo Gallery

Gabi Schillig
The Politics of Lines.
On Architecture/War/Boundaries and the Production of Space

“Architecture has always been serving power and authority society. It has always been serving wealth and the wealthy and is certainly going on to play this role further, because it is suitable for monumentalizing, mythologizing and confirming the people who are already powerful and so to convince the not rich that the interests of the rich are as well theirs.” [1]

The production and control of space is crucial to any execution of power, representing its potency, reproducing social order. As Lebbeus Woods emphasizes in his quote above, architects are and have always been committed to supporting the existing structure of authority and its political system. Quite often in the past, architects have become perfect strategists in the organization of war and the machinery behind it. Especially during war, architecture becomes an instrument for controlling space and has always been an apparatus for establishing boundaries, physically and mentally. In many territorial conflicts and war situations, the systematic instrumentalization of architecture and urban planning transforms architecture itself into a weapon (destruction through design): Lines are often used as territorial demarcations and contribute to these politics of lines, therefore the articulation and the spatial development of the line/boundary becomes an important means for codifying space.

Architecture is the organization of space and the employment of architectural knowledge is therefore ideological and territorial, formed by a specific understanding of boundaries and the means of separation. The role of spatial borders in the future will change, as the line between states is blurring and the frontline will be shifted into the cities. Spatial design or the design of borders as we know them from tradition have expired and need a new condition, a new form. Architecture has to redefine itself and its political functions. What are innovative methods of spatial enclosure?

All this has to be considered in coherence to the technological changes, both in architecture and warfare. My thesis is that the use of computational devices, both in warfare and spatial design processes, have an enormous impact on the production of boundaries/space and the responsibility for action during the design process, triggering serious consequences.

Experimental design strategies and their spatial articulation of boundaries break open antiquated views and establish three- and four-dimensional space and furthermore enable critical interaction and discourse where it is being produced within its context. Boundaries should be understood in an ambivalent and critical state and create blurring transitions rather than rigid definitions. Aesthetic practice is a process that appears in design, appropriation and the formation of space. Is there a chance to develop spatial models that are anti-hegemonic because they do not exclude different interpretations and allow for speculations? During experimental design processes, conditions need to be re-evaluated, value structures and systems need constant critical analysis. Then, also the role of architecture as an instrument for bordering space and as means of warfare will shift towards being an instrument of critical engagement in society and the field of politics.

[1] Lebbeus Woods, in: Peter Noever (ed.): Architektur am Ende? Manifeste und Diskussionsbeiträge zur Wiener Architekturkonferenz. Munich 1993, p. 87.