although I understand and partly agree with Anand Bhett's insightful
observations regarding concentrations camps (see below), i nonethless have
to agree more with Brian Carroll's (architectural) viewpoint on the
concentration camp issue (see also below). Anand's comments are a reply to
my original statements on the subject which included to statement:
"concentration camps are always real, and rarely, if ever, virtual." what i
meant here is that concentration camps absolutely require physical
architectural entities -- walls, gates, some kind of "ordered" housing,
(watch) towers, places for the oppressors, and places for the oppressed.
manifestation of the 'concentration' in concentration camps emanates from
the delimiting and restricting nature (or is it power?) of architecture
itself. in this sense, concentration camps utilize archtiecture for what is
surely among the worst of purposes (and, as an aside, Piranesi's Carceri
(prisons) also represent architecture used for one of its worst purposes,
however, in this case it is our perception that is "tortured" rather than
our corporal beings).
i recently asked my mother about "her" concentration camp in Russia, and she
told me it was a bombed-out hospital complex (and here Anand's observation
regarding the widespeard potential for concentration camps definitely rings
true). when those to be concentrated arrived, the surrounding "wall" was
already there, however, shelter for the concentrated was merely buildings
without glass in the windows, that is, until the windows were simply boarded
up two weeks later.
for me, what is most upsetting about the current events in the Balkans is
Serbia's concentration on reenacting the worst parts of their history rather
than reenacting their best.
sl
-----------------------------
anand:
About the actuality (or 'reality') of the concentration camp it is always
potentially here?
I spent a good part of last year in a Society of Control, inside a factory
compound. And it was quite obvious [to me at least] as to how easily it
could become a concentration camp. Or more precisely, how easily the people
who ran it can turn into concentration-camp administrators.
I think concentration camps are ultimately just that: a concentration (or
intensification) of traits latent. So far as we construct systems in which
people are processed by quantity: prisons, factories, military camps,
demographics; or as abstractions-bodies collected, tallied, enumerated,--the
concentration camp will exist in the realm of possibility. And we will have
to fight them there.
For the same reason there will not be a concentration camp 'architecture'.
One cannot 'make' a concentration camp, one cannot programmatically
represent it: the shell does not say much about the act-the concentration
camp resembles a factory, or a farm, or a school---anything can be turned
into a concentration camp. It is not an architectural type.
brian:
there are concentration camps in the language of architecture.
the way you define a 'concentration camp' puts limits on the ability
to categorize/understand it as an architectural type. yes, a factory
turn into a concentration camp for the reason you stated, but i also
think a 'concentration camp' is a thing unto itself, as a type.
the difference seems to be, whether or not a building was made
to be a concentration camp. i believe it can be either made for
this purpose, or adapted. but nevertheless, the buildings can be
made to programatically _function_ in this way. i think both cases
can be considered architecture for this typological reason.
i think, contrary to what you've presented, that yes, concentration
camps have been made repeatedly over centuries, that at some point
an architect could have helped in their design and construction, and
that they have a programatic function: to contain certain peoples,
and extinguish human life, like 6 million Jews in WWII Germany. i
think it is important to document such buildings in all their
ethical complexity and different states, good, bad, and ugly.
i believe that denying their existence as a building type would
limit ones understanding of architecture and buildings to only
a certain kind of (good) ideological design.
observations regarding concentrations camps (see below), i nonethless have
to agree more with Brian Carroll's (architectural) viewpoint on the
concentration camp issue (see also below). Anand's comments are a reply to
my original statements on the subject which included to statement:
"concentration camps are always real, and rarely, if ever, virtual." what i
meant here is that concentration camps absolutely require physical
architectural entities -- walls, gates, some kind of "ordered" housing,
(watch) towers, places for the oppressors, and places for the oppressed.
manifestation of the 'concentration' in concentration camps emanates from
the delimiting and restricting nature (or is it power?) of architecture
itself. in this sense, concentration camps utilize archtiecture for what is
surely among the worst of purposes (and, as an aside, Piranesi's Carceri
(prisons) also represent architecture used for one of its worst purposes,
however, in this case it is our perception that is "tortured" rather than
our corporal beings).
i recently asked my mother about "her" concentration camp in Russia, and she
told me it was a bombed-out hospital complex (and here Anand's observation
regarding the widespeard potential for concentration camps definitely rings
true). when those to be concentrated arrived, the surrounding "wall" was
already there, however, shelter for the concentrated was merely buildings
without glass in the windows, that is, until the windows were simply boarded
up two weeks later.
for me, what is most upsetting about the current events in the Balkans is
Serbia's concentration on reenacting the worst parts of their history rather
than reenacting their best.
sl
-----------------------------
anand:
About the actuality (or 'reality') of the concentration camp it is always
potentially here?
I spent a good part of last year in a Society of Control, inside a factory
compound. And it was quite obvious [to me at least] as to how easily it
could become a concentration camp. Or more precisely, how easily the people
who ran it can turn into concentration-camp administrators.
I think concentration camps are ultimately just that: a concentration (or
intensification) of traits latent. So far as we construct systems in which
people are processed by quantity: prisons, factories, military camps,
demographics; or as abstractions-bodies collected, tallied, enumerated,--the
concentration camp will exist in the realm of possibility. And we will have
to fight them there.
For the same reason there will not be a concentration camp 'architecture'.
One cannot 'make' a concentration camp, one cannot programmatically
represent it: the shell does not say much about the act-the concentration
camp resembles a factory, or a farm, or a school---anything can be turned
into a concentration camp. It is not an architectural type.
brian:
there are concentration camps in the language of architecture.
the way you define a 'concentration camp' puts limits on the ability
to categorize/understand it as an architectural type. yes, a factory
turn into a concentration camp for the reason you stated, but i also
think a 'concentration camp' is a thing unto itself, as a type.
the difference seems to be, whether or not a building was made
to be a concentration camp. i believe it can be either made for
this purpose, or adapted. but nevertheless, the buildings can be
made to programatically _function_ in this way. i think both cases
can be considered architecture for this typological reason.
i think, contrary to what you've presented, that yes, concentration
camps have been made repeatedly over centuries, that at some point
an architect could have helped in their design and construction, and
that they have a programatic function: to contain certain peoples,
and extinguish human life, like 6 million Jews in WWII Germany. i
think it is important to document such buildings in all their
ethical complexity and different states, good, bad, and ugly.
i believe that denying their existence as a building type would
limit ones understanding of architecture and buildings to only
a certain kind of (good) ideological design.