000264433 001__ 264433
000264433 005__ 20190331143645.0
000264433 037__ $$aPOST_TALK
000264433 245__ $$aProtofigurations, geometries of transindividuation
000264433 260__ $$c2019
000264433 269__ $$a2019
000264433 300__ $$a6
000264433 336__ $$aTalks
000264433 513__ $$aTalks
000264433 520__ $$aIn recent years prefigurative phases of architectural or urban projects have been rising. However, in the context of prefiguration a precise definition of what could be characterized as a design methodology, a temporal space or also as a political practice, is not yet clear. Despite a certain vagueness, it is possible to identify two co-related series of operations in prefigurative processes; on one side, a mental and collective enaction through the uses of events, engagement or communication with the aim of integrating new urban or architectural systems into thoughts and uses, and on the other, a spatial or territorial enacted projection of ‘some feature of an “alternative world” into real’. These practices of inscription into a site, or milieu – both mental/collective and physical –  reinvesting the role of bodies, gestures and engagements in the process of urbanization are one cue of the return of archaic (logic) in the architectural discourse. As Jacques Lucan explained, the archaic is an apogee of phenomenological design strategies facing the current disoriented metropolis, calling for the sublime immediacy of the thing itself. Nevertheless prefigurative processes and practices of inscription are likewise identifiable in several cultures, mostly referring to foundational acts. Each entails a series of operations – gestures and application of figures – which transforms an a priori hostile given territorial structure into an operational hospitable space, re-performing a myth of origin and uniting different phases of culture (from techniques, to religions, through aesthetics, politics…). In this talk, I will discuss how such practices are able to actualize the pair alienation-invention in relation to urban and architectural design, in making reference to the system of technical analysis (elements/individual/set) of Gilbert Simondon as described in On the Mode of Existence of the Technical Object (MEOT). I will then go through the Roman practices of the Nomos (rituals and survey) in order to question their cognitive role as acts of inscription. This analysis will lead us to a reformulation of inscription figures in proposing the concept of protofiguration. Lastly, the Simondonian concept of Open Machine will allow us to define protofigures as Open Geometries, figures and gestures that permit to afford a space and to individuate information in the perception process. https://youtu.be/vtxlfA0Qlkc
000264433 542__ $$fCC BY
000264433 6531_ $$aArchitecture
000264433 6531_ $$aPhilosophy
000264433 6531_ $$aSimondon
000264433 6531_ $$aInscriptions Practices
000264433 6531_ $$aProtofiguration
000264433 6531_ $$aArchaïque
000264433 700__ $$0251445$$aLafontaine Carboni, Julien
000264433 7112_ $$aPotential for an Archaic Today$$cParis, France$$d15 june 2018
000264433 720_2 $$g173997$$aDietz, Dieter$$0244683
000264433 8560_ $$fjulien.lafontainecarboni@epfl.ch
000264433 909C0 $$xU11533$$pALICE$$mjaime.ruiz@epfl.ch$$zBlanc, Chantal$$0252389
000264433 909CO $$qGLOBAL_SET$$ppresentation$$pENAC$$ooai:infoscience.epfl.ch:264433
000264433 960__ $$ajulien.lafontainecarboni@epfl.ch
000264433 961__ $$afantin.reichler@epfl.ch
000264433 973__ $$aEPFL$$sACCEPTED
000264433 980__ $$aPOST_TALK
000264433 981__ $$aoverwrite