Capital of Feedback

The body of work by British architect Cedric Price (1934–2003) is largely concerned with architecture’s relationship to technology and its impact on society. As contemporary architecture finds itself confronted with similar issues today, Price’s designs are being revisited and hailed for their pros...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nina Stener Jørgensen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Jap Sam Books 2019-12-01
Series:Footprint
Online Access:https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/3409
id doaj-493a34e716464a56abc761c3fada6815
record_format Article
spelling doaj-493a34e716464a56abc761c3fada68152021-02-08T12:05:32ZengJap Sam BooksFootprint1875-15041875-14902019-12-0113210.7480/footprint.13.2.3409Capital of FeedbackNina Stener Jørgensen0Estonian Academy of Arts, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning The body of work by British architect Cedric Price (1934–2003) is largely concerned with architecture’s relationship to technology and its impact on society. As contemporary architecture finds itself confronted with similar issues today, Price’s designs are being revisited and hailed for their prospective and inventive visions. As such, it seems timely to ask if Price’s designs can be regarded as precedents for future projects that aim to couple participation and technology through architectural design. In this article, I depart from the economic logic of today’s digital platforms to analyse the participatory elements Cedric Price designed for Oxford Corner House (1965–66) to be ‘self-participatory entertainment’. As user participation has gradually been capitalised on through the evolution of digital technologies, I argue that the conditions for what participatory architecture entails have changed in turn. Whereas Price regarded the transfer of information as an activity for users of the Oxford Corner House to engage with freely, the operation of today’s digital platforms instead suggests that such activities are entirely facilitated in order to retrieve information from its users. In order to make this argument, I look at how Cedric Price envisioned digital technologies to sustain participation and in turn how he understood the concept of user participation and its relation to the architectural programme. https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/3409
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nina Stener Jørgensen
spellingShingle Nina Stener Jørgensen
Capital of Feedback
Footprint
author_facet Nina Stener Jørgensen
author_sort Nina Stener Jørgensen
title Capital of Feedback
title_short Capital of Feedback
title_full Capital of Feedback
title_fullStr Capital of Feedback
title_full_unstemmed Capital of Feedback
title_sort capital of feedback
publisher Jap Sam Books
series Footprint
issn 1875-1504
1875-1490
publishDate 2019-12-01
description The body of work by British architect Cedric Price (1934–2003) is largely concerned with architecture’s relationship to technology and its impact on society. As contemporary architecture finds itself confronted with similar issues today, Price’s designs are being revisited and hailed for their prospective and inventive visions. As such, it seems timely to ask if Price’s designs can be regarded as precedents for future projects that aim to couple participation and technology through architectural design. In this article, I depart from the economic logic of today’s digital platforms to analyse the participatory elements Cedric Price designed for Oxford Corner House (1965–66) to be ‘self-participatory entertainment’. As user participation has gradually been capitalised on through the evolution of digital technologies, I argue that the conditions for what participatory architecture entails have changed in turn. Whereas Price regarded the transfer of information as an activity for users of the Oxford Corner House to engage with freely, the operation of today’s digital platforms instead suggests that such activities are entirely facilitated in order to retrieve information from its users. In order to make this argument, I look at how Cedric Price envisioned digital technologies to sustain participation and in turn how he understood the concept of user participation and its relation to the architectural programme.
url https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/3409
work_keys_str_mv AT ninastenerjørgensen capitaloffeedback
_version_ 1724280143901360128