Accueil> Colloques> Littérature, art, sciences > Living Matter / Literary Forms (20th 21rst centuries)
colloques en ligne | Littérature, art, sciences
Living Matter / Literary Forms (20th - 21rst centuries)
From Forms to Form-Fields : On Life Living
Marie-Pier Boucher
1“We assume,” writes artist/architect Frederick J. Kielser (1890-1965), “that because an object
does not express itself in visible activity, it (...) is dead. (...) Our assumption of what is alive or
dead is chiefly the result of optical observation.” (1) We, he adds, “see only through the total
coordination of human experiences (...) we see by creative ability and not by mechanical
reproduction.” (2) We, as Brian Massumi puts it, “perceive more than we see.” (3) Here Kiesler’s
remarks hinge on two sets of problems : on the one hand, the manner in which visual forms
reduce life’s dynamic activity to objective movement ; and on the other hand, how aesthetic
experience transforms the objective world into creative subjectivity. From an architectural point
of view, what holds these two sets of problems together is the question of form.
2It is a commonplace of discourses on contemporary (bio)architecture to say that buildings are
alive when their forms resemble – or function like – living organisms. This architectural wisdom
entails a simplistic interpretation of life that reduces it to a set of functions whose expressions
are assumed to be localizable in objective space. It also promotes a mechanical understanding o
architecture that negates life’s experiential reality. The engineered fabrication of life’s formal
equivalent renders experience a residual or more positively an outcome of what is already
inscribed in the replicated form. Experience is not conceptualized as that which moves across
forms in the making, but as the act of encountering constituted forms. Experience is reduced to
a mere subjective compensation that occurs afterwards, once life has become objectified in the
formal aspects of a building. For Kiesler, life living is experiential. Visual forms, whether spatial
localizable, or structurally observable in objective space-time, can only dimly illuminate life’s
active and forceful manner of becoming. To think of life living, we must segregate it from bare
visible activity, from formal expression in objective space and time.
3For Kiesler, experience occurs between vision and material forms, within and among the total
coordination of natural, technological, physical and mental forces. Kiesler takes this two-sides
aesthetic relation – between mentality and physicality on the one hand, and between technology
and the natural environment on the other – as a life form, that is, as a distinctive mode of
existence. Instead of putting emphasis on how visual forms resemble or act like organic forms,
he insists on the total coordination of experiences, on the relational politics of perceptual
occurence. In so doing, he warns us against the pitfalls of attributing the concurrence of
architecture and the life sciences to observable forms. And in the same stroke, he constructively
removes the architectural possibility of attuning ourselves to life from the physical materiality o
visual forms to the psycho-physical energetics of visibility (which also strives for invisibility).
4Kiesler was passionately invested in resisting and subverting the normative standardization of
architecture. He sustained its functional role yet he refused to reduce it to the prevailing
idealized standards of beauty, durability, practicability and low cost. Opening up architecture to
set of techniques that can modulate and also be attacked by sensation and perception, he
defined its function as the capacity to intensify humans’ health. Architectural forms, Kiesler
insisted, should not emerge out of previous architectural projects. They should instead figure
“the study of life processes and the needs they create.” (4) In Kiesler’s terms, architecture shoul
be at the service of the body, acquiring its value in its very capacity to provide humans with a
space that protects them from fatigue. “Man’s health,” he wrote, “declines in a progression from
fatigue to death.” (5)
5Kiesler defined health as an embodied experiential reality that results from a complex
entanglement between mental, physical, natural and technological forces. In defining health
synchretically, as the dynamic co-becoming of heterogeneous forces, he made a persuasive
intervention into our understanding of life by defining it as a form of aesthetic relation. In his
own terms, to intensify health is not to identify a problem to be solved. It is to develop
techniques that work within and among the heterogeneous forces that condition its synchretic
individuation. It is to develop techniques capable of triggering the creative expression of
humans’ potentials toward an intensification of their capacity to action.
6Kiesler did not approach health through the lenses of a paradigm ingrained in the technologic
optimization and enhancement of the biological body. Neither did he define architecture as a
technology of subjugation, which, in a biopolitical regime populated with bodies exploitable an
controllable by means of biotechnological optimization, could serve to visualize (bio)power’s
modus operandi. Rather, he experimented with the ecological and ethological obligations and
requirements proper to techniques of exhilaration. In the light of his oeuvre, contemporary
biotechnology is no longer rooted in a curative regime. Nor is it promising anything. It is taking
of to reach synchretic expression.
7Kiesler is a joyful companion to think how the exchanges between architecture, biotechnology
and neurosciences can create new problems that go beyond the exploitation of the activity of
living beings in new contexts. Following the way he uses health to rethink what living might
mean, my aim here is to speculate on what happens to architecture when life is thought in term
of aliveness. Instead of asking what happens to life as a conceptual category when it is fabricate
in scientific labs, artistic and architectural studios, that is, instead of asking how architecture ca
mold, carve, frame or hold life in space, architectures of aliveness ask how architecture can
catalyse the feeling of aliveness. Taken up in life’s experiential co-reality, the forms produced b
architectures of aliveness are not mere forms. They are form-fields. A form-field is a form to
which nothing visible corresponds as such. A form-field is a form tuned to a field, which acts on
it at distance. The question then is not whether life is a form observable in objective space and
time, or whether life is explicable in terms of a set of functions that can be captured in formal
expressions. The question is how life is more than form.
Empty Space as the Space of Life
8 “If matter alone were reality,” wrote Kiesler, “life would be static.” Architecture, in the forms it
produces, harbours matter in simple location. Alfred North Whitehead vigorously challenged the
reduction of “life-living” to a spatial phenomenon. For Whitehead, life and nature can only be
understood if they are fused together as “essential factors in the composition of “really real”
things.” (6)Whitehead makes the point that matter in simple location, or space occupied, is
synonymous with a lifeless nature. It is bare activity without content ; “activity in which nothing
efected.” (7) It is the reality of material bodies interpreted in the contiguity of their external
relationships. In contrast, nature alive is concerned with the “study of the internal relations with
a complex state of activity.” (8) For nature to be alive, he adds, life ought to be interpreted as a
characteristic of empty space. (9) When nature is lifeless, empty space is “the substratum for
passive geometrical relationships between material bodies.” (10) When nature is alive, when
activity is contentful, “space apparently empty is the theatre of activities which we do not direct
perceive.” (11)In Whitehead’s terms, life “lurks in the interstices.” (12) In other words, empty
space is not tantamount to passivity but to activity; it is the dynamic betweenness, the relationa
co-reality that renders life a creative and evolutionary process.
9Nature lifeless is a conception of nature “in abstraction from the notion of life.” (13) Nature
lifeless is matter segregated from life and mental activity. To think nature alive, Whitehead
clarifies, we ought to include “mental operations as among the factors which make up the
constitution of nature.” (14) Life, he goes on to say, is a “passage from physical order to pure
mental originality, and from pure mental originality to canalized mental originality.” (15)
Mentality is however not substantially diferent from physicality. Mentality, Whitehead explains,
non-spatial, yet it is always a “reaction from and integration with physical experience, which is
spatial.” (16) Mental activity aims at originality in that it bestows entities with the capacity to
connect with their own potentialities and to creatively act in their environment. Mental activity is
as a mode of dynamic eiciency endowed with the power to bring contextual conditions to new
possibilities. From a Whiteadian point of view, life living is immediately mental and physical,
spatial and non-spatial, yet durational, meaning that its reality is the reality of change. It can be
vaguely described as that which cuts across, or streams through the mental-physical continuum
in such a way that the novelty or originality it produces cannot be localized.
Empty Space as Endless Space
10Kiesler’s own term for life living in empty space is endless space. Instead of producing forma
equivalents of living organisms, his architectural project questioned how architectural forms ca
activate non-habituated spatial engagements. He refused to produce new forms “wrapped
around conventional ways of living,” (17) focusing instead on how forms can trigger atypical
modes of living. Put otherwise, he experimented with the creation of new forms of life as
opposed to the physical fabrication of pre-given life forms. He observed that design strategies
based on an immersive continuity between the inhabitants and their surrounding environment i
endowed with the capacity to activate new forms of confluences between mentality and
physicality as well as to trigger unconventional modes of inhabitation. Instead of isolating the
architectural elements that compose space (floor, ceiling, walls, etc.), Kiesler attributed the sam
value to the elements and to their in-between space, formulating a design strategy informed by
an equipotential continuing-across.
11To overcome conventional modes of living, Kiesler noted, new functions must be invented.
Refusing the “form follows function” motto, he made the point that the problem of the relation
between forms and functions cannot be thought without at the same time addressing the
problem of structures. An equipotential continuing-across capable of triggering inventive mode
of inhabitation is thus a design strategy that rethinks the relation between form, function and
structure.
12For philosopher Raymond Ruyer, creativity and invention cannot be substituted by mechanica
links. They can only be captured in their process of formation. Ruyer promts us to not confuse
functioning and formation. Life living, he argues, is a process of formation and not simply a
functioning. Ruyer relates functioning to structures, anatomy and physiology and formation to
development and embryology. A functioning is a reality observable in the spatio-temporality of
formed structures. Structures, by this account, can be deduced from other structures. In contra
formationamounts to the emergence of new forms that cannot be deduced from pre-given form
(and therefore to functionings). (18) A form, Ruyer goes on to say, is a sensation and sensation
only has one side (surface). If sensation would have two sides, he adds, it would be an
object. (19) For Ruyer, life living is not an object or a static form ; it is an absolute form, meanin
a form without any spatial referent. An absolute form is a form that knows itself without
observing itself; it is a form that requires no point of view outside of itself ; it is “neither a Gesta
nor a perceived form but a form in itself, one that does not refer to any exterior point of view […
it is an absolute form that surveys itself independently of any supplementary dimension.” (20) B
this account, life living is spiritual more than formal or material, that is, it can only be partially
grasped physically. In other words, absolute forms cannot be reduced to, and are not
exhaustively explicable in terms of actuality. To fully capture the pragmatical implications that
absolute forms entail for the emergence of unconventional modes of inhabitation, let us consid
two installations by Kiesler.
13In 1925, Kiesler formulated a series of demands to reinvent architecture. He requested a
liberation from the ground, the abolition of the static axis, of the walls and foundations, to
emphasize a system of spans in free space. Two of his installations, City in Space and the Endle
House, are concrete, yet abstract, speculative and pragmatic experimentations with his radical
approach. City in Space is a three dimensional elevated structure composed of plain surfaces
connected by and through straight lines. The intersecting lines and surfaces generate nodes tha
express locus of encounters. They also illuminate the empty space that permeates the
installation. The Endless House is a single family house shaped in the form of a flattened
spheroid also freed from the burden of the determining constraints imposed by the ground. Cit
in Space does not resemble an organic form yet the shape of the Endless House recalls an
organic form. It should however be interpreted as a living occurrence and not as a banal
reminiscence of an organic form. The house is not alive because its form resembles a life form,
meaning a form that cannot be reduced to an ideal form. Rather, writes Kiesler, “the spheroid
shape derives from the social dynamics of two or three generations living under one roof.” (21)
Also described as an “architectural form based on a lighting system,” (22) the resulting shape
enables light to pervade across the house. The form can thus be said to be pragmatically
produced as the configuration with the least resistance to inner and outer stress. In making
relative the distinction between the inside and the outside, the Endless House is better describe
genetically in relation to what it triggers, rather than visually in relation to what it represents.
That is, it is better described as “a nucleus of new forms of life and coexistence with man’s
mental, physical and social circumstances.” (23)
14Kiesler’s installations, even though observable in a motionless state, are not static spatial
localizations that represent a new form of spatial organization. They are metastable or dynamic
structures that express an organic relationship. The organic relationship emerges out of the
radical connectivity between the elements that compose space. This radical connectivity is
endowed with the power to trigger the emergence of non-habituated spatial engagements,
themselves capable of setting in motion the individuation of new forms of subjectivities. The
radical connectivity bears witness to the power of these connections to reinvent the structure
anew. Put otherwise, City in Space and the Endless House are relational forms of activity
irreducible to visible forms. They render visible the excess of potentials generated by the endle
encounters of life’s finalities in empty space, and the potency of that excess to regenerate the
structure anew. Kiesler’s endless space, or equipotential continuing across, constructively airm
the impossibility of capturing domestic or urban behaviour and activities in visual
representations.
15Kiesler’s installations are complex systems whose initial conditions can be dramatically
transformed in the activity of inhabitation. They are dynamic structures that spontaneously take
life of their ownin virtue of the ways in which their contextual elements combine and recombine
These endless (re)combinations assert behavior as the dynamic activity that modulates the
co-relationality between form, function and structure. That is, Kiesler’s installations are
functioning structures in an endless process of formation. In putting behavior as that which
upholds the dynamic activity of his installations, Kiesler introduced the possibility of thinking
formation in the immediacy of its relation to functioning. Instead of distinguishing them
dialectically, formally or substantially, he insisted on how behavior airms their co-relationality
Ruyer also posited behavior that which is endowed with the power to link formation and
functioning. (24) There is, he writes, a process of formation in all behaviors. Behavior, he adds,
“synthesis of functioning and formation,” “improvisation of a structure,” (25) anticipation of a
possible functioning. (26) That is to say, behavior marks the advent of an open-ended process.
Behavior synthesizes, improvises and anticipates through linking themes that are not spatially
pre-given. (27)Themes, Ruyer adds, are immanent to the becoming of forms yet they are not
localizable in space and time. The conclusion to be drawn is that the structures of both
installations do not function as closed sets of operations. Rather, they are open structures in an
endless process of individuation. They are the nucleus of incident relations across incipient
forms or virtual motifs. By this account, absolute forms are not merely forms, they are surfaces
of emergence; they are triggers of relational connectivity.
16Design practices that aim at generating absolute forms are practices that modulate time in
empty space. “Bergson claimed,” write Deleuze and Guattari, “a particular status defined by
duration, “multiplicity of fusion,” which expressed the inseparability of variations.” (28) In
Semblance and Event, Brian Massumi clarifies that fusion is another word for nonlocal
linkage.” (29) Absolute forms are vectorial in that they figure actions at distance. In Whitehead’s
own terms, vectors “feel what is there and transform it into what is here.” (30) In requiring no
point of view outside of themselves, absolute forms are durational forms whose process of
formation is conditioned by the goings on in other regions; they are vectorial surfaces that
trigger unexpected connections. The vectorial reality of absolute forms is what I term
form-fields. In efecting a passage from simple location in objective space to absolute forms in
vectorial fields, form-fields emphasize the nonlocal linkages immanent to the becoming of
forms. These nonlocal linkages cannot be localized; they bear witness to the impossibility of
reducing life to visual forms. Their efects can be felt, but not seen.
Form-Fielding
Between the corporeal units there lie the various empty fields of tension that holds the parts together like planets in a
void. (31)
17Kiesler’s project is particularly important in the contemporary juncture in which architecture
turning into a variety of techniques associated with biotechnology. Linking his radical approach
to experiments carried in biology, he made a significant reference to the work of surgeon and
biologist Alexis Carrel. In 1912, at the Rockfeller Institute in New York, Carrel removed an
embryonic chicken heart from an hatching egg and cultured it in vitro for over 30 years (until
1946).(32) Carrel’s experiment, Kiesler remarked, shown that “by changing the physical
environment, life may be quickened and increased, retarded or destroyed.” (33) In other words,
confirmed the pre-active role of the environment in which cells and tissues are cultured.Here
“pre” does not connote temporal linearity. It does not bestow any temporal priority to the
environment. Rather, “pre” magnifies the fact that the culture cannot exist without its
environment. “While life comes only from life,” Kiesler clarifies, “it is also dependent on its
technological environment.” (34) That is, a form is alive in virtue of the environment within whic
it is tuned. Kiesler showed that while the “criterion of life is activization,” (35) it can only be
approached on a super-empirical level. That is, life’s formal expressions are always in relation
with an associated milieu or surface of emergence. Milieus and surfaces that tend to vanish whe
forms reach full concretization. Kiesler’s reference to Carrel is noteworthy. It airms that aging
not an intrinsic condition of a cell but a process that is conditioned by the environment. That is
it puts forth the vectorial reality of life’s formation.
18In asking how forms and fields co-produce each other, biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s theory o
formative causation by morphic fields provides a contemporary biological explanation of vector
fields. Following Peirce, Sheldrake argues that the laws of nature are habitual rather than
transcendental and eternal. That is, the laws that govern evolution are not static but evolutionar
“Habits,” he writes, “may depend on cumulative influences from our past behaviour to which we
tune in.” (36) However, he adds, “there is no need for them to be stored in a material form with
our nervous system.” (37) That is, “the form and behaviour of organisms (…) depend on the
fields within which the organism is tuned.” (38) By this account, life forms cannot be segregated
from their morphic fields, which Sheldrake describes as “non material regions of influence
extending in space and continuing in time,” (39) as “potential organizing patterns of
influence” (40) situated “within and around the systems they organize.” (41) They, he add, resis
the disappearance of the organism to which they are related in that “can appear again physically
in other times and places, wherever and whenever the physical conditions are appropriate.” (42
Morphic fields act at distance to transmit formative influences. They airm life’s evolutionary
process as the complex co-relation between the corporeality and incorporeality of living
organisms ; they express the biological reality proper to form-fields.
Aliveness as Dynamic Meta-Form
19City in Space and the Endless House are prototypes that were never built. They should howev
be interpreted pragmatically as unfolding envelopes of potentialities that resonate with pressing
issues of our contemporary moment. In the context of today’s global mobility, information,
bodies and goods are circulating across the globe, and even further into outer space. However,
their modes of transportation do not necessarily increase their psycho-physical mobility.
Kiesler’s project is timely in that it airms the social potential that emanates from architecture t
intensify humans’ mental and physical activity.
20City in Space and the Endless House are not finished products but platforms for movement ;
they are processes to modulate, processes that figure procedures (43) rather than forms. They
question our sense of weightedness and weightlessness by foregrounding techniques of
gravitation based on movement across surfaces. By inviting its inhabitants to rise above the
ground, and to move across plain surfaces, they put forth how proprioception and techniques o
gravitation condition the experience of the feeling of aliveness. City in Space and the Endless
House are architectures whose formation is conditioned by incident connections across
heterogeneous elements related in empty space. They are heterogeneous unities in movement
that invite the body to endlessly calculate its position in relation to the elements actually and
virtually present across their surfaces.In their capacity to grasp the totality of a field according t
a principle of ubiquity, the architectural elements of both installations are not juxtaposed – fuse
or confused – but given all at once. City in Space and the Endless House are form-fields that
capture life in the immediacy of its mental physical, technological and natural modalities.
21Forms impose a burden on physicality, whose reality is reduced to staticity. Form-fields
introduce the diference between a form only understood in its external physical reality and a
form understood in its internal and equipotential modes of activity. A form-field is a distinctive
mode of becoming that valorizes the plurality of the elements that compose space, a dynamic
form of activity that swirls in the endless and synchretic relationship between and among
physicality, mentality, technology and nature. Form-fields move from a conception of space
based on objectivity, physicality and materiality to a definition of space as a pluralistic unity in
movement, as the co-presence of heterogeneous forces and elements. In brief, a form-field is
tantamount to continuity clutching at originality ; it is a continuing across that is immediately a
continuing anew. Visual, material and physical forms are however not meaningless. They act as
pauses that introduce cycles. These cycles are crucial as they break the linearity of time and
enable the production and expression of change and novelty. (44) Physical or visual forms are
thus to be interpreted as snapshots of an intensive process of individuation.
22Aliveness is a mode of dynamic mode of activity on the edge of the amorphous. It can be
interpreted as an energetic establishment of a relation between forms ; a “form of forms” (45)
that moves across forms ; a dynamic meta-form endowed with the power of transformation ; a
trans-form. Aliveness is a non-localizable yet pervading form-field that prevents life’s
identification and localization through producing analog or continuous space. In Métamorphose
du corps, JoséGil explains that the energetic establishment of a relation between forms replaces
the traditional figure/ground relation by that of a rhythm. Gil defines this peculiar rhythm as on
of disparation that gives rise to a rhythming space where the body is in relation with space as
opposed to be represented in it. (46) An energetic establishment of a relation between and
across forms is what prevents forms from being reduced to their physical materiality. Thus,
aliveness is a relational mode of activity, which, as Brian Massumi beautifully writes, “does not
reflect what is outside the organism” it “inflects what takes of from it.” (47)
bibliographie
(1) Frederick. J. KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique: A Definition and Test of a New
Approach to Building Design (Architectural Record, 86 : 3, 1939), p. 11.
(2) Frederick. J. KIESLER, Rethinking the Endless Symposium (Witte de With Cahier 6, 1997), p. 8
(3) Brian MASSUMI, Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurent Arts (MIT Press,
2011), p. 127.
(4) Frederick J. KIESLER, “Pseudo-Functionalism in Modern Architecture” in Frederick Kiesler:
Endless House 1947-1961 (Ostfildern-Ruit, Deutschland: Hatje Cantz, 2003), p. 33.
(5) KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique: A Definition and Test of a New Approach to
Building Design, p. 6.
(6) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought (New York: Free Press, 1968), p.150.
(7) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p.148.
(8) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p.140.
(9) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, (New York: Free Press, 1978), p. 105.
(10) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p. 139.
(11) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p. 133-134.
(12) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, p. 105.
(13) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p. 148.
(14) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Modes of Thought, p. 156.
(15) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, p. 107-108.
(16) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, p. 108.
(17) Frederick. J. KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique : A Definition and Test of a New
Approach to Building Design, p. 8.
(18) Raymond RUYER, La genèse des formes vivantes (Paris : Flammarion, 1958), see particularly
the introduction and first chapter.
(19) Raymond RUYER, Néofinalisme (Paris : PUF, 2012), p. 111.
(20) Eric ALLIEZ, Signature of the World: What is Deleuze and Guattari’s Philosophy? (Bloomsbur
Academic, 2004), p. 64.
(21) Frederick J. KIESLER, “Endless House and its Psychological Lighting” in Frederick Kiesler:
Endless House 1947-1961 (Ostfildern-Ruit, Deutschland : Hatje Cantz, 2003), p. 52-53.
(22) The endless House was equipped with a color clock. “Daylight,” writes Kiesler “is transmitte
through a prismatic glass crystal of three basic colors, gradually shifting to each in turn from
dawn to dusk. The rays are filtered through the interior through a convex mirror, and the dwelle
can gauge the hour by the color of the tinted light around him. Instead of depending solely on a
mechanical clock, splintering his life into minute particles of time, he becomes aware of the
continuity of time and of his own dynamic integration with natural forces.” Frederick J. Kiesler,
Endless House and its Psychological Lighting, p. 50.
(23) Harald KREJCIP, “Endless House – Endless Story” in Frederick Kiesler: Endless House
1947-1961 (Ostfildern-Ruit, Deutschland : Hatje Cantz, 2003), p. 12.
(24) Raymond RUYER, La genèse des formes vivantes, p. 17.
(25) Raymond RUYER, La genèse des formes vivantes, p. 17. (my translation)
(26) Raymond RUYER, La genèse des formes vivantes, p. 21.
(27) Raymond RUYER, La genèse des formes vivantes, p. 65.
(28) Gilles DELEUZE and Felix GUATTARI, What is Philosophy? (Columbia University Press, 1996)
p. 127.
(29) Brian MASSUMI, Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts, p. 144.
(30) Alfred North WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, p. 87.
(31) Frederick J. KIESLER, “Manifeste du Corréalisme”in l’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, 2. hors-sér
(Paris, 1949).
(32) Lijing JIANG, Alexis Carrel’s Immortal Chick Heart Tissue Cultures (1912-1946).
http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/alexis-carrels-immortal-chick-heart-tissue-cultures-1912-194
(33) Frederick. J. KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique: A Definition and Test of a New
Approach to Building Design, p. 8.
(34) Frederick. J. KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique: A Definition and Test of a New
Approach to Building Design, p. 8.
(35) Frederick. J. KIESLER, On Correalism and Biotechnique: A Definition and Test of a New
Approach to Building Design, p. 11.
(36) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature
(Park Street Press, 1988), p. xviii.
(37) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. xviii.
(38) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. 136.
(39) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. xviii.
(40) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. xix.
(41) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. xviii.
(42) Rupert SHELDRAKE, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
p. xix.
(43) Shusaku ARAKAWA and Madeline GINS, The Architectural Body (University Alabama Press,
2002).
(44) Jose GIL, Metamorphoses of the Body (University of Minnesota Press, 1998), p. 57-85.
(45) Jose GIL, Metamorphoses of the Body, p. 134.
(46) Jose GIL, Metamorphoses of the Body, p. 132-133.
(47) Brian MASSUMI, Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Art, p. 149.
plan
Empty Space as the Space of Life
Empty Space as Endless Space
Form-Fielding
Aliveness as Dynamic Meta-Form
mots clés
Architecture, Forme-Fiels, Kiesler (Frederick J.), Space
pour citer cet article
Marie-Pier Boucher, « From Forms to Form-Fields : On Life Living », Fabula / Les colloques,
Living Matter / Literary Forms (20th - 21rst centuries), URL :
http://www.fabula.org/colloques/document3232.php, page consultée le 23 mars 2016.