Stine Henckel Shultz

I am educated an architect from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture.  Currently I am a PhD fellow at the Aarhus School of Architecture.

The working title of the project is ‘Spatial plasticity – investigations of the shape of the space for living’

The term spatial plasticity frames the research question in the architectural research work presented here. The notion both defines the main ‘problematique’ of the work, moreover respresents the process of the delimitation of the term the on going reflective practice. The delimitation of the term involves developing knowledge through an overlapping and interweaving production of drawings|models|text|photos|collages which seek to produce a resonance within the contemporary discussion of the space for living.

The term spatial plasticity occurred on an early stage of the project by a wish to ‘collect’ distinctive qualities of particular projects in one single word (in Danish : Rumplastik).

Through ’readings’ of existing projects for living spatial phenomena and shaped/constituted spatial configurations are investigated/analysed to get closer to an understanding of their features.

The background of the work is lying in a wish to understand with what kind of architectural ’grips’ the spaces have been shaped/formed and with that how and why they possess the qualities I claim they do.

A fundamental point of the project is to argue for the value of rooms with character and shape of their own. This refers to a belief in the qualities in an articulated space and the potential richness in beeing able to move through rooms of different characters.

The project seeks rooms with changing relations to each other by interacting together, overlapping each other and by that defining a sequence of rooms, which in their interrelated affiliation define a flow with different possibilities of inhabitation to embrace the differences in ways of living in our contemporary society.

It is the intention that spatial experiments based on the readings naturally will release proposals for rooms of certain shapes and characters to form the basis of proposals for dwelling where the spaces interact with each other, though embracing different functions/places.

20150318_au

The attached document gives an idea of the approach to the existing housing projects. The readings of the existing projects are made in three levels to unfold the spatial plasticity within different scales ; a the overall organisation of the house/flat ; b the specific rooms ; c the passages.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Stine Henckel Shultz

  1. Hi Stine,

    When reading your text, looking at ypur drawings, it reminded me of this interview with Catherine Malabou. The more I read of her (What should be do with our brain?) text for example, the more I am interested in her discourse and ways of articulating her research. She’s Derridean, watch out 😉 But here’s an excerpt from the introduction to an interview I thought you might find relevant in regard to ‘Rumplastik’, although it’s more about the text here, drawing on Hegel. For what it’s worth. “How does Malabou “follow” deconstruction? Indeed, she does not disavow her affiliation with Derrida; she, too, readily acknowledges that there is nothing outside the text. But, by the same token, she also affirms Hegel’s deep influence on her philosophy. From Hegel, she borrows the central concept of her philosophy, namely, the concept of plasticity; the subject is plastic—not elastic, it never springs back into its original form—it is malleable, but it can explode and create itself anew. In this way, there is nothing outside the text, but the text is no less natural than it is cultural, it is no less biological than it is spiritual (or mental), it is no less material than it is historical. That is, the subject is not merely and ineluctably the social-historical-economic construct of an age (at the peak of modernity, a rational autonomous subject; in a post-industrial and global world, a highly adaptable, flexible, and disciplined subject). Instead, the subject can resist hopeless determinism by virtue of a dialectic inscribed at the heart of her own origination. So Malabou is a “follower” of deconstruction in that she affirms inventionalism, and in so doing, she is able to transcend the limit of deconstruction –différance—with “plasticity.” ”
    Vahanian, Noelle. “A Conversation with Catherine Malabou.” Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, vol. 9 no. 1 (Winter 2008): 1-13.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s