More specifically I am interested in the way people inhabit space and how architecture inflects how people move and behave. Public architecture, often playing with historical references attempts (and often fails) to make that space -friendly- to people and the surrounding architecture, and to the city itself.
My work demystifies the monumentality of architecture and relates to how art is shown in museums, and the current debates on the spectacularization of museum culture with the resultant immateriality of artworks. The way I am using lens-based work, I think, articulates aspects of this debate. The presentation or mediation of objects through film reminds me how Le Corbusier used or, I should say, misused photography. He realized, as I had, the potency of lens-based presentation of his buildings, he, for promotional purposes, me, for a -double-take- effect.
Through photography he presented himself and his work implying an extensive built output. In fact he only built a handful of houses in his career as documented in Beatriz Colominas book on modern architecture as mass media. He even implied authorship of Eileen Grays famous E.1027 house. So, where Le Corbusiers lens-based presentation created a myth, mine poses questions.*
*This is an excerpt from an ongoing online interview with Rosie Bennett who researched at Birkbeck College on minimalism. AHRC funded at UCL. She has written for Frieze, Circa, Object and the introduction to Richard Shiffs, Doubt, Routledge, 2006. She is currently working on a book-length study on Robert Morris.