Architecture That Triggers The Senses
As the current situation is marked as the transition zone, the question is emerging: where, or to what are we transgressing?
Testing the integrity and comprehensiveness of individual and collective needs in a spatio-temporal context, or what fulfills us as individuals today and will make us society now, tomorrow and on that spot of (not) fulfilled promises, is done on something that has held for so many years in people’s lives: the need to believe that there is something more, to create something more and that more is transferred through the upcoming generations.
From manufacture to mass, industrialized, standardized, production to again manufacture but this time industrialized, standardized and digitized manufacture. We will do it all by ourselves, i.e. machines and computers will do that all for us. As a stable base, a new green belt around Belgrade, the assurance that it is not just a promise but something that transcends all constructed structures and political powers.
In the mental map of people and the city, which once was the station Beograd Donji grad – a meeting place, a place of crossing roads, tomorrow will become a place of encounter and crossing the need to go somewhere else, that something is created.
Who influences you graphically?
Everyone. And everything. I could not name the one source of inspiration as I enjoy finding it everywhere around me.
You talk about presence and spaces of contact, how is this conveyed through the images?
I believe one of the greatest potentials of the image is hidden in the absence of a (physical) contact. But on the other hand, if the one who is viewing the image willingly accepts it as a possible reality, the image can act as a trigger and can transfer a great amount of tactility. Although the image is limited and satisfies only the eyes at the same time it can stimulate other senses like smell, sound and touch (in rare cases involves also taste). That kind of 1:1 impact I try to unleash with the imaginary that I make.
What defined the form of this architectural response/condition?
A lot of things. It is layered with various influencing factors; on the one side how I understand the brief of the assignment and the context; on the other, of my personal believes how that particular architecture should be like. In both cases shown it has to deal with a typology which is truly interesting to me – the typology of the tower, the meaning and the view of an architectural condition that is currently constantly approved by one party and disapproved by the other.
I believe it is a vast field in architecture that gives a huge potential of organizing space for the human needs and it is used so far in most cases for corporate ones, as they have the power and the funding’s to build it. With the images I try to explore the other side, an alternative reality off the main axis of power by shaping spaces that invite the thought for strong collectivism rather than the image of the strong individualism.
How and with what effect did you chose your colour palette and the textural way with which it is applied?
It comes at the very end, (to be honest we can say the last hours), when all the thoughts, ambient, spaces in the project collide. I try to keep it consistent to the concept and to the very nature of the project. For me personally it has to be poetic when it comes to representation – it’s has to provoke you.
I go with two different paths of aesthetic with this approach: it is either shown as something that we have experienced so many times so far and it is strong carved in our minds and easily awakened, or something that is just pleasing to the eye and the rest of the experience is left for the beholder to imagine – what would it really be like…?
You talk a lot about man, however seize to represent even the vaguest hint of the latter. How does this abstractness reinforce the proposal?
When I present my work I try to present only what is important in order that the focus of the beholder goes straight to the problems I want to address. I show people in my representations only in special situations when there is a necessity to show a sense of a human scale. I believe putting people (especially very happy ones) on renderings is highly manipulative, almost like a commercial, as the focus is shifted towards the experience of their emotions of those people on the images (or how are they dressed, etc.), which in most cases it doesn’t even have to do with it and puts the architecture in the background (not to mention the same people showing on all renderings). I prefer that the observer projects himself into the image and starts questioning: What is the scale of this space? How would I feel inside (or outside) of it? What would be the experience of it? Are there other people around me? etc. In other words, by not showing the human notion in the virtual space (renderings) I am reinforcing its position and importance in the actual space.
Stefan Nešić (1991) lives and works in Belgrade, Serbia. He received his master degree in 2015 at the Architecture Faculty in Belgrade. At the faculty he is a teaching assistant since 2014 until present. He gained practical experience in Belgrade based studios (Timiconart, Petokraka, DVA:Studio) and in Beirut (109 architects). A receiver of the DAAD scholarship (2013) and a Humboldt University and IAESTE Alumni.
He has participated on numerous workshops in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, France, Germany and Switzerland and competitions in the fields of architecture, graphic design and product design.
For the work +/-object he was awarded in the competitions 100% Future Serbia at Belgrade Design Week (2014) and New Analogue at Young Balkan Designers (2016).
He is interested in the position of the where is the border line between the analogue and the digital, the natural and the artificial and how can it contribute to contemporary life. Devotee of bicycles, old things, handcrafts, chocolate, philosophy, analogue photography, plants, robotics and fabrication.