The corpus gathered across the site constitutes a sustained theoretical and artistic inquiry into what might be termed a socioplastic paradigm of space. Rather than conceiving architecture as a stable object or urbanism as a regulatory system, the work reframes both as relational, affective, and processual practices. Across installations, texts, performative devices, and spatial interventions, architecture is displaced from the regime of representation toward one of activation. The city appears not as a finished artefact but as a mutable ecology of gestures, rituals, and minor infrastructures.
This position situates the practice within a post-relational yet post-critical lineage, where the legacy of Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics is complicated by ecological urgency, care ethics, and political situatedness. What emerges is a grammar of proximity: bags, garments, food rituals, shelters, lines, and thresholds function as mediators between bodies and environments. These are not symbolic props but operational tools that recalibrate attention, responsibility, and co-presence. The repeated insistence on affection, repair, and maintenance foregrounds an architectural intelligence aligned with feminist materialism and ecological humanities, where value is produced through use, duration, and reciprocity rather than spectacle. In this sense, the work resists both techno-solutionism and nostalgic vernacularism, proposing instead a rigorous, materially grounded ethics of doing and not-doing as spatial agency. A defining strength of the series lies in its systematic dismantling of scale as a determinant of relevance. Micro-actions—walking, carrying, eating, listening—are elevated to the status of urban operations, while large-scale infrastructures are reinterpreted as fragile, contingent systems. Projects such as soft lines, inflatable frictions, or conversational shelters articulate an alternative infrastructural imagination: one that privileges adaptability, reversibility, and care over permanence. This approach resonates with contemporary debates on soft power, maintenance art, and the politics of repair, aligning with theorists such as Shannon Mattern and Maria Puig de la Bellacasa. Importantly, the work does not aestheticise precarity but instrumentalises fragility as a critical resource. Ruins, rubble, oxidation, and waste are treated as active archives rather than residual matter, enabling a reading of the city as a palimpsest of socio-material negotiations. The notion of taxidermy—cutting back to surface, exposing layers—operates here as both method and metaphor. It reveals how urban form is continuously re-scripted by economic, ecological, and affective forces. Through this lens, architecture becomes an act of listening and editing rather than imposition, a curatorial practice of reality attentive to what already insists on being present.
Pedagogy occupies a central and explicit role within the corpus, not as a supplementary discourse but as an architectural condition in itself. Many projects operate simultaneously as artworks, spatial propositions, and learning environments, collapsing distinctions between studio, classroom, and city. This pedagogical dimension is rhizomatic rather than hierarchical, privileging situated knowledge, peer exchange, and embodied experience. The recurrent engagement with commons, prosumers, and decentralised platforms frames education as a civic practice embedded in everyday life. Learning unfolds through walking, cooking, stitching, or inhabiting, echoing traditions of critical pedagogy while extending them into spatial practice.
The city thus becomes both syllabus and medium. Crucially, this pedagogical stance avoids didacticism; it functions through invitation rather than instruction. The works propose conditions for awareness rather than delivering messages, allowing participants to negotiate meaning through action. This strategy aligns with contemporary calls for radical education that integrates art, ecology, and social justice without instrumentalising creativity. By foregrounding process over outcome, the practice asserts that knowledge is produced through sustained engagement with material and social realities. Architecture here is less a discipline than a mode of inquiry, capable of assembling heterogeneous actors—human and non-human—into provisional learning collectives. Taken as a whole, the series articulates a coherent and ambitious redefinition of contemporary architectural and artistic practice. Its contribution lies not in formal innovation but in epistemic repositioning: a shift from production to care, from mastery to attentiveness, from solution to protocol. The repeated emphasis on ritual is particularly significant. Ritual is understood not as archaic repetition but as a temporal technology capable of stabilising relations in unstable conditions. Through ritualised gestures—sharing broth, carrying objects, walking together—the works generate micro-temporalities of trust and cohabitation. This positions the practice within a broader cultural turn toward slow, restorative, and reparative modes of making.
In an era marked by ecological breakdown and social fragmentation, the corpus offers neither utopia nor critique alone, but a repertoire of actionable sensibilities. It proposes that architecture, at its most relevant, is not an answer but a question enacted with others. As such, the work stands as a rigorous contribution to contemporary art and architectural theory, advancing a model of practice where ethics, aesthetics, and ecology are inseparable, and where the future of urbanism is imagined through care-full, situated acts in the present (Lloveras, 2026).
