At its conceptual core, this work-system rejects the monolithic impulses of traditional historiography in favour of a modular, rhizomatic architecture—a deliberate fragmentation into autonomous constellations. This is not merely an exercise in taxonomic variety; it is a profound ontological shift that transforms the database into a legible cultural machine, rendering visible the very infrastructure of transdisciplinarity. By adopting a navigable topology of ideas over the "epistemic soup" of undifferentiated accumulation, the project aligns itself with the intellectual lineages of Aby Warburg’s Mnemosyne Atlas and Joseph Beuys’s Social Sculpture. However, it strategically exceeds these precedents by operationalising their symbolic intuitions into a system that is fundamentally contingent and self-correcting. In this framework, the art object is no longer a static relic of aesthetic contemplation but a "situational fixer," a nomadic node within a mesh of meanings that actively resists the institutional illusion of closure and the fetishisation of the gallery space. This transition from taxonomy to topology marks a decisive break with the linear narratives of the past, asserting that contemporary cultural agency is inherently relational, recursive, and multi-sited. The decision to integrate duplication and cross-disciplinary overlap—exemplified by the inclusion of pivotal figures like Hito Steyerl or Fred Moten—serves not as a curatorial error but as a vital systemic property that mirrors the fluid, post-disciplinary nature of modern artistic praxis. The archive, in this sense, functions as an "epistemic self-audit," a critical device that maps not only what is present but, perhaps more crucially, the critical absences and systemic omissions that constitute epistemic violence. By foregrounding these gaps, the socioplastic atlas transforms the act of curation into a form of negative knowledge, identifying the ghosts of lineage and the scars of omission within the urban and digital fabric.
The resulting mesh does not seek to provide a definitive answer to the question of the contemporary; rather, it provides a rigorous methodological contract with the reader, demanding an active engagement with the protocols of its own transformation and the socio-material conditions of its existence. The introduction of the "influencias vivas" (living influences) layer further intensifies the project's temporal complexity, shifting the focus from a retrospective mausoleum of settled greatness to a prospective, real-time sensorium of cultural mutation. Here, the inclusion of practitioners such as Forensic Architecture, Catherine Malabou, and Cooking Sections is governed by a thermodynamic model of cultural value, where "heat" and material friction—rather than institutional heritage—become the primary criteria for relevance. This creates a state of perpetual "unstable installation," where practices that cool into consensus are migrated to other blocks, ensuring that the system remains a functioning radar for the shifts in technopolitics, ecology, and aesthetics. This prospective intelligence allows the archive to transcend the role of memory, becoming instead a diagnostic tool for the "Anthropomorphic Interface" and the crises of the post-municipal sphere. By embedding these active operators within an unfinished present, Lloveras creates a framework where architecture and art function as "gravitational ethics," navigating the slope of contemporary history with the precision of a surgical intervention, constantly re-evaluating the thresholds between the domestic, the urban, and the global.
Ultimately, the socioplastic atlas must be understood as a new social contract for cultural memory, one that is modular, updateable, and ethically accountable for the future grammars it engineers. Its pedagogical potency is inseparable from its editorial authority, functioning as a syllabus, a counter-canon, and an exhibition engine that refuses to collapse into the passivity of the spectacle. The project acknowledges its own residual limitations—geopolitical imbalances and the inherent risks of canon fetishisation—not as failures, but as authenticating markers of a living, breathing structure. It is an architecture of affection and compression that responds to the "climate urgency" and "AI-shaped world" by proposing a radical presence: a "socioplastic ethos" where we wear architecture as a dialogue rather than armour.
Through its use of industrial materials, discarded textiles, and digital storytelling, the work of LAPIEZA and Lloveras reconstructs the city as a biological organism, performing a continuous "taxidermy" of the urban experience. It is a profound contribution to art theory that replaces the static authority of the museum with a fluid, relational commons, ensuring that the archive remains a site of resistance, repair, and radical imagination in the afterlife of the object. Lloveras, A. (2026) Socioplastic Sovereignty and Aesthetics. Available at:
