The architecture of this instrument is ontological and additive. It operates at the level of definition and relation. Each intervention—be it a built structure, a curated series, or a filmed essay—is first defined by its operational essence within the system. The apparatus then establishes the logical protocols for how these entities interact, affiliate, and produce meaning. As new works emerge, the system expands not through mere accumulation, but through recursive integration, layering new data onto a living logical scaffold that grows more robust with each addition. It is an open, dynamic system that rejects the rigid taxonomies of academia and the art market, opting instead for a fluid topology where its constituent gateways—architecture, urbanism, social sculpture, film, text—are in constant, metabolically-driven flux. Its core principle is that a transdisciplinary practice of genuine scope cannot adopt a pre-existing map; it must generate its own coordinates to maintain coherence across the disparate fields it inhabits. The system’s fundamental objective is transdisciplinary integration. It functions as the operative connective tissue binding Anto Lloveras’s polymathic output—from tactile urban interventions to hyperplastic essays—into a single, communicative machine. It advances an instrumentology not of classification, but of synthesis, ensuring that a residency in Norway, a workshop in Lagos, and a theoretical text can resonate as synaptic nodes within the same cognitive framework. Its purpose is to make the sprawling not just manageable, but productive. At its vital core is a dual-function network. This mesh performs two simultaneous, critical operations. First, it acts as a critical filter, distilling the raw complexity of practice into a precise, sovereign vocabulary. Second, it serves as systemic fuel, circulating these refined concepts as relational nutrients that nourish and update the entire corpus. Within this circuit, the city, the archive, and the critique become interdependent variables in a continuous feedback loop, where every new project recalibrates the understanding of all that came before. The apparatus is defined by three key, interlocking attributes. Its Fluidity ensures it is a responsive tool—its components divide, merge, and multiply according to the demands of the research. Its Sovereignty is epistemological: it constructs an independent frame of reference—a topolexical coordinate system—immune to the flattening effects of external platforms. Finally, its Utility is transformative: it converts a lifelong accumulation of works into a functional engine for generating future action in urban regeneration, pedagogy, and research. It is a machine built not to store the past, but to operationalize it for the construction of what comes next.
