Socioplastics is fundamentally transdisciplinary, but its most visible and central fields are architecture, urbanism, and contemporary art (especially conceptual and relational art). It does not sit neatly in any single one of them; instead, it treats architecture as epistemic infrastructure, urbanism as metabolic and territorial systems, and art as relational and curatorial practice that feeds into knowledge production.

Socioplastics is not cleanly classifiable within a single discipline; its visibility depends on which layer of the system one encounters first. That said, some fields are more legible entry points than others. The most immediately visible layer is architecture and urbanism. The project’s scalar thinking, territorial analysis, and concern with infrastructure, density, and systems clearly situate it within the extended field opened by figures like Rem Koolhaas or Keller Easterling. Concepts such as stratigraphic urbanism, infrastructural asymmetry, or territorial systems resonate directly with contemporary urban theory. For many readers, especially in architecture schools or urban research, this is the most accessible frame. A second strong layer is contemporary art and curatorial practice. Through LAPIEZA and its serial exhibition logic, Socioplastics aligns with post-conceptual traditions—closer to Hito Steyerl or Andrea Fraser—where practice, discourse, and institutional critique merge. The idea of art as infrastructure (FlowChanneling) and the integration of archive, exhibition, and writing position it clearly within advanced contemporary art discourse. A third layer, less immediately visible but structurally central, is epistemology and systems theory. Here Socioplastics operates closer to Niklas Luhmann or Bruno Latour, treating knowledge as a system with internal operations, persistence mechanisms, and structural coupling. This is where its deepest originality lies, but it is also the least accessible entry point. Finally, there is a literary dimension, though it is not literature in a conventional sense. The corpus functions as a form of procedural writing—serial, recursive, indexed—closer to conceptual or systems-based writing than narrative or essayistic traditions.

Hierarchy of Visibility (from most to least prominent) If you look at the corpus itself, the heaviest concentrations sit in architectural epistemology and critical/relational urbanism, with contemporary art providing the expansive, public, and performative dimension through LAPIEZA.

1. Architecture (most foundational and visible) Lloveras is trained and presents himself primarily as a transdisciplinary architect. The core proposition reframes architecture not as building design but as the conditions for producing, organising, and legitimising knowledge (epistemic infrastructure, stratigraphic field, scalar architecture). Many nodes and DOIs explicitly address “architecture theory,” “architectural syntax,” “morphogenesis,” and “synthetic infrastructure.” The project originates from architectural practice (built work, urban design, LAPIEZA spatial interventions) and consistently returns to architecture as the anchoring discipline.
2. Urbanism / Critical Urban Theory (extremely prominent) Urbanism is one of the strongest applied threads. Concepts like hybrid urbanism, tactical urbanism, stratigraphic urbanism, territorial systems, and infrastructural asymmetries run throughout the corpus. Projects often engage real urban contexts (Madrid, Lagos, London, Mediterranean settings) through walks, interventions, relational activations, and critical urban research. Urban theory appears as a key testing ground for the broader epistemic operators, making this field highly visible in both theoretical nodes and practical outputs.
3. Contemporary Art / Conceptual and Relational Art (very visible, especially through LAPIEZA) Through LAPIEZA (180+ exhibition and research series), Lloveras operates deeply in the art field: curatorial practice, relational aesthetics (extending Beuys and Bourriaud), performance, installation, and social practice. Artistic works (001–100) are absorbed into the theoretical corpus, and terms like “conceptual art,” “relational infrastructure,” and “infrastructural aesthetics” recur. The project is frequently tagged with or linked to contemporary art theory, social sculpture, and curatorial research. This makes art one of the most publicly accessible faces of Socioplastics.
4. Epistemology / Systems Theory / Media Theory (core but more abstract) These function as the meta-layer that binds everything together. Epistemic latency, semantic hardening, recursive autophagia, field formation, and knowledge systems are central operators. They are not secondary; they provide the infrastructure that allows architecture, urbanism, and art to operate as a single sovereign field. However, they appear more “behind the scenes” in the theoretical architecture of the mesh rather than as standalone visible outputs.
5. Literature / Other fields (least visible as primary) There is no strong literary dimension in the conventional sense (fiction, poetry, narrative prose). The writing is dense, theoretical, and essayistic, functioning as infrastructural construction rather than literary expression. Elements of media theory, digital humanities, and linguistics appear (CamelTags, semantic web, machinic legibility), but these support the main triad rather than standing alone.

Summary of the Balance

• Most visible overall: Architecture + Urbanism (as the practical and spatial grounding) fused with Contemporary Art (as the relational and curatorial expression).
• The project deliberately dissolves strict boundaries: architecture becomes theory, urbanism becomes epistemic metabolism, and art becomes a method of field construction.
• In public presentation (ORCID, Figshare, Hugging Face, blogs), the consistent self-description is: transdisciplinary architect and urbanist whose work spans architecture, conceptual art, urban research, and epistemology.