Does it suck that it's probably taking up a space where actual seating could be?? Absolutely!! But it's an art piece so I think it should be fully considered hostile architecture I feel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is hostile architecture because its entire point is to be hostile architecture? Right?
It's like if we had a sub that said, cars are way too big now, and an artist made a concept car that was absolutely insane size to point out the absurdity of car sizes and were like, no that's not a big car, that's art.
Okay, but would a sculpture that doesn't look like a bench at all count as hostile architecture? Is anything in public you can't sleep on hostile architecture? If not, why does making the art vaguely bench shaped suddenly make it hostile architecture when other public sculpture isn't?
That bench looks enough like a bench that anyone could recognize it as one. And you can actually sit on the first one and it prevents sleeping, and the second one looks like it’s ment for leaning only, both of which is common in hostile architecture. I’d say just because it looks nice doesn’t exempt it from being hostile, I don’t think it’s exclusively art either because there’s no barrier or signs near it to keep people away that I can see. At the end of the day all architecture is art anyway.
It is exceedingly rare to see outright hostile architecture in Denmark, and even "dark design" is not that common (although certainly present in corporate architecture). Copenhagen as a city has a famously comfortable bench that has been ubiquitous across the capital for decades, and our "best practices" approach to urban planning means that the vast majority of benches allow for both sitting, resting and sleeping.
I get that hostile architecture is often hidden, but it feels very silly whenever someone posts an art piece in here while completely ignoring the general planning landscape in Denmark.
No but instead of art or hostile architecture I would say put there as an art piece a bench that says something like unhostile architecture or something. Would be much more appreciated I think. Maybe include a sleeping homeless as being the art piece for example. Would be much nicer and still art. I may just do not like inhumane practice, including art that underlines it, like that one.
Interesting, if I only had been knowing earlier from the image... But on another point, it doesn't really encourage it's purpose. Very cool and creative but maybe the wrong time to be appreciated properly. Maybe the bias is just misleading. Especially with my bias and the bias of this sub being against things that might be interpreted as hostile perse. This is just not really inviting to be sat on. I see that it is not hostile but with todays architecture mostly being hostile this art, which is not directly clear how it is used to be it is in my opinion easily misunderstood as hostile. Which might also be tue reason why it landed here honestly. I do not want to disrespect the art piece. It's cool but maybe the wrong time yo be displayed in times of hostile architecture
Technically ALL hostile architecture is art. As a matter of fact all architecture is art. There is no sign that says don’t touch, and this bench appears to be in an outdoor pedestrian area so I’d say it’s just nice looking piece of hostile architecture.
With their modifications, the benches transform their surroundings into places of activity rather than rest and solitude;
They're explicitly designed in their own words, to discourage rest.
And I have to ask: What is so "nothing" to you about the idea that anti-homeless or anti-whatever architecture is often disguised as art? Nobody lies? Nothing ever has two purposes? Nobody ever hires an artist to make a pretty thing where homeless people have been resting?
Used, yes. Used for seating? Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Out of investigating architecture, communication, and social behaviour in the urban space, a series of bench designs was born under the common title Modified Social Benches. The bench designs borrow their basic form from the ubiquitous park or garden bench, but are altered to various degrees to make the act of sitting a conscious physical endeavour. With their modifications, the benches transform their surroundings into places of activity rather than rest and solitude; they foster exchange between the users and the passers-by, thus lending the work a social quality. Due to their alterations, the benches end up somewhere between a dysfunctional object and a functional piece of furniture, and therefore demonstrate the contradiction between artwork and functional object.
With their modifications, the benches transform their surroundings into places of activity rather than rest and solitude
This is explicitly hostile architecture. Not anti-homeless, or even malicious, but it fits the definition flawlessly. It was deliberately designed to alter behavior of the users.
Pretty much. A lot of hostile architecture these days are being disguised as "art", and as a working artists myself, I can find a million and one ways to make art without making something hostile.
Also, transforming a "surrounding into places of activity rather than rest" is literally the definition of hostile architecure, to prevent rest in favour of moving on.
It's the opposite of malicious. It fits perfectly in "hostile" because it's against the self interest of the people it's manipulating. Hostile and malicious are not synonyms.
Seriously, read the sidebar, I spent a lot of time writing it to avoid this conversation every day.
Please note that "I think this is a good idea actually" doesn't mean it's not hostile architecture, if it reasonably fits the definition above.
Ok, so you're one of those who reads part of the definition, already disagrees, and stops reading. Or insists on taking a couple words of it to some silly extreme
Again: Read the sidebar. The bolded text contradicts the argument you just made, literally the first sentence.
From the source you quoted:
With their modifications, the benches transform their surroundings into places of activity rather than rest and solitude;
Well, if you can think of a better way to word it, that would be helpful. Because this art installation is explicitly intended to modify how users use the space, and that is the point of hostile architecture.
I love when people replace seating with "art pieces" that are all basically pretentious jokes about how totally preposterous it would be for someone to need to sit down in public.
Art pieces not intended for seating
Yup this ^
Does it suck that it's probably taking up a space where actual seating could be?? Absolutely!! But it's an art piece so I think it should be fully considered hostile architecture I feel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is hostile architecture because its entire point is to be hostile architecture? Right?
It's like if we had a sub that said, cars are way too big now, and an artist made a concept car that was absolutely insane size to point out the absurdity of car sizes and were like, no that's not a big car, that's art.
Okay, but would a sculpture that doesn't look like a bench at all count as hostile architecture? Is anything in public you can't sleep on hostile architecture? If not, why does making the art vaguely bench shaped suddenly make it hostile architecture when other public sculpture isn't?
Would a different, not bench looking sculpture also count as hostile architecture? What? "If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike"
This art DOES look like benches and IS placed in accessible places- like benches.
That bench looks enough like a bench that anyone could recognize it as one. And you can actually sit on the first one and it prevents sleeping, and the second one looks like it’s ment for leaning only, both of which is common in hostile architecture. I’d say just because it looks nice doesn’t exempt it from being hostile, I don’t think it’s exclusively art either because there’s no barrier or signs near it to keep people away that I can see. At the end of the day all architecture is art anyway.
Because it is art which means it does have a purpose, that being to look good/interesting and make people think/feel something.
Did anyone look into this? lots of people interacting with it
It is exceedingly rare to see outright hostile architecture in Denmark, and even "dark design" is not that common (although certainly present in corporate architecture). Copenhagen as a city has a famously comfortable bench that has been ubiquitous across the capital for decades, and our "best practices" approach to urban planning means that the vast majority of benches allow for both sitting, resting and sleeping.
I get that hostile architecture is often hidden, but it feels very silly whenever someone posts an art piece in here while completely ignoring the general planning landscape in Denmark.
But they should be putting regular benches there instead
Do you have a problem with art installations?
No but instead of art or hostile architecture I would say put there as an art piece a bench that says something like unhostile architecture or something. Would be much more appreciated I think. Maybe include a sleeping homeless as being the art piece for example. Would be much nicer and still art. I may just do not like inhumane practice, including art that underlines it, like that one.
https://www.jeppehein.net/project_id.php?path=works&id=126
It's not inhumane practice. The benches have been deliberately designed to stimulate more than a sedentary reaction.
Interesting, if I only had been knowing earlier from the image... But on another point, it doesn't really encourage it's purpose. Very cool and creative but maybe the wrong time to be appreciated properly. Maybe the bias is just misleading. Especially with my bias and the bias of this sub being against things that might be interpreted as hostile perse. This is just not really inviting to be sat on. I see that it is not hostile but with todays architecture mostly being hostile this art, which is not directly clear how it is used to be it is in my opinion easily misunderstood as hostile. Which might also be tue reason why it landed here honestly. I do not want to disrespect the art piece. It's cool but maybe the wrong time yo be displayed in times of hostile architecture
Technically ALL hostile architecture is art. As a matter of fact all architecture is art. There is no sign that says don’t touch, and this bench appears to be in an outdoor pedestrian area so I’d say it’s just nice looking piece of hostile architecture.
If it's not intended for seating, calling it a "bench" is just straight up lying with better lighting.
That's an art project, isn't it?
People really need to stop posting art pieces here
It will stop when people stop using art as a facade.
No, I'm not saying every piece of art is hostile, no I'm not even saying this one is. But it's fuzzy, and that's why it works.
You say a lot of words that when put together mean nothing.
It's literally art. There's nothing fuzzy about that.
https://www.jeppehein.net/project_id.php?path=works&id=126
Here's some words for you, from that exact page:
They're explicitly designed in their own words, to discourage rest.
And I have to ask: What is so "nothing" to you about the idea that anti-homeless or anti-whatever architecture is often disguised as art? Nobody lies? Nothing ever has two purposes? Nobody ever hires an artist to make a pretty thing where homeless people have been resting?
Not rest as in sleep, rest as in the environment has no action.
instead of art installations in public or museums they should just replace them all with benches
The Mona Lisa was not designed for sitting.
Neither were these
[Click this and come back with that same confidence.)
Well at least one of them will make a nice base for a makeshift tent for a homeless person...
These art pieces are meant to be used. It's the whole point of the art. But they are unusable, defeating the point.
Used, yes. Used for seating? Some of them are, some of them aren't.
https://www.jeppehein.net/project_id.php?path=works&id=126
This is explicitly hostile architecture. Not anti-homeless, or even malicious, but it fits the definition flawlessly. It was deliberately designed to alter behavior of the users.
Pretty much. A lot of hostile architecture these days are being disguised as "art", and as a working artists myself, I can find a million and one ways to make art without making something hostile.
Also, transforming a "surrounding into places of activity rather than rest" is literally the definition of hostile architecure, to prevent rest in favour of moving on.
I completely disagree.
It was designed to POSITIVELY affect the behaviour of its users.
That's the opposite of hostile.
It's the opposite of malicious. It fits perfectly in "hostile" because it's against the self interest of the people it's manipulating. Hostile and malicious are not synonyms.
Seriously, read the sidebar, I spent a lot of time writing it to avoid this conversation every day.
Again, I completely disagree.
By that definition, a traffic light is hostile architecture
Ok, so you're one of those who reads part of the definition, already disagrees, and stops reading. Or insists on taking a couple words of it to some silly extreme
Again: Read the sidebar. The bolded text contradicts the argument you just made, literally the first sentence.
From the source you quoted:
I'm one of those people for whom words have meanings.
I've read the sidebar and still disagree that this art installation fits the definition of hostile architecture therein.
Keep going and you'll get custom flair.
Well, if you can think of a better way to word it, that would be helpful. Because this art installation is explicitly intended to modify how users use the space, and that is the point of hostile architecture.
Moebius bench!
Looks to be art used as a fig leaf to not have to install actual benches.
Nothing says community like a bench that actively rejects your body.
I love when people replace seating with "art pieces" that are all basically pretentious jokes about how totally preposterous it would be for someone to need to sit down in public.