You are on page 1of 12

[THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO IS A SIMULACRUM

]
[Dragan Marković]
[PhD Student, University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture]
[dragan@superprostor.com]

ABSTRACT
[The basic thesis of the paper is that it becomes more certain that the future of
architectural design studio will be a simulacrum. As a consequence of overemphasizing
the autonomy and self-reference of the starting point and the procedures that are
performed, the architectural education within a design studio is increasingly becoming a
simulacrum: a copy without reference in actual reality.
The main objective of this research was to critically examine the contemporary
perspective of architectural education. Work on this research was aimed at identifying
new limits of the design studio as the basis of architectural pedagogy. Based on facts and
conclusions identified in the literature, the complexity of the role of design studios in the
constitution and verification of simulacra presentations of reality is pointed out, as well as
the production, the imposition and presentations of certain kinds of meanings and
knowledge that don't have their reference in the non-architectural "reality".
The paper doesn't look at studio project as just a practice of production, exchange and
transfer of knowledge, skills and abilities in the field of architecture through the
implementation of unique didactic tools of "reflection in action", but as a discursive
practice and social constitution of verification of meanings, ideologies and paradigms that
are is presented as a self-evident truths. This asymmetry is used as the main argument in
pointing out to a simulacrum future of architectural design studios.]

elective courses within the BA studies and design studio within the MA studies. University of Belgrade. Since 2009 he was engaged as a teaching assistant at the Department of Architecture within the introductory courses. Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia.[BRIEF BIOGRAPHY] [Dragan Markovic (1987) is a PhD student at the Faculty of Architecture.com). He is one of the four members of the editorial team of the architectural web-site “Super Prostor” (www. His student and award-winning competition entries were exhibited at numerous group exhibitions.] .superprostor. Since 2012 year he is receiving a scholarship from the Ministry of Education.

the practice and the academia. Although there has been an almost two-century debate about the “real measure” in the relationship between the technical and the artistic. simulacrum phase of development. Findeli. Numerous authors (Catanese. Elaborating on the previous debates on the discontinuity between practice and academia. 2001) point out “The Gap” (Ford. this paper starts from the thesis that the architectural design studio at the beginning of the second half of the 20 th century went through a new. 2007). The paper starts by taking into consideration the different statuses of architecture in the modern cultural context. University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture] [PAPER HEADING] [Introduction: Limitations of Contemporary Schools of Architecture The previous two decades were characterized by the appearance of sharp criticism of the results. 2003) i. In fact. self-reference and isolation of the academic work from the practical domain of architecture. 1991).e. in this text the relationship between the prevalent cultural paradigm of architecture and the work in design studios is designated as a simulacrum. The knowledge gained at schools of architecture and the knowledge gained during professional practice is becoming two distinctly separated worlds. This criticism mainly refers to the lack or realistic parameters in the education of architects. 1996. putting . the results of numerous surveys show the ever-increasing discontinuity between the academic and extra-academic experience of architecture students (Salama.[PAPER TITLE] [Dragan Marković] [PhD Student. While the profession criticizes the lack of realism in the curriculums and pedagogical practices. the real and the imaginary within architectural studies. it is possible to speak about a number of critical perspectives in the last ten years. The sources for the research were found in the literature dealing with the topics of theory and status of architecture and the question of using the design studio model as the foundation for architecture pedagogy respectively. Crobie. some basic characteristics of architecture in the post-Fordian era are pointed out. Then it moves on to education in architecture. and education and reality. the schools insist on their academic autonomy. For instance. approach and starting points of high education of architects. the mismatch between what is taught in schools and what happens in the practice. Even the students with good school results are having difficulties in applying the gained knowledge when they are solving everyday life problems or practical tasks (Yager. Afterwards. 1989.

practically.stress on the questions about the design studio. 2012: 925). They are very narrow and superficial identifications in which many of architecture’s features cannot be recognized. Karl Otto Ellefsen points out four different interpretations of architecture (Ellefsen. Second. activity. Further. Third. This view focuses on the professional approach. there is talk about the basic theories of a studio functioning as a simulation of the real and pointing out some of the criticism and the disadvantages of its use. 2008). making it a complex cultural and discursive practice. they are four views of the same term from different starting points. posed by architects themselves and architecture theorists. He also states that depending on the needs. The new limitations on the architects’ education and the possibilities of a further examination of the posed subject are pointed out at the end of the text. A building is qualified as architecture based on its quality. edited by Michael Hays. posed by philosophers and cultural and social theorists. When compared. The first one is the book Rethinking Architecture – A Reader in Cultural Theory. The new approaches refer to structuralist and poststructuralist philosophical and social theories. discipline and profession which is difficult to position precisely inside a system which sorts professions or qualifications” (Savić. art. architecture can be viewed as that which architects do. and as a reaction to such a narrow definition. 2005: xiii). Ellefsen points out that architecture can be viewed as an academic discipline within human sciences. the perception of architecture at the end of 20th century brings new interpretations which view it in a more complex and all-encompassing way. The Question of the Status of Architecture: From Autonomy to Intertextuality The status and definition of architecture are among the more complex and problematic questions inside the area of social action which. 2008). the debate on the simulacrum characteristics of the design studio starts. as was once the case” (Leach. According to him. Fourth. After the analysis. and the second is Architecture – Theory since 1968. Šuvaković stresses that “according to these new heterogeneous approaches architecture is most commonly interpreted as a multimedia material textual event” (Šuvaković. The French architect Jean Nouvel assumes a similar viewpoint. First. It is a closed concept which can pinpoint what architecture is. but rather based . applied sciences. The second collection points out the critical thoughts on architecture within its main stream. deals with organizing space for public and private life. In his Pritzker Architecture Prize speech in 2008. he points out that architecture can be defined as a field within applied arts. methods and institutions where the classification formally occurs. The first one points out the critical thoughts on architecture outside its main stream. revolutionary time in architecture” is coming at the beginning of the new millennium (Nouvel: 2008). The beginnings of the new interpretations can be recognized in two collections of texts published at the very end of 20th century. Parallel to this. edited by Neil Leach. From this viewpoint. A building made by an architect is architecture. or as a completely separate category. Neal Leach claims that “architecture can no longer be seen as an autonomous art discipline. viewed from the standpoint of urbanism. the definition of architecture is limited to buildings and the built environment. Nouvel pointed out that a “new. architecture can be found in the field of technical science. the paradigm of this revolution is not autopoetic (by itself and from itself). Marko Savić points out that “architecture is a field.

The idea of abstract aestheticism as the basic pedagogic approach soon spread across the Western civilization and became the dominant educational paradigm in the field of the discipline and profession of architecture. The new understanding sets architecture as a culture text (Ghandour. is established in neoliberal architecture. The present time is most commonly connected with the increasingly commercialized architectural production in the service of transnational neocapitalist globalization. but important “forms of cultural services and therefore realizations of cultural politics which now do not represent “higher values” but are the agent of expansive capital itself and economic demands in overcoming the multitude i. object etc. elitist and self-referential was reflected most directly through the architectural design studio. and then increased the “gap” between architectural education and practice (Coleman. 2002). transforming the multitude into the mass” (Šuvaković. Nouvel negates the ideological position on the autonomy of architecture. He even claims that “the future of architecture is no longer an architectural one” (Nouvel: 2008) Just like Neal Leach. The ideologies of transitional globalism are turned toward an open but economically controlled. the relationship between architectural education and practice has always varied. which is implied by the syntax “autonomy of architecture as a discipline”). According to the contemporary Italian political theorist Paolo Virno. by its nature. Nouvel thinks that the answers to the questions about the purpose and essence of architecture should be sought outside its disciplinary framework. 2010). Further in his speech which was based on a text of the same name from 1970s. A doctrine completely different from modernist utopianism (that. 2010). meanings” (Šuvaković. Nathaniel Coleman thinks that the academization and institutionalization of architects’ education have conditioned. behavioral. but also an important tool for constituting and bringing culture to its concrete and universal points. Šuvaković stresses the fact that. 2004). and not in the parent field. and not an architectural one. in such a context architecture and urbanism are no longer national “superstructures” of the basics of everyday life. 2011: 98). screen. In 19 th century the French Ecole Des Beaux Arts established a new. which show that architecture is not only a symptom of social reality. is a social. important features of the contemporary society are multitude. It is a transgression of key starting points. Nouvel points out that this revolution. 2012: 926). thus suppressing the medieval guild model. Because of this. . Education in the Field of Architecture: From the Studio to the Simulation of the Real When viewed in its entirety. With the academization and institutionalization of education in 18 th century came the radical separation of architectural theory. craftsmanship or the contribution of the biggest part of its own production (Dickinson. Making education academized. Academized education “glorified” the isolated “beauty” and the “conceptual” value of individual buildings instead of the usefulness. overseen and guided architectural space. verbal. one can talk about the architecture today as the architecture in a global and transitional post-Fordism. Architecture is now understood as a culture text “in the sense in which text is the mode of producing visual. academic approach to teaching architecture. spatial. postformism and power (Virno. cultural and economic one. practice and pedagogy which had been one item until that time.e.on other foundations. work.

but also a model of teaching design centered on the “learning by doing” approach. The purpose of the studio is to simulate the working conditions in realistic circumstances as comprehensively as possible. the design studio is an “open” form of learning based on subjective and not objective or positivistic judgments. the work in a design studio is dynamic and based on spontaneous acquiring of knowledge. Because of this the production. Schon thinks that the main role of the studio is to simulate realistic conditions of professional situations and circumstances. He formalized the basic principles of the studio model as “reflection in action” (Schon. until the 1980s. The studio is also a place of the articulation of the design epistemology. Compared to the traits of university subjects. 1988). “reflection in action” and a wider contextual surrounding in which they take place. Although it is a central place and an immanent approach to teaching architectural design and generally to education of architects. exchange and usage of knowledge in society and the structuring of personal and collective identities of architects and students of architecture. studio work can be compared to a jazz improvisation. The essence of the didactic approach in the studio project is simulation. Because of its lack of precisely defined teaching methodology. to impart a new “language” and to enable students to think “as architects”. Solving one problem using one set of methods and procedures does not create the competence to solve other problems in another scope or different contexts. The situations which architects encounter every day differ in scope and complexity. These papers point out the vast asymmetry between the prevalent cultural trends and the procedures within the . unique model of architectural pedagogy. so they cannot be established in advance. exchange and usage of knowledge in the studio largely depend on the contextual working conditions. gradually becoming more open and introducing elements of introductory and accompanying courses. Although it historically represents the central place for the “socialization” of new members and the production. criticality and analytic thought. Their solving is made harder. Throughout the entire history of the education of architects. there are multiple answers and they change during the searching process. the principle of “reflection in action” was not disputed for a long time (Webster. Studios are organized around the application of a pedagogic-didactic principle which Schon described as “learning by doing”. The design studio has three basic pedagogic tasks: to teach new skills. The theoretical explanation of studio work was offered by Donald Schon. and not scientific rationalism.The design studio is a traditionally accepted. Schon thinks that answers can be found only through the experience of designing i. the principles of work in design studios were without their theory for a long time. At the beginning of the new millennium there was a reassessment of the relationship between the design studio. In a design studio problems are intentionally presented as “wicked problems”. or trial and error. It was developed in the Royal academies’ workshops and during 19 th and at the beginning of 20th century it was transformed through the workshops of Ecole Des Beaux Arts and Bauhaus.e. abilities and skills in accordance with the changeable situations and circumstances. Today the term design studio means the concrete physical space in which teaching takes place. The essence of studio work is irrational creativity. 2008). Based on this analogy. Metaphorically speaking. through the creative dialog between students and work on solving the problem. 1985. the studio project has dominated all other subjects and thematic units within the architecture curriculum.

the results of numerous researches point to the increasing discontinuity between the academic and extra-academic experience of architecture students. 2005). This studio. One of the main criticisms of the studio model refers to the almost complete absence of scientific realism. Sam Jacob thinks that the students of architecture are being prepared for a world completely different from the present one. He claims that the status of the modern design studio model can be seen as a sub-discourse which “becomes a mechanism of control and regulation of discourse using its synthetical instances: the author. They talk about the de-contextualization of studio work and the treatment of architecture as pictures and isolated systems of meaning. It is increasingly difficult for students of architecture to establish a meaningful connection between what they are taught at university and real professional situations. Unlike the “situated cognition” theories. the conclusion is reached that the modern studio model is largely noncontextual and out of its time. Ashraf Salama also points out the negative sides of the studio model. everyday life far too often nowadays. “the hidden curriculum” and the self-reference of “the reflection in action”. the “reflection in action” theory does not question the context in which it is realized. Each individual design studio is a discourse of creation and imposing certain systems of values and views of the world. norms and rituals which are isolated from the rest of the world. On the other hand. When this is connected with a 55-year-old conceptual framework. isolated from “the street”. the studio culture has its own language. the work and the commentary…” (Salama. The knowledge. 1991). 2013). the design studio is isolated from the usual. Even the students with good school results are having difficulties in applying the gained knowledge when they are solving everyday life problems (Yager. Jacob claims that it is perfectly clear that this 55-yearold model is not suitable for the dramatically different circumstances of the current social. Jacob thinks that teaching architecture using old principles not perceived as such is the absurdity of its pedagogy. The Criticism of the Design Studio as a Pedagogic Model Although it “simulates” the realistic conditions. (See chart 1) (Salama. Generally. The principle of simulation brings only selected reality into the studio framework. 2002). abilities and skills gained at schools and in the situations of professional practice are becoming two separate worlds. The design studio imposes forms of thought and systems of meaning by using “the hidden curriculum” and “the habitus” of teachers which are conducted by the application of the teaching methodology of the design studio. Marwan Ghandour argues similarly and points out that the majority of lectures during studies are based on the rules established in 1960s and 1970s (Ghandour. What Schon’s “reflection in action” theory has not taken into consideration is that the role of education is dialectic and contextually . 2005). He points to the fact that the modern European conceptual model of the education of architects was constituted at the RIBA conference in 1958 (Jacob.studio itself. convictions. technological and cultural reality. continues to represent the normative instruction model in which the research topics tend to promote theory without experience. On the other hand. the enormous amount of time spent by students of architecture on their projects leads to their isolation from the world outside and they learn to communicate only with other students and architects. beliefs and cultural identification.

The nature of the design studio is also contextual because the material. goals. participants and tasks inside a studio are culturally. The nature of the design studio is dialectic because it does not represent just a reflection and a symptom of a sum of conditions which generate it. circumstances. The dialectic relationship between education and culture which remained unquestioned within the Schon’s principle of “reflection in action” is explained by contextual theories of education and learning. work subject.conditioned. but also a factor in their active constitution. situations. . socially and historically conditioned.

(1994) Chart 1. so (1994) sometimes they change them during the work on a project and during the marking process. D. (1995) Salama. (1995) AIAS (2003) AIAS (2003) Method of teaching Schon. Although many teachers of architecture believe that research should be presented in the studio. collective dedication and cooperation. Seidel. The synthetic processes of design in which agreements and cooperation are the most complex part are limited to individual attempts. Teachers in the studio tend to view teaching as an intuitive (1995) process based on subjective viewpoints and personal feelings. The marking of students’ accomplishments encourages the view of architecture as a result of individual effort. The leading ritual in the studio is the revision and the discussion of projects at the table. The design studio focuses on individual work although the profession of architecture is rather a result of team effort. A. A. (1993) Weber. Studio managers are not clear on the aims of the work. (1994) The process of defining the problem is essential and it should take place in the studio The design experience is limited to forming a concept and a template project.Category Author Negative tendencies The process of design in the studio Kay. The design studio puts stress on the final presentation of the designed project rather than the path to the solution within the studio. J. A. The design studio represents the mastery of the teacher and the student has to believe in their abilities. Salama. (1991) Weber. C. Salama. K. which is based on the assumption that teachers know how to design and how to react to specific problems. AIAS The current studio culture rewards students for projects (2003) which look best. D. C. (80-ih) Cuff. (1993) Watson. Students do not have enough opportunities for becoming capable of exploring the nature of design. Comparative view of the negative tendencies of teaching in the design studio . Design teachers focus on the questions about “how” design is done although the “what” and “why” of design is an unavoidable component of the design process in reality. (1991) D. Students work opposite each other but alone. often guarding their ideas from each other and fighting for the attention of the studio manager. Anthony. (1975) Watson. a large number of them do not have a clear picture of what research is and how to present it in the studio. A. D.

but a model constructed out of nothing. Speaking metaphorically. cultural and physical environment. in which the worms go about their everyday business without questioning the framework in which they are. interpretation.Contextual Theories of Education and Learning Apart from the self-reflective theories of learning. Michel Foucault also wrote about the relationship between culture.e. the design studio can be interpreted as a simulacrum. In his “archaeological” research. The modern education of architects is built on the myth of an abstract profession. 1998). He viewed upbringing and education as means of social supervision. The reason for this is that it bases its starting points on fictitious ideas of reality and social role of architecture as an autonomous discipline. Social constructions of reality achieved through institutionalization. power acts through discourse to shape acceptable forms and systems of knowledge and meaning. If looked from the standpoint of the knowledge and meaning it produces. whose values are understood “by themselves and for themselves”. Social constructivism is based on the idea that schools teach not only the academic curriculum. The Education of Architects Today: The Design Studio as a Simulacrum The uninterrupted historical rule of the design studio and its functioning on the principle of “reflection in action” create a “vicious circle” whose starting points are reflected in the uncritical relationship and the absence of awareness of the conditions (discourse) in which the “reflection” takes place. power and social control the central position belongs to the term “discourse”. the status of knowledge can never be taken as a finished and rounded fact or a fixed given. i. a fictitious idea of architecture as an autonomous discipline. 2011: 666). thus harmonizing them with the desirable system of norms and meaning. Sam Jacob likens the current education of architects to a “bucket of worms”. a “vicious circle” of isolated production system and exchange and usage of knowledge and meaning trapped in a closed circle of studio culture is created in the design studio. Both these starting points claim that the theory and the practice of education are not developed in a vacuum. seeing how it is an effect or a product of cultural or artistic activity (display. 2012. power and knowledge. Learning is also seen as an active construction of reality. In Foucault’s understanding of knowledge. there are also contextual theories of education. The role of schools is no longer reproduction and reflection of social-cultural situation of the present. objectification and legitimization are in the center of social constructivism and Foucault’s theories (Fuko. According to this starting point. identification) (Šuvaković. In his opinion. and not as a contextually and culturally defined phenomenon submerged in a complex web of discourse practices which exist outside its parent field. but also develop individual discourses which are at the disposal of an individual within their culture. appearing during the interaction with the social. In other words. one that has no other sources apart . In theories based on social constructivism the importance of the analysis of social and cultural context during the interpretation of certain social phenomena is pointed out. any social identity is a social construction in specific contextual conditions and contexts. but are shaped by the prevalent cultural assumptions. Šuvaković claims that “for social constructivism theorists reality cannot be discovered outside of the human context. Foucault claims that educational institutions use specific “microtechnologies of power” in order to transform students from one state into another. Actually.

However. their simulation of the real.from its own code. this situation is not treated as fictional and unreal. i. this paper has shown that the studio project at the beginning of the new century is transforming and assuming some characteristics of a simulacrum. While the profession most commonly criticizes the lack of realism in school curriculums. In such a system illusions and fiction precede the presence of the real. The design studio as a pedagogic and didactic approach is not based on realworld facts or sources established in culture and society. most of which are anachronous and with no origin in the present reality or cultural and social context described as post-Fordian. the ever-changing status of architecture and the education of architects cannot be understood by itself and from itself. but a partial and a semipermeable one. However. An item and its simulacrum have become the same in manifestation. It is partial because it does not encompass all its parts. Although “the gap” between the education and the profession appeared at the moment of establishing the first academic pedagogic practices. Keeping in mind that education is the basis for the intellectual capacities of future professionals.e. The simulacrum nature of the design studio is not an absolute one. architecture as their concrete and universal text on the one hand. it is of crucial importance for the institution of the education of architects to critically understand and to question itself and the world around it in order to achieve the . and that the relationship with the profession begins forming during education. but as a hyper-realistic one: more real than any other reality. They represent abstract ranges which claim to combine theory and practice in order to educate students ready for the challenges of the profession only on a verbal level. the modern shift from simulation to simulacrum has made the gap even bigger. starting points. the design studio as a simulacrum is a symptom of not understanding that life “outside” culture is not possible. sources. It is semipermeable because it establishes a dialog conditioned by value on the relation between the external and the internal worlds of its own discourse. The education of architects is a simulacrum because the model of the design studio as the foundation of architecture pedagogy is constituted by means of other models. i. This points out the widening of “the gap” in the modern education of architects. schools are afraid of the potential threat to their academic autonomy. it cannot be said which phenomenon has its basis in reality and which in its opposite. but on its own fantasies. The current simulators of the education of architects equate the outer reality with their model and they precede it. The “reality” generated in the studio precedes the reality of the profession. purpose and conduct of teaching within European schools of architecture today on the other. fiction and delusional ideas without outside references which are put in the place of the outside references. The current simulators of the education of architects equate the outer reality with their model and they precede it. However.e. Conclusion By the parallel observation of the modern status of society and culture. and the attitudes. more complex and problematic. To put it simply. The relation between the lack of realism and the academic autonomy of schools of architecture is presented as a simulacrum in this paper. Their collision is manifested in the symptom of “the gap”. In such a system illusions and fiction precede the presence of the real. but only from the dialectic relationship with other culture texts.

47-48. A. International Journal of Architectural Research. 925-934. andVujanović. more comprehensive and complex questions and establishing the limits of the modern education of architects. 47-51. V. Šuvaković. Novi Sad: Mediterran Publishing. Savić. 9. Boundaries and Beyond. (1989). Daković. (2010). In: Salama. 2013 from: www. (2012). N. C. 2005. Pomovnik teorije umetnosti. M. The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards Real Reform in Science Education". Finishing School: Inquiries Into the Completion of an Architectural Education. 29/2. Schon. S.com/2010/11/10/whymodern-architectural-education-is-archaic/. A. Šuvaković. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Humane Habitat ICHH-05. M. O. Ignjatović. 200-212. pp. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Skill Based/Knowledge Based Architectural Pedagogies: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments. (2011). India. 5-17. (eds). N. (1998). F. Beograd: Arhitektnski fakulteti. The Gap and Its Effect on Architectural Education. Lyn. Reforma studija arhitekture u okviru Bolonjskog procesa. Blurs.. A. (2008). and Schreiber. A. Webster. (|2010). pp. (2005).com/sites/default/files/file_fields/field_files_inline/2008_Acceptance_Spe ech. A. (2008). (2003). In: Dulaney. ] . K. Vol. Nouvel. Building As Social Practice. Istorija umetnosti u Srbiji XX vek. The Pritker Architecture Prize Accepance Speach. 203 from: http://architectureboston. Arheologija znanja. Leash. Downloaded on Septembre 1. J. (eds). M. M. Schon. 72-76. Downloaded on Septembre 4. Vol. (2004). Salama. Arhitektura kao kulturna praksa.pdf.highest possible quality of its own work. Vol. Crobie. (eds). pp. 63-69. 3/2. Dickinson. (ed). M. In: Šuvaković. D. Findeli. Architectural Education Today: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Geneva: Aga Khan Trust for Culture. Present Positions (In)Forming Future Challenges – Synthesis and Directions Towards the European Higher Architectural Education Area. A Critical Reading of the ENHSA Thematic Network Debates on the Content of Architectural Studies. H. N. pp. (1985). P. Design Issues. C and Voyatzaki. (2012). Science Teacher. (1988). The Limits of Professional Architecture Education. Beograd: Plato. Mikić. (2005). Vol. Ellefsen.pritzkerprize. In: Spiridonidis. pp. Journal of Art and Desigh Education. This research was aimed in this direction – finding new limits and finding the basic conditions for their transgression. Yager. Vol.. M. M. Coleman. Rethinking Architecture – A Reader in Cultural Theory. Methodological. Leuven: EAAE. Journal for Education in the Built Environment. Architectural Education: Bridging the Teaching/Practice Gap. London: Routledge. (2002). 52-57. (2002). Massachusetts: MIT Press.. Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical. A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education". Salama. 63-74. R. J. pp. 7. Why Modern Architectural Education is Archaic?.wordpress. (2007). Progressive Architecture. Architectural Education after Schon: Craks. Architectural Record. A. Fuko. 17/1. A Grammar of the Multitude: For Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life. Bibliography Catense. The Schools: How They’re Faling the Profession (and What we Can Do About It). New York: Semiotex. Ford. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. Fuko. R.. Virno. Tampa: School of Architecture and Community Design. D. pp. Vol. Mumbai. (2001). 47-52. Vol. (1995). M. (1991). tržišna aproprijacija društvenog ili ideologije mnoštva. Novak. Beograd: Orion Art. pp. A. 2/1. D. Ghandour. 100-128. and Ethical Deiscussion. (2008). J. pp. Beograd: Orion Art i Katedra za Muzikologiju Fakulteta muzičkih umetnosti. Moć/znanje – Odabrani spisi i razgovi. The Design Studio. 58/6. The results found can be used as a basis and a starting point for further.