Degenerate States of Architecture - Spatial Triologies in Moscow

A remote possibility. A design pedagogy that fosters a fusion of views. A melting pot consisting of design studios from; any architecture school, anywhere in the world – all at the same time.Performing and living together with the “house band” consisting of remote locals in the roles such as participating, archiving, researching, documenting, speculating... One that won’t force collaboration nor will encourage isolation. An institution that won’t impose any option. Somewhere people or institutions are ephemeral whereas the interactions in between are what establish its identity. One that won’t judge, but rather witness the production of “what takes place within it.
Kitsch, mainstream, banal, ugly, bad-taste and low profile... No surprise that a term like “stiob” emerged in the Soviet Union. Alexei Yurchak defines the origins of “stiob” as idealogy’s eager supporter, claiming that this ironic treatment of symbols required a unique sense of over-identification, so much so that it was impossible to tell if these symbols were supported or subverted by subtle ridicule. Slavoj Zizek states that this strategy is a reflection of frustration, not at the fact it could be an ironic imitation but more so Due to the over identification with it. This therefore brought irrelevance to the meaning of these symbols. The term “stiob” then defines a connection to an formal dominance, where the subject subverts to a point where it becomes difficult to tell whether this subject is in fact a supporter or ridiculer of it. This then brings to question:
Can we look closer at ‘stiob’, as a fruitful source for belonging, breaking down the non-institutional and extract more expressions through a “degenerate” architecture?