Screen of Space and Society

Screen of Space and SocietyBy Neda Kahooker

Chelsea College of Art and Design, London, September 2011

Divisions show themselves in spaces and all art forms including urban design and architecture.

(Shirin Neshat, 2000)

Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................6

SEGREGATOR SCREENS IN PERSONAL DAILY LIFE ......................................................................7

SCREEN DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................14

I) SCREENS ON AN INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL LEVEL ......................................................... 15

II) SCREENS IN DOMESTIC SETTINGS .............................................................................................18

III) SCREENS WITHIN PUBLIC PLACES AND SOCIETIES ............................................................ 24

SCREEN MODELS ................................................................................................................................ 25

I) SCREEN MODEL 1. OPPRESSION .................................................................................................. 28

II) SCREEN MODEL 2. REVOLUTION ............................................................................................... 48

III) SCREEN MODEL 3. CHANGE ....................................................................................................... 60

IV) SCREEN MODEL 4. SEPARATION ............................................................................................... 93

V) SEGREGATOR SCREENS IN PUBLIC CIRCUMSTANCE ..........................................................105

VI) FINAL SHOW AT CHELSEA COLLEGE OF ART........................................................................ 114

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... 124

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................................127

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................... 128

SCREENS OF SOCIETY AND SPACE

6

Almost all human societies have a tendency towards some forms of segregation and creation of a unique identity, albeit arbitrarily. In some societies and historical eras, however, these divisions have been more pronounced.

My identity as an Iranian woman has been influenced by my experiences through growing up in a post Islamic revolutionary era. This has significantly impacted my understanding of phenomenon of discriminations and divisions, turning these concepts to important ideological issues with major personal and practical implications for day to day life.

This project shows my criticism of the issue of gender divisions and limitations in society. Gender divisions create boundaries that not only have shown themselves in society but also have had important spatial and architectural impacts. The personal significance of this issue led to my choice of this project in order to demonstrate the need for breaking the boundaries within both the society and architectural design. I looked critically at the issue of screens in architecture and metaphoric realms. Whilst screens can be viewed as positive utilitarian objects, from my personal observations they are often used as barriers between people, especially between genders. This book begins with an exploration of how screens can be used as tools to promote oppression and in particular the issue of gender segregation. It will look more closely at examples of screens as used by other artists and compares these with five screen models that have been created through this project. The construction process of each model is discussed.

INTRODUCTION

NEDA KAHOOKER

7

SEGREGATOR SCREENS IN PERSONAL DAILY LIFE

My project began with reflections about my personal daily observations and experiences in Iranian society and identification of scenarios where segregation and social discriminations are abundant, and how these are coded in spatial environment.

As an adult, looking back, one can see the seeds of divisions implanted from early childhood; the time when a seven-year old is told to cover her hair on the first day of school without understanding the logic or significance behind it. Similarly later when she ponders over why she cannot attend the same school as her brother two years her senior. I recall sneaking a look through a gap between the wall and a closed school gate, wondering curiously what may lie behind my brother’s impenetrable school gate. Latter in secondary education, the school for girls typically have female teachers only and vice versa. In the last year there have been strong calls to introduce gender segregation within universities.

As I grew up, although more trivial daily issues such as wearing a head scarf became more of a habit and even a fashion statement, differences, discriminations, and limitations concerning more vital matters within school and society became increasingly more noticeable.

Gender segregations are easily seen in the public places such as mosques, buses, work places . The majority of gender segregations within public places are imposed by different forms of physical screens that are sometimes more flexible, or alternatively by fixed partitions acting as permanent barriers. Not uncommonly these supposedly flexible screens become permanently fixed.

In some circumstances, however, it is not a physical barrier, but an imaginary screen, that individuals within these societies tend to build between themselves. It is physical or non-physical dividers that separated individuals within society based on gender, race, culture, and social status, and hinder the development of that society.


8

Photos showing examples of gender segregation in a sample society such as Iran. The physical barriers acting as screens are highlighted .

Figure 1. Women are segregated from men on public buses.A, B, by Neda Kahooker. Tehran, Iran. April 2011.C, photographer unknown. Iran, approximately 1980s. It is not uncommon for one section of the bus to be overcrowded whilst the other section has many empty seats that cannot be used.

NEDA KAHOOKER

9


10

Figure 2/A,B Worshipers are separated based on gender during prayer. http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1147.html(accessed on 2 august 2011)

NEDA KAHOOKER

11


12

Figure 3. School for girls in Iran. There are no mixed schools in Iran .

Figure 4. Women enjoying waves in the sea with full body covering whilst men can swim in a swimming shorts. Although there are designated female sections enclosed by screens built into the sea, where they can wear swimming suits, women can not swim freely with men.

Figure 5. Male section in the underground trains. Tehran, Iran 2011, by Neda Kahooker. There are designated female only cabins. Although females can go to the male cabins, they often choose to go to the female only cabins unless accompanied by male relatives. This is for their personal ease, as well as the opportunity to buy goods such as female underwear from street vendors walking in and out of female cabins!

Figure 6. Separate queues to enter the mosque.http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1147.html (accessed on 2 august 2011)

NEDA KAHOOKER

13


14

SCREEN DEFINITION

The word ‘screen’ is defined by Oxford dictionary as ‘anything that serves to divide, conceal, or protect’ (2005). All these meanings have their own role within a society. In addition to this literary definition, screens also have a visible physical role in demonstrating divisions that can be used to portray this concept within art and architectural design. For example screens can be pieces of furniture that can be displayed architecturally in an easily and quick manner, when there is a need to define a boundary or creating divisions in a space. Screens may be use to create a partial hiding place, selectively filtering a view, and allowing some penetration of light. As Virginia F.Butera wrote in 1984, ‘screen is a barrier against draft, light, and vision, and a flexible wall which creates privacy and space within space. (p.195)

Although, screens based on these definitions can be viewed as positive utilitarian objects, from my personal experiences and observations they are mostly used as barriers between people, especially between genders. Although intrinsically screens have potential to be a flexible barriers, yet when constructed by authority, they can become as rigid and fixed as a permanent wall. A common example of this is placement of a feeble cloth like screen to segregate genders in public places or mosques. This often acts as fixed thick wall.

I explored the utility of screens as tools of segregation on three realms; individual, domestic, and social.

NEDA KAHOOKER

15

I) SCREENS ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

‘Between the interior space of the body and the space that finds architectural and geographical expression, there is one layer that is invisible and mobile. This is personal space, which is the space around the body’ (Madanipour, 2005, p.22).

Personal space is one the most fundamental divisions of space which form a boundary between inner space of self and the rest of the world. This boundary around each person can be metaphorically seen as a ‘subjective screen’.

Personal space and barriers can also be ‘objective’. Different grades of body clothing can be viewed as another form of physical screen. The degree of this particular screen is in most societies, chosen and varied based on personal choice depending on the circumstances. (Figure 7)

Once one is deprived of the power of choice in determining the degree of one’s own subjective and objective individual screen described above, these screens begin to act as oppressive tools of segregation or discrimination. Contemporary examples include the controversial banning of burka in France and Belgium, and the banning of university education for girls wearing the head scarf in Turkey.


16

Figure 7. Examples of body clothing act-ing as a screen on an individual level.

NEDA KAHOOKER

17


18

II) SCREENS IN DOMESTIC SETTINGS

The most popular understanding of application of screens is the decorative folding screen in the domestic setting used as dividers. In Victorian Britain, folding screens were used to segregate people based on sex, age, and social status in some circumstances (Hemming&Aldbrook,1999:54) Although use of such screens as discriminators have become a historical concept in the developed world, it is still an ongoing issue in some societies.

An interesting and symbolically powerful example of a contemporary folding screen is that made by Mona Hatoum, entitle ‘Grater Divide’.(Figure 8) This is a scaled up grater that acts as a dividing screen with highly decorative but at the same time potentially hazardous, razor-sharp surface. Her choice of words for the title of the piece deserves some thought. In common with this theme, in another similar piece named Homebound (1999), shown in figure 9, the domestic utensils have become dangerous items connected to electricity. These create barriers that prohibit the observers from accessing them. Everyday life objects in Hatoum’s work represent her home country, whilst changing their function to dangerous tools remind her that home is a place of fear and oppression. (Bell, 2008)

Figure 8, Grater Divide, Mona Hatoum, (2008), by Dickens,L

NEDA KAHOOKER

19


20

Figure9, Homebound, Mona Hatoum, (1999)

NEDA KAHOOKER

21


22

‘As much as boundary is a means of separating the two realms, and protecting them from each other, the boundary indeed is a site of interface and communication between them. A gate in a wall is the starting point of both the interior and of the outside world of street’ (Madanipour, 2005,p.63)

In classic Islamic architecture, screens although fixed, tend to have decorative fenestrations that allow light and communication through, necessary means that allowed women to spy on guests without being seen. The Islamic houses traditionally, have a private inner core and a more public entrance known as ‘Hashti’. The upper levels of the Hashti have decorative fenestrated screens within its walls that allowed women to look down without being seen. (Figure 10).

NEDA KAHOOKER

23


24

III) SCREENS WITHIN PUBLIC PLACES AND SOCIETIES

Many countries continue to create spatial boundaries using screens that divide genders. This is felt more prominently in some Islamic countries. In Iran for example screens are widely used in mosques, buses, or at ceremonies to divide men and women. These materially flexible screens, are endorsed by law, and hence act as rigid walls. Ironically, in the Islamic tradition, the first mosques were built as a place of gathering for all people irrespective of faith or differences. As Akyol points out, in Kaaba within Mecca, the spiritual centre of Islam, there is no segregation of genders. (2011, TED conversation) .

‘That is the secret of why mosques were erected, so that the whole city might be assembled there.’ (Jalal-al-Din Rumi, quted in Arberry.1994,p.227) The poignant issue here is that in many societies today, discriminations go beyond pure gender discrimination; there is often a more generalised atmosphere of oppression impacting on gender issues such as position of women within the society, as well as freedom of thought and action. In these societies, not only there are the physical segregating screens, but there is a profound element of what may be thought as ideological screens that create barriers to breaking the imposed limitations.

‘The boundaries that separate the two realms (public and private) are the most visible spatial manifestation of this division of social life. Architectural and geographical articulation of the boundary is thus the embodiment of a divide. The challenge of boundary setting is the challenge of city building’. (Madanipour, p.70)

SCREEN MODELS

NEDA KAHOOKER

27

I began my screen models by experimenting with screens that metaphorically give the viewer a flavour of an oppressive society and how to break away from the oppression imposed by society.A series of screen models evolved sequentially, conveying concepts of oppression, revolution, and change.


28

I) SCREEN MODEL 1: OPPRESSION

My first screen model, was designed to symbolise freezing of movement (both social and physical) and stagnation created in dictatorships; where people’s intention for social mobility and seeking freedom is blocked due to barriers in societies (Figure 12). Here the subjects , as shown by blocks of wood, are not allowed any flexibility in movement, and do not have the power to overcome the limitations of the defined boundaries imprisoning their aspirations.

MAKING THE FIRST MODEL

In my first model, I have used blocks of timber, cut in different sizes and positioned at different angles. A central axes made of metal rods penetrated each block of wood through its centre, allowing rotatory movement of the blocks on central axis. These represent individual people within a society. The kinetic movement of wooden blocks show the desire and aspiration of individuals to mobilise towards a better situation.

After making the skeleton of the structure, I placed it into a cardboard box. Then I filled the box with the melted wax. After 20 minutes the wax solidified. (Figure 11) Later the cardboard box was removed. The solid wax resembles the rigidity of dictatorships and closed societies. By placing the model in the path of light, before and after melting the wax with a gas torch, I wanted to show the gradual penetration of light through the wax, as a mean of creating connections between the worlds either side of the screen after breaking it.

Figure 11/A,B. Sketches of model 1A, making the skeletonB, placing the model into a cardboard box

NEDA KAHOOKER

29


30

Figure 12. Model 1 placed in wax, before removing the cardboard box

NEDA KAHOOKER

31


32

Figure 13/A,B,C. Model 1- Before melting the wax

NEDA KAHOOKER

33


34

In conversation with John Nicoll (Foundry workshop):

I used Microcrystalline wax in this model. This type of wax is different from the more familiar paraffin wax. It is generally darker, more viscous, denser, tackier and more elastic than paraffin waxes, and has a higher molecular weight and melting point.

Note November 2010

NEDA KAHOOKER

35


36

NEDA KAHOOKER

37


38

Figure 14. Placing the model in different lighting condition, and shining light through the model before and after melting the wax

NEDA KAHOOKER

39


40

NEDA KAHOOKER

41


42

BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS MADE FROM SCREENS

Some artists have tried to diminish the role of screens as physical barriers; Daniel Goldstein for instance, in the Red Room Screen (1983) displayed images of doorways leading to doorway, and then to windows, on a folding paper cut out screen. (Figure 15) (Komanecky& Butera, 1984, Fig.149) It appears that the artist wants to challenge the audience’s perceptions of screens as visual barriers, and give the viewer an idea about what may lie behind it. Although I agreed with this concept, I was of the view that one should be bolder and go one step further in making the screens more transparent.

In a similar attempt, Kim Hamisky, the French artist, designed an untitled folding screen in 1980 based on juxtaposition of void and solid structures, using his screens as a symbol of exposure and enclosure. (Figure 16) (Komanecky& Butera, 1984, Fig.197) Changing the screen from a solid opaque surface to open wooden frames by sequentially lifting more flaps off the panels.

Figure 15. Goldstein.D, (1983), The red room screenFigure 16. hamisky.K, (1980), Untitled


44

I therefore set out to make this screen more transparent. Use of wax as a potentially malleable and removable material was a way to defend against the divisive tool, and melting it represented the recreation of movement and abolition of divisive rigid walls. (Figure 17)

An alternative material to wax that also had the potential to be liquefied would have been ice, however, there were two issues that resulted in my final choice of wax as a major component of the screen. The first was a practical issue of keeping the screen at freezing point for the desired duration. The second was the greater impact and drama of using a hot air gun, to violently burn the wax. In the subsequent models I retained the theme of melting wax.

Figure 17/A,B,C. screen Model 1, during melting process

NEDA KAHOOKER

45


46

NEDA KAHOOKER

47


48

II) SCREEN MODEL 2. REVOLUTION

In the second screen model, the physical demonstration of movements in the society was no longer my intention. I wanted to show that once a stubborn regime becomes inflexible and uncompromising towards change, it will in effect go down the inevitable path of self-destruction. I therefore, used fabric instead of wood and the whole screen model material was buried inside the wax. When the wax solidified, there were no signs of movement. The model represented a dead society that through its borders of oppression and division only allows a shadow of an inside material to be revealed (Figure 18). My aim was to free this society by melting the wax, the walls of oppression. The inner materials called Coarse Scrim; however, as well as the wax, were not strong enough to resist the heat. Therefore once the wax started to melt, the screen itself began to burn and was destroyed (Figure19). This reminded me of revolutions such as that of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, highlighting the preference and priority of reformation through peaceful civil movements, to deformation in violent, and rapid uprisings that result in revolutions.

Figure 18. Screen model 2. solidified wax allowing some of the Coarse Scrim within it to be seen

NEDA KAHOOKER

49


50

Figure 19/A,B. Screen model 2. The fragile infrastructure of the screen is burnt and destroyed during melting the wax.

NEDA KAHOOKER

51


52

MAKING THE SECOND MODEL

To make the model I first needed to make a mould to pour the wax in. The mould should be made out of hot melting or hot pour rubber. The material can make a flexible mould which is easily separated from wax.

I required a hard mould to be able to make the rubber mould itself. In order to do this, I made a clay wall on a plaster board. Depend on the required depth of rubber mould, I placed a sheet of timber inside of the clay wall, to act as a negative space. (Figure 20) The timber was covered in oil to avoid sticking to melted rubber. I saturated the wood with oil to the extent that it would no longer absorb the oil. Finally I poured the melted rubber in to the mould. (Figure 21)

After the rubber mould was set, I removed the timber sheet, and placed open weaved Coarse Scrim inside it and poured the melted wax into mould. (Figure 22)

NEDA KAHOOKER

53


54

Figure 20. Screen model 2. Mak-ing the clay wall mould

Note October 2010

In conversation with John Nicoll (Foundry workshop):

Hot melt rubber (hot melt PVC moulding material) has a high melting temperature between 150-170 degrees Celsius. There are two brands of hot melt rubber called Gelflex and Vinamould which can be re-used many times. I used Vinamould to make my mould. Both brands work equally well, however Gelflex is more expensive and limited stocks were available.

NEDA KAHOOKER

55


56

Figure 21. Screen model 2. Pouring melted rubber into the clay wall mould

NEDA KAHOOKER

57


58

Figure 22. Making screen model 2. A, melting the wax. B and C , placing Coarse scrim into rubber mould. D and E, wax poured into the mould. F Solidified wax


60

III) SCREEN MODEL 3. CHANGE

Following on from Screen model 2, in the third screen model, I decided to show a more amicable transformation of a closed and oppressive society. Therefore I used both strong (heat proof) and weak (flammable) materials inside the wax, as metal rods and cotton threads consecutively. Shiny metal balls which are the representation of socio-cultural values and intellectual elites, are buried and restricted within divisions and oppressions of the solid wax, that hide the metal ball’s glossy finish and shine. (Figure 23).


62

MAKING THE THIRD MODEL

Initially I made a metal frame from one centimetre square section steel, using Metal Inert Gas welding (MIG) in the corners. I then proceeded to making a metal mesh made from steel rods fixed inside the frame; After placing the rods in the centre of balls, I used spot welder to weld cross sections. I also welded the rods to the frame using MIG Welding. I then proceeded to weaving cotton treads in a horizontal and vertical manner in various parts of the structure. (figures 24- 27)

The next stage was making a mould that allowed placement of the wax within the frame structure. It was no longer possible to use soft mould using hot melting rubber, as only the central part of structure was to be embedded inside the wax. Therefore I used another method to make a mould in this model. I first made a hard board from plaster, to be used as the bottom of the mould. To do so, I made a clay wall and poured a mixture of casting plaster and water inside it. The ratio of water to plaster was adjusted until the water was saturated with plaster so that a desired consistency was reached. (Figures 28-29).

I then, placed the metal structure on the hardened plaster sheet. I built a second clay wall on top of the plaster, around the area where the wax was intended to cover.(Figures30-31 )

Finally, I poured melted paraffin wax inside the clay wall, covering the centre of the model, and waited for the wax to solidify. (Figures 32-35)

Note May 2011

In conversation with Richard Elliott (metal workshop):

Metal Inert Gas (MIG) welding devices use wire electrodes and shielding gas that are fed through the device. They are sensitive to speed at which the wire is fed through. There is a very narrow wire speed range at which they weld with optimum quality.

In conversation with John Nicoll:

Plaster is made from Gypsum. It was formerly known as Plaster of Paris, due to the frequent use by plaster sculptures in Paris during 1870s. Paris is situated in grounds rich in Gypsum.Plaster is a porous material, therefore it is important that the plaster sheet is still wet before the wax is poured onto it, otherwise, it is impossible to separate the wax from the plaster

Figures 24, 25.


64

Figures 26, 27.

NEDA KAHOOKER

65

Figures 28-30.


66

Figures 31.


68

Figures 32, 33.

NEDA KAHOOKER

69


70

Figures 34, 35.

NEDA KAHOOKER

71


72

The larger size of the third model is in suitable proportions with its surrounding architectural forms, so that the screen can be viewed as a divisive architectural object. Placement of this screen model in front of a window and source of daylight, created a visual block to the outside world ( Figure 36).

Presence of metal rods rather than the more feeble threads within this screen is a symbol of a more powerful infrastructure within the society, where the metal would act as a heat conductor and hastens the process of destroying the divisive screen made from wax. Whilst the weaker, threads in the screen would burn away, the metal structure will be preserved.

NEDA KAHOOKER

73


74

This model is not too dissimilar to works by Shadi Ghadirian, Iranian photographer who has used the notion of screens intentionally to highlight issues of segregation. In the series of photographs entitled ‘Miss Butterfly’ she makes screens from spider webs to show female segregation and operation (Figure 37/A,B,C,D). Here ‘Miss Butterfly’ is portrayed, weaving a spider web in front of a number of openings to the outside world, effectively imprisoning herself and contributing to her oppression and perhaps her own demise. Having experienced gender segregation and inequality, I challenge this notion of female responsibility for female inequality and oppression. I believe, although it may be a small contributing factor, without the dominant socio-political will, the female segregation and equality prominent in so many societies, cannot continue to exist in its current form.

Figures 37/A,B,C,DShadi Ghadirian 2006 from series of Miss Butterfly

NEDA KAHOOKER

75


76

NEDA KAHOOKER

77


78

In a different series entitled Be Colourful, Shadi Ghadirian tries to separate the subjects from the audience by depicting models behind three layers; the chador, the glass, and the paint. The viewer gets a hint what lies on the other side but does not get a full view (Figure 38). This series consist of still images of women behind screens. Again, there is no attempt to destroy the barriers from the women.

Figure38/ A,B, Shadi Ghadirian, 2006, from series of be Colourful

NEDA KAHOOKER

79


80

I set out to proceed with a performance, during which I actively destroyed the third screen model as a woman, and confirmed my strong objection to the presence of the screen. Unlike the work by Ghadirian, I wanted to show that women object to gender segregation more than they unintentionally contribute to it. This focused my efforts into highlighting gender issues in the subsequent screen models.

I chose to do the performance at night, as the contrast of the white paraffin against the dark background was visually more striking. I used a hot air gun, to melt the wax within the screen. The act of melting the wax was filmed from different angles simultaneously, giving the viewer different viewpoints of the melting process. The transformation of the solid wax within the screen to tears of wax pouring down the screen and its subsequent cooling down and formation of different patterns of stalactite like structures was not completely in my control (Figure 39). The accidental formation of these structures can also resemble the chaotic way in which society barriers may sometimes be lifted. In some parts, stalactites like wax even formed new versions of translucent screens.

Although the third screen model was developed based on my understanding of the socio-political and gender issues, I was not convinced that the audience intrinsically empathised with these issues when viewing the melted version. Some would view it as a spatially delicate sculpture which was aesthetically pleasing, whilst it was also important for me that the audience also appreciate the negative connotations of screens as limiting barriers in society.

Figure 39. Still Images of performances

NEDA KAHOOKER

81


82

I chose to do the performance at night, as the contrast of the white paraffin against the dark background was visually more striking. I used a hot air gun, to melt the wax in the screen. The act of melting the wax was filmed from different angles simultaneously, giving the viewer different view points of the melting process. The transformation of the solid wax within the screen to tears of wax pouring down the screen and its subsequent cooling down and formation of different patterns of stalactite like structures was not completely in my control (Figure 40). The accidental formation of these structures can also resemble the chaotic way in which society barriers may sometimes be lifted. In some parts, stalactites like wax even formed new versions of translucent screens.

Although the third screen model was developed based on my understanding of the socio-political and gender issues, I was not convinced that the audience intrinsically empathised with these issues when viewing the melted version. Some would view it as a spatially delicate sculpture which was aesthetically pleasing, whilst it was also important for me that the audience also appreciate the negative connotations of screens as limiting barriers in society.

Figure 40/A,B,C,D. Images of the third model ‘change’ after melting

NEDA KAHOOKER

83


84

NEDA KAHOOKER

85


86

Figure 41/A,B,C. Photos taken during the performance.

NEDA KAHOOKER

89

Shirin Neshat, cross-cultural Iranian artist, addresses socio-po-litical agendas very powerfully. She believes ‘different cultures impose different boundaries’ (Matt, 2000, p.13). In her pieces she also criticises the cultural and sexual divisions. Neshat deploys a divisive screen between men and women in a video installation called Fervor (2000), (Figure 42). In another video installation called Turbulent (1998), she draws attention to the significant dis-crimination between the male and female singers acting in two separate screens of her film. (Figure 43). The audience applaud the male singer after his performance whilst the woman, is shown dressed in black clothing, alone in the shot, with no audience present, and isolated from her own spatial environment by the canny style of lighting and camera work. Although the woman tries to sing, she is only able to produce incomprehensible tor-mented wails (Noack, 2000).


90

Figure 42.Neshat.S, Fervor (2000) Matt, G & Peyton-Jones, J.(2000) pp.80-86

NEDA KAHOOKER

91

Figure 43.Neshat.S, Turbulent (1998) Matt, G & Peyton-Jones, J.(2000) pp.19-21


92

Being influenced by Shirin Neshat’s ability to show gender segregations, I proceeded to allow the audience the opportunity to experience screens as gender segregators first han d. I believe this is a powerful way of highlighting the issue of gender discrimination.

NEDA KAHOOKER

93

IV) SCREEN MODEL 4. SEPARATION

I started looking around London, and imagined potential screens between people. A situation they might have never been in. (Figures 44-45)

Sketches shows unexpected imaginary screens which potentially divide people based on their gender. Photos taken in London, By Neda kahooker.,2011


94

Figure 44/A,B.

NEDA KAHOOKER

95

Figure 45/A,B.


96

I decided to give people a real experience of gender segregation.

Placing a long screen at peak hour in the middle of the Chelsea College of Art canteen, allowed me to carry out a live experiment of gender segregation in a community that was naive to it.

Haleh Anvari Iranian artist and photographer has also tried to highlight gender issues in Iran by juxtaposing issue of compulsory Hijab in streets of major cities across the world where women have more freedom. In a series of photographs entitled Chador Dadar (Figure 46), she shows women wearing bright and colourful Chadors that challenge the notion of compulsory head covering, by compensating with colour. Although I find the juxtaposition of socio-political issue in an environment naive to this problem interesting, I think the audience participation in the problem will be more influential.

Figure 46/A,B. Chador Dadar, Haleh Anvari, 2005

NEDA KAHOOKER

97

Therefore, the canteen was segregated by five simple conventional screens that I made, resembling those screens experienced daily in Iran. The screens were intentionally simple and ordinary, so that the audience did not pay attention to the objects as an aesthetic piece of art. They were made from a simple frame of timber with black fabric stretched inside the frame. The space was equally divided into male and female sections and the audience were instructed to follow the imposed rule. (Figure 47) There were three additional tables that were located outside the zone of segregation. The covertly recorded reactions of the audiences were surprising. There was a considerable resistance and genuine concern about the idea of segregation that was confirmed by written feedback forms.


98

Figure 47/A,B. Photos showing the test in the canteen. Installation of Screen dividers which separate people based on thier genders.

NEDA KAHOOKER

99


100

Figure 48/A,B,C. Gender segregation using screens in the Chelsea School of Art workshop. B. Male section

C. Female section

Examples of feedback from audience that participated in the segregation experience include:

“It just feels awkward not to be able to communicate with the opposite gender.”

“Inconvenient.”

“Uncomfortable.”

“Appreciate academic endeavour but this country has made enormous stride forward in gender equality in my 56 years and being able to sit wherever I choose is one these strides”

“I am not in favour of segregation, and something separating gender in this way can be very sexist”

The experiment challenged the audience. Many chose to sit in the seats outside the segregation zone. Once this was full many people just left the canteen without arguing, sadly reminiscent of people who are lead or forced to exile.

When in 2009, Arak University, Iran, decided to segregate its canteen with screens, the students who although had experienced gender segregation in other aspects of daily life, were strongly opposed. Scuffles broke out, and screens were destroyed.

Humans are intrinsically resistant to gender segregation, unless imposed by draconian rules. Iranian parliament is currently considering imposing such rules.

‘Under all circumstances they [Iranians] have pushed the boundary, they have confronted the authority, they have broken all rules in the smallest and the biggest’ Shirin Neshat (Art in exile, TED conversation, 2011).

NEDA KAHOOKER

101


102

NEDA KAHOOKER

103


104

Although the result of both tests in Chelsea canteen and workshop was satisfactory in terms of exploring the audience’s behaviour to gender segregation, the short duration of the test made it difficult for them to get a true understanding of the ongoing daily encounters with this issue.

The size of the male and female sections were not in proportion to the population of each gender occupying each section. This meant that the male section was usually empty whilst the female section was full. Another way in which the design could be improved, would be to install the screen in a more public place.

NEDA KAHOOKER

105

V) SEGREGATOR SCREENS IN PUBLIC CIRCUMSTANCESFollowing the screen models ‘Oppression’, ‘Revolution’ and ‘Change’, and the subsequent experiments with screens as gender segregators, I propose a design for the final screen model to include a combination of components from various models described earlier. A Large scale wax screens will be used as spatial dividers and gender segregators in a public place, namely a number of public benches in London including those in the parade ground of Chelsea college of Art. (Figure 49)

I chose a number of benches, as they are frequently found around London and the wax screens can be easily applied to them. In addition a number of people will have the opportunity to sit on them and experience the visual effect and feeling of division in a place where people often sit together without further thought to the freedom to do so.Figure 50- 52 show photos of some of the benches around London’s populated streets that I have chosen as public places to display the final screen dividers.Some sketches and Photo montages of the screen dividers on these benches are presented alongside the photos.

The final model will have a different pattern embedded within the wax compared to the model named ‘Change’. This will be a metallic lattice that resembles a basic Islamic pattern when viewed directly from either sides of the screen by the audience that are sitting on the benches. (Figure 53). However, due to the deliberately chosen angles and overlaps of the patterns, a distorted pattern is perceived when viewed sideways. (Figure 54), representing the distortion of core peaceful values of the Islamic faith.In addition, I propose an intrinsic mechanism for the melting of the wax within the screens to take place after one week, giving the passerbys the opportunity to see the disintegration of the dividing screens. This will be achieved by using a parallel electric circuit embedded within the design connected to multiple segments of resistance wires. These wires are normally used in heating elements within electric heaters, ovens and toasters. The circuit will pass through the hollow rods that making up the structure of the screen, and embedded in the wax centre. The circuit is powered by a battery situated at the sides of the screen. As

the battery is switched on, the resistance wires heat up, and the rods conduct the heat to the wax. The melted wax will trickle down vertically to the bottom of the screen and will be guided to a wax collection point at the bottom of the screen. (See Figure bellow)

Figure 49/ A,B.

NEDA KAHOOKER

107

Figure 50/A,B.


108

Figure 51/A,B

Figure 52/A,B

Figure 53/A,B

NEDA KAHOOKER

111

Figure 54/A,B,C


112

NEDA KAHOOKER

113


114

VI) FINAL SHOW AT CHELSEA COLLEGE OF ART

In the previous section, I explained my proposal for the installation of the final screen model in public and presented photo montages of my vision for the proposal. This is displayed in the Final Show.

In addition, the third screen model ‘Change’ and video clips showing the dynamic change of the screen from a solid wax to one with fenestrations are displayed in two monitors for the audience to view. In order to achieve better quality video images, I reconstructed the screen model and melted it again; In order to do this, I first removed the entire wax centre by melting it with a hot air gun and repeated the steps described in previous chapters to embed the centre of the screen in paraffin wax.

Figure 57/A,B,C,D. removing the wax in order to reconstruct screen model ‘change’ for the show

NEDA KAHOOKER

115


118

Figure 58. Still Images of the final films presented in the show

NEDA KAHOOKER

119

Figure 59-62. Images taken during the show, 2 September 2011

NEDA KAHOOKER

121


122

NEDA KAHOOKER

123


124

CONCLUSION

Screens can be used as tools that implement oppressive policies, in particular gender segregation in certain societies around the world. I have attempted to draw attention to this personally significant subject through screens as spatial dividers. The ability of audiences to interact with the models in public, gives them a unique experience in testing segregations in both architectural designs and societies. The physical transformation of the screen from a fixed rigid barrier to a more fragile and transparent screen is reminiscent of the continuing human drive to overcome these issues.

NEDA KAHOOKER

125


126

NEDA KAHOOKER

127

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the following people for their help, advice and guidance.

Julia DwyerKen Wilder John NicollRichard ElliottRichard Slatter Phil RutterStafan WillisWeng ManFarzad HeidariFatemeh Geranmaye Hosein NazarianPeyman Eshghi

This project is dedicated to my parents, Mahshid Geramipanah and Soleiman Kahooker who have always been supportive and encourage me to break trough barriers within my life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arberry, A.J, (1994), Classical Persian Literature, London, Curzon Press, p. 227

Akyol,M. (2011) Faith versus tradition in Islam, Ted Ideas worth spreading, Talks [ online]. [Accessed 27/5/2011], Avail-able from World Wide Web: <http://www.ted.com/talks/shi-rin_neshat_art_in_exile.html>

Bell,K. (2008) Mona Hatoum Unhomely ,Berlin, Galerie Max Hetzler Berlin Holzwarth publications, p.p 64-70 .

Berlin 1961. ( 2001) [Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/photographs/berlinwall-1961.htm>. [Accessed 27/3/2011].

Burkhardt,H. ( 2002-2011) Berlin Wall Online [ online]. [Ac-cessed 27/3/2011]. Available from World Wide Web: < http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/history/index.htm>

Cildo Meireles, (2010), Fox, F, UK, Tate Channel, 47:49mins, documentary, Available from World Wide Web: < http://chan-nel.tate.org.uk/media/72221355001>

Colomina,B (1994) Privacy and Publicity Modern Architecture as Mass Media ,London,The MIT Press,P. 11,234-270

Dan Sim, 2010, The History Of Net Curtains - How Fred Flintstone Covered His Window [ online]. [Accessed 2/7/2011], Available from World Wide Web:<http://www.mr-netcurtains.co.uk/history-of-net-curtains.html >

Dickens,L .(2008) Grater Divide [Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.whitecube.com/artists/hatoum/iv/>. [Accessed 08/02/2011].

Duduit.M,( 1992), Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 32-33.

Emerson, S (1989). Berlin fallofwall emerson[Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_fallofwall_emerson.jpg> [Accessed 27/3/2011].

Essortment Your source for knowledge, The Shaker Religion, [ online]. [Accessed 2/5/2011]. Available from World Wide Web:<http://www.essortment.com/shaker-religion-42537.html>

Falah,W & Nagel,C .( 2005) Geographies of Muslim women:

gender, religion, and space, New York, Guilford Press.

Feldman. Ellen, (2010) Women’s Review of Books, Vol. 27 Issue 3, pp18-9

Hanman.N, (2008), Photographer Haleh Anvari: More than meets the eye[online]

Available from World Wide Web: < http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/dec/06/photography-halehanvari-iran/print>

Hatoum.M, (2011), Measure of distance 1988, British Art 1500-2011, London, Tate Britain

Hatoum.M, (2011), Unhomely, London, Tate Modern

Hemming.C& Aldbrook.M, (1999), The folding screen, Lon-don, Lund Humphries Ltd

Homebound (1999), [Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://mashrabiyya.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/homebound-2.jpg> , [Accessed 08/02/2011]

Jansoone,G. Confessionals in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, [Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/images/ SantCompostela25.jpg/200px-SantCompostela25.jpg> [Ac-cessed 15/3/2011]

Kathome,A Guide to Net Curtains: A History of Net Curtains [online] Available from World Wide Web: < http://hubpages.com/hub/Net-Curtains> [Accessed02/07/2011]

Keane,J .(2009),Why Democracy?, in Keane,J. the life and Death of Democracy, London, Simon & Schuster, p.p 839-73

Komanecky.M& Butera.V,(1984), The screen as metaphor, in: Komanecky.M& Butera.V, The Folding Image , Washington, National gallery of Art, p.195-210

Lawson,L.( 2004) Public and Private Spaees of the City,Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 2.

Lucia van der Post, 2006,The Sunday Times, Screens make a comeback [ online]. [Accessed 27/3/2011]. Available from World Wide Web:< http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/interiors/article627548.ece>

NEDA KAHOOKER

129

Madanipour,A, (2003) Personal space of the Body, in Madanipour,A Public and Private Spaces of the City, London . Routledge, p.p 5-15.

Modern confessional in the Church of the Holy Name, [On-line image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Confessionalnew.jpg/180px-Confessionalnew.jpg> [Accessed 15/3/2011]

Matt, G & Peyton-Jones, J.(2000) Shirin Neshat, London, Ser-pentine.

Mondloch,K. Screens and Art exhibition technics. Art Journal; Fall2007, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p20-33, 14p

Neshat,Sh. (2011) women in exile, Ted Ideas worth spreading, Talks [ online]. [Accessed 27/5/2011], Available from World Wide Web:< http://www.ted.com/talks/shirin_neshat_art_in_ex-ile.html>

Noack, R. (2000) ‘Productive Dualisms’ in Matt, G & Peyton-Jones, J, Shirin Neshat, London, Serpentine.pp.31-9Popper,K. (1945),The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 1: The Spell of Plato , New York ,Routhledge Classics , p.7

Plas,E ,Halasa,M &Willemsen,M (2002), Creating Spaces of Freedom, London, Saqi Books.

Rose Issa , (2009),Shadi Ghadirian, Iranian Photographer [Inter-net] Weekly, Vol. 256 Issue 15, p42, Available at:< http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=24&sid=4bd6ff7a-3a47-4e1e-a4d25d48a36df4%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=39662954>[Accessed 21/4/2011]

Shadi Ghadirian, (2011), Miss Butterfly [Online image]. Avail-able from World Wide Web:< http://www.silkroadphoto.com/sn/photos/pt/full/galleryId/207/id/2910/artist/Shadi-Ghadirian>

Sloman,P. (2009), Contemporary art in the Middle East, London, Black Dog. Soanes,C & Stevanson,A.(2003) , Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd Eds, New York, Oxford University Press

Sommer,R.(1969), Personal Space: The behavioural basis of design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy.p.27Tate Modern (2008), Cildo Meireles [online]. [Accessed 27/3/2011], Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/cildomeireles/explore.shtm>

Tate Photography, ( 2008), Through, [Online image]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibi-

tions/cildomeireles/images.shtm>, [Accessed 21/3/2011]Wilson.E, 1991, The sphinx in the city, Virago Press, London

Woodbury Adams.J, (1982), Decorative folding screens: In the west from 1600 to the present day, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd

Screen of Space and Society

Documents

Transcript of Screen of Space and Society