We can no longer think about architecture and occupation of space in a traditional sense because those answers are no longer relevant to the questions of today.
In an age where technology allows you to be ‘anywhere’ what does it mean to be ‘somewhere’? What is the new nature of ‘space’ and ‘occupation’? When you can occupy and experience ‘virtual space’, then what does ‘real space’ mean?
The previous tools of architecture in the traditional sense cannot engage these kinds of questions.
This emergent notion of occupation is not merely a virtual environment which would be mundane and uninteresting but rather an occupation of the means by which we would ordinarily occupy space.
This however presents its own issues which require resolution. Amongst these, the issue of subjectivity in such an environment.
If the occupation of the space is the occupation of the traditional means of occupation, and this new means of occupation is entirely subject to the interpretation of the occupier, then to what extent is the architect the creator of this space more so than the actual occupier?
Further more, if the architects ‘role’ in the creation of this new kind of space is entirely subjective, more than likely, his subjectivity will be based on his anticipations or assumptions of the nature of interactions and occupations within this space and subsequently, on his presuppositions of the nature of the ‘occupier’. Which would in a sense, make the occupier, first and foremost the creator of the architects ‘subjective’ input to this new kind of space.
