Sergio Ferro - Conversation in Portuguese (Video)
IAU.USP em Casa - Ciclo de Palestras (13) - Diálogos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdslMU73dOg
Desde sua publicação na década de 1970, O canteiro e o desenho provocou apressadas conclusões sobre a impertinência das críticas de Sérgio Ferro ao desenho da arquitetura: por que o desenho, concebido a partir de referências da 'alta arquitetura' e autorizado como representação do projeto a executar, seria mero prestador de serviços no processo de produção capitalista do valor? Por que ele seria apenas um coadjuvante da expropriação violenta da força de trabalho nos canteiros?
Os incômodos se estenderam por mais de quarenta anos, e chegamos agora a um amplo reconhecimento de que a teoria crítica elaborada por Sérgio Ferro não se põe contra o desenho de forma genérica. Sua crítica se debruça sobre o desenho funcionalizado, submetido, separado do contexto da produção e de seus produtores. Trata-se de colocar em julgamento aquele desenho que tem "um passado traumático e traumatizante, reativado constantemente pela prática da subordinação formal na manufatura", aquele desenho que "nasce com a destruição da autonomia do canteiro do qual sai como escória dessa perda", substituindo "com seu enfezamento autista a autonomia produtiva autêntica que ajuda a castrar".
No lugar desse desenho separado, Sérgio aponta a reinvenção de um "desenho imerso no retorno da autonomia produtiva", reconhecendo que "a dignidade sóbria do desenho integrado como momento da produção é o oposto contraditório da indignidade do desenho escravizador a serviço do capital".
Todas essas citações foram extraídas de Construção do desenho clássico, o novo livro de Sérgio Ferro, que está sendo produzido e editado pelo selo MOM Edições, uma iniciativa do Grupo de Pesquisa MOM, vinculada à Editora da Escola de Arquitetura da UFMG.
O IAU EMCASA, um evento promovido pela Comissão de Cultura e Extensão do Instituto de Arquitetura e Urbanismo da Universidade de São Paulo, CCEx-IAU, traz, no próximo dia 28 de abril, uma conversa entre Sérgio Ferro e Silke Kapp – professora da EA-UFMG e responsável pela edição de Construção do desenho clássico –, mediada pelo professor João Marcos Lopes, do IAUUSP.
A iniciativa dialoga com a difusão da obra de Sérgio Ferro em língua inglesa, mobilizada pelo projeto Traduzindo Ferro / Transformando Conhecimentos em Arquitetura, Projeto e Trabalho para o Novo Campo de Estudos de Produção, que é coordenado pelo professores João Marcos Lopes e Katie Lloyd Thomas (Newcastle University), apoiado por um acordo de cooperação entre a FAPESP e a agência britânica Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC).
SÉRGIO FERRO PEREIRA é pintor, desenhista, arquiteto e professor. Formou-se arquiteto pela Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo da Universidade de São Paulo - FAU/USP, em 1962. Três anos depois, faz pós-graduação em museologia e evolução urbana, na mesma faculdade. Em 1965, participa da organização da mostra Opinião 65, no Museu de Arte Moderna do Rio de Janeiro - MAM/RJ, onde também expõe. Cursou semiologia na Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, em 1966. Na década de 1960, integra com Flávio Império (1935 - 1985) e Rodrigo Lèfevre (1938 - 1984) o Grupo Arquitetura Nova. É professor da Escola de Formação Superior de Desenho, entre 1962 e 1968; do curso de história da arte e de estética da FAU/USP, de 1962 a 1970; e do curso de arquitetura da Universidade de Brasília - UnB, entre 1969 e 1970. Por causa da ditadura militar no Brasil, mudou-se para a França, em 1972. De 1972 a 2003, lecionou na École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture de Grenoble [Escola Nacional Superior de Arquitetura de Grenoble], na Suíça, e, na mesma universidade, funda o laboratório Dessin/Chantier [desenho/canteiro] e o dirige de 1982 a 1997. Realiza pinturas figurativas, inspirando-se principalmente em figuras presentes nos desenhos e pinturas de Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475 - 1564). Recebeu o prêmio de melhor pintor da Associação Paulista de Críticos de Arte - APCA, em 1987. Publicou, entre outros, os livros O Canteiro e o Desenho, 1979, Michelangelo: Notas por Sérgio Ferro, 1981, e Michel-Angel, Architecte et Sculpteur, 1998. Realiza murais para várias instituições na França e no Brasil, como o Memorial da América Latina, em 1990, e o Memorial de Curitiba, em 1996 e em 2002.
SILKE KAPP é arquiteta, com mestrado e doutorado em Filosofia (UFMG, 1994 e 1999) e pós-doutorado na área de sociologia urbana (Bauhaus Universität Weimar/ Capes, 2015). Atualmente é professora associada da Escola de Arquitetura da UFMG e líder do Grupo de Pesquisa MOM (Morar de Outras Maneiras). Tem experiência nas áreas de Arquitetura, Urbanismo e Planejamento, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: estudos de produção, teoria crítica da arquitetura e da cidade, espaço cotidiano, interfaces para a autonomia, metodologia da pesquisa sócio-espacial.
Grupo de pesquisa MOM: www.mom.arq.ufmg.br
Selo editorial: http://www.mom.arq.ufmg.br/mom/selo/index.html
JOÃO MARCOS DE ALMEIDA LOPES é Professor Titular no Instituto de Arquitetura e Urbanismo da Universidade de São Paulo, IAU-USP, em São Carlos/SP. Integra o Grupo de Pesquisa em Habitação e Sustentabilidade - HABIS, do qual é um dos coordenadores. Foi Pró-reitor Adjunto de Cultura da Pró-reitoria de Cultura e Extensão da Universidade de São Paulo entre março de 2014 e março de 2016. Doutor em Filosofia e Metodologia das Ciências pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia da Universidade Federal de São Carlos (2006) e Mestre em Arquitetura e Urbanismo pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo da Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos - Universidade de São Paulo (1999), graduou-se Arquiteto e Urbanista pela Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo da Universidade de São Paulo em 1982. Desde o início de 2018 é bolsista Produtividade em Pesquisa do CNPq categoria/nível 2. É associado da USINA Centro de Trabalhos para o Ambiente Habitado - da qual foi coordenador geral no período de 1990 até 2005. (edited)
Construction of Classical Design
Table of Contents:
Preface [Editors]
Construction of Classical Design
Dessin/Chantier: critical edition
Table of Contents:
New Preface
Preface to the French edition by Vincent Michel Production of housing in Brazil
Design/Chantier
About Design/Chantier
Notes for today*
‘Architecture Seen From Below: a reader’
Texts in this collection of Ferro’s essays and shorter writings cover the full range of his unique analysis of labour and production in architecture and fine art. The essays are selected to appeal to a wide set of readers, not only from the different disciplines represented--art, architecture, political economy, sociology, philosophy-- but also to practitioners, students, activists and readers looking to understand the contemporary crisis and exploitation in the production of the built environment. They explore how design plays a central role and to those seeking alternative possibilities.
These chapters, as they are translated, will be debated in regular monthly reading groups we are holding through 2021 in English and Portuguese with the project team and affiliated researchers, resulting in a symposium in early 2022 and journal special issue.
Ferro’s work provides the basis in the project for debates about the methods and topics of Production Studies (PS) and for the development of dissemination activities across the 4 year period of the TF/TK Project.
Table of Contents:
The prospect of architecture as an art [Editors] \Dessin/ Chantier: an introduction*
Detailed historical analyses of art and architecture from the perspective of labour.
Michelangelo’s practice as an architect in contrast to his practice as a sculptor
The ‘Introduction to Dessin/Chantier’ outlines his theory of architectural design and labour under capitalism- using Marxist and Hegelian analysis to expose how architectural design techniques transform building construction into capitalist production.
History of architecture seen from the building site
An accessible overview of architecture ‘from the construction of site’ starting with the Gothic period through to contemporary Dubai.
Concrete as weapon
The turn to reinforced concrete in the early 20th century France as a response to the power of labour movements.
Imaginary relation, central perspective, non finito
Brasília, Lucio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer
Reflexions for a politics of architecture
‘Reflexions for a politics of architecture’, is a call for action written in 1972, when Ferro just escaped Brazilian military dictatorship and began to teach at the University of Grenoble, and ‘Issues of method’ outlines a programme of critical research and pedagogy he established there.
Issues of method
Methods Issues - Sergio Ferro
Method issues
To observe an architectural piece of work is not easy. The complexity and heterogeneity of its determinations resist to hasty syntheses. The tasks involved in developing an average building in France, for example, already makes us predict overlapped and strained relationships: control of the project, control of the construction site, implementation of the project, verification of the compliance with the requirements and work management. In general, these tasks are marked by divergent strategies and interests.
In a few words, the built world looks more like a precarious amalgamation of heterotopic forces than a cohesive "productive body". As in all studies of problematic fields, the key step is the one that decides the approach angle of their inaccurate complexity.
In our opinion, the position of traditional criticism and history no longer holds meaning if directed towards the built environment. Maybe the act of “constructing”, because it is so complex, cannot be described easily as the great classical theories. (*That is why they had to create a new method of research)
We have been working with nine categories and three subcategories:
The first three categories study the material within its specific determinations. At first we try to accurately characterize it, define what it is in a particular historical period, its production and distribution network (“the material in itself”). Then, it is essential to enumerate and describe their applications, uses and occurrences (“occurrences of the material”). Such occurrences, once catalogued, enable the development of hypotheses about the law/structure that controls them (“the legi-signs”). All three categories draw us a rational picture of the material in a given context.
The following three categories help us to organize the analysis of the impact of external determinations on the material. The first category studies the representations that the material assumes according to the modes of conception ("icons"). Here, we use three subcategories: image, diagram and metaphor. The second category of this series is "trace" ("the Index"). Here, all existing traces of usage in the material relate. The skill and the state of productive forces and close relations of production are then examined – but mainly considering the way they are engraved in the material. The next category is "symbolic" and it deals with the consequences of employing the material, brought about by the symbolic values that are socially associated to it (valuations, fashion etc.).
The last series classifies the various forms of discourse that are made up about the material. The “vocabulary” lists words and typical expressions that refer to the material. The “slogans, recipes and regulations” is based on the usual procedures, empirical and partial knowledge, recommendations and regulations that relate to the material. Finally, the "arguments" brings together all the speeches, treatises, essays or poems that speak of the material.
This is the universe of reflection that concern and occupy us in the Dessin/Chantier Laboratory.
Summary of “History of Architecture seen from the Construction Site”
This text was based on a series of three lectures Professor Sérgio Ferro gave at FAU USP.
First Lecture: from Strasbourg to Paris
Architecture is part of a larger entity, which is construction. In turn, construction is included in a larger one, which is political economy. It is from the analysis of these connected elements that we can understand the act of drawing/designing of the architect. The construction inside the political economy has an important role: it can provide economy with huge quantities of surplus value (surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labour-cost, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when products are sold) because it is a profitable activity and it relies on an “outdated” construction technique (it is a manufacture, not an industry). Therefore, is the political economy through the specificity of construction, which fundamentally determines what we do: design - whose primary function is to assist the exploitation of labour. The history of architecture, seen from the construction site, is the story of its adaptation to different stages of the exploitation of labour by capital, mediated by the construction within the political economy.
During the 11th and 12th centuries in Western Europe, constructions were built in simple cooperation: the cathedrals would employ thirty or forty artisans that would conduct the construction from primary schemes. They would all know the rules of the métier, the “secrets” to raise a cathedral. There was not an architect. Designing was not an external activity, it was part of the process inside the construction site.
However, workforce relations would begin to change at the end of the 12th century. Strasbourg is a typical case. It became a sort of Republic and negotiations were more complex. A council would direct the projects and to obtain an agreement it became necessary to design in advance, making models, predict. In this scenario raises the figure of the intermediary, which elaborates the design-contract. This changes the organization and the responsibility of the construction site. Instead of following discontinuous decisions that are almost independent from each other, the site starts to be guided by a global order, by an overall view that the design and model enable. For the first time in the period under consideration, the divorce between the design and construction site arises.
Since the design is isolated from the construction site, the image of the proto-architect appears and nothing is said about the workforce anymore. The design’s heteronomy breaks the cohesion of the workforce that slowly disintegrates and disperses in various métiers. The worker that used to build a wall and carve a capital is gone. Now there are masons in one side, sculptors on the other. It is not yet a capitalist procedure. Large construction sites would not fed the accumulation of capital directly. However, they would help since they encouraged urban development.
At the beginning of the 15th century, in the hands of Brunelleschi, the design became a weapon in the class conflict. Even though design and site are already apart, there was one last obstacle: the workforce was still familiar with the gothic aesthetic and they could discuss, evaluate the design. To consolidate the power of the project, it was necessary to get out of this dilemma. Hence the last card of Brunelleschi: changing the aesthetic, adopting the classic.
The architect, to prove their need cannot stick to the constructive logic: this is still in the hands of workers. Its design had to go beyond. However, to go beyond meant falling short or pretend the impossible. As an example, Michelangelo liked to use technical absurdities, as in the Medici Chapel or in the Laurentian Library. In fact, in almost every classical piece of architecture we find the same strange duality. Behind, a real construction of poor quality; in front, the classic apparatus that does not disguise its artificiality. Generally, the shape of the elements of the architectural scenario does not correspond to the actual behaviour of materials. This incompatibility manifests itself as poor training, as rough execution, especially in the Baroque, where the hand that draws always wants more.
On the other hand, housing production opened the path for a more rationalized construction, reducing costs and using materials in an effective way. By the 19th century, there was enough empirical knowledge that allowed the creation of a science of construction. It is the rise of the engineer.
Second Lecture: from Paris to Dubai
The end of the 19th century, early 20th century, is one of the most complex periods in the history of art and architecture: it is not without reason that is when modernism is born. During the 19th century, little by little, emerged the trend of transforming formal submission into real submission inside the construction work environment, although there was no industrialization.
In Paris, the political situation a few years after the Commune (1870) and the establishment of the Republic, less authoritarian and repressive, allowed the creation of more consistent workers’ organizations. Consequently, workers’ agitation grows and several strikes occur between 1890 and 1910. Construction workers actively participated in this awakening, and had a considerable advantage in the fight that favoured direct action: confrontation in the workplace.
Just like before, the capital invested in construction found the answer for its problems changing the rules of the game. In order to force an advantage in the power relation, they changed the material used in construction, adopting iron as a main element. Besides serving to break strikes, what impressed was the economy in production costs. Therefore, the use of iron was limited to buildings linked to constant capital or the circulation of goods - the territory of the engineers.
Only later, at the turn of the century, the concrete began to call attention. Its advantages went far beyond the simple issue of production costs. The change to concrete did not develop a savoir faire that could accumulate, or a métier tradition that could consolidate a working alliance. Neither concrete nor iron could serve as a basis for the workforce in the workers’ conflict, like wood and stone. Both materials require calculations, structural studies and precise technical details and its knowledge concentrated in the hands of engineers and technicians.
The construction, because of its role in economy, should continue as a manufacturing process. Due to the amount of workforce it retains, and the small number of machines it uses, it is an essential source of capital accumulation. Therefore, the industrialization of construction is out of hand. In this way, the emergence of modernism is part of the instinctive, but tenacious, response of the capital against the threat of a possible revolution. The modernists stood as the proclaimers of a non-existent – and unlikely – industrialization, from which they only mimic the imaginary appearance. To the self-managed, egalitarian claims of revolutionary syndicalism, modernism responded by raising the division between design and production – by using iron and concrete – but keeping a promise to take care of social issues as soon as possible with the expected industrialization of construction, in an unchanging social horizon.
After the Second World War – that ended the positive view of science and technology –, back in the 1960’s, the social hope revived. The basic theme that fuelled period preceding modernism was recovered: the critique of the relations of production. In the field of architecture, there were some external experiences (like ours). Also, alternative proposals and practices multiplied, especially among students. But even in this cases, production in the construction site has not changed. The design continued to reign and the workers continued to obey, even when the goal was to meet their needs.
Nowadays, the stars that are heard are Venturi, Jencks, Gehry, Eisenman, Koolhas, Portzamparc, Nouvel, Zaha Hadid, etc., the post-modernists and similar. They rise after 1990, with the guaranteed hegemony of financial capital, the disappearance of USSR, and the discouragement of the working class. They dispense of the insincere modernism program: a promise is no longer needed. Rarely architecture corresponded so loudly to the dark side of its function: to introduce irrationality in the possible technical rationality of construction.
Dubai may be the symbol of this architecture, showcase of stars: built almost exclusively with the accumulation of capital derived from exploitation of slavery in construction sites. Today is stage for the loose power of finance capital. The fantasy nouveau riche style of the projects and their kitch boldness perfectly suits the “fictitious capital” – as Marx called the financial capital. When I wrote “The construction site and Design”, 40 years ago, I could never have imagined such a perfect concrete example of his thesis.
Third Lecture: the case of Art
*Ferro resumes this section in topics at the end of the text.
1. The artist moves away from the artisan. They are still close, however, the artist uses different strategies that apply to production means which they both share.
a) Virtuosity in the use of these means;
b) Deletion of the means used;
c) Sprezzatura, courtier use of means;
2. The separation stabilizes (XVI-XVIII century). These three strategies are determined, encoded by the academies: they specify the metier and create the material of the Art. The slow Craftsman descent, now a manufacturing worker, diminishes the confusion between them and the artist. The opposition becomes deeper: in addition to the means, the way they work also differentiates them (heteronomous orders against free creation on the spot).
3. The separation is so distinguished that it seems to be diluted. The industrial worker, atomized, with no means of struggle, is not even considered an oppositional reference to the artist anymore. Art, kind of loose, twists around itself and creates internal oppositions (neoclassical versus romantic).
4. At the end of the 19th century, early 20th century, there are upheavals caused by the definitive bourgeois hegemony (academy crisis, impressionism), but then increased by the outbreak of the Second Industrial Revolution, which opens up the possibility of a new society. The workers and left-wing movements are amplified. Art seems to finally be able to get out of its determinate negation and correspond to its concept, free labour. There is no more an Art versus social work opposition.
5. Another crisis during the First World War. Sharp retreat. The progress made falls apart and Art lets itself be swallowed by the capital market: end of the postulated autonomy, of its “freedom”. The difference between artist/worker is changed: now it is the opposition between random work/submissive labour. In reaction, it begins the autophagy of Art that, instead of looking for an autonomous producer, seeks the autonomy of the product by following, without suspecting, the fetishization of the merchandise that it has sunk into.
6. After several preparations (impossible to detail here, but that includes the pop irony, the elitism asceticism of minimalism, the effrontery of “bad painting”, the idiot hyperrealism, the boring spree of “happenings”, etc.), Art gave itself totally to the financial capital. We could already feel that Art would abandon the noun “labour”, together with the adjective “free”.
About Sergio Ferro
Ferro mobilises the critique of political economy to discuss architecture (as material production and not merely intellectual production).
Since the 1960s Brazilian architect, painter, and theorist Sérgio Ferro has been developing the single most sustained enquiry into design, labour and the construction site, yet his work remains little known outside the Brazilian and French contexts where it was developed. Like many prominent artists and architects, including João Vilanova Artigas and Oscar Niemeyer, Ferro joined the Brazilian Communist Party in 1959. But it was when he had the opportunity to design and build in Brasilia that he was exposed to the violent reality of the construction site, in direct contradiction to the humanist and emancipatory aims of modernist architects. Ferro began to look for an answer in Marxist theory for the conditions of architecture’s mode of production.
During his studies in at FAU-USP Ferro formed a collective with collaborators Rodrigo Lefèvre and Flávio Império who became known as the Arquitetura Nova group and they began an intense period of creative activity of painting, theatre, theoretical studies and architecture. Together they would go on to produce a remarkable series of houses and buildings marked in particular by the use of rudimentary materials and the catenary vault. The group was recognized with an entire issue of the architecture journal Acropole in 1965. And in 2018 Ferro’s work with Arquitetura Nova was the centerpiece of the Orléans Architecture Biennale in 2019. The group is the subject of a dual language special issue of the Brazilian architecture journal arq.urb (2020), which includes articles by many members of the TF/TK team. https://revistaarqurb.com.br/arqurb/issue/view/30.
In 1967, during the military dictatorship, Ferro left the Communist Party and joined armed resistance groups. He published his first texts analysing the production of mass housing and contemporary Brazilian architecture before being arrested and dismissed from the university. In the following year, Ferro took exile in France, where he taught at the Grenoble School of Architecture until his retirement in 2000 and founded with colleagues the Dessin/Chantier research and teaching lab. During this time and at a distance from Brazil, he published the first version of his most important architectural text O Canteiro e o Desenho, latter published as in French as Dessin/Chantier (2005) amongst many other works studying for example the consequences for construction and labour of Le Corbusier’s sculptural designs intentions La Tourette, the meanings of labour in Michelangelo’s sculpture and architecture, and developing the monograph on the emergence and uses of classical design in the extraction of surplus value from building labour. In 2006 Arquitetura e Trabalho Livre, a collection of Ferro’s essays edited by TF/TK Co-I Pedro Arantes was published in Brazil to great acclaim, influencing historians, theorists and activists working with grassroots movements, and two further monographs have followed Artes Plásticas e Trabalho Livre (2015) and Construção do desenho clássico (2021) edited by TF/TK Co-I Silke Kapp.
Sérgio Ferro’s works demonstrate that since design was separated from the building site it has been complicit in the expropriation of labour power on the building site, a mere service provider in the process of capitalist production of value. And conversely he points to the reinvention of a mode ‘design immersed in the return of productive autonomy’ that would be ‘the contradictory opposite of the indignity of enslaving design at the service of capital.’ Led by Co-I Silke Kapp, with post-doctoral researcher Marianna Moura and translators Ellen Heyward and Ana Naomi da Sousa, TF/TK is editing and translating a 3 volumes of Sergio Ferro’s work into English:
Architecture Seen From Below: a Reader which showcases the full methodological, theoretical and historical breadth of Ferro’s work
Dessin / Chantier – Critical Edition will the first English translation of Ferro’s seminal text, first published in Portuguese (1976, 1979), then in French (2005), and in Arquitetura e Trabalho Livre (2006). The publication is funded by University of Grenoble.
The Construction of Classical Design – Ferro’s most recent monograph first published in Portuguese in 2021 as Construção do desenho clássico
Our aim in translating Ferro's work, is first to provide a common critical, theoretical and methodological ground for Production Studies, and directs it towards social action and to make it finally available to the English-speaking world.
Throughout 2021 we are reading these texts as they are translated and debating them in monthly Portuguese and English reading groups, involving a growing body of international practitioners, activists and academics. We have been compiling some of the questions Ferro’s work raises across disciplines and practices. See here…..
Why translate Ferro?
Ferro mobilises the critique of political economy to discuss architecture (as material production and not merely intellectual production).
This opens up new perspectives and questions on several but always intertwined topics, such as:
architecture and art history
political economy of design
professional organisations
education and pedagogies
social movements and prospects
The vector crossing and articulating these topics is human labour (work).
architecture and art history
How does a work of art or architecture stand within the production relations of its time and place?
Which mediations and hierarchies has the work’s production implied or created?
And where, within production relations, do works not recognised as art or architecture, stand?
How do stylistic changes relate to (class) struggles at building sites?
Why have classical design canons spread over the modern colonial world?
How did the spread of sovereign territorial states contribute to these?
How have the boundaries between aesthetics and technique developed?
How are these shaped by art markets?
How has technical development in different contexts and social formations defined architects’ roles?
political economy of design
If building is manufacture (factory without machinery), how does design relate do the work on site?
Why did design evolve from modelling to drawing and then to calculations, specifications, detailing etc.?
Why is design done for construction, but never really fits construction?
How are the production relations that characterise building sites reproduced or modified in other productive activities?
What role do economic policies play in maintaining these relations?
What are the international commodity and value chains behind construction sites, and how are these governed?
How have material innovations been deployed to reassert control over labour, and how does labour respond?
professional organisations
Why are architects’ professional organisations associated with engineers rather than with craftspeople?
How do (legal) professional responsibi- lities of each context mirror their conditions of production?
Do capitalist relations at the building site lead to capitalist relations at the 'drawing site’?
education and pedagogies
To what extent is practical knowledge about building part of the education of architects in each context? Why?
How would education not alienated from the building site appear?
If ‘every free building site is a university’, then how can universities be made into free building sites?
How would this re-shape the “teaching site”, for training architects as well as in other fields?
movements and prospects
How can collective production of space or its prospect give rise to politically strong communities?
What kinds of community emerge among workers on building sites under different circumstances?
And how does the proliferation of migrant labour affect them?
What political orientations do social activism and movements take?
What emancipatory prospects do they seek? What production relations do they rehearse?
Does the experience of (relatively) free work lead to glimpses of a free society?
Does a decolonial turn open up possibilities for other production relations and other aesthetics?
Desde a década de 1960, o arquiteto, pintor e teórico brasileiro Sérgio Ferro vem desenvolvendo a investigação mais robusta sobre desenho, trabalho e canteiro de obras, mas seu trabalho permanece pouco conhecido fora dos contextos brasileiro e francês onde foi desenvolvido. Como muitos artistas e arquitetos de destaque, incluindo João Vilanova Artigas e Oscar Niemeyer, Ferro ingressou no Partido Comunista Brasileiro em 1959. Mas foi quando teve a oportunidade de projetar e construir em Brasília que foi exposto à violenta realidade do canteiro de obras, em contradição direta com os ideais humanistas e emancipatórios da Arquitetura Moderna. Ferro começou a buscar uma resposta na teoria marxista para as condições do modo de produção da arquitetura.
Ainda durante seus estudos na FAUUSP, Ferro formou um coletivo junto a Rodrigo Lefèvre e Flávio Império que ficou conhecido como o grupo Arquitetura Nova, dando início a um intenso período de atividade criativa de pintura, teatro, estudos teóricos e arquitetura. Juntos, eles iriam produzir uma série notável de casas e edifícios marcados em particular pelo uso de materiais rudimentares e a abóbada catenária. O grupo foi homenageado com uma edição inteira da revista de arquitetura Acrópole em 1965 e, em 2019, o trabalho de Ferro com Arquitetura Nova foi a peça central da Bienal de Arquitetura de Orléans, França. O grupo é tema de uma edição especial de dupla linguagem da arquitetura brasileira jornal arq.urb (2020), que inclui artigos de muitos membros da equipe TF/TK. https://revistaarqurb.com.br/arqurb/issue/view/30.
Em 1967, durante a ditadura militar, Ferro deixou o Partido Comunista e ingressou em grupos de resistência armada. Publicou seus primeiros textos analisando a produção da habitação popular e da arquitetura brasileira contemporânea antes de ser preso e demitido da Universidade de São Paulo. No ano seguinte, Ferro exilou-se na França, onde lecionou na Escola de Arquitetura de Grenoble até sua aposentadoria em 2000 e na qual contribuiu para a fundação do laboratório de pesquisa e ensino Dessin/Chantier. Nessa época e à distância do Brasil, publicou a primeira versão de seu mais importante texto arquitetônico “O Canteiro e o Desenho”, posteriormente publicado em francês como “Dessin/Chantier” (2005). A ampla obra publicada de Sérgio inclui, por exemplo, discussões sobre as consequências para a construção e trabalho das intenções dos projetos escultóricos de La Tourette, do arquiteto Le Corbusier, os significados do trabalho na escultura e arquitetura de Michelangelo, o surgimento e os usos do desenho clássico na extração de mais-valia do trabalho de construção. Em 2006, Arquitetura e Trabalho Livre, uma coleção de ensaios da Ferro editada por Pedro Arantes (co investigador do TF/TK) foi publicada no Brasil com grande aclamação, influenciando historiadores, teóricos e ativistas que trabalham com movimentos populares, seguido por duas outras obras publicadas “Artes Plásticas e Trabalho Livre” (2015) e “Construção do desenho clássico” (2021), o segundo editado por Silke Kapp, também co-investigadora do TF/TK.
Os trabalhos de Sérgio Ferro demonstram que desde que o desenho foi separado do canteiro de obras, ele foi cúmplice da expropriação da força de trabalho no canteiro de obras, funcionando como mero prestador de serviços no processo de produção capitalista de valor. E, inversamente, Ferro aponta para a reinvenção de um modo de “desenho imerso no retorno da autonomia produtiva” que seria “o oposto contraditório da indignidade de escravizar o desenho a serviço do capital.” Liderado por Silke Kapp, com a colaboração da pesquisadora de pós doutorado Marianna Moura e das tradutoras Ellen Heyward e Ana Naomi da Sousa, o TF/TK vem editando e traduzindo 3 volumes da obra de Sérgio Ferro para o inglês:
. Arquitetura vista de baixo: um leitor que mostra toda a amplitude metodológica, teórica e histórica da obra de Ferro
. Dessin / Chantier - Edição Crítica: será a primeira tradução para o inglês do texto seminal de Ferro, publicado pela primeira vez em português (1976, 1979), depois em francês (2005) e em Arquitetura e Trabalho Livre (2006). A publicação é financiada pela Universidade de Grenoble.
. A construção do Desenho Clássico - Livro mais recente de Ferro publicada em português em 2021
Nosso objetivo ao traduzir o trabalho de Ferro, é primeiro fornecer uma base crítica, teórica e metodológica comum para os Estudos de Produção, e direcioná-la para a ação social e torná-la finalmente disponível para o mundo anglófono.
Ao longo de 2021, estaremos lendo esses textos à medida que são traduzidos e debatendo-os em grupos mensais de leitura em português e inglês, envolvendo um corpo crescente de profissionais, ativistas e acadêmicos internacionais. Estamos compilando algumas das questões que o trabalho de Ferro levanta entre disciplinas e práticas.
Por que traduzir Ferro?
Ferro mobiliza a crítica da economia política para discutir a arquitetura (como produção material e não apenas produção intelectual).
Isso abre novas perspectivas e questões sobre temas diversos, mas sempre relacionados entre si.
história da arte e da arquitetura
economia política do projeto
organizações profissionais
educação e pedagogias
perspectivas e movimentos sociais
O vetor que atravessa e articula esses temas é o trabalho humano.
história da arquitetura e da arte
Como uma obra de arte ou arquitetura se situa dentro das relações de produção da época e lugar?
Que mediações e hierarquias sua produção implicou ou criou?
E onde se situam, dentro das relações de produção, as obras não reconhecidas como arte ou arquitetura?
Como mudanças estilísticas se relacionam com lutas (de classe) nos canteiros?
Por que os cânones clássicos se difundiram pelo mundo moderno colonial?
Como a difusão de territórios (Estados) soberanos contribui para isso?
Como as fronteiras entre estética e técnica se desenvolveram?
O que os mercados de arte tem com isso?
Como o desenvolvimento tecnológico em diferentes contextos e formações sociais definiu os papéis dos arquitetos?
organizações profissionais
Por que organizações profissionais de arquitetos se associam antes aos engenheiros do que aos artífices?
Como atribuições profissionais (legais) de cada contexto espelham suas condições de produção?
Relações capitalistas no canteiro de obras levam a relações capitalistas do lado do ‘desenho’, nos escritórios?
educação e pedagogias
Até que ponto o conhecimento prático de construção faz parte da formação dos arquitetos em cada contexto? Por quê?
Como seria uma formação não alienada do canteiro?
Se “cada canteiro livre é uma universidade”, como as universidades podem se tornar canteiros livres?
Como isso modificaria a ‘frente do ensino’ na formação dos arquitetos e em outros campos?
movimentos e perspectivas
Como a produção coletiva de espaço ou sua perspectiva pode dar origem a comunidades politicamente fortes?
Que tipo de comunidade se forma entre trabalhadores nos canteiros de obras em diferentes circunstâncias?
E como a proliferação de trabalhadores migrantes as afeta?
Que orientações políticas ativismos e movimentos sociais assumem?
Que perspectivas emancipatórias eles almejam? Que relações de produção eles ensaiam?
A experiência de trabalho (relativamente) livre leva a vislumbres de uma sociedade livre?
O giro decolonial abre possibilidades para outras relações de produção e outras estéticas?
About the TF/TK Project / Sobre o Projeto TF/TK:
It all begins with an idea.
Led by an Anglo/Brazilian team of 2 Principal Investigators, 4 Co-Investigators, 2 Postdoctoral Researchers and 3 Technical Trainees, TF/TK is a 4-year project that responds to the global crisis in building today by bringing together architectural historians and theorists, producers of formal and informal built environments, partner organisations and scholars from political economy, art history and anthropology to collate, structure and apply the cross-cultural, interdisciplinary field of Production Studies. TF/TK launched in October 2020 with the key objectives to:
Collate and structure resources and methods for Production Studies (PS) which advance critical understanding of relations between design and construction, and identify alternatives in which formal and informal building processes can become catalysts for social change. [TF/TK website and repository]
Provide English translations and multidisciplinary critical responses to Sérgio Ferro’s work that test the potential of its methods and theories as a framework for PS. [publications and reading groups]
Involve academics in architecture and related disciplines, and producers of the built environment in the testing and co-production of exemplar studies for future PS research. [case studies in PS]
Engage with a wide range of publics by transforming awareness of the conditions in which the built environment is produced via talks, screenings and workshops, and by supporting existing grassroots producers through strengthening networks and freely accessible resources. [programme of events]
In year 1 we are translating Ferro’s key texts for publication and debating them in monthly Portuguese and English reading groups involving a growing body of international practitioners, activists and academics. We have hosted talks from Advisory Board Members Linda Clarke (UK), Carlos Martins (BR) and Peggy Deamer (US) and begun working with our group of 20 affiliated researchers. Our Production Studies website and repository is in development and will be launched at our first public event at Central St Martins, London in February 2022.
Conduzido por um time anglo-brasileiro de 2 Investigadores Principais, 4 Co-Investigadores, 2 pesquisadores de Pós-doutorado e 3 bolsistas de Treinamento Técnico, o TF/TK é um projeto de 4 anos de duração, que se contrapõe a atual crise global da construção civil, reunindo arquitetura, história e teoria, trabalhadores formais e informais da produção do ambiente construído, organizações parceiras e escolas, da economia política, história da arte e antropologia para reunir, estruturar e aplicar o campo transcultural e interdisciplinar dos Estudos de Produção. O TF/TK tem início em outubro de 2020, com os seguintes objetivos centrais:
Reunir e estruturar recursos e métodos para Estudos de Produção (PS) que promovam a compreensão crítica das relações entre projeto e construção e identifiquem alternativas nas quais os processos formais e informais de construção possam tornar-se catalisadores para a mudança social. [Site e repositório TF / TK]
Fornecer traduções para o inglês e respostas críticas multidisciplinares ao trabalho de Sérgio Ferro que testem o potencial de seus métodos e teorias como um referencial para os Estudos da Produção. [publicações e grupos de leitura]
Envolvimento acadêmico em arquitetura e disciplinas relacionadas, e produtores do ambiente construído no teste e coprodução de estudos exemplares para pesquisas futuras em Estudos da Produção. [estudos de caso em PS]
Engajamento de uma ampla gama de públicos, transformando a consciência das condições em que o ambiente construído é produzido por meio de palestras, exibições e workshops, e apoiando os produtores de base existentes por meio do fortalecimento de redes e recursos de livre acesso. [programa de eventos]
O primeiro ano do projeto é dedicado à tradução de obras selecionadas de Sérgio Ferro, para publicação e debates mensais em grupos de leitura em inglês e português, envolvendo um campo internacional de atores, ativistas e acadêmicos. Organizamos palestras com membros do Conselho do TF/TK (Advisory Board) - Linda Clarke (UK), Carlos Martins (BR) e Peggy Deamer (US) - e demos início ao trabalho junto ao grupo composto por 20 pesquisadores afiliados. Nosso website dedicado aos Estudos da Produção e repositório está em desenvolvimento e será lançado em nosso primeiro evento público na Central St. Martins, em Londres, em fevereiro de 2022.
timeline of the project / cronograma do projeto
Video from the Project
PUBLICATIONS
About Production Studies
It all begins with an idea.
Against the contemporary context of disconnected relations of production, depletion of resources, ever-worsening conditions of construction across the globe, TF/TK looks to Ferro’s work to advance the critical understanding of relations between architectural design and the production and labour of building. Following Ferro, the project resists the social and technical elevation of architects over builders, by generating new knowledge in Production Studies through co-production with formal and informal building producers, design practitioners, teachers and academics. Our aim in proposing the urgently needed field of Production Studies is to foster interdisciplinary critical analysis of these relations, while at the same time advancing the development of responsible and just alternatives.
In addition to investigating the production of the built environment and the histories and theories of their relations, we seek to identify existing alternatives and possible new forms of production, in which building processes – in themselves and not just their products – can become catalysts for social change. By integrating the intellectual and empirical projects with an active program to engender autonomy, equality, justice, creativity and joy in the social and material production of space, we seek to advance these values as fundamental aspects of social and material production of space.
As a means to effect change, the project will transform knowledge of design and building production through a series of activities held with academics in the field of Production Studies, researchers and producers of the built environment, and with wider publics including:
i) an annual programme of Production Studies symposia and exchanges in the UK (Newcastle, London) and in São Paulo state (São Paulo; São Carlos).
ii) the co-production of 24 new case studies - that are aimed as exemplars to both address the gap in academic knowledge of production (histories of informal and formal production, related disciplinary approaches such as anthropology, political science) and to provide resources for further action and change (documenting the work of social movements and self-builders, recording and trialling alternative forms of design pedagogy that engage with production).
iii) publishing and other outputs, including booklets; anthology website; audio play; exhibitions