| id |
2006_412 |
| authors |
Yessios, Ioannis C. and Olga Pantelidou |
| year |
2006 |
| title |
Moving beyond Hybridity |
| doi |
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2006.412
|
| source |
Communicating Space(s) [24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9541183-5-9] Volos (Greece) 6-9 September 2006, pp. 412-419 |
| summary |
The goal of this paper is to analyze the notion of a hybrid space, to explore the necessity of adopting this term as a characteristic of space, and to question whether it is time to move beyond its use. The term, hybrid, originating in biology, describes the offspring of two different species. For the past two decades, Hybridity has found a wide application within social sciences, including architecture. In general, Hybridity occurs when two separate entities come together to form a third. In the context of architecture, a hybrid space is one in which the advent of technology allows us to experience multiple spaces simultaneously. We understand Hybridity to be a conceptual construct that is useful in explaining new phenomenon. This begs the question, what is the new phenomenon. In the case of space, it is the aforementioned advent of technology. This is not, however, the first time space has been expanded by technology. Throughout history, our ability to understand stand space has been extended by the advent of new technology. Perhaps, a hybrid space is not defined by technology after all. The ultimate goal of this paper is to define the moment at which Hybridity ceases to be useful, assuming that such a moment even exists. Though it has been helpful in understand space in new ways, allowing new insights into space, for many spaces this term can reach the end of its usefulness. The moment at which this occurs is dependant on a few factors. The first is one of adoption. Once a hybrid space is commonplace, is it strictly necessary to consider it a hybrid any longer? The second factor is the polymorphism of hybrid spaces. The phrase hybrid space does not describe a single form of space. Instead, a hybrid space can be one of a plethora of spaces. Finally, the issues of category and identity may help define this moment. If Hybridity relies on categories and instances between categories, then this suggests that a change in perspective may destroy the category of the hybrid. Perspective is directly tied to the specific identity of the viewer and that viewer’s experiences. |
| keywords |
hybridity; technology; space; identity |
| series |
eCAADe |
| email |
|
| full text |
 file.pdf (165,963 bytes) |
| references |
Content-type: text/plain
|
Clarke, R. (2005)
 Hybridity – Elements of Theory
, Ars Electronica 2005 Symposium on Hybrid – Living in Paradox, Linz, Austria, 2-3 September, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Haraway, D. (1991)
A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century
, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York; Routledge, pp. 149-181
|
|
|
|
|
McLuhan, M. (1964)
Hybrid Energies: Les Liasons Dangereuses
, Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man, the MIT Press, Combridge, Massachusetts, pp. 48 – 55
|
|
|
|
|
Pieterse, J. N. (2001)
Hybridity, So What? The Anti-hybridity Backlash and the Riddles of Recognition
, Theory, Culture, and Society, Vol 18(2-3), pp. 219-245
|
|
|
|
|
Ross, C. (2005)
New Media Arts Hybridity: The Vases (Dis)Communicants Between Art, Affective Science, and AR Technology
, Convergence Vol. 11(4), pp. 32-42
|
|
|
|
|
Spielman, Y. & Bolter, J. D. (2006)
Hybridity: Arts, Science, and Cultural Effects
, Leonardo, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 106-107
|
|
|
|
| last changed |
2022/06/07 07:57 |
|
