> vilem flusser:
> "only nomads can afford to have round grass huts and tents".
> how does architecture relate to a modern age with no home, without a
> privilleged place - a "nomadic" age?
Homi Bhabha writes, "The globe shrinks for those who own it; for the
displaced or the dispossessed, the migrant or refugee, no distance is
more awesome than the few feet across borders or frontiers." So we are
speaking of two radically different senses of place. Whose "nomadic
age" is it? Are we speaking of those who have the devices to disperse
the home and configure it at will anywhere (a privileged placelessness),
or those who truly have no place? I think Miwon Kwon issues a crucial
challenge: to develop a "relational specificity" that can hold in
tension the distant poles of spatial experiences that Bhabha describes.
So rather than talking about the general dissolution of place and
distance, we have to be very attentive to the spaces *between* objects,
people, and places that do not fall squarely into any overriding
contextual terms.