ENCLOSURE AND DIFFERENCE:

how t o c r ea t e an a r ch i t e c tu r e tha t i s unde r c ommon sk i e s

and b e f o r e d i v id ed ho r iz ons?

“. . .SOLIDARITY IS NOT SIMPLY BASED ON SIMILARITY

BUT ON RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENCE.”

(Chambers & Curti, 1996)

This work re-examines the premises of enclosure and veiling to open up architecture to the sociological concern of co-existance. The essay is structured by a discussion of veiling in relation to cultural difference and spatial perception. It refers to post-colonial theory, particularly the work of the Indian literary theorist Spivak and her ideas on subalternity and being voiceless in society. Woven into this dialogue is a conversation about a theory on the dressing of Ancient Greek architecture as promoted by Gottfried Semper in the 1800’s. Ultimately, the work seeks to form a critique of visibility and empowerment.

The essay is concluded by the design of a building which is an attempt to use the ideas discussed to vocalise difference in present-day Dublin.

The building is comprised of four functions:

a women’s cooking centre,a purpose built kindergarten,a breakfast club, anda migrant women and children’s unit.

The idea for a cooking centre was prompted by my research into the conditions of the direct provision system in Ireland. Whilst being accomodated in the city centre, asylum seekers are not allowed to store food on the premises or to cook for themselves.

The cooking centre’s combination of systems will facilitate these women to culturally and privately express themselves by cooking food familiar to them and their children in the cooking cores. By combining environmental, structural and service systems, a ‘public realm’ is freed up within the building, providing a space to commune with others centred around the meals prepared.

A screen encloses the indoor and outdoor cooking areas, creating a region of co-occupation, helping to introduce these women and the city in a new way, and acknowledging that a culture which develops in private is no less meaningful than that which develops in public.

Abstract

Mark, Garanger; Femmes Algériennes 1960, Atlantica (2002)

Aim & Focus

In the 1960s Marc Garanger took a series of photographs of the women in the occupied Algerian village of Ain Terzine. It was the first time these women had been in contact with Europeans, and in order to identify them, his commanding officer insisted that they be photographed without their veils. The significance of these photographs were demonstrated when in 2010 a law was passed in France banning women from wearing a hijab in the public realm. This reignited the discussion of Western suspicion of veiling which had been growing since secularisation first became public sentiment. The practice of wearing a burka was described as a problem of women’s liberty and dignity by past President Sarkozy :

“It’s not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement…In our country, we can’t accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That’s not our idea of freedom.” (Chrisafis, 2009)

The choice of possessive adjectives used in the last sentence is revealing. One is left wondering what the women who are being represented here would assert as their “idea of freedom”. Whilst I see a glaring generalisation on the part of the president in his association of all veiled women as being in a subaltern position, or as the literary theorist and philosopher Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak describes as “ a position without identity”(Morton, 2007) there are echoes here of what she herself warns against in her 1988 essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. In “Ethics, Subalternity and the Critique of Postcolonial Reason”, (2007) Stephen Morton describes:

“In a discussion of the suicide of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri, a woman who was subsequently discovered to have been involved in one of the armed nationalists groups in colonial Bengal, for instance, Spivak has argued that the gendered subaltern cannot speak. This statement has often been taken out of context to mean that socially and economically subordinate groups cannot act or speak because they are excluded from cultural and political representation…such readings ignore how Spivak’s statement that the subaltern cannot speak is a performative statement, which signifies that the failure of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri’s suicide to register as a sovereign speech act.”

In “Beyond the Pale”, Veronica Ware suggests that the status of women in culture has often been read as an index of relative civilisation (Ware, 1992). Whether or not Sarkozy’s

statement was made with the intention of representing “the downtrodden, submissive, oriental, invariably Muslim female” (Ware, 1992), there can be no doubt that veiling and it’s spatial equivalent of screening and enclosure, with all the paradoxes, ambiguities, symbolism that accompany them, have a significant role in relation to both the question of the subaltern and interculturalism. It is in these dual territories that my interests lie, and by which my thesis question will be framed. I am asking whether or not this veiling can be permitted to exist as a boundary, as a form of dialogical acknowledgement of difference and recognition of the potential for resistance that it holds for the subaltern.

This writing is framed by an imagined conversation between Spivak and the nineteeth century German architect, Gottfried Semper, about enclosure and difference. The latter part of the piece is a realisation of the result of this conversation, a design proposal for a cooking and food storage space for the women who seek asylum in Dublin city.

Aim & Focus

“THE RETURN TO ORIGINS ALWAYS IMPLIES A

RETHINKING OF WHAT YOU DO CUSTOMARILY, AN

ATTEMPT TO RENEW THE VALIDITY OF YOUR EVERYDAY

ACTIONS, OR SIMPLY A RECALL OF THE NATURAL (OR

EVEN DIVINE) SANCTION FOR YOUR REPEATING THEM

FOR A SEASON.”

(Rykwert, 1972)

Context for the Research

The title of the dissertation stems from an enduring interest in nomadology and nomadic culture. The link between this and the position of architecture in inter-cultural discourse may seem tenuous, but the logic behind it is derived from a belief that architecture can and should be an interdisciplinary construct. In her paper ‘Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth’ Grosz admits:

“While I am not trained in the visual arts or architecture, nonetheless I see there are many points of overlap, regions of co-occupation, that concern art and philosophy, and it is these shared concerns that I want to explore.” (Grosz, 2008).

I propose that these “shared concerns” can be pushed further to include sociological and anthropological contributions. In essence, I believe that it is through a nomadic process of venturing into the space of shared knowledge that esoteric boundaries can be dissolved.

The intention is not to suggest that these “points of overlap” are lightly accessible, and that by engaging in dialogue with other disciplines a homogeneous space will be discovered, in reality this goes against the point. In his book “Together” Richard Sennett proposes the benefits of “dialogics”, “a process of exchange (where) people may become aware of their own views and expand their understandings of one another”, as opposed to “dialectics”, whereby “the aim is to come eventually to a common understanding” (Sennett, 2012). I believe that there is a relation between dialogical engagement and the theory of ‘differential presence’ as proposed by Gilles Deleuze in “Difference and Repetition”;

“Something forces us to think. This something is not an object of recognition, but a fundamental encounter.” (Deleuze & Patton, 2004)

It could be ascertained that interculturalism seeks to operate in the same space. It is “support for cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures.” (Nagle, 2009) It is dialogical interaction, which occupies the territory between cultural homogeneity and multicultural segregation.

The question of interculturalism cannot be discussed without referring to the recent

Context for the Research

work of the sociologist Richard Sennett and the geographer Ash Amin. In seeking to understand what a space for interculturalism might look like, and how architecture could inhabit this territory, I began with their writings. Upon encountering Spivak, I saw a case for arguing that both social theorists have ideas that overlap with what she had written 20 years prior about the nature of such a space. Unlike Spivak however, both Sennett and Amin agree that this space is in fact achievable. It is my intention to ask whether or not this is possible. Sennett (2009) asserts that it is through cooperation that the human civilisation will achieve accord:

“…cooperation precedes individuation: cooperation is the foundation of human development, in that we learn how to be together before we learn how to stand apart.”

Via the example of children’s learning habits, he argues that cooperation is developed using the skills of experiment and communication. It is this skill of communication that I am interested in, and that I will return to shortly. In his book “Land of Strangers, Amin states:

“My argument is that, in seeing too much of the human in the social and in expecting too much from the inter-human in resolving social difference and antagonism, a narrow framing misrecognises the society of strangers compositionally and in terms of its normative potential.” He continues:

“A logic of the communal as the field of interpersonal and intercultural ties, underwritten by shared historic values, has come to the fore (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010), spurred by negative commentary on multiculturalism in the wake of 9/11, including accusations that strangers and minorities expect too much and give back too little, make majorities feel like strangers in their own land, and weaken social cohesion by undermining national heritage and tradition. Envisaging the good society as they society of responsible citizens and collaborating communities, this logic recommends the exclusion or domestication of the stranger, the revival of core national values, and the strengthening of ties among and between communities. This book judges such a turn to be regressive and unrealistic: regressive for its veiled xenophobia and exclusionary nostalgia, and unrealistic for its denial of the plural constituency of modern being and belonging.”(Amin, 2012)

It is the notions of “exclusionary nostalgia” and “plural constituency” that could be drawn

Context for the Research

from Spivak’s argument. Sennett ultimately champions the workshop as being the space to facilitate cooperation, and Amin the public realm. In the context of these spaces, I intend to re-examine Spivak’s original question, can the subaltern speak here?

“There is no space from which the sexed subaltern can speak.” (Spivak, 1988)

It is on Spivak’s own counsel that I am prompted to do this. In her work she is critical of the Western intellectual’s involvement in the representation and re-presentation of the subaltern in philosophy and theory. She claims the trap is two-fold, and quotes Michel Foucault in “On Popular Justice: a discussion with Maoists”, taken from Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-77 (Foucault & Gordon, 1980): “It is the slippage from rendering visible the mechanism to rendering vocal the individual, both avoiding ‘any kind of analysis of [the subject] whether psychological, psychoanalytical or linguistic’, that is consistently troublesome.” (Spivak, 1988) Essentially, we must ask what it means to be “visible” in the public realm, and whether or not this renders the subaltern “vocal”, as suggested by Sarkozy.

French law now asserts that the veil is a detrimental cause for the “silence” of the women. It argues that as it is in the public realm where we are most “visible”, we must be so in the absolute physical sense. This is a western preoccupation, intent on lifting the veil and liberating what is underneath. This is not a modern mentality, certainly not in terms of architectural discourse at any rate. I believe an interesting parallel can be drawn between the post-religious situation in France in 2010, and the post-revolutionary period in which Gottfried Semper wrote notable dissertation of 1851, “The Four Elements of Architecture.”

This is where the conversation between Spivak and Semper begins.

Gottfried Semper; The Indian hut from Trinidad, Cambridge (1989)

Context for the Research

I wonder what Spivak would say to Semper regarding his quest to truly understand the nature of the Greek temples, his radical opinions on the figurative veiling of reality and the resistance he encountered from the dominating western discourse in doing so at the time. He advanced his theory of polychromy by a return to origins, origins of the primitive hut and the crucial role the motive of enclosure had to play: “The return to origins always implies a rethinking of what you do customarily…” (Rykwert, 1972) Semper was very much aware of the importance of this capability he possessed – “Do not believe,” he wrote in a letter to his publisher in 1850, “that my concern for the origin and development of art is superfluous. On it is based the idea I propose to carry through the whole work; it is the red thread that binds it together.” (Semper, 2010). It was only through a rethinking of dominating sentiment that Semper could open himself up to the voice of the Ancient Greek civilisation. This illumination was tempered by critics at the time who reacted with anger and scorn towards the concept that the purity of the white stone temples could once have been veiled by polychromy and railings. To subordinate such purity by obscuring it was conceived as practically criminal.

The “red thread” of Spivak’s question of us about the subaltern, and Semper’s revelation about the practice of polychromy will be the notions of veiling and enclosure. Incidentally, it was through the replacement of the veil that Semper came to a deeper understanding of the Ancient Greek temple and as a result, civilisation. It is through the removal of the right to veil of the women of France that understanding has faltered and anti-Islamist sentiments have grown. Can the culture that is permitted to grow under the protection of the veil be classed as any less than that which is cultivated in the public realm? If we lose our preoccupation with trying to remove the veil to understand on our own terms, may we open up a space for the subaltern to speak, therefore allowing us to permit ourselves to speak TO, not to speak FOR the subaltern. What is the place of architecture in this post-colonial struggle – what might an architecture that is “under common skies and before divided horizons” (Chambers & Curti, 1996) look like? I wonder if this space where we can learn to learn from the subaltern on her own terms is echoed in the line by Patrick Kavanagh in his poem, “Advent” -

“Through a chink too wide there comes in no wonder.” (Kavanagh & Quinn, 1996)

Laffon; Himba’s Hut, Nambia, Kaokoland Desert, New York (2004)

The texts by Spivak and Semper were been chosen primarily for the rich data that they are able to provide on the subjects of enclosure, interculturalism and difference. The various paradoxes and contradictions that emerge from the voices of the aforementioned thinkers serve to enliven the discussion and heighten the primary aim of the essay – that is to question if, in our desperate attempt to shed the veil of cultural difference and “liberate” the cultures enclosed within, are we denying access to the space in which the subaltern could speak?

In the spirit of forcing us to think, and of encountering the new, the next part of the writing is composed of an interdisciplinary construct. After returning to the origins of enclosure via Semper, there is a need to investigate what contemporary interpretations of this age old element might look like. It may be interesting to observe that the three practicioners of spatial construction whom I deem to be most relevant to the conversation are not architects, but artists. I might tentatively suggest that this is due to the fact that the three are not involved with the architectural element of structure or tectonics – in all three cases this context is already provided and the spatial interventions are liberated to reinterpret what the perception of this structured space is. They engage with architecture without trying to emulate, subvert or cover it. Like Grosz, attempting to exploit the “regions of co-occupation” between philosophy and art, the Spanish sculptor/artist Cristina Iglesias, the Iranian visual artist Shirin Neshat and the philosopher/artist Fred Sandback have all managed to create a space to work within the joint territories of art and architecture. Because they are liberated from structural responsibility and material cost/conformity they have all managed to extend to their viewers an invitation to re-examine what they define as enclosure, push visibility and perceptual connections to their extents and highlight the resistive powers of the veil.

The purpose of the inclusion of the work of Neshat is to contextualise her struggle with resistance of silence on the one hand, and cultural assimilation on the other. She has acknowledged the presence of the subaltern and believes that her position as an artist is such as “to inspire, to mobilise, to bring hope”. (Conversations, 2011) It could be argued that she is speaking in the same voice as Spivak, as she speaks of the same subject and of the responsibility of the representing intellectual who speaks on her behalf.

Context for the Research

Iglesias is included because of the performative nature of her work. She engages with the creation of borders not boundaries whilst still embracing enclosure, and a deeper understanding of the spatiality of the veil without having to remove it. By disempowering the viewer she manages to subvert the gaze and creates “an epidermis that detaches itself from the architecture and allows messages to be transmitted and received through its pores..”(Iglesias, Cooke, & Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, 2013)

Sandback is included for his ability to cause the viewer to question the extent that enclosure needs to materialise to be present. His work in yarn is interactive – it invites the viewer to circle it and pass through it until suddenly a conversation is opened up with a space you might have missed before. It is reminiscent of Semper’s return to the origins of the primitive hut, and Sennett’s advocation of a return to our origins in childlike development, in order that we might learn something new. In an interview with David Zwirner, Sandback maintains:

“My work isn’t environmental. It’s present in pedestrian space, but is not so strong or elaborate that it obscures its context. It doesn’t take over a space, but rather coexists with it.” (Zwirner, 2013)

Context for the Research

Neshat; Unveiling, from series Women of Allah (2000)

Iglesias; Untitled (Passage II) (2002)

Sandback; Nouvelles Boites, Kuntzmusuem Luzern, Lucerne (2012)

This interdisciplinary critique feeds back into the conversation between Spivak and Semper. Of particular interest is Semper’s argument that the Greek’s notion of enclosure had its origins in something else, something attributed to another culture – Oriental and Egyptian carpeting - “Motives are borrowed, combined and refined according to particular cultural demands.”(Semper, 2010). Semper’s ability to listen to the nature of enclosure and dressing was something distinct and at times unfathomable to western discourse. He did not see it as a form of subversion or even perversion. Through his analysis the temples became places that allowed culture and ritual to develop inside them rather than be objects of reverence to be admired from the outside.

“The art-form might best be conceived, in botticher’s abstract terminology, as the conceptual veil that overlays the column, giving it its characteristic expression.”(Semper, 2010)

Context for the Research

Chambers and Curti, Cover Artwork, The Postcolonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons(2006)

The next section of this piece is a proposal for a space for asylum seeking women to cook and store food in Dublin city centre. It is informed by the research discussed and is bound together by Semper’s red thread of enclosure. It looks back to primal origins, but is not an assertion that this space has the answers. At the end of her essay, Spivak ascertains that there is no space for the subaltern to speak:

“The subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in global laundry lists with “woman” as a pious item. Representation has not withered away. The female intellectual as intellectual has a circumscribed task which she must not disown with a flourish.” (Spivak, 1988)

She describes the widow burnings in India and how they were in fact an attempt of these women to speak. However they were ignored, as the conversation was constructed from western man’s point of view. Unlike Sarkozy, I am not trying to represent the subaltern of whom I, from my privileged position, could have very little concept. Instead I am trying to ask, that if we rexamine our perception of enclosure, veils and boundaries, and stop trying to eradicate them, might we begin open up this space, and hear what it is she is trying to say.

Context for the Research

Design Proposal : Place

What is the place of architecture in this post-postcolonial struggle for co-occupation and coexistance – what might an architecture that is “under common skies and before divided horizons” (Chambers & Curti, 1996) be like? The idea for a cooking centre was prompted by my research into the conditions of the direct provision system in Ireland. Whilst being accomodated in the city centre, asylum seekers are not allowed to store food on the premises or cook for themselves. One questions this prevention of cultural practice. A woman interviewed during the documentary “Seaview” revealed that “some children have not tasted the food their parents cooked since they came to Ireland.” (Gogan

& Rowley, 2008)

The research undertaken into the direct provision system in Ireland brought a particular building to my attention. The current welfare office for asylum seekers in Dublin is located in a non-descript building on the corner of Gardiner Street Upper and Belvedere Court.

The site of the existing building was interesting to me because it possessed the qualities that I had been looking for in a site to house the cooking centre. It is bounded by a public south-west facing road (Gardiner Street Upper), a more private lane (Belvedere Court), and a court to the south-east. It sits between the High Georgian row of buildings on Mountjoy Square North, a style distinctly synonomous with Dublin’s architectural heritage, and the Neo-classical Jesuit Church of St Francis Xavier on Gardiner Street Upper, and has a connection with Gardiner Street Primary school located across the lane.

Author’s own; Site Location Plan and Model, Site Photos

T he brief for the project is comprised of four functions:

a women’s space for cooking and food storage,a purpose built intercultural kindergarten,a breakfast club,and an asylum seekers women and children’s unit.

The breakfast club and kindergarten serve to ground the cooking centre in its context. The breakfast club is situated directly across from the school, connecting the two buildings and adding a semi-public element. As I got to know the context more intimately, I discovered an intercultural kindergarten set up and run by the residents in the courtyard housing beside the site. I felt this was an important symbol of the intercultural spirit of the place, and incorporated purpose-built facilities for this kindergarten as the final part of the brief, which contain an outdoor play court, an art room and sleep area. These are both entered via the the lane to the north of the site.

The HSE Asylum seekers unit that existed on the site was reinstated with a change. The welfare system in Ireland currently seperates units based on gender for Irish citizens, but does not do so for asylum seekers. The new unit will address this and introduce privacy and security for the women and children who use the facility.

The cooking facility and women and children’s unit are access via a walled garden behind the northern row of Georgian buildings on Mountjoy Square. The cast insitu concrete cores are constructed first. These contain a number of functions, including chimneys through which smoke from the outdoor cooking is harnessed vertically to supply the smoke for the food preservation rooms, wind scoops for natural cooling of the building, vertical circulation in the form of stair and lift cores, water collection and storage on the roof level and “c” shaped enclosed cooking areas.

Design Proposal : Brief

Author’s own; Ground Floor Plan

N

1. Outdoor Cooking

2. Demo. Kitchen

3. Cooking Area

4 . Women & Chi ldren’s Uni t

5 . Kindergar ten

6. Breakfast Club

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

Author’s own; Sections through cooking facility and kindergarten

F or the environmental control aspect of the cooking centre, the main concern was cooling and ventilating the building because of the heat gained on a daily basis from the cooking.

Keen to achieve this ventilation and cooling strategy as passively as possible, I referenced the malqaf system employed as a traditional way of cooling buildings in Egypt, and revived by the architect Hassan Fathy. The system involves a series of wind catchers orientated towards the direction of the prevailing wind. These drive the air down through the building, which is sometimes cooled using a water feature called a salsabil.

Although malqafs are more suited to hot, arid climates where daytime cooling is desirable, there is a case for employing a similiar system because of the neccessity of cooling and ventilating the building, and the context of a dense urban environment.

Traditional methods of storing and preserving food in the form of cold cellars, root cellars and meat curing and smoking were also incorporated into the design, ensuring less reliance on refridgeration and lower energy use.

Design Proposal : Environment

Author’s own; Sketch of malqaf ventilation system and food storage study

The cast insitu concrete cores are constructed first. These contain a number of functions, including chimneys through which smoke from the outdoor cooking is harnessed vertically to supply the smoke for the food preservation rooms, wind scoops for natural cooling of the building, vertical circulation in the form of stair and lift cores, water collection and storage on the roof level and “c” shaped enclosed cooking areas.

It was important to me that the cooking should be an introverted and private act, taking the users out of their context and allowing a focus on that which is familiar to them. The eating spaces are designed to be shared amongst all the users. There are two main indoor spaces at ground and first floor level, three at third floor level and and one outdoor eating space at ground level. These are conceived as clear unobstructed light filled spaces, achieved by glulam beams that span off the concrete cores.

At basement level a cold cellar runs along the perimeter of the building, provding a naturally ventilated food storage space. It also acts to serve as bracing for the screen, the last element of enclosure which completes the building. This screen wraps the courts and buildings along the street edges and seperates the more private functions from the breakfast club which designed for the school across the lane. The mesh serves as a structure for growing herbs vertically and is designed to have varying degrees of tension depending on what it is concealing, so that the wind constantly changes the visibility from the street into the building.

This enables the city and the women seeking asylum here to be introduced from within and without in a new and gradual way, with the daily lives of Dublin and the building partially revealing themselves through veiled glimpses of courts, chimneys and street.

Design Proposal : Construction

Author’s own; Ground floor courtyard images

Author’s own; Interior and exterior cooking core images

Author’s own; Cold Food Storage (Screen Foundations) & Meat Smoking Room

Author’s own; View of Enclosing Screen from Interior Ground and Second Floor Courts

“THERE IS NO SPACE FROM WHICH THE SEXED

SUBALTERN CAN SPEAK.”

(Spivak, 1988)

Conclusion

Bibliography

Amin, A. (2012). Land of Strangers (1 ed.). Cambridge: Polity. Chambers, I., & Curti, L. (1996). The post-colonial question : common skies, divided horizons. London ; New York: Routledge. Chrisafis, A. (2009, 22 June 2009). Nicolas Sarkozy says Islamic veils are not welcome in France. The Guardian. Conversations, T. (Writer). (2011). Shirin Neshat: Art in Exile, TEDWomen2010. http://www.ted.com/talks/shirin_neshat_art_in_exile.html. Deleuze, G., & Patton, P. (2004). Difference and repetition ([New ed.). London: Continuum. Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/Knowledge selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Grosz, E. A. (2008). Chaos, territory, art : Deleuze and the framing of the earth. New York: Columbia University Press. Iglesias, C., Cooke, L., & Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía. (2013). Cristina Iglesias : metonymy. New York, NY: DelMonico Books. Kavanagh, P., & Quinn, A. (1996). Selected poems. London: Penguin. Morton, S. (2007). Gayatri Spivak : ethics, subalternity and the critique of postcolonial reason. Cambridge: Polity. Nagle, J. (2009). Multiculturalism’s double bind : creating inclusivity, cosmopolitanism and difference. Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Bibliography

Rykwert, J. (1972). On Adam’s house in Paradise : the idea of the primitive hut in architectural history. New YorkLondon: Museum of Modern Art;Distributed by Academy Editions. Semper, G. (2010). The four elements of architecture and other writings. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Sennett, R. U. h. b. g. i. b. i. i. f. y.-b. (2012). Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation: Yale University Press. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Ware, V. (1992). Beyond the pale : white women, racism and history: Verso. Zwirner, D. (2013). Fred Sandback: Decades. New Mexico: Radius Books.