University of Rijeka

RULES WITHOUT WORDS

An Interdisciplinary Seminar on Non-Verbal Normativity

Date and Venue: February 8, 2018 at Društvo arhitekata Rijeka (DAR)

Organization: CAS SEE & DAR

Non-verbal normativity surrounds us. In design and architecture practices, the visual communication and the built environment transmit rules and shape behaviour in a variety of, arguably, understudied ways. Signalization, political and lifestyle propaganda in various media, nudging images, technical drawings of city plans, ideologies articulated through architectural choices and propagated through artistic practices – are among the most prolific bearers of norms in the society.

This seminar gathers a number of Autumn 2017 CAS SEE Fellows investigating the non-verbal normativities in a variety of approaches and disciplines and the practitioners of design and architecture to open the discussion about the nature, relevance and effects of the “rules without words” in the contemporary normative landscape, where climate change is reframing the discussions on globalization, the illiberal governments are slowly and persistently changing the fundamentals of the discourse on governance and freedom, and the vast digital realm floods the international social life with innovations in social coordination as well as informational and affective strategies of uncontrollable quality and intent.


◌ PROGRAM ◌

17.00 | Olimpia Giuliana Loddo and Davide Pisu: The Architect’s Normative Drawings

17.30 | Carlo Burelli: Art, Power and Propaganda: Lessons from the Roman Empire

17.50 | Mónica Cano Abadía: The Non-Verbal Normativity of Gender Performativity

18.10 | Discussion

18.40 | Davide Pala: A Moral Framework for Assessing Hostile Architecture

19.00 | Milorad Kapetanović: Regulation of Informal Construction in Rijeka in the Anticipation of European Capital of Culture Rijeka

19.20 | Nataša Janković: Architectural terRI[s]tories: Mapping the Process of City Transformation.

19.40 | Gerrit Wegener: Johnnie meets Jackie in Rijeka. In between the lines of Normativity and Individuality

20.00 | Discussion

Olimpia Giuliana Loddo

How to understand the normative nature of a picture?

“Pictures have often been considered as means of representation or as forms of expression. However, an agent can use pictures for different goals (Mitchell, Nyíri) and more specifically, pictures can have a normative sense (Lorini).

The expression ‘normative sense’ is vague and it hides different possible meanings. In general, it is possible to use a picture to impose a norm (e.g. traffic signs, urban planning), in this case, some scholars talk about graphic rules or drawn norms (Moroni and Lorini, Maynard).

It is also possible to use a picture to translate a norm: this is a specific form of intersemiotic translation (Jakobson). The intersemiotic translation of rules can be a precious instrument of legal clarification: for instance, in contractual design. In this case, the normative picture is a partial or total visualisation of normative text (Haapio).

This paper aims to point out that the normative nature of the drawing reflects the intention behind the drawing activity or the attitude of the users of the drawings.

In fact, on the one hand, an agent can produce a picture or locate it in a particular place to create a new norm, in the matter in question, the activity of the drawer could be considered part of the procedure that leads to the creation of a norm.

On the other hand, an agent can produce a picture that refers to an existing norm. The production of a picture that represents an existing norm can have different functions that I will point out by analysing three different examples. The first example concerns the activity of a contract designer that can use the picture to clarify the clauses of a commercial contract (this can transform a contract into a valuable instrument of management). Moreover, a second example concerns an activist that can illustrate several norms to overcome the linguistic and technical barriers between the lawgiver and the potential norms’ addresses. The third case relates the activity of a painter that produces normative pictures to reinforce norms already valid in a community.

The different forms of normative visualisation can follow specific strategies. In general, there are at least three different strategies of norm visualisation: Pushmi-pullyu representations (i.e., in R. Millikan’s lexicon, forms of normative visualization that appeal to more primitive mechanisms of imitation); the representation of the unpleasant consequences of the norm violation; the creation of a system of symbolic graphic representations. The different, forms of norms visualisation can reflect and be influenced by the norm’s typology.

However, the different forms of norm visualisation do not reflect the relation between norms and pictures. In other words, in this presentation, I will show that it is impossible to understand the specific function a normative picture without analysing both the actual use of that picture and the social and historical context in which that picture is produced. The bare observation of a picture cannot reveal its specific normative nature.”


Olimpia G. Loddo earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Milan in 2012 and cooperates as postdoctoral volunteer research assistant with the Department of Law of the University of Cagliari. She is assistant editor in “Argumenta. Italian Journal of Analytic Philosophy”. Her current research interests  include general theory of law, social ontology, customary law, philosophy of norms, deontic logic, phenomenology of law. She is the author of several articles published in (national and international) peer reviewed journals. Essays and translations (from English and German) by Olimpia Loddo have also been published in edited collections on phenomenology of law, anthropology of revenge, philosophy of images. She is co-editor (with Pier Luigi Lecis, Giuseppe Lorini, Vinicio Busacchi, and Pietro Salis) of the edited collection “Truth, Image and Normativity”. She edited (with Roberto Pusceddu) the book “Anancastico in Deontica” [The Anankastic in Deontics], LED, 2017 (auth. Giuseppe Lorini). She is the author of the book “Ideologie e concetti in azienda. Un’analisi filosofica degli usi aziendali” [Ideology and concepts in the Firm. A philosophical analysis of company customs], ESI, 2017.

Davide Pala

Experts, Good Citizens, Democratic Public Debates and Global Warming

“Among climate experts there is an overwhelming consensus that (i) global warming is occurring, that (ii) this fact is alarming and that (iii) humans are causally responsible for it. Despite this, 16% of American citizens deny that (i) global warming is occurring, 48% of them question (ii) its seriousness, and 50% think that (iii) human activity has no role in causing it (Anderson 2011). These discrepancies can be observed in many other countries as well.

In this talk I will provide a normative framework to assess the attitude of those citizens that, like American citizens, in democratic public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies, mistrust experts,  i.e.  trustworthy  epistemic  authorities,  in  regard  to  beliefs  that  are  justified and  almost undisputed within the scientific community. I will argue that this attitude is bad, because citizens that show it do not possess the virtue of the epistemic trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities (ETITEA), which is demanded by the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts. According  to  this  non-exhaustive  ideal,  as  a  necessary  but  not  sufficient condition,  in democratic public debates citizens trust trustworthy epistemic authorities as a way to respect themselves and each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence. In more detail, I will show that the virtue of ETITEA is required by three ideas specifying the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts, i.e. (i) the idea of rational citizens, (ii) the idea of reasonable citizens, and (iii) the idea of responsible citizens.

First, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of rational citizens (i). Rational citizens normally want to believe justified beliefs. Moreover, they want to act successfully, and know that justified beliefs lead to successful actions more than unjustified beliefs. Yet rational citizens know that in most domains, i.e. all domains in which they are not experts, they do not have first-hand evidence justifying the related beliefs, and cannot even acquire the expertise necessary to understand either the evidence or the claims relative to the evidence. In the light of this, rational citizens dismiss the idea of epistemic independence as irrational, acknowledge their epistemic dependence, and show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities and their claims. In this way they can rationally hold beliefs in domains in which they are not experts, successfully act on their basis, and show respect to themselves.

Second, ETITEA is required by the idea of reasonable citizens (ii). On the one hand, reasonable citizens respect a reciprocity constraint, therefore they restrain themselves from publicly advancing unjustified and highly sectarian beliefs, because they do not meet almost uncontroversial scientific standards and would not be endorsed by everyone. On the other, reasonable citizens accept, among the burdens of judgement, the fact of epistemic dependence on epistemic authorities as a condition that all citizens (more or less) equally share. Both features lead reasonable citizens to acknowledge the need of ETITEA as a way to respect each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence.

Third, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of responsible citizens (iii). Responsible citizens do not want to unduly harm others and know that public policies based on unjustified beliefs likely harm others. Also, they are aware that they cannot autonomously shape justified beliefs in those domains in which they have no direct expertise. Responsible citizens, therefore, in public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities in those domains in which they are laypersons. This is a way to respect both co-citizens and citizens of other countries.

Having elaborated this normative framework, I will employ it to assess the public mistrusting attitude  showed,  within  democratic  contexts,  by  citizens  toward  those  trustworthy  epistemic authorities addressing global warming, and argue that it is bad because it shows a lack of rationality, reasonableness, and responsibility. Finally, I will outline some public and feasible strategies that should be used to modify this bad attitude.”


Davide Pala is a Post-doc Fellow at the CAS-SEE of Rijeka. Previously he was a Post-doc Fellow at the “Fondazione Burzio” of Turin and a PhD Student at the University of Turin, in the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society. He was Visiting Post-doc Fellow at the University of Frankfurt (Justitia Amplificata) and at the University of Manchester (Mancept). He works in the field of normative political theory applied to international issues. In particular, his research focuses on global justice, world poverty and economic inequalities. On the matter he wrote several articles focused on institutional cosmopolitanism, capability approach, legal positivism and nationalism. He is currently developing a normative republican account of world poverty.

CARLO BURELLI

The Pure Normativity of Realism

“In this paper, I investigate the question of whether realism can provide a substantive normative standard to evaluate institutions. While classical realists focus on the individual dimension of political actors and their freedoms and responsibilities, many contemporary realists adopt broadly liberal values for political institutions. Drawing from discussions about the realistic conception of politics, I defend a functional understanding of politics as selection and implementation of collective decisions within a social group. A functional normative standard can then be derived: political institutions are ‘good’ when they adequately perform this function, independently of their moral qualities, in the same way a ‘good soldier’ is someone who is good at fighting (its function), independently of whether he is a good man. This normative standard is independent from morality and internal to politics. If being a good man requires abstaining from violence, one cannot be a good man (in the moral sense) and a good soldier (in the functional sense), similarly to how Machiavelli claimed that a good Christian cannot be a good politician. Realists not only claim this independence of politics, but often also its priority. The political function is vital, because it is required to preserve the survival of the social group and its individuals. This is the ‘pure’ normative dimension of political realism, which takes priority – but not exclusivity – over other moral considerations, and is thus ‘the first virtue of political institutions’ because those which do not express it cannot sustain themselves through time.”


Carlo Burelli is a current CAS Fellow at the University of Rijeka, where he works on a realistic theory of order, as the first virtue of political institutions. Previously, he had a two year Post-Doc Fellowship in the ERC Project REScEU where he investigated political conflicts and realistic forms of solidarity. He received his PhD in 2015 from Università Statale di Milano defending the thesis: “The Normative Power of Necessity: Making Sense of Political Realism”. In 2014, he was a visiting PhD at the University of Cambridge under Raymond Geuss. He has written articles on Political Realism (Towards a Realistic Conception of Politics, 2017), Solidarity (Realistic Solidarity for the Real EU, 2016) and the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Lex Facit Veritatem, 2015; Subjectivity is Objective, 2017). He is also the author of a short monograph on game theoretic interpretations of Hobbes’s “state of nature” (E fu lo Stato, 2010).

MILORAD KAPETANOVIC

Legalising informal construction in Rijeka

“This presentation is an extension of the original research proposal which dealt with individual informal construction and its legalization process in the light of European Capital of Culture. Through it, I aimed to get better insight in Rijeka as a case of relatively high construction regulation, in historical terms and compared to the rest of former Yugoslavia. It also seemed convenient, considering the sensitivity of the European Capital of Culture project and potential investments it would attract, which are less state-dependent compared to large sports events. In particular, I was interested to observe whether will Rijeka 2020 affect finalization of legalization process, if its larger development projects will create space for more regulation or will cause new problems. However, in the presentation, I detour from this narrow focus, due to several conclusions I derived from initial field research. ECC project is too specific and developing too slowly to create visible results in five months of the fellowship and activities planned within ECC project are happening slower than I expected. But more importantly, particular dynamics of space regulation appear to be unaffected by the ECC, but only continued by historical relationship and failures/successes of legalization.

I found necessary to expand the research question to this relationship. What is a local history of legalization (individual informal construction regulation)? How is this process specific to Rijeka? What is given in this process (what developmental projects are presented as universal objectives with their values and hegemonies? Which actors are implementing/resisting these projects and what is their politics?
Local professionals frame legalization as unilateral, universal process. It is not mere space regulation, setting objectively existing construction in understandable terms (registries and databases) but also a highly normative implementing process. Legalisation advocators and the critique of informal construction often present the phenomenon in a specific mixture of orientalism (Balkanism), modernization and distinction. Even activists advocating better public space management and arguing re-evaluation of socialist modernism or against neoliberal thefts in large construction developments see individual construction as a problem.

Without arguing for or against this process, it is necessary to take a broader perspective and examine social dynamics of space governance and management; to see how the history of this process produced legitimization of power relationships of modernizers and those to be regulated (modernized). In the legalization process, working-class culture and heritage of Rijeka city are undermined and taken for granted. Further, I demonstrate how even socialist projects which indeed did plan and involve workers, deny workers voices. In legalization process, working-class culture is systematically delegitimized and rendered invisible in public space behind a heritage of historicist, imperial or modernist projects.”


Mišo Kapetanović holds a PhD in Balkan Studies from the University of Ljubljana. He studied Philosophy and Sociology at the University of Banja Luka and received a Joint Master degree in Global History and Global Studies from the University of Vienna and the University of Leipzig. His doctoral research dealt with the visual language of contemporary informal construction (title: “Roadside Architecture in Bosnia and Herzegovina Between Consumerism and Vernacularity”). He has written on representations in contemporary pornography, queer music experiences in the Balkans, and the history of urban planning in socialist Yugoslavia. Before Rijeka he was a research fellow at the Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz and worked as a researcher on a project “Documenting Human Losses in Croatia 1991–1995” for Croatian NGO Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past.

Call for Papers: 2018 CAS SEE Summer School

Critique of Violence Now: From Thinking to Acting against Violence
Rijeka, June 18 – 22, 2018

Guest lecturers:

Judith Butler, Berkeley University

Hervé Le Brass, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris

Peter Fenves, Northwestern University

Alexis Nuselovici-Nouss, University of Aix-Marseille, Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme

Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky, Ruhr University Bochum

Marc Crepon, Ecole normale supérieure, Paris

Rationale and background:

The 2018 CAS SEE Summer School examines one of today’s most pressing topics: how to think and what to do with violence in our present society. To what extent is it possible to deconstruct and name emerging mechanisms of violence? What are the kinds of phenomena that escalate coercion and violence, making it difficult to either contain them or to work out feasible alternatives? Assuming that violence in the various social contexts is not a self-contained, but rather a relational/social phenomenon (across various social entities and institutions such as families, associations, corporations, nations, states, religions), is there any social purpose of violence, and is there any productive alternative to violence? Is violence a form of communication, and are there substitutes in terms of strategies of communication that might non-repressively reduce the recourse to violence?

Southeastern Europe has seen more than its share of violence, as well as of anti-violence ideology over the past several decades, propagated both by the states and governments and by civil society organizations and various sections of the society. The region has seen the adoption and implementation of various EU laws and policies to a far greater and more extreme level than they were implemented in their countries of origin. The trend is partly a symptom of identity crisis and identity insecurity, where policies are designed to curtail all kinds of violence in society, shifting power towards every increasing prerogatives of the administration. Every instance of violence tends to be interpreted as a systematic social degeneration, which needs to be uprooted by draconian control and repressive policies. The results include an extremely powerful police force and state institutions with sweeping authority over individual citizens, and an increasing apathy and defensiveness by the ordinary people. Thus the study of violence as well as anti-violence policy addresses a core issue for the quality of life in Southeastern Europe.

“Critique of Violence Now” will:

  • Provide a framework for exchange of views and insights among activists and academics on following topics: Political Violence, Administrative Violence, Legal Violence, Domestic Violence, Collective Violence in the regional and global context, Countering (discourses of) violence through social engagement, Social inequalities and neoliberal conquest of state and society;
  • Inspire and build capacity of participants through stimulating topical and theoretical input by renowned academics, creating opportunities for building networks and joint cooperation actions in the field;
  • Provide workspaces for the participants to discuss and work on short papers (app. 3 pages) dedicated to four major clusters: “Political Violence: Revisited”; “Administrative Violence: Migration”; “Ethnicized and Racialised Violence”; “Deconstructing Misogyny and Patriarchy”. Papers (in English) would be further refined immediately after the Summer School and published in a volume edited by the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory University of Belgrade.

Technical information and application procedure:

The official language of the Summer School is English.

The Program Committee of the 2018 CAS SEE Summer School will select the presenters based on the submitted abstracts responding to four Clusters:

  • “Political Violence: Revisited”;
  • “Administrative Violence: Migration”;
  • “Ethnicized and Racialized Violence”;
  • “Deconstructing Misogyny and Patriarchy”

We kindly ask you to put the following title in your email subject: ‘Name: title of the paper’. The complete application should be submitted in.doc or .docx format, and must contain: the title of the presentation, an abstract of up to 200 words, key words and a short biography in English.

Summer School applications should be sent only via e-mail to the following address: cas@cas.uniri.hr

Deadline for abstracts is 31st March 2018.

It is expected that the participants submit their full papers before 1st June 2018.

2018 CAS SEE Summer School Full Registration Fee is 125 Euros; Student Registration Fee is 100 Euros.

Payment is due before 1st June 2018.

The Summer School hosts offer reception and the ticket entrance for the theatre performance on June 18th in the evening, and provide refreshments throughout the duration of the Summer School program.

Important dates:

Application deadline: 31st March 2018

Notification of acceptance: 30th April 2018

2018 CAS SEE Summer School dates: 18th–22nd June 2018

Program Committee:

Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky, Ruhr University Bochum

Petar Bojanic, IFDT University of Belgrade / CAS SEE University of Rijeka

Vedran Dzihic, oiip / CAS SEE University of Rijeka

Manuela Bojadzijev, Humboldt University

Sanja Bojanic, CAS SEE/CWS, University of Rijeka

Adriana Zaharijevic, IFDT, University of Belgrade

Gazela Pudar Drasko, IFDT, University of Belgrade

Organization Board:

Mónica Cano Abadía, Kristina Smoljanovic, Marko-Luka Zubcic, (CAS SEE University of Rijeka)

For information on the time schedule, organization and future events, please follow us on the official website and the Facebook page.

If any further details are needed, please contact us at: cas@cas.uniri.hr

Fellows at the “TESTIMONY. POETRY. LANGUAGE.” Conference

The conference investigated the concept of testimony, notably war testimony, from different perspectives, i.e., literature, philosophy, sociology and political activism.

The first day of the conference and a roundtable on the third day were entirely devoted to the analysis of the holocaust poet Paul Celan through the contributions of Sue Vice, Pajari Räsänen, Matthew Boswell and Nina Čolović. A philosophical analysis of Celan’s poetry was provided by Petar Bojanić, while Bertrand Badiou was a key figure, providing testimony of Paul Celan’s poetry and biography.

The second day, with panels chaired by CAS Fellows Mónica Cano Abadía and Olimpia Loddo, focused on the role played by poetry in the testimony of the Yugoslav war. A first-hand testimony was offered by the Bosnian writer Asmir Kujović, while Lidija Dimkovska, a Macedonian writer based in Slovenia, paid a moving tribute to a long list of writers that are the voice of a post-Yugoslav languages. Andrijana Kos-Lajtman analyzed the influence of Dadaism on Manifest Mlade Bosne by Darko Cvijetić. Senadin Musabegović described the role played by poetry in testifying the real face of nationalism.

In the panel “Rhetoric, Politics and Poetry after Yugoslav Wars,” Jay Surdukowski showed how Radovan Karadžić used poetry to justify his war crimes. In her presentation To War or to Write, Elizabeta Šeleva described poetry as a means to redesign reality through the creation of an alternative “literary ought.” Goran Lazičić described the rhetoric and politics of testimony in the novels of the Serbian writers Svetislav Basara and David Albahari.

During the third day of the conference, with panels chaired by CAS Fellow Davide Pala, Olivera Marković-Savić showed the use and misuse of the term ‘veteran’ after the end of the Yugoslavian war, and she stressed the legal misrecognition of veterans by the Serbian state. Šeherzada Džafić talked about poetry focussing on war as a powerful form of both testimony and ethical learning, while Selma Zilić Šiljak presented the clash between dominant narratives of war and the horizontal and private accounts of it in Velika Kladuša.

In the first panel of the fourth and last day, chaired by CAS Fellow Mišo Kapetanović, Cornelia Grabner gave voice to the Movement for Peace in Mexico, while Robert von Hallberg focused on the relationship between testimony and poetry in the US. Danijela Majstorović shared her research on the construction of the Yugoslav new woman and the role of the Women’s Antifascist Front (AFŽ). Marzuq Al Halabi talked about Mahmoud Darwish, the prophet of the Palestinian revolution who created a bridge between Palestine and other international movements.

The last panel, chaired by Marco Abram (Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso), revolved around memorial sites in Rwanda (Matthew Boswell) and the role of women poets in the peace process in Colombia (Cherilyn Elston). Afterwards, Djurdja Trajković moderated a roundtable in which the role of poetry as a form of testimony was discussed. A poetry reading about conflicts in peripheral capitalism closed the conference.

After the conference, the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory of Belgrade hosted one workshop and two lectures. The workshop consisted in a critical discussion of the important book “Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities” by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. Fourteen commentators highlighted different aspects of it, e.g., the relation between race and nation (e.g., Carlo Burelli, Davide Pala), on the one hand, and the link between race and gender, on the other hand (e.g., Mónica Cano Abadía). Djurdja Trajković closed the workshop by stressing the strict historical connections between nationalism, racism, and classism. The first lecture, given by Manuela Bojadžijev and entitled “Is (neo-)racism a form of violence of the past?”, provided a conceptualization of the distinctive features of racism and a great overview of the main literature analyzing racism from the 50’s onwards. The second lecture, given by Sanja Milutinović Bojanić and entitled “Rhetoric of Emancipation vs. Rhetoric of Misogyny”, showed the central traits of the rhetoric of both emancipation and misogyny and illustrated them through the analysis of several historical occurrences of both emancipation and misogyny.

– CAS SEE Fellows

FASHION WEEK WINTER 2017

Fashion Week is a seasonal showcase of the Sweet and Salt flagship, which is a part of a project Rijeka – European Capital of Culture 2020, presenting us with themes, concepts, works, plans and cooperative developments connected to the understanding and designing the future city through the context of Rijeka and the S&S territory. This year’s event took place 19th – 21st December at the DeltaLab, presently situated in the exIvex building, and its themes were the reinvention of Delta Hood and the introduction of the newly formed DeltaLab.

FW2017 kicked off with a Reinventions Live workshop which gathered architecture students, exIvex residents and Rijeka “creatives” for the task of reinventing the exIvex building by coupling the various unexpected potential users with a variety of non-physical contexts. In the second part of the day, Urbanist Platform provided the trip to Lipa Remembers museum and conversation with the exhibition authors and the curator, as well as the trip to the Museum of Contemporary and Modern Art and the conversations with the director and the author of the reconstruction.

The second day started with the opening of the exhibition and the presentations of Reinventions – Delta Hood, beginning with the thought-provoking results of the previous day’s workshop, which sparked off debates concerning the future developments of tourist, military, agricultural and administrative realities. The debates continued with the presentations of the outstanding student works, including the reinventions of exIvex, reinventions of ExportDrvo and the reinvention of Delta Beach. These were followed by the presentation of the “reinvention” of the two-week European architecture students assembly taking place in Rijeka in the summer of 2018 – Re:EASA.

After lunch, DeltaLab was introduced as the new center for urban reinvention, a  platform for research, education and policy development, and Vedran Mimica gave a lecture on Berlage Affairs, reminding us of what a vibrant alternative institution such a center could become. The day ended with the Understading the City roundtable, with Vedran Mimica, Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, Idis Turato, Mia Roth-Čerina, Dinko Peračić and Leo Modrčin discussing the possibilites, challenges, risks and reinventions of education on the contemporary and future urban issues, moderated by Luka Skansi and Nebojša Zelič.

The third day of FW2017 was reserved for discussing the themes and results of the Mare Monti project, an inquiry into the contrasts of Primorje-Gorski Kotar County.

FW2017 ended buzzing with discussion about the futures, of DeltaLab, of the city of Rijeka, of the numerous concepts we once held as familiar which we now recognize to be in the state of strange transformation, of cities, of the planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fashion Week Winter 2017

Fashion Week is the seasonal showcase of Sweet&Salt flagship, which is part of the Rijeka – European Capital of Culture 2020 project, presenting the themes, concepts, works, plans and cooperative developments connected to the understanding and designing the future city through the context of Rijeka and the S&S territory.
The themes of this year’s program are the reinventions of “Delta Hood”, the lower part of Delta, which will be presented and made open for discussion and rethinking through Exportdrvo building, exIvex and the Delta beach. DeltaLab – Center for Urban Reinvention, which just moved into new spaces of exIvex and is part of one such reinvention, is the other relevant focus of this year’s program.

PROGRAM

19.12.2017 @ EXIVEX & MMSU RIJEKA 

09:00 – 14:00   REINVENTIONS LIVE @ EXIVEX, Delta 5
Workshop with Youth Section of Society of Architects Rijeka, exIvex users and Rijeka’s “creatives” / Leaders: Gorana Stipeč Brlić, Ida Križaj Leko and Marko-Luka Zubčić

14:00 – 15:30   Break

15:30 – 19:00   URBANIST PLATFORM @ MMSU RIJEKA, Block Benčić

15.30 – 16:00   Gathering in front of the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Rijeka / Block Benčić and departure with a bus

16:30 – 17:30   Visit to the Memorial center “Lipa Remembers” and a conversation with the exhibition authors and the curator / Damir Gamulin, Antun Sevšek and Vana Gović

17:30 – 18:00   Return to Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Rijeka

18:00 – 19:30   Visit to the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Rijeka and a conversation with the author of the reconstruction and the director / Dinko Peračić and Slaven Tolj


20.12.2017 @ EXIVEX

08:30 – 09:30   INTRO
Arrival and gathering of participants and guests, introductory mingling, the ”Reinventions – Delta Hood” exhbition and the manifestation opening

08:30 – 09:00   Arrival and introductory mingling

09:00 – 09:30   Introduction / Idis Turato and Snježana Prijić-Samaržija

09:30 – 12:30   PRESENTATIONS ”REINVENTIONS – DELTA HOOD”

09:30 – 10:45   BLOCK 1 / REINVENTION OF ExIVEX

09:30 – 10:30   REINVENTIONS LIVE
Presentations by the groups of the workshop results from the previous day / Leaders: Gorana Stipeč Brlić, Ida Križaj Leko and Marko-Luka Zubčić

10:30 – 10:45   REINVENTION OF EXIVEX / RAP3 @ AFZG
Mentors: Mateo Biluš, Vedran Duplančić and Zorana Protić / Students: Ivica Keršić, Ivana Lazar, Anja Štimac and Elena Tikvić / Acad. year: 2016./2017.

11:45 – 11:00   Break

11:00 – 12:00   BLOCK 2 / REINVENTION OF EXPORTDRVO

11:00 – 11:15   REINVENTIONS OF EXPORTDRVO / MA THESIS /
Mentor: Idis Turato / Graduates: Enia Kukoč and Nenad Štrbac / Acad. year: 2016.

11:15 – 12:00   ALTERNATIVE HOUSING / STUDIO 04 @ AFBG
Mentors: Idis Turato, Nataša Janković i Milena Delavić / Students: Sandra Draganić, Tamara Radović, Milša Nikolovski, Andrijana Kuzmanović, Dunja Krstić, Kristina Komlenić and Predrag Nedović / Acad. year: 2016/2017

12:00 – 12:30   BLOCK 3 / REINVENTION OF DELTA BEACH and Re:EASA 2018

12:00 – 12:15   RIJEKA’S PARASITE / RAP3 @ AFZG
Mentors: Mateo Biluš, Vedran Duplančić and Zorana Protić / Students: Robert Barbir, Nika Bralić, Ivana Brzović and Ivan Bulian / Akad.god.: 2016./2017.
* student award Piranesi 2017.

12:15 – 12:30   Re:EASA2018
Presentation of the two-week European architecture students assembly in the summer of 2018 / Matej Antolković, Alma Antončić, Dora Gorenak, Enia Kukoč, Bruno Lang- Kosić, Vana Pavlić, Filip Pračić and Tijana Škrivanek

12:30 – 13:30   LUNCH

13:30 – 14:30   ∆LAB – CENTER FOR URBAN REINVENTION
Presentation of the structure and the mission of the new study and research center
Presenting: Slaven Tolj and Emina Višnić / Idis Turato and Snježana Prijić-Samaržija

14:30 – 16:00   VEDRAN MIMICA: “BERLAGE AFFAIRS”

16:00 – 16:30   Break

16:30 – 18:30   RAZUMIJEVANJE GRADA
Roundtable on the reinvention of the contemporary education on the urban issues
Participating: Vedran Mimica, Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, Idis Turato, Mia Roth-Čerina, Dinko Peračić, Leo Modrčin
Moderators: Luka Skansi and Nebojša Zelič

18:30   Mingling


21.12.2017 @ EXIVEX  |  MARE MONTI / Contrasts of Primorje – Gorski Kotar County

10:00 – 14:00   PRESENTATIONS OF STUDENT WORKS
Presentations of student works from AFZG i TU WIEN and research project Mare Monti

10:00 – 11:30   BLOCK 1 / DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Students of AFZG i TU WIEN present sketches of program studies and development scenarios created during the research parts of their study / Workshop leaders: Christoph Luchsinger and Idis Turato / Guest critics: Adam Butigan, Mia Roth-Čerina, Ida Križaj Leko / Working language: English

11:30 – 12:00   Break

12:00 – 13:30   BLOCK 2 / PROJECT SOLUTIONS FOR LOCATIONS VOZ KRK AND PLATAK
Students of AFZG present projects created as a part of RAP 3 master study / Workshop leaders: Idis Turato and Maroje Mrduljaš / Guest critics: Adam Butigan, Mia Roth-Čerina and Ida Križaj Leko
Working language: Croatian


The event is part of the Sweet&Salt program, which is a part of the Rijeka 2020 – European Capital of Culture project.
The lead project host of Sweet&Salt flagship and the organizer of Fashion Week Winter 2017 is Center for Advanced Studies – South East Europe, University of Rijeka.
The program is organized in cooperation with the program platform “Urbanist Platform”, Society of Architects Rijeka, Youth Section of the Society of Architects Rijeka and Institute of Spatial Administration of Primorje – Gorski Kotar County.
The partner of the project is Rijeka 2020 LLC.
The program is supported by the City of Rijeka, Ministry of Culture of Republic of Croatia and Primorje – Gorski Kotar County.

 

„Science and Culture: Trieste & Rijeka 2020“: University of Trieste and University of Rijeka

The Science and Culture: Trieste & Rijeka 2020: University of Trieste and University of Rijeka working meeting was held at the University of Rijeka on Monday, December 4, 2017 with representatives of both universities. In 2020, Rijeka will carry the title of European Capital of Culture alongside Trieste carrying the title of European Capital of Science. The event’s purpose of strengthening the opportunities arising from collaboration between Trieste ESOF2020 and Rijeka 2020 projects was enforced by presentations of the representatives of Rijeka 2020 project. The meeting was also the beginning of collaboration between CAS SEE and La Fondazione Internazionale Trieste per il Progresso e la Libertà delle Scienze (FIT).