University of Rijeka

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.

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).

Between Intellectual and Sensory Reason: Towards an Epistemology of Architecture

Following last year’s course «Philosophy and Architecture: Inequality in the City» which took place at the IUC in Dubrovnik and engaged its participants in topics related to the political and urban implications of social injustice in cities, this year’s summer school’s  focus was on the double bind of architecture as a material practice and as an agent of knowledge production. Philosophers, art historians, theoreticians of architecture, likewise architects joint together in Dubrovnik tackled emerging topics of relationship between architecture and epistemology, their mutual influences and impacts.

Participants:

Prof. Joerg Gleiter, Prof. Snjezana Prijic Samarzija, Prof. Petar Bojanic, Prof. Vladan Djokic, Prof. Zoran Lazovic, Prof. Ludger Schwarte, Prof. Carla Danani, Prof. Giusi Struimmello, Prof. Katharina Borsi, Dr. Sanja Bojanic, Dr. Luka Skansi, Dr. Mateja Kurir Borovčić Kasper Lægring, Roberto Bonturi, Fabiana Sforza, Jelena Radosavljević, Miloš Kostić, Madeleine Jessica Kennedy, Jovana Timotijević, Jovana Stojković, Hana Samaržija, Juan Almarza Anwandter, Stefana Dilova, Mirza Vranjakovic, Julian Franke, Sandra Meireis, Andrea Weigt, Theresa Rauch and Adria Daraban.

Partners and sponsors:

Technical University of Berlin, University of Belgrade, ERSTE Stiftung, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Croatia.

Host: Inter University Center, Dubrovnik

 

 

Summer school “Between Intellectual and Sensory Reason: Towards an Epistemology of Architecture”

Program
Co-directors:

Snjezana Prijic Samarzija, University of Rijeka

Jörg H. Gleiter, Technical University Berlin

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

Vladan Djokic, University of Belgrade

Focal Theme:

Throughout the history of philosophy, architecture has been widely referred to as a metaphor for conscious action and logical construction. For Aristotle the work of the master builder served as a metaphor for his philosophy of action, while Nietzsche used the metaphor of a “shaking tower of concepts” to visualize and make more comprehensible the precarious state of metaphysics. Yet architecture means much more to philosophy and critical thought than what the explanatory use of architectural imagery evokes. It was Kant who went beyond metaphor by claiming “architectonics is the art of systems”. As such, architecture is not only a cultural practice based on knowledge but moreover a cultural practice that serves the production of philosophical knowledge.

This course focuses on the double bind of architecture as a material practice and an agent of knowledge production. We will discuss the importance of architecture in the formation of thought. It will draw attention to architecture as a cultural practice between intellectual reason and sensual reason. It was Nietzsche who already emphasized the close interrelation between philosophy and architecture and insisted on the philosopher’s need for appropriate spaces for thinking. He held that after the death of God “we need some recognition of what above all is lacking in our big cities: quiet and wide, expansive places for reflection. Places with long, high-ceilinged cloisters for bad or all too sunny weather”.

Participants:

Prof. Joerg Gleiter, Prof. Snjezana Prijic Samarzija, Prof. Petar Bojanic, Prof. Vladan Djokic, Prof. Zoran Lazovic, Prof. Ludger Schwarte, Prof. Carla Danani, Prof. Giusi Struimmello, Prof. Katharina Borsi, Dr. Sanja Bojanic, Dr. Luka Skansi, Dr. Mateja Kurir Borovčić Kasper Lægring, Roberto Bonturi, Fabiana Sforza, Jelena Radosavljević, Miloš Kostić, Madeleine Jessica Kennedy, Jovana Timotijević, Jovana Stojković, Hana Samaržija, Juan Almarza Anwandter, Stefana Dilova, Mirza Vranjakovic, Julian Franke, Sandra Meireis, Andrea Weigt, Theresa Rauch and Adria Daraban.

Seminars will start at 10.00 am in the morning with open end in the evening.

In order to leave enough time for the intellectual exchange presentations shall be limited to 20 minutes (students MA/BA) and 30 minutes all others.

The presentations will be followed by 30 minutes respectively 40 minutes of discussion.

An individually assigned moderator/commentator will help to guide through the discussions.

Timetable
Monday, 11th September 2017
10.00-11.00  | Welcome and registrations

Venue: IUC – Ul. don Frana Bulica 4, 20000, Dubrovnik

How to get there? 

11.00-12.00  | Welcome address of Directors of the Course

Presentation of all participants; setting the daily schedule

Time Title Lecturer
12.00

13.00

Opening session: Introduction to the course Prof. Joerg Gleiter
13.00

14.30

Lunch
14.30

15.30

Spaces of Reflection – where does philosophy take place? Prof. Ludger Schwarte

 

Comments: Prof. Snjezana Prijic Samarzija

15.30

16.30

Pages for thinking. From Corviale to “sensible wisdom” …. in a too short step. Prof. Carla Danani

 

Comments: Prof. Giusi Struimmello

16.30

17.00

Pause
17.00

18.00

Epistemic Implications of Neuroarchitecture Hana Samarzija

 

Comments: Prof. Carla Danani

Tuesday, 12th September 2017
Time Title Lecturer
10.00

11.00

The Acts of Project(ion) Prof. Petar Bojanic

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

11.00

12.00

A new rational aesthetic: notes on the culture of space Dr. Luka Skansi

 

Comments: Prof. Ludger Schwarte

12.00

13.00

Architecture, Space and Alienation: between Adorno and Lefebvre Dr. Mateja Kurir Borovcic

 

Comments: Dr. Luka Skansi

13.00

15.00

Lunch
15.00

16.00

Drawing the Knowledge of Urbanism Prof. Katharina Borsi

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

16.00

16.15

Pause
16.15

17.15

Knowledge Fields: Between Scientific and Design-Based Knowledge Prof. Vladan Djokic

 

Comments: Prof. Ludger Schwarte

17.15

18.15

Representations of the fragmentary in architecture Adria Daraban

 

Comments: Sandra Meireis

Wednesday, 13th September 2017
14.00

15.30

Reading Laboratory
Time Title Lecturer
15.30

16.30

Between Being and Becoming: towards a metaphysical reading of architectural signs Juan Almarza Anwandter

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

16.30

17.30

Nietzsche’s thoughts about Architecture Mirza Vranjakovic

 

Comments: Prof. Giusi Struimmello

17.30

18.00

Pause
18.00

19.00

Diagrams in Architecture: Agents of knowledge production? Julian Franke

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

Thursday, 14th September 2017
Time Title Lecturer
10.00

10.45

Mythologisations of Contemporary Belgradian Architecture Prof. Zoran Lazovic

 

Comments: Milos Kostic

10.45

11.30

Self-Managing Socialism and Urban Planning – The Case Study of General Plan of Belgrade 1972 Jelena Radosavljevic

 

Comments: Prof. Vladan Djokic

11.30

12.00

Pause
12.00

13.00

Exhibitions as Philosophy? Madeleine Kennedy

 

Comments: Hana Samarzija

13.00

14.30

Lunch
14.30

15.30

Exploring Ideas in your Senses. The capacity of imagination after Immanuel Kant explored in Oswald M. Ungers “City Metaphors” Andrea Weigt

 

Comments: Prof. Carla Danani

15.30

16.00

Pause
16.00

17.00

Semiotics of Architectural: Detail between Rationalization and Representation of Architecture Milos Kostic

 

Comments: Prof. Giusi Struimmello

17.00

18.00

The Perception of Space on the Base of Atmospheres Theresa Rauch

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

Friday, 15th September 2017
Time Title Lecturer
10.00

11.00

Nelson Goodman, Exemplification and Critiques of Modernist Architecture Kasper Laegring

 

Comments: Sandra Meireis

11.00

12.00

“Abandoning Home” – aporia of displacement Jovana Timotijevic

 

Comments: Prof. Joerg Gleiter

12.00

12.30

Pause
12.30

13.30

The Presence in Public Space Stefana Dilova

 

Comments: Madeleine Kennedy

13.30

14.00

Closing remarks, distribution of certificates

 

Back to the future – Livable life between nostalgia and utopia

As hundreds of representatives of civil society from Western Balkan countries assembled in Trieste for the Civil Society Forum, CAS co-organized a kick-off event which included the screening of the documentary “Trieste, Yugoslavia” and a lively debate themed “Back to the future – Livable life between nostalgia and utopia”. Introduced by Franz Karl Prueller of the ERSTE Foundation and Branka Panić from the European Fund for the Balkans, the event took place in the Revoltella Museum Gallery of Modern Art. CAS directors, staff, and fellows welcomed the diverse audience, which included civil society representatives from the region, academics and various local actors.

CAS’s choice of the documentary “Trieste, Yugoslavia” by Alessio Bozzer to open the discussions took advantage of the Forum’s special location in a city with an urban history closely intertwined with that of the Western Balkans. The documentary explored the particularly important role of Trieste for many Yugoslav citizens who traveled there during socialist time to buy goods, as the first city across a border which gradually became more open and more porous, rather unique in the overall context of the Cold War. The film pondered upon practices of border crossings and aspirations of shoppers and sellers alike. It touched upon the diverse experiences of people coming from republics close and far, to buy jeans or coffee, by car, train, or packed buses, creative strategies of coping with border regulations, while also mentioning the underlying tensions and discriminatory tones existing the host city regarding the visitors from the nearby country, with their alterity derived from ethnicity-based  stereotypes – with a longer history than the film alludes- and the ideological representations of a Cold War border. Ending abruptly with the scenes of emptied streets and stalls while wars descend upon former Yugoslavia and borders close, the film prompted a debate which shifted from nostalgia to utopia, perceptions from within the former Yugoslavia and the outer region, and musings of perspectives for freedom, equality and solidarity in the region.

 

The debate „Back to the future – Livable life between nostalgia and utopia” was moderated by CAS’s Vedran Džihić and featured special guest, Rade Šerbedžija, CAS SEE Honorary Fellow, Professor Emeritus at the University of Rijeka, who also appeared in the documentary. Vedran Džihić asked the panel, which also included Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, Chancellor, University of Rijeka, Marek Szilvasi, CAS SEE Fellow and Gruia Bădescu, CAS SEE Fellow, to spontaneously reflect on three concepts that relate both to the film and the challenges and opportunities of civil society in the Western Balkans: nostalgia for the past, utopias for the future, and the meaning of freedom in the contemporary context.  The panel participants first approached the film from their positionality: Snježana Prijić-Samaržija and Rade Šerbedžija as citizens of former Yugoslavia for whom both trips to Trieste and the discontinuities of the 1990s triggered memories and emotional reflections,  Marek Szilvasi and Gruia Bădescu as growing up in other socialist societies – Czechoslovakia and Romania, respectively- for which borders were distinctively rigid and for which Yugoslavia, with its open borders and closeness to the West exerted a particular fascination. The two CAS fellows also discussed the tensions that emerge from the film regarding material aspirations and disparities, ideological clashes, as well as in the difference between accounts of celebrated intellectuals and artists, and the anonymized shopper, who becomes a mere “witness” in the account of the film.

These tensions between whose stories, whose narratives, and whose nostalgia were to be discussed emerged throughout the debate. While common tropes of urban versus rural, kulturni and nekulturni ljudi, appeared as explanatory frameworks of 1990s events, Bădescu pointed out from his research in Sarajevo how nostalgias for a cosmopolitan past could also lead to different forms of exclusion of newcomers, burning possible bridges and utopias for what Hanna Arendt called a “world in common”.  Arendt was frequently mentioned by panelists, with Džihić inquiring about freedom from the perspective of both Arendt and material relations. Both Bădescu and Szilvasi addressed the question of freedom from its relationship to human dignity, equality and solidarity. Snježana Prijić-Samaržija brought forward the role of CAS as an institution which embodies the aspiration to research both issues surrounding the past as well as potentialities and utopias at the scale of Southeastern Europe. All throughout, Rade Šerbedžija’s interventions captured the lived experience of the events evoked in the film, nostalgia and exile, sublimated in creative acts, which included two live performances on stage of his songs. They included “Second Call”, which was translated in English and read by CAS Fellow Nataša Sardžoska. His second act, Djevojka iz moga kraja closed the debate, which was followed by a reception and a tour of the exhibit of the Revoltella Museum Gallery of Modern Art. The Civil Society Forum started the following morning, with Trieste again a stage of diverse people and perspectives from the Western Balkans.