Angelos Psilopoulos
Born in Athens, Greece, 16 March 1973.
Studied Architecture at the School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Auth), then moved on to his Post - Graduate studies at the National Technical University in Athens (NTUA). In 2022 he defended successfully his PhD Thesis in Theory of Architecture (State Scholarship Foundation, 2003 - 2007), and specifically on the study of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in Architecture.
Since 2003 he has been teaching Interior Architecture and Design at the Department of Interior Architecture at the Faculty of Applied Arts and Culture, University of West Attica, where he has supervised a variety of studios and diploma projects. In 2014 he was awarded tenure position in the faculty. He has also worked as a freelance architect since 1998, undertaking a variety of projects both on his own and in collaboration with various firms and architectural practices in Greece.
He has presented and published in a variety of internationally accredited peer reviewed publications and conferences, and he has taken part as a researcher in a number of Research Programs, for the Academy of Athens, the TEI of Athens and the University of West Attica. Since 2018 he is a founding member of the “Design, Interior Architecture and Audiovisual Documentation” research lab of the Faculty of Applied Arts and Culture, University of West Attica, Greece. Since 2022 he has worked as associate editor in the academic journal Design|Arts|Culture (online ISSN 2732-6926). He is also an active contributor in the architectural magazine C3, Korea.
His current line of research focuses on the subject of the organisational role of detail in interior architecture and architectural composition.
Phone: +302108214216
Address: 3is Septemvriou 127,
11251 Athens,
Greece.
Studied Architecture at the School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Auth), then moved on to his Post - Graduate studies at the National Technical University in Athens (NTUA). In 2022 he defended successfully his PhD Thesis in Theory of Architecture (State Scholarship Foundation, 2003 - 2007), and specifically on the study of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in Architecture.
Since 2003 he has been teaching Interior Architecture and Design at the Department of Interior Architecture at the Faculty of Applied Arts and Culture, University of West Attica, where he has supervised a variety of studios and diploma projects. In 2014 he was awarded tenure position in the faculty. He has also worked as a freelance architect since 1998, undertaking a variety of projects both on his own and in collaboration with various firms and architectural practices in Greece.
He has presented and published in a variety of internationally accredited peer reviewed publications and conferences, and he has taken part as a researcher in a number of Research Programs, for the Academy of Athens, the TEI of Athens and the University of West Attica. Since 2018 he is a founding member of the “Design, Interior Architecture and Audiovisual Documentation” research lab of the Faculty of Applied Arts and Culture, University of West Attica, Greece. Since 2022 he has worked as associate editor in the academic journal Design|Arts|Culture (online ISSN 2732-6926). He is also an active contributor in the architectural magazine C3, Korea.
His current line of research focuses on the subject of the organisational role of detail in interior architecture and architectural composition.
Phone: +302108214216
Address: 3is Septemvriou 127,
11251 Athens,
Greece.
less
InterestsView All (31)
Uploads
Papers by Angelos Psilopoulos
This essay examines “gesture” as a mediator between society (including culture and power) and the practice of architecture. This will be discussed within the framework of the competition for the Centre Beaubourg (later known as Centre Georges Pompidou). The heated discourse revolving around the expression “le geste architectural,” including the proposal to design the building literally as an open hand and thereby as a gesture of offering, will be explored. We will thus show how “gesture” simultaneously creates a multifaceted existence: at once as a token of validity and a symbol of truth and beauty, as well as representing the very danger of banality. Furthermore, we will show how the Centre itself – to which was attributed the character of a feat – becomes a “political gesture” carrying the sperm that spawned the type of “heroic architecture” that is so distinctive to the Fifth Republic. Finally, we will revisit “gesture” as a token taking part in a conundrum where the modern ideal ends up substituting genuineness with genius; and we will see this binary relationship in connection to all the “gestures” we discuss in the case of the Centre Beaubourg.
On these premises we will propose that, before we ask to define “gesture” by its content, it is important to see it first and foremost for what it does; namely, that it acts as a nominator, and thereby as a mediator, and even a weaver, of the collective between architecture and society. This shift in perspective is critical, as it reveals that gesture plays a more dynamic role than any doctrine would like to have it. Ultimately, we hope to show that gesture can be seen as taking an integral part in the very fabric of architecture, instead of merely playjng a role in one of its many histories.
This essay is based on existing literature as well as original research conducted in the archives of the Centre Georges Pompidou – to which we extend our gratitude for the access.
Gesture: architecture, design, aesthetic judgment, embodied knowledge, myth, archè, quasi-objet.
In this article we will try to examine ‘gesture’ not in terms of ‘meaningful action’ or a ‘notable event’ but rather as an aesthetic validation of action per se. In these terms we aim to escape a twofold conundrum of either having to single it out through cognitive action3 or to invest in it as an existential condition, e.g. as an embodied construction of experience or of meaning. In framing its significance against triviality we will review gesture as (a) a marker of presence (of being-in-the-world), (b) a mediator of our own self – design, and (c) a qualifier of authority in its own aesthetic value. At the same time we will attempt to carry gesture’s narrative of an archaic ‘truth’ to a registry of a present tense, as well as towards a projection of future perfection.""
This presentation is a very early (and therefore quite immature) exploratory formulation of the research question at hand, presented in 2010 at a doctoral workshop/ master class session of a DCDR conference in Copenhagen, DK. My research and understanding of the topic has evolved significantly since and it is much better formulated on the other papers on gesture that are available on my Academia profile, especially on "Draft for a meta-theory of gesture (...)". All these papers are also are much stronger references for academic research as they were peer-reviewed as independent academic contributions rather than exploratory presentations.
Nevertheless, as this paper is still getting a significant amount of hits from web searches, I have left the reference in place so that people interested in the concept of gesture and its relation to architecture can be redirected to my other papers.
The paper "Gesture as aesthetic judgment (...)" was published on the proceedings of the 'Knowing (by) Designing' conference, ISBN 978-90-81323-86-4, while the paper "Judgment by gesture (...)" is awaiting publication at the proceedings of the conference 'Aesthetics, the uneasy dimension in architecture', NTNU 25-27 April 2013, therefore both can be referenced accordingly for academic purposes. Finally, my "Draft for a meta-theory of gesture (...)" is going to be presented at the ARCHTHEO14 conference in Istanbul on Nov6-9 and it's going to be included on an ISBN volume which is going to be reviewed for inclusion in Thomson - Reuters Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI).
Having said all that, I apologise for being reluctant to upload the actual text of my presentation. If you absolutely need to read it please contact me directly at [email protected]
Athanasios Kouzelis, Iro Psilopoulou, Angelos Psilopoulos
Nordic Journal of Architectural Research
Volume 21, No 2/3, 2009, 19 pages
Nordic Association for Architectural Research
Athanasios Kouzelis, Iro Psilopoulou, Angelos Psilopoulos
T.E.I. of Athens, Greece
Keywords:
Competition policy [in Greece], legislation,
qualification vs. quality, New Acropolis Museum,
National Theatre"
Conference Presentations by Angelos Psilopoulos
Paradigmatic shifts in policy show that there have been significant changes concerning those misconceptions. These changes are revealed as institutional authorities such as UNESCO or the IOC, bring forth questions of fair practices, empowerment of local communities, sharing responsibilities, etc. Most importantly, rather than showing complete faith in rigid ideologies and hard certainties, this paradigmatic shift is most prominently expressed through a renewed interest on humanistic values, and humanism in general. Ideas of fairness, equal terms, shared values, and common heritage take center stage as culture is understood by the terms of an organic whole, implementing equally a global perspective and a situated ecology.
Sport is most fundamentally connected to all these questions. For one thing, it is presented by its very design to claim part in the values that we discuss; yet, it is the lived practice of sport that reveals its humanistic foundations. Similarly, at the same time when a skewed view of sport promotes it as measurable achievement, it is in glorious moments of solidarity, sportsmanship, empowerment and fairness that the practice of sport finds its way into a shared experience. This is also the time when place gets bound to memory, becoming an irreplaceable part of the stories that emancipate society and social life. Overall, this is the mechanism by which sport and place become not only collective memory, but cultural heritage. Again, this is hardly a question of measurable qualifications such as aesthetic properties, history or symbolism, in order to denote something as worthy of preservation; rather, it is a question of safeguarding the humanistic aspects of sport in living communities that project onto the future for the fulfilment of their aspirations. This mindset is revealed indeed a most Fair Play thing.
Keywords: Cultural Heritage; sport, sport infrastructure, safeguarding, humanist values, humanism, Fair Play.
Contributions by Angelos Psilopoulos
By the dawn of the twenty-first century things have resolutely changed. For one thing, issues like global warming through carbon emissions, deforestation, the extinction of species, etc. are considered as critical as direct crimes against humanity, their impact hardly being disputed and their appeal as topics of interest hardly being neglected by advanced societies. In our day it seems as if technology is used not to empower man over nature but to re-establish the terms of their symbiosis. While this involves strategies on a hugely larger level, architecture cannot help but position itself in the new norm. Without forfeiting the pleasurable aspect of nature, buildings nowadays stand as powerful hybrid machines, utilizing nature and its ways in fusion with man-made technology to create self-sustaining habitats, micro- and macro- climate regenerators, and powerful containers of minimal energy footprint. Most importantly though they stand as prototypes, one building serving as a model for a wider adaptation, with the most apparent – as well as ambitious – scope of negotiating the terms of a new urban ecology, transcending divisions and blurring the lines between urban and rural, man-made and natural. Ultimately this becomes a problem of awareness, and the buildings in our survey are exemplar at exactly that aspect.
By necessity though, this activity is bound to happen somewhere. It is also likely to invest this ‘somewhere’ with appeal that extends further than mere geography. Likewise, the crowd that is attracted to that ‘somewhere’ now comes from all over the world, in physical or digital space. Seen as a generator of such interest, the locality of the university amounts to a capital that establishes value on a wider scale. Campuses, cities, even nations, achieve even mythical appeal because of this activity, which is not only limited to cultural production but extending also to an actual economic impact on the place.
Architecture comes in at the gap between function and place, reinstating spatial qualities as the foremost property of an otherwise utilitarian endeavor. It responds to the requirements of the site, it negotiates the terms of accessibility of and to the attached community, it decides the level of integration or distinction to the existing natural landscape or urban fabric. Finally it communicates the university’s aims and values, or it can act as a pedagogical tool by using its own formal and functional language to convey ideas, ignite the imagination, or foster creativity.
The selection of the case studies for this article was made in order to showcase the idea of building for the university, in the context of a regional or local condition.
In itself, the idea of heritage brings forth one of the most fundamental aspects in mankind’s endeavor for self-preservation and evolution, namely to preserve human values and memory. In these terms, safeguarding heritage becomes an act of responsibility involving equally an ethical stance, normative policy, and technical expertise. Nevertheless ‘cultural heritage’ is hardly exhausted as a mere catalog of artifacts that show ‘outstanding universal value’ , mainly because culture itself is embedded and evolving in the fabric of everyday practices and the living memory of the community.
The act of building in such context becomes case-specific, taking into account the esthetic and cultural valuations of the setting, as well as the preservation and empowerment of an ecosystem of human production. As such, it reflects both social bonds and the trace of an accumulated intellect. The problem ultimately becomes a call for ‘good practices’, informed by an elevated awareness of our individual and collective responsibilities. Once we deem it ‘architecture’, it becomes an almost Herculean task since all new proposals must stand their place from a glorified past that sometimes stretches to the point of myth.
The cases we review here are set against a background. Anything but indifferent to their context, they propose the terms by which their defining elements relate to a situated condition. This is not the sort of overwhelming architecture your academic modernism would herald, nor does it necessarily classify under what Frampton coins as ‘Critical Regionalism’, namely “regional ‘schools’ whose primary aim [is] to reflect and serve the limited constituencies in which they are grounded” . What’s most intriguing about these cases is that their ‘regionality’ does not necessarily entail locality for the place of origin of the architects responsible: these are global architectures, in place with a local condition.
This essay examines “gesture” as a mediator between society (including culture and power) and the practice of architecture. This will be discussed within the framework of the competition for the Centre Beaubourg (later known as Centre Georges Pompidou). The heated discourse revolving around the expression “le geste architectural,” including the proposal to design the building literally as an open hand and thereby as a gesture of offering, will be explored. We will thus show how “gesture” simultaneously creates a multifaceted existence: at once as a token of validity and a symbol of truth and beauty, as well as representing the very danger of banality. Furthermore, we will show how the Centre itself – to which was attributed the character of a feat – becomes a “political gesture” carrying the sperm that spawned the type of “heroic architecture” that is so distinctive to the Fifth Republic. Finally, we will revisit “gesture” as a token taking part in a conundrum where the modern ideal ends up substituting genuineness with genius; and we will see this binary relationship in connection to all the “gestures” we discuss in the case of the Centre Beaubourg.
On these premises we will propose that, before we ask to define “gesture” by its content, it is important to see it first and foremost for what it does; namely, that it acts as a nominator, and thereby as a mediator, and even a weaver, of the collective between architecture and society. This shift in perspective is critical, as it reveals that gesture plays a more dynamic role than any doctrine would like to have it. Ultimately, we hope to show that gesture can be seen as taking an integral part in the very fabric of architecture, instead of merely playjng a role in one of its many histories.
This essay is based on existing literature as well as original research conducted in the archives of the Centre Georges Pompidou – to which we extend our gratitude for the access.
Gesture: architecture, design, aesthetic judgment, embodied knowledge, myth, archè, quasi-objet.
In this article we will try to examine ‘gesture’ not in terms of ‘meaningful action’ or a ‘notable event’ but rather as an aesthetic validation of action per se. In these terms we aim to escape a twofold conundrum of either having to single it out through cognitive action3 or to invest in it as an existential condition, e.g. as an embodied construction of experience or of meaning. In framing its significance against triviality we will review gesture as (a) a marker of presence (of being-in-the-world), (b) a mediator of our own self – design, and (c) a qualifier of authority in its own aesthetic value. At the same time we will attempt to carry gesture’s narrative of an archaic ‘truth’ to a registry of a present tense, as well as towards a projection of future perfection.""
This presentation is a very early (and therefore quite immature) exploratory formulation of the research question at hand, presented in 2010 at a doctoral workshop/ master class session of a DCDR conference in Copenhagen, DK. My research and understanding of the topic has evolved significantly since and it is much better formulated on the other papers on gesture that are available on my Academia profile, especially on "Draft for a meta-theory of gesture (...)". All these papers are also are much stronger references for academic research as they were peer-reviewed as independent academic contributions rather than exploratory presentations.
Nevertheless, as this paper is still getting a significant amount of hits from web searches, I have left the reference in place so that people interested in the concept of gesture and its relation to architecture can be redirected to my other papers.
The paper "Gesture as aesthetic judgment (...)" was published on the proceedings of the 'Knowing (by) Designing' conference, ISBN 978-90-81323-86-4, while the paper "Judgment by gesture (...)" is awaiting publication at the proceedings of the conference 'Aesthetics, the uneasy dimension in architecture', NTNU 25-27 April 2013, therefore both can be referenced accordingly for academic purposes. Finally, my "Draft for a meta-theory of gesture (...)" is going to be presented at the ARCHTHEO14 conference in Istanbul on Nov6-9 and it's going to be included on an ISBN volume which is going to be reviewed for inclusion in Thomson - Reuters Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI).
Having said all that, I apologise for being reluctant to upload the actual text of my presentation. If you absolutely need to read it please contact me directly at [email protected]
Athanasios Kouzelis, Iro Psilopoulou, Angelos Psilopoulos
Nordic Journal of Architectural Research
Volume 21, No 2/3, 2009, 19 pages
Nordic Association for Architectural Research
Athanasios Kouzelis, Iro Psilopoulou, Angelos Psilopoulos
T.E.I. of Athens, Greece
Keywords:
Competition policy [in Greece], legislation,
qualification vs. quality, New Acropolis Museum,
National Theatre"
Paradigmatic shifts in policy show that there have been significant changes concerning those misconceptions. These changes are revealed as institutional authorities such as UNESCO or the IOC, bring forth questions of fair practices, empowerment of local communities, sharing responsibilities, etc. Most importantly, rather than showing complete faith in rigid ideologies and hard certainties, this paradigmatic shift is most prominently expressed through a renewed interest on humanistic values, and humanism in general. Ideas of fairness, equal terms, shared values, and common heritage take center stage as culture is understood by the terms of an organic whole, implementing equally a global perspective and a situated ecology.
Sport is most fundamentally connected to all these questions. For one thing, it is presented by its very design to claim part in the values that we discuss; yet, it is the lived practice of sport that reveals its humanistic foundations. Similarly, at the same time when a skewed view of sport promotes it as measurable achievement, it is in glorious moments of solidarity, sportsmanship, empowerment and fairness that the practice of sport finds its way into a shared experience. This is also the time when place gets bound to memory, becoming an irreplaceable part of the stories that emancipate society and social life. Overall, this is the mechanism by which sport and place become not only collective memory, but cultural heritage. Again, this is hardly a question of measurable qualifications such as aesthetic properties, history or symbolism, in order to denote something as worthy of preservation; rather, it is a question of safeguarding the humanistic aspects of sport in living communities that project onto the future for the fulfilment of their aspirations. This mindset is revealed indeed a most Fair Play thing.
Keywords: Cultural Heritage; sport, sport infrastructure, safeguarding, humanist values, humanism, Fair Play.
By the dawn of the twenty-first century things have resolutely changed. For one thing, issues like global warming through carbon emissions, deforestation, the extinction of species, etc. are considered as critical as direct crimes against humanity, their impact hardly being disputed and their appeal as topics of interest hardly being neglected by advanced societies. In our day it seems as if technology is used not to empower man over nature but to re-establish the terms of their symbiosis. While this involves strategies on a hugely larger level, architecture cannot help but position itself in the new norm. Without forfeiting the pleasurable aspect of nature, buildings nowadays stand as powerful hybrid machines, utilizing nature and its ways in fusion with man-made technology to create self-sustaining habitats, micro- and macro- climate regenerators, and powerful containers of minimal energy footprint. Most importantly though they stand as prototypes, one building serving as a model for a wider adaptation, with the most apparent – as well as ambitious – scope of negotiating the terms of a new urban ecology, transcending divisions and blurring the lines between urban and rural, man-made and natural. Ultimately this becomes a problem of awareness, and the buildings in our survey are exemplar at exactly that aspect.
By necessity though, this activity is bound to happen somewhere. It is also likely to invest this ‘somewhere’ with appeal that extends further than mere geography. Likewise, the crowd that is attracted to that ‘somewhere’ now comes from all over the world, in physical or digital space. Seen as a generator of such interest, the locality of the university amounts to a capital that establishes value on a wider scale. Campuses, cities, even nations, achieve even mythical appeal because of this activity, which is not only limited to cultural production but extending also to an actual economic impact on the place.
Architecture comes in at the gap between function and place, reinstating spatial qualities as the foremost property of an otherwise utilitarian endeavor. It responds to the requirements of the site, it negotiates the terms of accessibility of and to the attached community, it decides the level of integration or distinction to the existing natural landscape or urban fabric. Finally it communicates the university’s aims and values, or it can act as a pedagogical tool by using its own formal and functional language to convey ideas, ignite the imagination, or foster creativity.
The selection of the case studies for this article was made in order to showcase the idea of building for the university, in the context of a regional or local condition.
In itself, the idea of heritage brings forth one of the most fundamental aspects in mankind’s endeavor for self-preservation and evolution, namely to preserve human values and memory. In these terms, safeguarding heritage becomes an act of responsibility involving equally an ethical stance, normative policy, and technical expertise. Nevertheless ‘cultural heritage’ is hardly exhausted as a mere catalog of artifacts that show ‘outstanding universal value’ , mainly because culture itself is embedded and evolving in the fabric of everyday practices and the living memory of the community.
The act of building in such context becomes case-specific, taking into account the esthetic and cultural valuations of the setting, as well as the preservation and empowerment of an ecosystem of human production. As such, it reflects both social bonds and the trace of an accumulated intellect. The problem ultimately becomes a call for ‘good practices’, informed by an elevated awareness of our individual and collective responsibilities. Once we deem it ‘architecture’, it becomes an almost Herculean task since all new proposals must stand their place from a glorified past that sometimes stretches to the point of myth.
The cases we review here are set against a background. Anything but indifferent to their context, they propose the terms by which their defining elements relate to a situated condition. This is not the sort of overwhelming architecture your academic modernism would herald, nor does it necessarily classify under what Frampton coins as ‘Critical Regionalism’, namely “regional ‘schools’ whose primary aim [is] to reflect and serve the limited constituencies in which they are grounded” . What’s most intriguing about these cases is that their ‘regionality’ does not necessarily entail locality for the place of origin of the architects responsible: these are global architectures, in place with a local condition.