In the context of the conflict in the Middle East, Eyal Weizman has written about Destruction through Design 2), as an essential component of urban planning and architecture, deployed as a weapon in urban warfare. Space acquires political meanings.

One of my arguments in this essay is that the social-political aspect of the organisation of space is not only manifest in existing housing and the urban fabric, but begins to germinate during the design process itself. Spatial design strategies and the ambiguity of boundaries. Martina Löw argues in her book Raumsoziologie 3) that space constitutes itself as a social phenomenon within social processes. The user-subject becomes more important as social actor to define space through his or her own experiences. The appropriation of space, but also its design and its
representation become crucial in that sense. When thinking about space it is important to re-examine the notion of the boundary. Peter Marcuse writes about the ambiguous meaning of walls in his essay, Walls of Fear and Walls of Support 4) and asks “Do walls provide security against attack, a protection of privacy? That depends”, he answers, “not so much on the composition of the walls themselves, as on their social role.” And he goes on: “All walls are boundaries, but not all boundaries are walls.” All of this calls into question the traditional role of boundaries. That role would seem to have expired, there is clearly a need for a new condition, a new process. Architecture has to redefine itself, its design process and its political function.

So, what are innovative methods of spatial enclosure? Is there a new strategy needed for de-bordering space and how influential are innovative design methodologies? Spatial strategies have already been dealing with spatial continuums, the destruction of the box or the “plan libre”. In each case a modern dynamic of diversity can be found and has been in each case the starting point for a new aesthetic space paradigm and the emergence of functional, ordered constructs.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN STRATEGIES, APPLIED
SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS
As soon as the design process as such, no matter on what scale, requires action, strategies and innovation within in a certain social, educational or professional setting, it is already a social act. The development of an idea is process-orientated and time-based. Within a social context the idea needs to be communicated by applying a certain “language” – whereby content is given a form which itself becomes again a carrier for content. The relationship between form and content is complex and needs a strategic argument where different dimensions and layers of each idea need to be defined. Within experimental design processes forms are temporal, constantly changing due to their ongoing negotiations with their surroundings. Experimental design is a method or set of actions and observations that offer diverse solutions to a particular question to support a hypothesis. The act of design is not ultimately framed by a singular aesthetic end, but by multiple constraints and ambitions of each project, as negotiated by the architect, designer and user. Within the field of performative architecture 5), for instance, architects construct private and public events, social situations and facilitate temporary spatial appropriation – architects become initiators of social processes and therefore construct social space.

Experimental design strategies and their spatial articulation of boundaries break down antiquated views and establish a three and four-dimensional space. Furthermore they enable, through critical interaction, discourse and its local context, the visualisation of social-political aspects of space. Multiple complexities of space and architecture cannot be condensed into a single formal criterion, but interrelational sets of criteria are needed to develop architecture through these emerging methods. A systematic logic of thought needs to be developed, mapping specific processes and requiring aesthetic sensibility and design ability.

Systematically developed, spatial models are exposed to a number of manipulative processes that negotiate between different environments. Layered levels of design intelligence are required, incorporating organisational and spatial aspects, whereas repertoire and techniques are controlled through coordination, while precision can be achieved with specific techniques. Boundaries are understood in an ambivalent and critical state and blurred transitions are preferred to rigid definitions, creating atmospheres rather then areas. There is a redirection and randomisation of geometry into variations and options from which to choose.

Aesthetic practice is a process that appears in design, appropriation and the formation of space. These spatial models are anti-hegemonic because they do not exclude different interpretations and allow for speculations. Art and architecture are practices through which aspects of society and life may be challenged and re-negotiated both of them operate through ideas and reflections. During experimental design processes conditions need to be re-evaluated, value structures, and systems need constant critical analysis and engagement.

Engagement is experimental and spatial models have to be a point of departure for a critical, political and social examination in the field of architecture as an aesthetic practice. The production of architecture has to trigger critical engagement and introduce a sense of responsibility that allows the consideration of political and social consequences. The rad-icalisation of space and its design processes contribute toward a liberation from traditional values and thoughts. Conflicts force creativity. Inventive talent allows for new spatial conditions and appropriation of space improvisation becomes an important means within spatial design processes and a new kind of process-orientated definition of boundaries.

LITERATURE
1) Hartle, Johan: Der geöffnete Raum. Zur Politik der ästhetischen Form; Wilhelm Fink Verlag 2006
2) Weizman, Eyal: Räumliche Analysen der israelischen Siedlungspolitik; An Architektur Ausgabe zum Thema Krieg, Nr.6 Feb.2003 p.13
3) Löw, Martina: Raumsoziologie; Frankfurt am Main 2001
4) Marcuse, Peter: Walls of Fear and Walls of Support; in: Architecture of Fear, edited by Nan Ellin; Princeton Architectural Press 1997, p.101
5) see also: Knoess, Elke: Performative Architecture; in: Architektur Rausch – A Position on Architectural Design, edited by Thomas Arnold, Paul Grundei, Claire Karsenty; Jovis Verlag 2005
6) Choreographed Geometry; spatial installation by Gabi Schillig– developed during a fellowship at the Akademie Schloß Solitude Stuttgart, 2007 – The object consists of different geometric modules that form a programmed surface that allows users to interact and communicate, furthermore triggering mediation and new spatial and social conditions are created by the participants´ own body movements. The modulation of the body is disclosed by emphasizing its stimulus potential regardless of underlying ana-tomical conditions. It becomes provocative in appearance and new body constructs are moulded by the movement and interaction of participants within the garment. The garment itself becomes an interface between its users and their (built) surroundings – the body is being disembodied and space is being de-bordered. Controlling space becomes an important active instrument for the participants.