Reclaiming Space through Choreographing Architecture?

By Harry Weasley

Date: 07th November 2034

In contemporary architecture's discourse, autonomy has traditionally been seen as a marker of the architect’s control—an assertion of authority that separates the creator from the user and increasingly leans toward commodification and rigid control. But Sudipta Das Dip stands apart with a radical reimagining of space. His vision, rooted in architecture and performance, challenges the very foundations of traditional architectural autonomy. By drawing from movement theory, Sudipta advocates for choreographed architecture that is responsive and co-created through interaction.

Sudipta's manifesto offers a compelling insight into this new architectural paradigm. Below is an excerpt from his foundational work, which has shaped much of the responsive, human-centred design discourse.

Manifesto Excerpt:

“Architecture as Choreography: Reclaiming Space through Movement Architecture must move beyond its static, commodified past. I envision a dynamic architecture, one that is choreographed by human presence and constantly shaped through interaction, movement, and sensory engagement. Space is not a passive construct but an evolving entity—fluid, responsive, and co-created by its inhabitants. By intertwining architecture with the principles of performance and embodied movement, I reject rigid formalism in favour of adaptive spaces prioritising participation over control. This vision seeks to dismantle the boundaries between the built environment and the body, fostering a living, responsive architecture that mirrors the rhythms and complexities of the human experience.”

-Sudipta Das Dip

After a while, his manifesto was published, and it first caught my attention; I sat down with Sudipta to delve deeper into his ideas and explore how he continues to defy the static architectural norms. I sought to explore how his rejection of static design principles led him toward a vision of choreographed architecture and how the theories of movement and the social production of space have shaped the broader implications of his architectural proposition.

Harry Weasley (HW): Sudipta, your concept of Choreographed Architecture rejects traditional architectural autonomy and control. Can you tell us more about how this idea emerged and what critical perspectives have shaped your thinking?

Sudipta Das Dip (SDD): Certainly, Harry. The vision behind Choreographed Architecture stems from a frustration with how conventional architecture often imposes rigid, predefined spaces on users. My practice proposes that space emerges through movement and interaction, not fixed boundaries, drawing on Rudolf Laban’s Movement Analysis. Laban’s work on spatial harmony suggests that space is generated through bodily reach and movement rather than imposed by form¹. This idea materialised in my project, “The Echo of Movement”,—a dynamic installation where walls reconfigure in response to dancers and visitors, effectively dissolving the barrier between architecture and participant. Here, architecture is not an observer but a co-performer, shaped by the very people it engages.

HW: Fascinating. So, your work turns architecture into an active participant. But what about architectural autonomy as traditionally understood? Do you see any value in it?

SDD: I find the conventional autonomy, as advocated by figures like Vitruvius and Le Corbusier, deeply problematic. Vitruvius’ strict adherence to symmetry and proportion overlooks the role of bodily engagement in defining space². At the same time, Le Corbusier’s “machine for living” approach reduces architecture to a functionalist object disconnected from human spontaneity. In contrast, “Cityscape Symphony”—an adaptive public park—was designed to counter such rigidity by evolving in response to pedestrian patterns. Here, pathways and seating are reconfigured based on movement density, lighting shifts according to pedestrian flows, and spatial boundaries adjust with crowd dynamics. It critiques static autonomy, where users are co-authors of their experience, not passive inhabitants.

HW: You mentioned movement as a defining factor in space creation. How does this connect with the concept of embodied perception?

SDD: Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s theory of embodied perception argues that we experience space through our bodies, not from an external standpoint³. For example, in “The Echo of Movement,” the installation interprets the body’s movements as cues, altering its structure in response. This makes space a lived, sensory experience. Traditional architecture often privileges the visual, but Choreographed Architecture asks: What if architecture were perceived through interaction rather than observation? This creates a deeper connection, where the architecture responds to and embodies human motion, transforming each participant’s experience into a unique spatial dialogue.

HW: Your projects suggest a relinquishing of control. How do you view the relationship between power and space in architecture?

SDD: in architectural terms, control has often been a means to discipline. Foucault’s critique of disciplinary spaces, such as the Panopticon, emphasises how architecture has historically functioned to regulate behaviour⁴. My work proposes the opposite—architecture as an enabler of freedom and fluidity. For instance, in “Cityscape Symphony,” control is ceded to the users. Instead of fixed routes and prescribed uses, visitors actively shape their environment. This model challenges traditional autonomy and suggests that architecture’s coherence can emerge from continuous interaction, an idea Tschumi supports in his event-driven architecture⁵.

HW: If structure can arise from interaction, how does Choreographed Architecture maintain coherence without losing form?

SDD: Coherence is indeed a central question. Tschumi’s theory emphasises that architecture need not rely on predefined form but can find unity in the events it hosts⁵. In “The Echo of Movement,” coherence comes not from static design but from the continuity of interaction. The installation responds to the body’s movements, allowing the form to emerge organically from these interactions. It’s a different kind of structure, one that values adaptability over permanence. As Tschumi suggests, this is coherence as a process rather than a product.

HW: Lastly, how do you envision Choreographed Architecture impacting urban design?

SDD: In the urban context, Choreographed Architecture redefines the autonomy of public spaces. “Cityscape Symphony” is an experimental model for an adaptive urban park, where the environment adjusts according to collective movement patterns. This approach subverts traditional spatial autonomy, offering users an active role in shaping the city. It’s architecture as a communal and evolving organism, not a fixed entity. Ultimately, I hope Choreographed Architecture will invite cities to become responsive, inclusive spaces that mirror the fluidity of human presence.

In examining Sudipta Das Dip's Choreographed Architecture, one fundamentally rethinks architectural autonomy. His approach challenges the conventional notion of architecture as a pre-determined, commodified object, instead envisioning it as an evolving, socially engaged process. Drawing from theories that critique traditional autonomy, capitalist commodification, and static formality, Sudipta's work invites us to consider architecture a co-created space continually shaped by human interaction and social context.

At the heart of Sudipta's vision is a shift in architectural authorship. Unlike the autonomy traditionally celebrated in architecture, which is often architect-centred and removed from the social realm, Sudipta's practice demands a shared autonomy rooted in community engagement and bodily interaction. His project, "Cityscape Symphony", embodies this shift. An adaptive public park, it dynamically reconfigures itself in response to user movement, continually adapting pathways, seating arrangements, and spatial boundaries to reflect pedestrian flows. This project aligns closely with the critique by Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre, who argue that autonomy must account for the lived experiences of the people who inhabit a space, challenging the idea of the architect as an isolated author.6 In this way, Sudipta's work shares similarities with Diller Scofidio + Renfro's Blur Building,7 which responds to environmental changes through an ethereal mist that transforms with the climate. However, while Blur's adaptation reflects external ecological forces, Sudipta's park prioritises social autonomy, illustrating an architecture that relinquishes control, functioning instead as a malleable ecosystem shaped by its users. Here, space is not pre-defined but co-authored in real-time, suggesting an expanded form of autonomy that is both participatory and inclusive.

This anti-authoritarian stance is further supported by Sudipta's critical view of commodification in architecture, a topic explored in Felicity D. Scott's work Architecture or Techno-Utopia. Scott argues that capitalist-driven design often reduces architecture to a series of isolated, consumable objects disconnected from genuine social purpose.8 Sudipta's Choreographed Architecture resists this commodification, embracing instead an architecture that thrives on adaptability and co-creation. "Cityscape Symphony" directly responds to Scott's critique, presenting a park space that resists becoming a "product" by continuously reshaping itself based on its collective interactions. Unlike the rigid frameworks critiqued in Rem Koolhaas's Junkspace, where capitalist priorities result in fragmented, purposeless structures,9 Sudipta's work introduces an architecture that does not emphasise commodification because it is inherently responsive and collaborative. "Cityscape Symphony" thus becomes an antithesis to capitalist architecture, a flexible, interactional public space prioritising collective experience over profitability. Sudipta also draws from Forsythe's Choreographic Objects10 about bodily movement as a participatory factor in space. However, he moves beyond this by using collective, rather than individual, engagement to define its layout. In his project, commodification is subverted as architecture becomes both a reflection of community presence and a rejection of fixed functionality.

While Sudipta's Choreographed Architecture emphasises co-creation, it also incorporates the notion of affective infrastructure, as discussed by Hélène Frichot. Frichot's concept of "infrastructural affects" contends that spaces and structures are not passive backdrops but are active participants in shaping the emotional and sensory experiences of their users.11 In Sudipta's "The Echo of Movement," an installation that responds to bodily movements, walls and partitions adapt to user gestures, creating a space that "feels" and "reacts." This adaptive environment is physical and affective, blurring the boundary between structure and experience. Olafur Eliasson's aim is made stronger by the work. 'Your Body of Work',12 one of his interactive installations that was a guide for Sudipta, allows visitors to have a sensory exploration but within defined spatial boundaries. In "The Echo of Movement," architecture becomes a responsive infrastructure. This adaptive environment is both physical and affective, blurring the boundary between structure and experience. Frichot's emphasis on affect underscores how Sudipta's responsive architecture fosters a deeper level of embodiment and sensory engagement, where users are not merely passing through space but are actively influencing its form. This interpretive infrastructure proposes that architecture need not be fixed; rather, it can be dynamically redefined by those who interact with it, embracing fluidity as a mode of responsiveness.

Sudipta's approach draws further influence from Henri Lefebvre's concept of the social production of space, which asserts that space is not a neutral entity but a social construct shaped by interaction and activity.13 This principle is fundamental to Sudipta's critique of traditional architectural design, where form and function are typically imposed without consideration for ongoing social dynamics. In "Cityscape Symphony", Sudipta explores this idea of socially produced space, allowing the park to take shape based on how people interact within it. Pathways and boundaries evolve in real-time as the community uses the space, turning Lefebvre's abstract idea into a tangible, experiential reality. In doing so, Sudipta aligns with Lefebvre's theories and expands upon them, suggesting that architecture can be a real-time social process dynamically moulded by the individuals it serves.

While Lefebvre's social production of space aligns with Sudipta's philosophy, Aldo Rossi's typological approach presents a contrasting viewpoint. Rossi's emphasis on collective memory and typology prioritises permanence, continuity, and form as essential elements that anchor the identity of a place.14 However, Sudipta critiques this attachment to typology as overly restrictive, arguing that it disregards the possibilities of present-focused, adaptive architecture. In "Cityscape Symphony", the evolving layout, pathways, and social spaces are designed to be flexible, prioritising immediate human engagement over a fixed form or historical identity. By rejecting Rossi's emphasis on static typology, Sudipta asserts that architecture's value lies in its capacity to adapt to present contexts, not just in preserving past symbols. His work argues that a genuine connection to place can emerge from lived, active participation rather than solely from historical continuity.

Sudipta Das Dip's Choreographed Architecture shifts the discourse on autonomy from a matter of control to one of co-creation, redefining the relationship between the built environment and its users. By aligning with Tzonis and Lefaivre's critique of isolated authorship and drawing from Lefebvre's view of space as socially produced, Sudipta places human interaction at the forefront of architectural practice. His projects, such as "Cityscape Symphony" and "The Echo of Movement," transcend commodified, static structures and embody a fluid, responsive design that mirrors the complexity of human presence. Yet, this approach does more than challenge existing norms; it proposes an architectural future where space evolves as a dialogue—interactive, adaptable, and imbued with the autonomy of its inhabitants.

In moving beyond Aldo Rossi's attachment to typological permanence and resisting capitalist commodification critiqued by Scott and Koolhaas, Sudipta's vision reframes architecture as an active participant in social life. This shift raises critical questions: How might our cities transform if spaces responded to collective rhythms? Can the built environment reflect and adapt to the fluidity of contemporary life? Through Choreographed Architecture, Sudipta invites us to envision an era where autonomy is no longer an assertion of power but an expression of shared existence, challenging architects to create for people and with them.