The project discomfort questions the protocols and mechanisms through which a commonly shared notion of body comfort has been established via climate, materiality and bodily occupation. It’s spatial, material and symbolic relationships have been studied in order to provoke a debate on how our commonly shared perception of comfort harms us from exploring alternative ways of living together.

​​

​​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Historically, we can find canonical examples of Le Corbusier’s Modulor and its proportions based on the golden number, as well as in Ernst Neufert’s Architects’ Data, providing all necessary standardized dimensions to all scales of design, which rescues the problem of comfort from individual complexity. However, accepting this comfort was seen as accepting a hegemonic power which manipulates our body. The project challenges the role of infrastructure and proposes that an uncomfortable space can be a pleasurable space. The final outcome of the performative installation speaks about our “illegitimate” needs and unofficial narratives.

​

Technological developments have helped us to enhance our life. By doing so, the infrastructural components that allowed the house to become serviced, by its new artificial environment, became indispensable in our buildings. With the advent of the 20th century, techno- comfort was developed as a norm that the air, lighting, sound temperature in the space were precisely measured and standardized. We were force-feed a “physical comfort” portrayal of life where everyone was taught how to use their body and how to perceive the surrounding environment in the same way. However, comfort is generally presented as an objective parameter, it refers to a physical state rather than a psychological mode. Comfort differs from pleasure, making space for pleasure can be uncomfortable, unsettling and sometimes even triggering. Pleasure awakens new understandings of reality, while comfort numbs us and enders us passive participants in the way we interact with our surroundings.
 

​