RUINES / Giona Bierens De Haan

Architects: Giona Bierens de Haan
Year: 2023
Photography: Dylan Perrenoud
Design / Scenography: Giona Bierens de Haan
Materials: Wax, LEDs, candles
Performance: S’enraciner dans les ruines
Writing and Direction: Dorothée Thébert, Filippo Filliger
Performers: Filippo Filliger, Olga Kokcharova, Ursina Ramondetto, Grégory Stauffer, Claude Thébert, Dorothée Thébert
Sound Installation: Olga Kokcharova
Lighting Design: Hugo Cahn
Venue: Théâtre du Grütli
City: Geneva
Country: Switzerland

RUINES is a scenographic installation designed by Giona Bierens de Haan for the theatrical production S’enraciner dans les ruines, presented at Théâtre du Grütli in Geneva in 2023. The project investigates relationships between material transformation, mechanical production, spatial organization, and human perception through an assemblage of temporary structures, experimental apparatuses, and objects with ambiguous functions. Drawing on industrial imagery and processes associated with organic transformation, the installation explores how repetition, variation, and unpredictable material interactions challenge conventional assumptions about design and functionality. Its composition brings together manufactured artifacts and seemingly natural forms, creating an environment where established distinctions between production and transformation become uncertain. In an accompanying critical essay, visual artist and curator Andrés Labaké interprets the work through philosophical concepts associated with Gilles Deleuze, particularly difference, multiplicity, and the emergence of meaning through encounters. References to industrial manufacturing, ritual practices, and experimental artistic movements further inform its conceptual framework. Rather than presenting a unified system with predetermined outcomes, RUINES establishes an open-ended theatrical environment in which spatial relationships and material processes invite reflection on control, instability, subjective experience, and the possibilities of alternative forms of organization.

RUINES examines the possibility of constructing meaning from fragmented systems, unstable relationships, and processes that resist predetermined outcomes. Conceived by Giona Bierens de Haan as a scenographic environment, the installation brings together machines, provisional architectural elements, and material experiments that challenge conventional distinctions between functionality and representation. The title suggests a condition of incompleteness, yet the work approaches ruins not simply as remnants of destruction but as potential environments for transformation and new forms of experience. Its conceptual interpretation is developed in A Line of Flight Over Ruins, an essay by Argentine visual artist, curator, and researcher Andrés Labaké, who examines the installation through the philosophy of difference, particularly the ideas of Gilles Deleuze.

The first part of Labaké’s analysis centers on a prominent tower whose vertical presence establishes a tension between apparent monumentality and physical fragility. Although its upright configuration suggests the authority of a permanent structure, its lightweight and flexible construction introduces a sense of instability. The tower appears precarious and temporary, characteristics shared by several other elements within the installation. Its contradictory qualities undermine the expectation that vertical architectural forms necessarily communicate strength, rigidity, or permanence.

At the upper end of the tower, a large basin transforms the structure into an apparatus for material experimentation. Wax passes through a process of heating, movement, and contact with liquid, producing solidified formations whose shapes cannot be entirely anticipated. The resulting fragments evoke stalactites, organic remnants, or industrial plastic waste, occupying an ambiguous position between natural formations and manufactured objects.

The process depends on the interaction of substances under particular physical conditions. As molten wax enters the liquid, it solidifies into irregular configurations without following a predetermined mold or geometric arrangement. Each encounter produces variations, introducing an element of contingency into an otherwise recognizable technical operation. The resulting forms are not simply finished objects but material records of the conditions through which they emerged.

This relationship between an organized apparatus and an unpredictable outcome establishes one of the installation’s central concerns. The structure provides the conditions for transformation, yet the final configuration of the material remains partially beyond control. The process calls attention to the limitations of planning and the capacity of physical encounters to produce differences that cannot be fully established in advance.

The second part examines a casting platform that introduces a contrasting approach to material production. Unlike the open-ended formations created through contact between molten wax and liquid, this apparatus employs molds that determine the intended shapes of the resulting objects. The procedure establishes a more direct relationship between planning, repetition, and manufacture, recalling conventional processes of industrial fabrication.

The molds reproduce forms associated with vegetal elements, creating an unusual relationship between organic references and mechanical procedures. Although the objects emerge from predetermined shapes, their multiplication introduces differences within apparent similarity. Their production demonstrates how repetition can generate variations rather than simply identical copies, complicating the distinction between standardized manufacturing and the diversity commonly associated with natural processes.

Together, the two casting methods establish different relationships between materials and systems of control. One produces irregular forms through contingent physical encounters, while the other relies on a previously defined configuration. Yet neither completely separates mechanical operations from the possibility of variation. Their coexistence suggests that transformation and difference can emerge through both unpredictable processes and repetitive procedures.

The casting platform also contributes to the installation’s broader visual association with industrial workshops and elementary machinery. Its devices appear to serve recognizable technical purposes, yet the significance of their resulting objects remains uncertain. The relationship between apparatus, operation, and outcome becomes a subject of examination rather than a straightforward demonstration of functional production.

The third part expands this investigation from individual machines to the organization of the installation as a whole. Labaké considers whether the assemblage can be understood as a system whose elements possess meaningful interconnections or whether its apparent organization encourages viewers to construct their own relationships among otherwise heterogeneous objects.

The installation combines industrial artifacts with references to organic processes, introducing an apparent opposition between manufactured and natural forms. However, the distinction becomes increasingly unstable as mechanical devices reproduce processes resembling organic transformation, while materials associated with nature acquire shapes through artificial means. The result is an environment in which the origins and functions of objects cannot necessarily be determined through appearance alone.

The equipment evokes machinery from the early Industrial Revolution, particularly through its elementary mechanical configurations and visible methods of operation. These devices suggest systems of production that transform raw substances into manufactured objects. Yet their actions also recall processes of change that occur outside industrial contexts, emphasizing the continuity between mechanical intervention and the transformations of matter.

The arrangement further resembles an assembly line, although the relationship between its components does not establish an identifiable production sequence. The presence of multiple devices and stations suggests movement through successive operations, but the installation does not reveal a singular final product. This ambiguity questions whether the apparent sequence exists to demonstrate material processes or to encourage a less predetermined experience of the environment.

Labaké’s interpretation connects these spatial relationships to the concept of the rhizome, associated with Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Rather than understanding the assemblage through a central organizing principle, this perspective emphasizes multiple possible connections among independent elements. The installation can consequently be approached as a network of relationships whose significance changes according to the encounters and interpretations it enables.

The coexistence of different lighting conditions reinforces this atmosphere. Cold artificial illumination contrasts with the warmth of candlelight, establishing opposing sensory qualities within the same environment. The relationship between technological light and flame introduces another instance of coexistence without resolution, contributing to the installation’s uncertain character.

Such contrasts extend to the perception of the entire composition. Its machines, objects, and temporary structures imply relationships that remain incompletely explained. Rather than presenting a clearly defined operational arrangement, the scenography allows its individual components to retain a degree of independence. The apparent system can therefore be understood as an incomplete organization whose meaning emerges through the viewer’s interpretation.

The fourth part introduces a broader inventory of architectural fragments, objects, and spatial devices that contribute to this condition. Two provisional shelters appear as temporary places of enclosure within the installation. Their character suggests refuges or defensive positions from which the surrounding environment might be observed. Rather than offering the permanence of conventional architecture, they communicate the possibility of brief occupation and provisional protection.

The shelters also possess openings that Labaké compares to eyes, introducing an animate quality into their architectural presence. This resemblance complicates their status as passive constructions, suggesting objects that appear to observe their surroundings while simultaneously inviting observation.

A group of artificial monoliths establishes another ambiguity between symbolism and function. Their appearance suggests monumental or ceremonial artifacts, yet they also serve as seats. This dual role disrupts the distinction between objects intended for contemplation and elements designed for bodily use, allowing an apparently symbolic form to participate in ordinary spatial activity.

Twelve hollow wax branches introduce a further investigation of repetition and difference. Produced through casting, these objects combine an organic visual reference with an artificial manufacturing method. Their repeated forms suggest similarities, while their material and production process emphasize the transformation of natural references into manufactured artifacts.

Additional elements extend the installation’s unusual vocabulary. An arrangement of LEDs simulates the sun, introducing an artificial interpretation of a natural phenomenon. A circular hearth-like space evokes a ceremonial center, although no specific ritual or collective activity is established. A cart suggests the transportation of objects, associating physical movement with the possibility of transformation between different spatial or conceptual conditions.

These components broaden the relationship between practical equipment and symbolic artifacts. Shelters, seats, lighting devices, and transport equipment possess recognizable associations with everyday activity, yet their arrangement prevents these associations from completely defining their significance. They operate simultaneously as functional references, theatrical objects, and elements of an unresolved spatial composition.

The fifth part addresses the tension between planning and unpredictability, extending the installation’s material experiments into a broader examination of organizational systems. Labaké considers how design might accommodate events and transformations that cannot be anticipated, questioning whether excessive planning can itself become a means of exposing the limitations of predetermined structures.

This investigation relates to the installation’s references to industrial production. The apparent assembly line evokes Fordist manufacturing, in which standardized processes and coordinated operations are organized around efficiency and repeated outcomes. In RUINES, however, the machinery does not necessarily produce objects with recognizable practical purposes. Its operations appear simultaneously methodical and uncertain, questioning the expectation that a production system must generate a clearly defined result.

The absence of an identifiable collective objective introduces a critique of systems that prioritize order, conformity, and measurable performance. Labaké connects this condition to broader questions concerning the production of subjectivity under industrial and contemporary capitalism. His interpretation considers how economic and political structures influence patterns of behavior, perception, and individual experience.

Within this framework, the installation’s unusual apparatuses can be understood as alternatives to systems that demand standardized responses. Their operations suggest that organized procedures do not necessarily need to produce uniform outcomes or predetermined meanings. Instead, the possibility of divergence becomes central to the work’s critical interpretation.

The relationship between the machines and their resulting objects also questions the assumption that utility provides the principal measure of value. Although the devices evoke productive activities, the forms they generate resist conventional classifications of purpose. Their significance lies partly in the uncertainty they introduce into established relationships between manufacturing, consumption, and material use.

The sixth part develops these concerns through a philosophical interpretation of perception, experience, and the relationships between heterogeneous elements. Labaké describes the installation as an environment of eccentric, manually operated analog machinery whose apparent systemic organization is repeatedly complicated by uncertain connections and divergent outcomes.

Rather than resolving these contradictions, the scenography allows them to remain active. Its machines and spatial elements suggest different modes of operation without establishing a definitive hierarchy. Their coexistence encourages attention to the changing relationships among objects, processes, and observers, positioning the experience of the installation as an encounter with an arrangement that cannot be entirely reduced to a single explanation. This interpretation draws on Deleuze’s understanding of difference and multiplicity, particularly the idea that relationships can generate new possibilities through encounters rather than through fixed identities. The significance of an object is consequently not limited to its physical form or intended function, but also develops through its capacity to participate in changing associations and experiences.

Labaké further relates RUINES to the artistic approaches of Joseph Beuys and the neo-Dada Fluxus movement. These references emphasize experimental materials, unconventional processes, and the relationship between artistic activity and ritual practices. The installation’s combination of mechanical devices and ceremonial suggestions establishes a comparable interaction between ordinary technical operations and forms of symbolic experience.

The connection to ritual is especially apparent in the circular hearth-like space and the apparent ceremonial character of several objects. However, the installation does not establish a prescribed ritual sequence. Instead, the absence of predetermined actions leaves the meaning of these elements unresolved, making their possible relationships dependent on interpretation rather than established convention.

In its theatrical context, the scenography also participates in a broader arrangement of bodies, sound, and light. Created for S’enraciner dans les ruines, written and directed by Dorothée Thébert and Filippo Filliger, RUINES provides a physical environment associated with a performance involving Filippo Filliger, Olga Kokcharova, Ursina Ramondetto, Grégory Stauffer, Claude Thébert, and Dorothée Thébert. The sound installation by Olga Kokcharova and lighting by Hugo Cahn form additional components of the production.

Labaké’s reading places particular emphasis on the relationship between the observer and the assembled environment. Because the installation does not prescribe a definitive interpretation, the experience of encountering its elements becomes part of the process through which meaning develops. The objects remain physically present, but their relationships can be understood differently according to the perceptions and associations brought to them.

This perspective suggests a distinction between the organization of physical forms and the emergence of subjective experience. The installation’s precarious construction, uncertain functions, and material transformations create conditions in which established interpretations may be questioned. Labaké’s philosophical framework identifies the significance of such encounters in the “forces, in the densities and intensities” rather than exclusively “in the forms and materials”.

The emphasis on changing relationships also informs the installation’s understanding of instability. Its temporary structures and irregular objects do not merely express fragility; they suggest that incompleteness can permit alternative configurations and interpretations. The absence of a fully resolved organizational system becomes a condition through which new associations may emerge.

RUINES ultimately presents scenography as an investigation into how material processes, spatial structures, and human perception participate in the production of meaning. Through its provisional architecture, experimental casting systems, mechanical references, and ambiguous artifacts, Giona Bierens de Haan establishes an environment in which control and unpredictability remain in continuous tension. The installation does not offer a definitive resolution to these relationships. Instead, it examines the potential of uncertainty, difference, and transformation to challenge established assumptions about the organization of objects, the function of systems, and the experience of constructed space.