Interiorized Object

Definition

The interiorized object is David Erdman's practice-concept: the object whose experiential center of gravity has been turned inward — reconfigured "to pull experience into them rather than showing off their qualities exuberantly up front – or on the exterior." The concept was produced by circumstance and place: in Hong Kong, "an incredibly dense and pressurized city… there simply is not enough space or land," so "The move toward working with interiorized objects therefore came naturally to the work because of being immersed and practicing in that context." Its formal spectrum runs from the minor to the major involution: "The use of minor and major forms of involutions ranging from subtle, concave facades to deep, thick, figured interiors, was a method of spinning context inward."

The concept's definitional precision lies in the gap it opens between intervention and perception: interiorization is not confined to insides. "Each technique… invokes degrees of a perceptual interiority, which is not always manifested through an intervention on the inside" — a concave facade interiorizes from the outside. And it nests and aggregates: "objects are inserted within objects at some scales, while at other scales a multiplicity of objects (interior and exterior) are instrumentalized to collectively imbue a large-scale degree of objecthood" (objecthood). What interiorized objects breed is semi-autonomy: "what distinguishes them are these interiorized objects and their centripetal qualities, a quality that breeds a semi-autonomy reinforcing the episodic and interventionist characteristics between them."

The Repulse Bay Demonstration

At the Repulse Bay Complex (2011–2013), interiorized objects become the instruments of alteration: a series of interventions into the common areas of a standardized residential estate that "altered the inhabitant's perception of, and interaction with, these spaces," amplifying "the heterogeneity of the tower units while simultaneously imbuing the property at large with a greater sense of cohesion" (heterogeneous-space). The objects are heterogeneous in kind — digitally prefabricated construction, algorithmically generated graphic design and coloring, product/graphic/landscape techniques "further altering the stable 'reading' or perception of any single technique" — and their ensemble effect is perceptual tethering: "incrementally they produce enough pressure and tension to tether remote and unconnected experiences to one another."

Key Thinkers

David Erdman — the concept's author and its builder (davidclovers, with Clover Lee): the involution spectrum, the centripetal qualities, and the perception/technique decoupling (2018).

Interiority — the concept's yield: interiorized objects "invoke degrees of a perceptual interiority" — interiority as object-effect, detached from the physical inside.
Alteration — the concept's parent practice: reconfiguring objects' interiors; the interiorized object as alteration's instrument and product.
Objecthood — the concept's measure: interiorized objects hold degrees of objecthood, singly and collectively ("instrumentalized to collectively imbue a large-scale degree of objecthood").
Heterogeneous Space — the spatial program the objects execute: amplifying heterogeneity (of tower units, of experience) while producing cohesion.
Quasi-Autonomous Interior — the social form the objects' centripetal qualities produce: "a semi-autonomy reinforcing the episodic and interventionist characteristics between them."
Enclosure — the concept's anti-term: interiorization without enclosure — "not always manifested through an intervention on the inside."
Atmosphere — the experience-medium the objects modulate: "diverse material assemblies and moods augment heterogeneity in experiences."

Source Support

Sources in the wiki that discuss this concept:

Altered (e)states: Architecture and its interiority (Erdman 2018) — the concept's source: the involution spectrum ("subtle, concave facades to deep, thick, figured interiors"), the experience-pulling shift, the perception/technique decoupling ("degrees of a perceptual interiority"), the nested and collective object, and the Repulse Bay demonstration.

Open Questions

The concept decouples interiorization from intervention-on-the-inside (the concave facade) — does this make the interiorized object a perceptual category rather than a formal one, and if so, what distinguishes it from mere depth or relief?
What exactly is "spinning context inward"? The phrase suggests the object's surroundings being drawn into its interior figure — is the interiorized object an instrument of contextualization rather than isolation, and how would that be verified on site?
Does the "collective object" (many objects collectively imbuing large-scale objecthood) resolve the fragment/whole problem (architectural-whole) or merely relabel it — is the collective object a whole by degree, or a category the tradition would refuse to call a whole?
Davidclovers' interiorized objects were built in a market that prioritizes "the monetization of floor plate areas over design" (GFA). Can the concept travel to contexts where exterior exuberance (the showing-off Erdman's objects refuse) still pays?