NOTES
ON PRISON
IT TAKES FEW SECONDS TO LOAD THE DIAGRAM
04–16–25
The official description of the perimeter wall relates to its significance for the perimeter protection of the prison complex. It falls into the category of structural and technical security measures of an organizational unit alongside the WATCHTOWER and alarm and security systems. Its form is both material (a concrete or masonry wall, metallic and non‑metallic fencing, barbed and razor wire) and immaterial (prohibited interior and exterior zones, biometric systems, license‑plate recognition systems, etc.). The material component is designed so that neither a person nor a vehicle can overcome it from above, through, or under – it is adapted in terms of thickness, strength, surfaces, and the design of the upper edges of individual elements (sloped capping, rounded finials on posts, coils of razor wire, etc.). 1
The high wall delineates the prison complex and simultaneously prevents incursions from the outside world. Philosopher Michel Foucault describes it as both a material and symbolic figure of power. Although its form has changed significantly since the 1970s, when he defined it as such, it still retains this role. 2 It emerged in cities simultaneously with the modern prison. Punishment was no longer a matter of public execution of power but was hidden behind these walls. The aim of its material form (height, solidity, and monotony) was primarily to warn and communicate – to threaten outwardly toward public space. In the course of time, as political and economic systems (locally and globally) evolved, the representation of the prison to the public changed as well. In the development of capitalism, there was no longer a need for the prison complex to function as a raised finger in cities. Instead, prisons moved to locations where they could be connected to or expanded by industrial or agricultural facilities in which the incarcerated were employed. The depiction of the perimeter wall in rural or more remote urban areas thus began to lose its representational importance, and monolithic solid walls were replaced with tall fencing. In addition to linking the prison with labour, it is also true that the security and surveillance equipment of prisons and their spatial configurations continuously improve technologically, so that today escape from the prison complex no longer poses a significant threat. 3
A central question in the critical reflection on prison elements remains the degree of permeability of the perimeter wall. It is known that in the past, access to the prison for scientific, activist, or journalistic purposes was easier. 4 The current arrangement systematically restricts this access through an extensive network of bureaucracy and a purported concern for the safety of all involved. Permeability is primarily blocked from the outside, while internal strategies and principles freely flow outward through the pores of the wall. Thus, the construction of the perimeter wall itself is not simultaneously the boundary of the carceral experience. 5 That experience spreads from the prison outward both when it inscribes and stigmatizes released bodies (defensive posture, poor dental condition, bodily habits and responses learned in prison that persist into everyday reality) and as part of policing strategies in public space. Examples include restricted movement (parole, house arrest), CCTV (invisible surveillance and monitoring), and stigmatization in job searches, housing, and, more generally, resocialization. 6
For a successful deconstruction of the perimeter wall, its semi‑permeable nature must be breached. It should be conceived as a mutable boundary, highlighting the degree and extent of its grooves and cracks, and continuing to deepen them. This wall is the first that, in the architecture of the prison complex, replicates itself several times inward and encloses a world imprisoned within firmer and more impenetrable structures. A unique historical example is the Wallkill Correctional Facility in New York State, built in 1932. The remote site operated without a perimeter wall for twelve years, during which 3,400 inmates were held and only 25 escaped. 7 However, what was radical was not only the decision to operate the prison without a physical perimeter but also its internal organization and programming—a comprehensive and accessible educational programme, an alcohol‑dependency support group, as well as a family visitation programme. 8
the curatain doesn't solve lack of interest
1 ČSN 73 5720 (735720) Prison Buildings.
2 Michel Foucault, Dohlížet a trestat: kniha o zrodu vězení, Prague 2000, p. 174.
3 Sabrina Puddu, Conservation Camps: Carceral Labor in California, The Funambulist, 2016, no. 4. Available at: https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/04-carceral-environments/conservation-camps-carceral-labor-california-sabrina-puddu, accessed on 15 Mar 2025.
4 Dana McKinney White – Lisa Haber-Thomson (organizers), Carceral Landscapes. Harvard Graduate School of Design, available at: https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/carceral-landscapes/, accessed on 12 Feb 2025.
5 Dominique Moran, Carceral Geography: Spaces and Practices of Incarceration, London 2018, p. 92.
6 Ibidem, pp. 88–102.
7 New York Correction History Society, History of Wallkill CF – Prison Without a Wall, available at: https://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/docs2day/wallkill.html, accessed on 12 Apr 2025.
8 Walter M. Wallack, The Administration of Justice in a Large Jail, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology XXXVI, 1945, no. 5, pp. 337–342.
Permeability Of A Wall
Nothing Goes In Carceral Goes Out
Nothing Goes In Carceral Goes Out
ADÉLA VAVŘÍKOVÁ
THEORETICAL TEXT
The project’s political dimension contributes to the discourse on prison abolition, while also serving as a professional appeal to the architectural community: to learn to recognise spaces designed for oppression and violence, and to refuse further participation in their production. Instead, it calls for the use of imagination as a design tool, encouraging the creation of a society grounded in care and social equality.
At the top of the webpage, readers will find (1) a list of frequently asked questions related to prison abolition, (2) a glossary of terms, and (3) a manual explaining the structure of the online archive, including its categories, tags, and entries.