NOTES
ON PRISON
IT TAKES FEW SECONDS TO LOAD THE DIAGRAM
05–11–25
Prison architecture is explicitly based on this capacity. 3 In this context, the wall ensures the execution of imprisonment and the control of incarcerated individuals. 4 Its mass crystallizes from power relations that define spatial order in such a way that the incarcerated cannot leave the space. 5 Through its walls, the building gains structural integrity that renders it impenetrable; at the same time, the apparatus determines who holds the key that authorizes passage through its openings. In this process, architectural design allows for the operation of political intentions inherent in the legal and economic system – conjoined with the understanding that walls enact violence upon imprisoned bodies. 6 The prison thus, according to Lambert, represents the most extreme object of architectural violence – those sentenced to live within it have no power over its walls and are stripped of all objects and rights that would allow them to leave. 7
Doors and windows are openings in walls that regulate movement. Doors are usually equipped with locks, and when locked, they are as impenetrable as the walls themselves. They allow selective access to those who hold keys and ensure that our homes do not become our prisons. In prisons, these openings are overlaid with additional features that serve both as reminders of imprisonment (e.g., a barred panel immediately behind the door) and as mechanisms for the delivery of food and water without requiring the door to be opened. 8 Windows, unlike doors, are not adapted for the passage of the human body. 9 Their function is to allow access to daylight and fresh air. They do not determine who may pass, but who has the right to what kind of gaze.
The permeability of walls must be understood in relation to various efforts to move inward or outward. The contribution PERIMETER WALL describes how carceral practices extend beyond its boundaries, indicating that these walls delineate only the physical perimeter of the facility – not its ideological or operational reach. 10 Today, the pathways inward, for the purpose of uncovering carceral strategies, are far more complex. In the past, it was possible to bear witness to life behind bars through television reports or regular activist columns in the press. 11 At that time, the walls were permeable even to institutions and organizations other than the Prison Service. That is no longer the case, and it is therefore necessary to ensure that individuals gain access who can convey the stories of incarcerated people as well as the materiality of the space itself.
The moment when architecture becomes violent is shared by all buildings, not only prisons. Lambert illustrates this with the example of a mountain shelter: when a storm approaches, people try to take refuge inside. At a certain point, capacity is reached – and toward those who remain outside, the architectural structure becomes violent. 12 We must therefore trace what is being enforced through architecture and how, and use its political nature in support of communities and practices of resistance. Only by acknowledging that walls are instruments of violence do we gain the arguments necessary to reject repressive typologies and oppressive intentions. 13 Rejection then becomes an act of care, of strength, and of determination to lend one’s knowledge to communities and solidarity. Within this “spectrum of violence,” Lambert also mentions the walls of residential buildings constructed as part of the gentrification of urban neighborhoods. These walls are violent toward the people who once lived there and can no longer afford to stay. 14
Every wall is the result of a decision – urbanistic, political, or economic. Its presence legitimizes certain forms of life while rendering others invisible or excluded. Architecture is therefore not neutral; it actively participates in the production of social inequalities. It distinguishes between those who have access and those whose bodies remain under control, on the edge of visibility. Understanding architecture as a tool of violence is a precondition for its transformation.
1 Léopold Lambert, The Mighty Power of the Spoon, The Funambulist, 2024, no. 52. Available at: https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/prison-uprisings/prison-uprisings-introduction, accessed on 26 Jan 2025.
2 Léopold Lambert, The Corporeal Politics of the Cloth, the Wall and the Street, Paris 2015.
3 Léopold Lambert, Carceral Environments, The Funambulist, 2016, no. 4. Available at: https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/04-carceral-environments, accessed on 9 Jan 2025.
4 Léopold Lambert, Weaponized Architecture: The Impossibility of Innocence, self-published 2017. Available at https://dpr-barcelona.com/weaponized-architecture/, accessed on 24 Feb 2025.
5 Léopold Lambert, The Law Turned into Walls, available at: https://archis.org/volume/the-law-turned-into-walls/, accessed on 11 May 2025.
6 See note 1.
7 Léopold Lambert, Foucault and Architecture: The Encounter That Never Was, The Funambulist, 2012. Available at: https://thefunambulist.net/editorials/foucault-foucault-and-architecture-the-encounter-that-never-was, accessed on 6 Mar 2025.
8 Schuyler Daum, Maxed Out, Inquest, 2021. Available at: https://inquest.org/maxed-out/, accessed on 29 March 2025.
9 David Scheer, La prison de murs troués… Essai d’analyse d’une micro-architecture carcérale de l’embrasure, Champ pénal/Penal field XI, 2014.
10 Dominique Moran, Carceral Geography: Spaces and Practices of Incarceration, London 2018, p. 102.
11 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.
12 Léopold Lambert – Roanne Moodley, On the Physical Violence of Architecture, e-flux, 2020. Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/confinement/359904/on-the-physical-violence-of-architecture/, accessed on 13 Apr 2025.
13 Léopold Lambert, Léopold Lambert. Interlude Archive, available at: http://www.interlude-archive.co/pages/leopoldlambert.html, accessed on 11 Mar 2025.
14 See note 5.
Is it a free crowd with one inmate, or a safe place too small for one last soul? Either way, there's a wall that decides.
Is it a free crowd with one prisoner, or a safe place too small for one last soul? Either way, there's a wall that decides.
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.