Responding to Erik Rietveld’s inaugural lecture, this commentary asks which bodies and what sites of design and architecture are centralized when thinking about “The Affordances of Art for Making Technologies”? Departing from personal experience and Nicholas Mirzoeff’s counterhistory of visuality, I analyze what it means to imagine “the end of sitting.” Through an engagement with crip theory and disability activism, I aim to understand which architectural sites should be disrupted. RAAAF’s practice of cutting and splitting closely relates to the work of the ‘70s artist Gordon Matta-Clark. But the radical proposals of both RAAAF and Matta-Clark engage with power in almost oppositional ways. While Matta-Clark offers the cut as a final space, RAAAF aims to create new worlds. I question the need for new worlds, since they are built on current power structures, instead of dismantling them.

在评论Erik Rietveld的就职演说时，这篇评论询问在思考“艺术对制造技术的需求”时，哪些机构以及设计和建筑的哪些地点集中？与个人经验和尼古拉斯·米尔佐夫（Nicholas Mirzoeff）的反视觉历史背道而驰，我分析了想象“坐姿结束”的含义。通过参与蠕变理论和残障人士行动主义，我旨在了解哪些建筑场所应受到破坏。RAAAF的切割和分割做法与70年代艺术家Gordon Matta-Clark的作品紧密相关。但是RAAAF和Matta-Clark的激进提议几乎以相反的方式与权力交涉。当Matta-Clark提供剪裁作为最后的空间时，RAAAF致力于创造新的世界。我质疑是否需要新世界，