Writing an essay with Aileen for Taking, Moving, Leaving, our point of departure was cities we lived in and we realized how these cities were not mere geographical locations, but that they were “places”, entangled with experiences, people and feelings. We found that these places and our memories of them, our dreams of them, define and shape our sense of home, and some ways our sense of self. This led us to investigate the notion of place and experience and how they are connected.

The philosopher, Malpas in his book Place and Experience (1999) argues that there is an intimate connection between person and place, and that because were embodied and situated creatures, “all our encounters with persons and things - [are] always “taking place” in place (Malpas, 1999, p. 15) - that we can engage with the world and think about it.

Yet it is noteworthy that he seems to assume that place refers to a single location, place. He does not discuss discuss nomadism. This led me to ask the question: what happens to the self when it’s not one location but multiple locations? It might not be that different than if you stay in one place and love your land like the Australian aborigines who have a conception of human life as inextrically linked with the land (Malpas, 1999, p. 2-3) and it might be that the difference is that it becomes more explicit, that moving, leaving places and discovering others is raising awareness about our relatinship to places and how they color and shape our experiences. Or it might be in fact that with no fixed locale, identity becomes fluid. I have no answer but this is an important question to explore as  175 millions of people live in a more or less voluntary exile, about 10 millions more each year and as place matters and in a non-contingent way, for human beings either nomad or sedentary people.

As a follow up on Blum’s article on how digital media might enhance our urban experience, adding social layers to it, I found the Museum of the phantom city  project by Irene Cheng and Brett Snyder as they offer people to walk in the city adding layers  to it -not functional ones, but imaginary ones:

“iPhones and mobile devices are undoubtedly transforming the way we navigate the city. Apps like Google Maps and Urbanspoon put an unprecedented amount of information about the city at one’s fingertips. Most of these programs, however, are purely functional in purpose: they seek to clarify the city, to demystify and make it more legible. In contrast, we are interested in how mobile media can deepen and intensify urban experience, perhaps even introducing new pleasures and mysteries of the metropolitan condition. We are inspired by the work of artists and urbanists like Janet Cardiff and the Situationists, who strived to make ordinary landscapes appear unfamiliar and strange again. How might mobile media be used to reveal dimensions of the city veiled from everyday experience – to manufacture an augmented reality? ”

Playing with the affordances of the mobile media: using our Iphone to navigate the city, but not only a tool for “simplifying”, making the city manageable, but also for complexifying, adding imaginary layers and opening up questions for us.

I also like the idea of using this application as a “probe” for users and for architects and planners to reflect on the city.

I’m currently not in NY but I’ll try when I’m back. If you’re in NY, I’ll be curious to know about your experience.

A nice video done by Lily Henderson

Please go and check an interesting project - exploring on how to reinvent office spaces in public spaces - in which Laura Forlano is involved.

“This festival liberates workers from the traditional offices spaces and invites them to relocate their work in urban public settings, relying on three sets of tools: lightweight infrastructure, social software and facilitators’ guides that will jumpstart collaborations to inspire creative workers, activate street-life and intensify the use of under-performing public spaces.”

More information at http://www.sentientcity.net/exhibit/?p=53

Last month when I was in Paris I went to see “Verticale Rouge, Paroles en l’air”(which you can translate Red vertical, idle words. Note that “paroles en l’air” means idle words or empty promises, “en l’air” also means in other context “up in the air”), the work of Brigitte Brandeau in a group exhibit at La Madeleine.

In this work Brigitte is exploring how text disappears behind its shadows. The text (made of copper) is hanging in the air, a floating panel, projected on a white background. One can’t read the copper words; in fact they don’t even really look like words but the projected shadow does look like, “is” text. It reminded me of these old handwritten letters, with a fading ink. Brigitte told me how she was aiming to explore the ephemeral nature of the text which does not “really” exist, while its shadows seems more “real”. I won’t get into a discussion about the notion of reality (it’ll take us too far, and this has been an on-going discussion for centuries) but I was really intrigued by this approach as in my work with Anca Metiu on writing and correspondences, we’ve been looking at writing as a trace and as an objectifying process. Brigitte’s notion of text (close for me to the work of Blanchot) also reminded me some previous posts on literary texts as creating a space for the reader. (Once again we could have a very long discussion on the notion of text, esp. literary text, but it will take us far away from the issues - already broad - discussed in this blog).

It also made a lot of sense for our work with Aileen as while by projecting text on semi-transparent panels we were aiming to create a “physical” space for people to walk through, Brigitte by projecting a “physical” text made of copper made it disappear in front of its shadow. Yet in both cases, we all worked with materials. Brigitte told me about the tenuous work of writing the text with copper and it reminded me of our work with the wires, fabrics, projectors and ladders…

If you’re in Paris, stop by. Verticale Rouge is at the end of the Church, on the right.

Hello,

I just read an interesting article by Elizabeth Cline titled “Building Without Walls” in SEED Magazine, and I wanted to share it with you since I think it is related to our discussions on objects, spaces, design, art and science. I’ve already read similar discussions on this blog, so maybe this is a good opportunity for a second round of opinions.

Cline argues that “a new breed of architectural objects, inspired by theoretical science, is changing how we think about building and what counts as art.” She does that by referring to “Transitory Objects,” an exhibit at Vienna’s Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary gallery. The exhibit, according to Cline, goes forward in collapsing the boundaries between architectural objects, conceptual art, and theoretical science. Having that in mind, the architects embrace the impermanence of their work and engage in a process of producing structures that follow scientific laws and principles. As such, they are probably never finished, but continuously adapt to their environment and use.

I particularly like the argument of “letting go of determinist ideas of structural planning - suggesting that a city’s infrastructure should always be adapting.” However, I did not find an emphasis on the users or inhabitants of these structures as their co-producers or co-adapters. Cline repeats at the end of her article the idea of fragmentation and incompleteness in architectural design, and quotes Daniela Zyman (the curator of the exhibit) in saying that “the architect has to decide at which point the algorithm stops.” And the point of decision reflects the moment of maturation of the architect. I think the fluidity and openness of the structure actually invites the users to jointly select the algorithm, and thus, the architect is no longer a lone individual, but part of this ecology.

Going back to AL and Aileen’s installation, the question is what were its ‘walls.’ Beyond the physical walls and panels, my guess is that the biggest walls were those which facilitated predictability of the process. Same applies to this blog. Having said that, do we remove these walls and how? Or are we more interested in building temporary walls as reference points and guidance. I don’t think I’m very squared in my thinking, but its hard for me to hang a picture frame without any walls

Best,

Bojan

I heard, read and wrote  about The listening post by Hansen and Rubin but I never experienced it.

Today I went to the Science Museum with my kids as we were wandering in London… and I noticed on the museum map: 1st floor, Listening Post. Could it be? There can’t be many Listening Posts, can it? After doing all the interactive spots on the 3rd floor, I dragged my kids to the 1st floor and after a little bit of search found a sign “science art projects”. At the end of a corridor, there it was!

I really liked the piece although I wish it was not stuck behind a glass fence and that one could stand in front, walk around. People sat at there were seats in the middle of the room. I thought it took away some of the experience. People did not walk around. They just sat and “watched and listened”. I also realized that many people were puzzled. The audience was not right in a sense. People did not come to see art installations and they were not expected it, and they did not know how to interpret it, experience it.

Yet I was still very happy to see this work which in many ways is very close to the themes we explored with Aileen:words,online interactions, sounds. In a way Hansen and Rubin’s work highlights more the cacophony and the random aspect of the web, while we looked at the construction of connections, of relationships.

It was just a nice surprise and it made my day!

al

John Weeks just sent me a link to a great platform designed by The Economist:  http://thinkingspace.economist.com/#/explore

I like the design - the general space, but also the pictures with the red dots that point to the evocative objects of the person thinking space. It reminds us the materiality of thinking.  It is also interesting to see whether people really have spaces (locations), or if their thinking spaces consist mostly of objects (mobile, that they take with them in different places). I also like the collaborative aspect of it: people can build their own thinking space.

Thanks John!

Yasmine Abbas is involved in a book project Taking from, leaving in, moving on by the Austrian architect and artist, Renate Mihatsh

Her contribution will be about neo-nomads whom she defines as “individuals constantly on the move who construct and reclaim a sense of belonging to places through digital means.” She argues that technology allows people to recreate a sense of place and notes that neo-nomads “sample cultures and the urban environments they roam in to reuse in the creation of a comfortable, personal and movable space.” Technology seems to allow people to carry with them, in their laptops, Iphone, Ipod, or any other portable devices, as well as by allowing access to various platforms, much more than one could put in a box, a bag or a suitcase. Our letters, packs of photos, favorite CD (or tape)… can be saved “online”. Yet, what is then the evocative object? The content or the object which allows to store or gives us access to the storage place?

Related to the theme of the suitcases, an interesting exhibition on immigrants: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2009/mar/11/communities-immigration?picture=344441838

Attached is an essay by Yasmine Abbas (one of our blog members) on the co-production of space and the role of participatory and crowdsourcing practices.

c2-yasmineabbas.pdf

She discusses BSWW as an attempt of “communal space making”…