from Henri Lefebvre: The Production of Space (1974) · 1 December 06 by Ray Crowley
Chapter 6, from the Contradictions of Space to Differential Space, XXI
As an extension of dominated space, leisure spaces are arranged at once functionally and hierarchically. They serve the reproduction of production relations. Space thus controlled and managed constrains in specific ways, imposing its own rituals and gestures, discursive forms, and even models and modulations in space. Hence, this space too is made up of ‘boxes for living in’, of identical ‘plans’ piled one on top of another or jammed next to one another in rows. Yet, at the same time, the body takes its revenge – or at least calls for revenge. It seeks to make itself known – to gain recognition – as generative.
tags: lefebvre, space, theory, urban
from Henri Lefebvre: The Production of Space (1974) · 30 November 06 by Ray Crowley
Chapter 1, XVI
“A conceptual triad has now emerged from our discussion, a triad to which we shall be returning over and over again:
Spatial practice, which embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation. Spatial practice ensures continuity and some degree of cohesion. In terms of social space, and of each member of a given society’s relationship to that space, this cohesion implies a guaranteed level of competence and a specific level of performance. (c.f Chomsky)
Representations of space, which are tied to the relations of production and to the ‘order’ which those relations impose, and hence to knowledge, to signs, to codes, and to ‘frontal’ relations.
Representational spaces, embodying complex symbolisms, sometimes coded, sometimes not, linked to the clandestine or underground side of social life, as also to art which may come eventually to be defined less as a code of space than as a code of representational spaces.
tags: lefebvre, space, theory, urbanfrom Henri Lefebvre: The Production of Space (1974) · 30 November 06 by Ray Crowley
Chapter 2, XI
In language as in space, there is a before and an after, while the present dominates both past and future. The following, therefore, are perfectly legitimate questions:
- Do the spaces formed by practico-social activity, whether landscapes, monuments or buildings, have meaning?
- Can the space occupied by a social group or several social groups be treated as a message?
- Ought we look upon architectural or urbanistic works as a type of mass medium, albeit an unusual one?
- May a social space viably be conceived of as a language or discourse, dependent upon a determinate practice (reading/writing)?
The answer to the first question must, obviously, be yes.
The second calls for a more ambiguous ‘yes and no’: spaces contain messages – but can they be reduced to messages? It is temoting to reply that they imply more than that, that they embody functions, forms and structures quite unconnected with discourse. This is an issue that calls for careful scrutiny.
As for the third and fourth questions, our replies will have to include the most serious reservations.
tags: lefebvre, space, theory, urbanfrom Henri Lefebvre: The Production of Space (1974) · 30 November 06 by Ray Crowley
Chapter 6, XIX
“Innumerable groups, some ephemeral, some more durable, have sought to invent a ‘new life’ – usually a communal one. With their trials and errors, successes and failures, such communal experiments have so many denigratiors and champions that we can get a fairly clear picture of them. Among the obstacles that they must have run into and the reasons for their failure when it occurs must certainly be numbered by the absence of an appropriated space, the inability to invent new forms.
[...]
In the end, the invention of a space of enjoyment necessarily implies going through a phase of elitism. The elites of today avoid or reject quantitative models of consumption and homogenizing trends. At the same time, though they cultivate the appearance of differences, these elites are in fact indistinguishable from one another. The ‘masses’ meanwhile, among whom genuine differences exist, and who at the deepest (unconscious) level seek difference, continue to espouse the quantitative and the homogeneous. The obvious reason for this is that the masses must survive before they can live.
[...]
There should be therefore be no cause for surprise when a space-related issue spurs collaboration between very different kinds of people, between those who ‘react’ and those who ‘rebel’. Such coalitions around some particular counter-project, promoting a counter-space in opposition to the one embodied in the strategies of power, occur all over the world.”
Ongoing discussion regarding "Taggin' Tallinn" · 25 October 06 by Ray Crowley
Our MSc group are currently working on a concept design for a project that would incorporate the following elements: establishing a target community, developing the front, back and soft infrastructure for image capture of the cityspace using mobile phones. (i.e. user takes image from cityspace via mobile and uploads to web via mms with metadata including locative data and descriptive tags). The idea of promoting the project to the “tourist community” was muted. Here are my thoughts on targeting tourists as the primary contributors and audience and an alternative suggestion:
I believe the project concept and the consequences of its execution should undergo further analysis and debate.
Elements to consider;
*Are we developing a framework for social surveillance which is at once privatized, distributed and unaccountable?
*Might the project serve to reinforce socio-cultural exclusion (both cost and access barriers etc) Who can participate? Would the project users creators or network consumers (vanity publishers if you like)?
*Might it be essentially voyeuristic – couldn’t a potential visitor develop his/her own relationship with the cityspace by the physical act of walking (c.f Baudelaire’s ‘Le Flaneur’) instead of peeking at the ‘juicy bits’?
*Will the project contribute to the spectaclization of the city (c.f Guy Debord – Society of Spectacle)?
*Would content be moderated? If so what criteria might apply? Might images of people be acceptable? Whose representation of the cityspace might it be?
*Will the project have a legacy? And in colder economic terms; what is the return on investment, is it self-sustaining?
Are there other possibilities?
For example; going out to a community on the outer suburbs of Tallinn, hold a meeting with community leaders, assemble 30 people from all ages and backgrounds to become core contributors, create a webpresence and show some people how to upload and edit, distribute some digital cameras and allow these people to document their lives, hopes, memories, fears and fun over the course of three months in text, sound and image.
The legacy of a project like this could be far reaching indeed with respect to the social, educational and entrepreneurial aspects.
Taggin’ in the graffiti sense of the word is about place, identity, ownership even.
Should we really be empowering weekend tourists to ‘Tag’ Tallinn?
Update 01/12/2006
Rob Shields in conversation with Andres Kurg on Tallinn as an Urban Space:
“I’m fearful about the fate of the people of Tallinn. And there are many Tallinns, the world over. The city is beautiful and more splendidly renovated every day. It is a good case study which should be researched because it raises so many questions. Is it possible to avoid commodifying the urban quality of life when a city such as Tallinn is transformed into a tourist magnet? This would mean a type of Disneyfication of the life of citizens. Should the city centre heritage area be dedicated entirely to tourists and a “real city” be built in the suburbs for citizens? Or is it possible to strike a balance between citizens and tourists’ interests? For other cultures, Tallinn will be understood in a different way than local inhabitants understand and live it. Research shows that this usually implies a struggle as, for example, entrepreneurs adapt and “redecorate” the city to match up to the expectations of foreign tourists. To balance this development equation it is essential to transcend tourism by developing another cultural industry or even another sector. Ideally this would complement the tourist spatialization (and temporalization) of Tallinn as an “ancient walled city” (to cite the stereotype) by creating new representations and respatializing Tallinn as, for example, a Baltic centre for cultural production (Multimedia? Drama? Film? Music?) drawing on but not fixated by its past or its beauty. The complexity of this can be seen when one considers that this task must be undertaken in relation to the spatialization of surrounding places – Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Estonia and the Baltic as a whole). A collaborative effort is in order.
“Should one be happy? The tourists are, workers in Disneyland may be, but will citizens in Tallinn be inspired, enthused and energized by the city in which they live? That is the question: will their city be a good urban place for now and for the future, not just a historical city for tourism?”
Rob Shields: Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University, Ottawa where he is also cross-appointed in Geography and Environmental Studies. His intellectual project on social spaces has been developed in a number of books including The Virtual, Places on the Margin, Lefebvre – Love and Struggle, and extended through founding the journal Space and Culture.
Andres Kurg: born 1975, is an architectural historian. Graduated in 1998 from the Estonian Academy of Arts; 2000 – 2001 MSc at the Bartlett School of Architecture, London. He has written architectural criticism and curated exhibitions and currently works in the Estonian Academy of Arts.
tags: mobile, project, space, tallinn, urban