Last weekend, Artivistic/05 - a transdisciplinary event on the interPlay between art/information/activism asked the question, "Why is activism associated with the street?" through critical action/reflection on issues of public vs. private space, borders, boundaries, psychogeography, mobility, lands and territories.
Projects included Corporate Commands by The Institute for Infinitely Small Things (Boston), Collective Pranks, Protest Graphics and Space Reclamation by Counter Productive Industries (Chicago), Corporate Art for a Corporeal Public from Bioteknica and a discussion of Recombinance & Tactics from Critical Art Ensemble.
The question for us: how can landscape/architects create spaces that support this kind of street activism/dialogue?
5 Comments
hey heather,
thanks for posting this, looks like some cool stuff in there. back to your question, how can landscape-architects help create a public space which engages activism/dialogue, i can't say i know but will throw this out there. many designers i talk to always think in terms of the final product of the space, and how it will function for the public at that point. but, instead of considering a public space which is more or less conducive to activism and dialogue (if i understand correctly), i always consider activism a process, and therefore in the process of public-space making. so, maybe it's as much about the "types of space" we think we should create as it is about how the landscape architect can be more of a translator for the public in constructing their own space. activism as 'a use' in the street vs. activism as 'a form of reclamation and design' of the street. but maybe these definitions are not as different as i think, but more so reflective of one another.
anyway, i'm probably just overstating the obvious (or missing the obvious altogether), but i'd be curious of your thoughts. cool post.
You know, I think that distinction -- "activism as 'a use' in the street vs. activism as 'a form of reclamation and design' of the street" -- is actually really, really useful. It seems the processes of the street activist and the designer intersect through alternative forms of mapping the city -- shifting perceptions, reaffirming the agency of the people navigating the streets, heightening public awareness. How you design based on this research seems to be one of the more interesting struggles of the profession right now. And -- if there is a way to effectively translate these new radical geographies into design, does the resulting public space affect perceptions/awareness in the same way as the maps? Or does the reclamation/design happen only after something is built?
Another intersection between the street activist and the designer might be this determination to "build" communities. It's always strange and sad to see failed efforts of people who have interceded in struggling neighborhoods ... crumbling murals, overgrown community gardens. I found one project by Counter Productive Industries particularly fascinating (I'm describing this second hand - so if someone knows the story better, please elaborate), but in their project, "Pioneer Renewal Trust," they created a "hoax real estate agency that served to highlight gentrification and housing issues in Chicago." They essentially put up posed as agents and posted a sign in front of a gallery in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood - advertising a new luxury housing unit, and each week - making the signs more and more ridiculous (ie. expanding from a couple of units to 20+ units). As you can imagine -- this angered many citizens ... an anger led to some community discussions, some organizing, some expression of shared desires. I'm not telling this well ... but I took a lot away from this ... about the relationship of an outsider, whether a designer, an activist, or a developer, to a community. Something about the participatory process of design. Something about desire ...
Hey Brian and Heather,
This idea of activism as a process and landscape architects (and architects and urban planners) as "translator[s] for the public in constructing their own space" is a reality in the East St. Louis Action Research Project at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. The projects vary widely in scale from an afternoon of sign making ("No Dumping") to a multi-semester neighborhood flood mitigation project that involves high-tech computer modeling programs, but all involve the community in every step of the design process, and not in a semi-passive advisory capacity (e.g. filling out survey forms) but as actual co-designers. In fact, the community initially sets the agenda. This is "activism as 'a form of reclamation and design' of the street," and I think that's the key. Some problems do not need to involve innovative solutions, just innovative implementation/matching of existing design principles. And what of the results from ESLARP? They are tangible, not relegated to the drawing board, and more importantly, successful.
Also check out the works of Walter Hood pre-de Young.
Thanks for the heads up! It's always so inspiring to see successful examples of this kind of participatory planning ...
Why "pre-de Young?"
on one hand you sort of have the city defining itself, the informal cultural movements, the feedback loop that everyone helps produce by routine, motion, the trails naturally carved out. i think landscape design should try to assist in that informal design process, smooth those transitions, allow the public use to further sink into its own pathing and resting points, the design must enable the informal design that is street 'use'. but the informal design of a city's persona and it's people-carved spaces, emerges some in contrast to whatever design exists, as if part of culture cannot help but laying into the walls and pressing against them, reclaiming them for a public use, a public space defined by itself. such is the nature of walls, and perhaps such is the nature of design. design as a form of invariable barrier to the exploratory free spirit of public space and cultural activism. its not an anarchy, it's more of a symbiosis between informal 'street use' design and more formal scripted street design.
since i am not a professional designer but probably more of a two-bit philosopher, i think the landscape has to hold the public space up as much as it must be able to bend to public will, so that in a sense the landscape is never stagnant or permanent, restricting or boundless. it think the public no matter what shares equal part in the design of public space, in fact it is a huger responsibility the public must exercise, whereas debilitating architecture and alienating authoritarian space can kill public spirit or cause it to explode. i really am a two-bit rambler but the role of the public (as designer) and designer (public space enabler) are so shared and blurred for me, i cannot fully articulate myself, but the role of activism by many definitions is what both unites them and separates them, I suppose.
that didnt really make sense, but i am sipping some coffee now, maybe that will help....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.