I question the relationships between people and their living environment, the democratic processes of building space when changing our cities and our neighbourhoods, the understanding of spatial equality within the market-driven economy, and the need for forming community in the time of mobility and exodus. I seek out the invisible paradoxes situated in-between the text and the image. I emphasise and direct my research deliberately towards participation in urban projects. Such projects are related to physical interaction within a space, where space is concerned primarily with physical matter and has its social and political character.
Bonnie Dundee – Meeting place in the Garden – after Patrick Geddes, 2005
The development of my practice originate in architecture. I have been studying architecture and have been fully engaged in architecture. I still believe that I’m doing architecture where the emphasis is on the process not a final product.
As a professionally educated architect, my refugio within the art context gives me a possibility for “another kind of thinking”. It allows me to do research and to experiment on the subject of the City in all its complexity. It allows me to develop something that does not sit in the framework of the conventional. Yet I critically observe the developments within architecture and urban planning that, in the bigger scale, have become highly de-politicised, commercial, and rather unethical activities.
At the same time, I look at visual art and its relation to society today when it seems to be developing an interesting critique of capitalism but hasn’t yet managed to distance itself from it. The “dematerialization of the art object” has turned itself into a “production of value” that feeds the art market continuously, even if the art object has disappeared. On the other hand, art that is produced “outside” of the art institution (and art market) contributes to the production of space and potentially changes its value as well. But in this case I believe that by acting ethically, we can stir the process against the accumulation of capital exclusively producing the social value of space. Working within the urban context (as an artist or architect) one needs to be aware who will benefit from the change in order to be able to shift the spatial development processes against gentrification and other socially negative processes.
Within the production of space, through experience and awareness, I focus on analysing the relationships (the relational). This approach creates an interaction with space that can lead to further participation and action. This finding is not a new one, but it connects loose strings and presents the subject in another light. The argument is a result of my practical investigation, and therefore brings in some new suggestions on the subject of participation.
As a professionally educated architect, my refugio within the art context gives me a possibility for “another kind of thinking”. It allows me to do research and to experiment on the subject of the City in all its complexity. It allows me to develop something that does not sit in the framework of the conventional. Yet I critically observe the developments within architecture and urban planning that, in the bigger scale, have become highly de-politicised, commercial, and rather unethical activities.
At the same time, I look at visual art and its relation to society today when it seems to be developing an interesting critique of capitalism but hasn’t yet managed to distance itself from it. The “dematerialization of the art object” has turned itself into a “production of value” that feeds the art market continuously, even if the art object has disappeared. On the other hand, art that is produced “outside” of the art institution (and art market) contributes to the production of space and potentially changes its value as well. But in this case I believe that by acting ethically, we can stir the process against the accumulation of capital exclusively producing the social value of space. Working within the urban context (as an artist or architect) one needs to be aware who will benefit from the change in order to be able to shift the spatial development processes against gentrification and other socially negative processes.
Within the production of space, through experience and awareness, I focus on analysing the relationships (the relational). This approach creates an interaction with space that can lead to further participation and action. This finding is not a new one, but it connects loose strings and presents the subject in another light. The argument is a result of my practical investigation, and therefore brings in some new suggestions on the subject of participation.
SUNSETCINEMA, 2007
However after 20 years of working within art context I wonder what kind of potential is situated within the context of contemporary art production today. By now we understand and accept that a great deal of contemporary art production is situated outside of the white cube and refers, among others, to urban space and place as material to build from; it refers also to Spatial practice, the kind of practice that Lefebvre has been theorising in relation to social interaction and its politics in the city. Yet my question here is: how does this kind of art production situated within the immediate location contribute to change? I’m really impatient about the proposals for change: who has the potential to generate change and how can it be performed? That is, a change beyond the market economy that creates new relationships between people without creating a major economic success. Is this kind of art production only possible when fulfilling the desires of the new economy? Can it become a field for creating new social relations by negotiation, process, and participation beyond the political and market agendas? Or will it, after all is said and done, be questioned by its own professional field as non-art or even social engineering? Can we recognise the contemporary art context as a platform where new ideas are developed in relation to “the city”, that is, in relation to what Jane Rendell would name: Critical Spatial Practice?
Garden Service, 2007
My concern with space could be described as progressive, starting with understanding space as a physical phenomenon, which unfolds into a social fabric. This unfolding produces political meaning where “the political” and “the politics” should be understood within a certain composition of belief and power. Where the belief (in the production of change) forces us to act politically and the power is related to politics applying the change. Or as Chantal Mouffe describes, “the political” refers to the ontological dimension of antagonism and “the politics” to the ensemble of practices and institutions whose aim is to organise human coexistence. Mouffe would “acknowledge the political dimension of the critical artistic intervention in an agonistic way when that supposes challenging the idea that to be political means to offer a radical critique requiring a total break with the existing state of affairs”. Therefore, I understand the development of Critical Spatial Practice mainly as a practice where the critical is produced through the belief and direct confrontation with a spatial situation and less through critical theory which can inform and inspire the spatial action.
The subject of participation has been widely discussed, used, and even abused, not only in the art practice, but in the wider interdisciplinary field of spatial practice in relation to urban issues. It became a legitimation for performing democracy especially for official urban development projects. Although it is a golden hammer with a positive value, it must be examined critically and not just taken for granted. The danger is that we might end up overrating it and therefore dismiss its real potential within the production of “agonistic relations”. It is necessary to examine the situation critically and create strategies that lead into action. That is what I’ve been developing through this research and the subsequent analysis of my practice. Such strategies are necessary when working with a situation “in this moment” that aims to create a suggestion for change. I propose a type of change that is shaped through a process developed from the context of the situation. Thus, every proposal is unique. And every process is an experience that produces awareness and creates relations between the people involved. It is a network of relations that will eventually provoke an action.
Looking at my own history, I have lived through several changes of political systems, which very much affected my own everyday life, as well as the people and the space around me. I started to understand life as being in a permanent transformation where many things are possible. I believe that any changes depend entirely on us people. I discuss the position of the artist within the urban regeneration process as an agent who comments on and provokes change at the same time.
Change is possible and positive only when it is produced from self-awareness into intersubjectivity that creates cooperation with others. The subject of creating the community and self-organisation is of course directly connected to the discussion around participation. Here, I would like to emphasise the changing role of the artist within participatory process from being the one who is responsible for the process who is the organiser, moderator, negotiator, to a person that would think of a new strategies and construct new situations, push the process to unfold in a most unexpected way and, finally, inspire others around her to take action. I’m proposing the role of the artist working with people on urban change in public space being described after Foucault idea of the specific intellectual – as somebody who shares her/his power rather than imposes it upon the participants in the project.
Further on I question the independent position of the artist within the urban regeneration project, how would that be possible to defend and justify and how is this idea imbedded within the historical understanding of artistic autonomy. I’m suggesting that artist should be able to remain the critical position within the context of the urban project and be able to develop a project or a practice that could be described within the category that I propose as “Constructive Spatial Critique”.
The subject of participation has been widely discussed, used, and even abused, not only in the art practice, but in the wider interdisciplinary field of spatial practice in relation to urban issues. It became a legitimation for performing democracy especially for official urban development projects. Although it is a golden hammer with a positive value, it must be examined critically and not just taken for granted. The danger is that we might end up overrating it and therefore dismiss its real potential within the production of “agonistic relations”. It is necessary to examine the situation critically and create strategies that lead into action. That is what I’ve been developing through this research and the subsequent analysis of my practice. Such strategies are necessary when working with a situation “in this moment” that aims to create a suggestion for change. I propose a type of change that is shaped through a process developed from the context of the situation. Thus, every proposal is unique. And every process is an experience that produces awareness and creates relations between the people involved. It is a network of relations that will eventually provoke an action.
Looking at my own history, I have lived through several changes of political systems, which very much affected my own everyday life, as well as the people and the space around me. I started to understand life as being in a permanent transformation where many things are possible. I believe that any changes depend entirely on us people. I discuss the position of the artist within the urban regeneration process as an agent who comments on and provokes change at the same time.
Change is possible and positive only when it is produced from self-awareness into intersubjectivity that creates cooperation with others. The subject of creating the community and self-organisation is of course directly connected to the discussion around participation. Here, I would like to emphasise the changing role of the artist within participatory process from being the one who is responsible for the process who is the organiser, moderator, negotiator, to a person that would think of a new strategies and construct new situations, push the process to unfold in a most unexpected way and, finally, inspire others around her to take action. I’m proposing the role of the artist working with people on urban change in public space being described after Foucault idea of the specific intellectual – as somebody who shares her/his power rather than imposes it upon the participants in the project.
Further on I question the independent position of the artist within the urban regeneration project, how would that be possible to defend and justify and how is this idea imbedded within the historical understanding of artistic autonomy. I’m suggesting that artist should be able to remain the critical position within the context of the urban project and be able to develop a project or a practice that could be described within the category that I propose as “Constructive Spatial Critique”.
