Exploring conversational potential of an art intervention
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/59Keywords:
Everyday life, interventions in urban development, action research, spatio-temporal design, performative urbanism, new urban aestheticsAbstract
Relational approaches to urban development have gained ground in academic literature, highlighting diverse perspectives, such as experience, participation, aesthetics, performativity and affection. However, these practices neglect conversation as a connection between local everyday life and urban development. We argue that as art generally provokes discussion, material art acquires potential to question urban development and thus, act as a conversation mediator in public space. To test the hypothesis, we organised an explorative action research study: a data art installation within the annual ‘Oulu Night of the Arts’ in August 2017. The installation illustrated spatiotemporal analysis of everyday life in Åström Park, Oulu, Northern Finland. The art intervention succeeded in engaging diverse social groups online and on-site, although it proved challenging to evoke focused conversations. The induced discussions bore relevance to everyday realities in the locality. If public discourse on urban environment concentrates solely on municipal urban planning projects and visible new constructions, we risk creating a misconception of them being superior to mundane everyday life. The study suggests that even tentative information without specific objectives, when presented in a public data installation, could prove valuable for urban development discourse.
Published
Issue
Section
References
Altrock, U., & Huning, S. (2015). Cultural interventions in urban public spaces and performative planning: insights from shrinking cities in Eastern Germany. In Knierbein, S., & Tornaghi, C. (Ed.). Public Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture and Planning (pp. 148-166). London: Routledge.
Anderson, B., & Holden, A. (2008). Affective urbanism and the event of hope. Space and Culture. 11(2): 142-159.
Banerjee, I. (2015). From classrooms to learning landscapes. New socio-spatial imaginaries of learning and learning spaces. In Knierbein, S., & Tornaghi, C. (Ed.). Public Space and Relational Perspectives : New Challenges for Architecture and Planning (pp. 167-182). London: Routledge. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Buser, M. (2014): Thinking through non-representational and affective atmospheres in planning theory and practice. Planning Theory. 13(3): 227-243.
Caldarola, V. J. (1985). Visual contexts: A photographic research method in anthropology. Studies in Visual Communication, 11(3): 33-53.
Cerrone, D., Lehtovuori, P., & Lopez Baeza, J. (2018). Integrative Urbanism: Using Social Media to Map Activity Patterns for Decision-Making Assessment. Conference paper. Proceedings IFKAD 2018, Delft, Netherlands, 4–6 July 2018 (pp. 1094-1107).
de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press. (Originally published in French as L’invention du quotidien. Vol. 1, Arts de faire, 1980)
Citroni, S., & K rrholm, M. (2019). Neighbourhood events and the visibilisation of everyday life: The cases of Turro (Milan) and Norra F laden (Lund). European Urban and Regional Studies. 24(1): 50-64. Clough, P. (2007): Introduction. In: Clough, P.; Halley, J. (Ed.) Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social (pp. 1–33). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Davoudi, S. (2006): Evidence-Based Planning. Rhetoric and Reality. disP – the Planning Review. 165(2): 14-24.
Ernwein, M., & Matthey, L. (2018). Events in the affective city: Affect, attention and alignment in two ordinary urban events. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 51(2): 283-301. Erti , T. P. (2015). Participatory apps for urban planning—space for improvement. Planning Practice & Research. 30(3): 303-321.
Evans, G. (2002). Cultural planning: An urban renaissance?. London: Routledge. Evans, G., & Shaw, P. (2004). The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: A review of the evidence. In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, August 25–28, Montreal.
Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research. 15(4): 299–318.
Garcia, B. (2004). Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: lessons from experience, prospects for the future. Local economy. 19(4): 312-326.
Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Washington DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.
Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999). Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European planning studies. 7(5): 623-646.
Hall, T., & Robertson, I. (2001). Public art and urban regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape Research. 26(1): 5–26.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning theory. 2(2): 101-123.
Healey, P. (2006). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London; New York: Routledge. van Holstein, E. (2018). Experiences of Participatory Planning in Contexts of Inequality: A Qualitative Study of Urban Renewal Projects in Colombia. Planning Theory & Practice. 19(1): 39-57.
Horelli, L. (2013): Participatory E-Planning Meets the Glocal. In Horelli, L. (Ed.): New Approaches to Urban Planning. Insights from Participatory Communities (pp. 131-150). Aalto University Publication series, Aalto-ST 10/2013.
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of planning education and research. 14(3): 183-189.
Katoppo, M. L., & Sudradjat, I. (2015). Combining Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Design Thinking (DT) as an alternative research method in architecture. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184: 118-125.
Kremer, E. (2011). Performative Planning as a Method of Initiating Change. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University: Sustainable Spatial Development, vol. 2. 81-84.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The Production of Space (vol. 142). Blackwell: Oxford.
Lehtovuori, P. (2016). Experience and conflict: The production of urban space. London: Routledge.
Lehtovuori, P., Hentil , H-L., & Bengs, C. (2003). Temporary uses: the forgotten resource of urban planning. Publications in the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies C 58 2003. Helsinki: Art-print Oy.
Lehtovuori, P., Ruoppila, S. (2017). Temporary uses producing difference in contemporary urbanism. In Henneberry, J. (Ed.) Transience and Permanence in Urban Development (pp. 47-63.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Li, Q. (2018). Data visualization as creative art practice. Visual Communication (17)3. 299-312.
Liekens, J. (2009). Architecture as an instrument: The installation of fundamental and existential questions. In Verbeke, J; Jakimowicz, A. (Ed.) Communicating (by) design. Proceedings of the colloquium ‘Communicating (by) Design’ at Sint-Lucas Brussels, 15th-17th April 2009, Brussels (pp. 611-622). Hogeschool voor Wetenschap & Kunst, School of Architecture Sint-Lucas & Chalmers University of Technology. Ghent: Drukkerij Sintjoris.
Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism : Short-term Action for Long-term Change. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Madanipour, A. (2017). Cities in time: Temporary urbanism and the future of the city. London, UK; New York, NY; USA: Bloomsbury Publishing. Marques, L., & Richards, G. (2014). The dimensions of art in place narrative. Tourism Planning & Development. 11(1): 1-12.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications. Miles, M. (1997). Another hero? Public art and the gendered city. Parallax. 3(2): 125-135. Miles, M. (2000). Art, space and the city. London: Routledge.
Miles, M. (2005). Interruptions: Testing the rhetoric of culturally led urban development. Urban Studies. 42(5-6): 889-911.
Moore, G., Croxford, B., Adams, M., Refaee, M., Cox, T., & Sharples, S. (2008). The photo‐survey research method: capturing life in the city. Visual Studies, 23(1), 50-62.
Nummi, P., Er ranta, S., & Kahila-Tani, M. (2018). Enhancing E-Participation in Urban Planning Competitions. In Silva, C. N. (Ed.). New Approaches, Methods, and Tools in Urban E-Planning (pp. 60-94). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K., & Misselwitz, P. (Ed.). (2013). Urban catalyst: mit Zwischennutzungen Stadt entwickeln. Berlin: DOM-Publishers.
Pl ger, J. (2015). The Evental City: Moment, Situation, Presence. Space and Culture. 19(3): 260-274.
Robertson, J. (2000). The three Rs of action research methodology: Reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational action research, 8(2), 307-326.
Sacco, P., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. (2014). Understanding culture-led local development: A critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies. 51(13): 2806-2821.
Sacco, P., & Tavano Blessi, G. (2009). The social viability of culture-led urban transformation processes: Evidence from the Bicocca District, Milan. Urban Studies. 46(5-6): 1115-1135.
Samson, K. (2015). Aesthetic Performativity in Urban Design and Art. In Erik Kristiansen, Olav Harsl f (Ed.). Engaging Spaces. Sites of Performance, Interaction and Reflection (pp. 292-326). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Samson, K., & Juhlin, C. L. Z. (2017). Performative Urbanism. Working paper. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V., & Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city: public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies. 42(5-6): 1001-1023.
Silva, P. (2016). Tactical urbanism: Towards an evolutionary cities’ approach? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 43(6): 1040–1051.
Talen, E. (2015). Do-it-yourself urbanism: A history. Journal of Planning History. 14(2): 135- 148
Thrift, N. (2007). Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London: Routledge. Thorpe, A. (2017). Rethinking Participation, Rethinking Planning. Planning Theory & Practice. 18(4): 566-582.
Tornaghi, C. (2015). The relational ontology of public space and action-oriented pedagogy in action. In Tornaghi, C., & Knierbein, S., (Ed.) (2015). Public Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture and Planning (pp. 17-41). London: Routledge.
Tornaghi, C., & Knierbein, S. (2015). Conceptual challenges: re-addressing public space in a relational perspective. In Tornaghi, C., & Knierbein, S. (Ed.) (2015). Public Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture and Planning (pp. 13-16). London: Routledge.
Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2016). Social media research: A guide to ethics. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.
Tulkki, K., & Vehmas, A. (2007). Osallistuminen yleis- ja asemakaavoituksessa. Ymp rist hallinnon ohjeita 1/2007. Helsinki: Edita Prima.
Viderman, T. & Knierbein, S. (2018) Reconnecting public space and housing research through affective practice. Journal of Urban Design, 23(6), 843-858. Webb, D. (2018). Tactical Urbanism: Delineating a Critical Praxis. Planning Theory & Practice. 19(1): 58-73
Wohl, S. (2017). Tactical urbanism as a means of testing relational processes in space: A complex systems perspective. Planning Theory. 17(4): 472-493.
Wortham-Galvin, B.D. (2013). An Anthropology of Urbanism: How People Make Places (and What Designers and Planners Might Learn from It), Footprint. (13): 21-39.
Wunderlich, F. M. (2013). Place-Temporality and Urban Place-Rhythms in Urban Analysis and Design: An Aesthetic Akin to Music. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3): 383-408.
