---------------------------------------------------------------------
I read the city as necessarily narrative-based. Its spaces emerge out of an amalgamation of the stories of its inhabitants, congealing into a sense of place inextricably tied to its politics. In this context, I define "politics" not necessarily in terms of a legitimized government, but rather as an informal hierarchy that evolves from the ethics of urbanism. Interactions between inhabitants and the social conditions of a city invariably leave a mark on the physical environment, and the structure of the city expresses its shifting public's dynamic.
When these interactions are lost, the spaces evaporate. The connection between them dissolves: bits of information pixellate into discrete signs and lose their syntax within the sociocultural landscape. Ambiguity within the city's semiotics necessitates an active participant, an analyst; non-places reduce the complexity and subjectivity of language to a set of universal, objective signs. These images do not allow for the space of subjectivity, the place in which to dwell, to gather, to accumulate a plurality of meanings.
A modern ideology of technology and the machine has generated vast networks that consume (constrict) space and time, just as Catholicism's cathedrals lengthen, expand them. In each case, the evocation of a destin(-y/-ation) manifests in its physical form. Yet the horizon of Catholicism's divinity differs from the horizon of the destination of the modern non-place of (disembodied) speed. Pavement flows seemingly infinitely into the landscape and the physical
footprint of the highway proliferates toward a horizon, an intended, perceived termination. But the passage does not end; it exists as a segment within a continuum of occupation. Inhabitation of a static place by the traveler is necessarily momentary, removing the physical landscape from the construction of place.
How does the perception of a horizon shift with perspective? Does it? On what scale must this shift take place? Is the shift physical/geographic, or social/cultural? Can an ambiguous network of signification exist within the realm of a non-place? In places of speed? What are the consequences?
When these interactions are lost, the spaces evaporate. The connection between them dissolves: bits of information pixellate into discrete signs and lose their syntax within the sociocultural landscape. Ambiguity within the city's semiotics necessitates an active participant, an analyst; non-places reduce the complexity and subjectivity of language to a set of universal, objective signs. These images do not allow for the space of subjectivity, the place in which to dwell, to gather, to accumulate a plurality of meanings.
A modern ideology of technology and the machine has generated vast networks that consume (constrict) space and time, just as Catholicism's cathedrals lengthen, expand them. In each case, the evocation of a destin(-y/-ation) manifests in its physical form. Yet the horizon of Catholicism's divinity differs from the horizon of the destination of the modern non-place of (disembodied) speed. Pavement flows seemingly infinitely into the landscape and the physical
footprint of the highway proliferates toward a horizon, an intended, perceived termination. But the passage does not end; it exists as a segment within a continuum of occupation. Inhabitation of a static place by the traveler is necessarily momentary, removing the physical landscape from the construction of place.
How does the perception of a horizon shift with perspective? Does it? On what scale must this shift take place? Is the shift physical/geographic, or social/cultural? Can an ambiguous network of signification exist within the realm of a non-place? In places of speed? What are the consequences?
No comments:
Post a Comment