Week 4
I like to travel, so I?m going to start this blog post by discussing a few things our authors had to say about ?travel facilities? (e.g. subway stations, airports, train stations). The first thing that comes to mind is Kellerman?s discussion of Auge?s idea of non-places, later adapted by Cressman (137). Cressman defines non-spaces as ?sites marked by their transience - the preponderance of mobility? and Augue says ?If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place.? I think transportation hubs can certainly be ?non-spaces? (e.g. JFK, Heathrow, CDG etc.). I also think transportation facilities can be extremely historical and have strong identities. If you get off a plane at Heathrow, you?re in an airport. If you get off a train at King?s Cross, you?re in London. I?ve often thought that the most authentic thing you can do in a city is ride its public transportation. Anyone who says the Paris metro or the NY subway doesn?t have history or identity has never been to those places. If you ride the subway in Munich, it?s ridiculously clean, efficient, and for lack of a better word, Germanic. It represents the city perfectly.
I also think some of the new ?mega? airports reflect identity. I think immediately of Frankfurt. Frankfurt?s airport is kind of a business traveler?s paradise. It has casinos, countless restaurants, a ?thai? massage parlor with blackened windows(it seriously does), and many business class lounges. It might seem cold and capitalistic, but that?s kind of how Frankfurt is. Frankfurt is a huge, modern, business hub, so doesn?t an airport tailored to business reflect the identity of the city? I think sometimes we get carried away bemoaning ?lost? identities. Sometimes they are changed identities, and we can?t see that reality because they have changed into identities we don?t approve of (by we, I don?t mean me).
One last thing about airports. Cassels discusses the new Barcelona airport, which I totally agree is a beautiful airport. He writes that the design makes people face that ?they are alone, in the middle of the space of flows, they may lose their connection, they are suspended in the emptiness of transition (451)?. I wonder, is this really true? We discussed mobile technology last week, and I would use that discussion to argue strongly against Cassels? statement. Before mobility, before the space of flows, we were disconnected sitting in airports. We were ?in transit.? Now, we are never really ?in transit?. One of our articles discussed it last week, but we now can use tech to use our time travelling to accomplish things. We are not alone. We can do work or we can contact friends from lobbies or while waiting in interminable security lines. We aren?t alone, lost in the space of flows. We are the Talk button away (or whatever you newfangled iphone people push) from our parents, friends, and significant others.
Meyrowitz? s article brought up some interesting issues. His discussion of how the generalized other is formed fits well with our discussions of facebook. We don?t form our sense of self based only on people around us; we form our ?self? based on our physical peers as well as the peers we meet online. I think this is one of the most valuable yet dangerous parts of the WWW. I think a part of us is socially constructed and a part of us just is. We now have the option to find people on the WWW who fit better with what we see our ?self? as, which will then construct our ?self? in different ways. I think this leads to a sense of togetherness because people can find others like them. I also think it has the potential to contribute to people?s loneliness. If mobility continues to be much more virtual than physical, then people who find their ?niches? on the WWW will not form much of their generalized self from their physical peers, which might lead to a complete disconnect from physical environment which could be dangerous and debilitating. If one doesn?t form a significant part of his/her generalized self from physical peers, will that person ever be able to connect with people in their physical town/neighborhood? At the very least, I think it?s an interesting thing to observe in the generation right below us (you know, those ?kids with their sex and their text messages?. I?m shaking my fist).
Manovich?s chapter was interesting as well, particularly the sections on modern art and space. I do not have a technical understanding of computer games and graphical interfaces, so I was unaware of the difference between haptic and optic spaces. I was very intrigued by his discussion of the difference between how someone like De Kooning saw space as compared to the way computer games use space. In De Kooning?s work, and I?m thinking mainly of his Idols series here, forms are fully merged and barely distinguishable from the space. The space is far from passive though. Small red lines that are part of the space suggest a kind of menstrual, erotic violence. The ?space that hardens into an object? (221) is the central part of the painting, but De Kooning uses different methods that keep the viewer from focusing on the form for too long.
Probably the thing I like most about Manovich is his links between art and computers. I love art, but I have never thought of art as a precursor for practical application. He says ?virtual architects can study how painters organized their spaces within the rectangle(228)?. It made me think of Mondrian and the interface chapter (which, along with databases, are kinds of navigable space). I wonder if the simple vertical/horizontal straight lines of the Windows interface would have been possible without Mondrian and his De Stijl contemporaries? Hmmmmmmmm. I doubt it.