>Peter Noller and Klaus Ronneberger write that "Pictures, stories, and
>visions constitute urbanity as an imaginary object, thus holding the
>fragmented space together. These ideologies or =85 'myths of urbanity'
>present an image of the city as a coherent unit, synthesizing the
>diverse practices of the individuals and the collective, while at the
>same time forming them." What is the "binding" that holds this
>fragmented space, as well as its inhabiting subject, together? What is
>the coherency formation that binds image and urban space, viewer and
>inhabitant, subject and society?
Put in the context of the public 'legibility' of the image and the =
urban, these implications, in fact, reveal themselves as potentially =
obstructive for a 'activist inhabitation' of urbanism. It is =
important to read Noller and Ronneberger closely: these "pictures, =
stories and visions" hold the space of the urban together, but via =
their conceptuality; they specifically do not target "photographs, =
novels, and images," their commodified counterparts. There is an =
important difference here between, for example, the tourist snapshot =
and the postcard. (For the sake of length, I will only suggest the =
relevance of Derrida's text on the later.) The former is a personal =
representation of a vision, which often serve to miniaturize a =
panorama for a family back home to see. (Critically, the word =
"picture" is more appropriate than "image" in this case.) The latter =
is a purchasable, often doctored photograph which serves to represent =
a city for millions of people; the same 'vision' is sent home by =
many. ("Image" is here the proper label.) This is the fundamental =
difference between image as a conceptual entity (as is used by =
Noller/Ronnenberger) and image as a physical commodity.
>... A pervasive media space, a
>public space of images, surrounds everyday life and reproduces a
>condition of the urban, as the urban becomes a mobile, interchangeable
>condition that is reproducible everywhere. "Publicational" and "public"
>become inter-convertible.
But images of our urbanities are certainly created. Even the street =
light banner presents an image of 'city neighborhood.' Yet there are =
two problems I have with presenting these images on a level of =
critical analysis with the urban. First, if the city is in fact =
bound together with such ephemeral representations as stories and =
visions, I would argue that the commodity representations (the image) =
serve not to bind together the urban but to fragment it across a vast =
network of urbanisms. The idea of city is promulgated (both the =
'good' and 'bad' of cities) by making them the same. (And here I =
refer primarily to the American city.) I can travel from one city to =
another and know that if I look for the banners that say 'whatever =
district' I am most likely near a yuppie cafe. Likewise, unkept =
streets with tall brick apartments tell me I am most likely not near =
a cafe of any sort. This trans-urban image is, in fact, running =
parallel to the developments of urbanism, attempting to (like most =
other media representations) stamp out the true visions and stories =
of the city. By advertising cultural diversity only when it is =
profitable, for example, cities continue to project an image of the =
commodified other (domestic imperialism, one might suggest) while =
mainting the traditional dichotomy of the corporate/the other. These =
'real' mechanisms of urban development are suppressed in the =
interchangable, trans-urban "media space." "Publicational" and =
"public" become inter-convertible only to the upper/middle class =
corporate subject. To the other, the "publicational" is in fact =
eradicating their "public."
One might also want to look a bit deeper into the issue of the image =
as representation. Barbara Maria Stafford (there's a hyphen in there =
somewhere) proposes that in fact, we have denigrated the status of =
the image as communication for that of textual representations. The =
image, with our cultural bias toward the visual, serves as a draw to =
become more invested in 'literary' representations. I'm not, as an =
everyday consumer, so interested in a particular shopping center's =
hyperbolic advertisement imagery as I am to find out that it has =
"over 450 specialty stores," "14 theaters," "25 rides and =
attractions," and "over 20,000" parking spaces." (This is on the top =
of my mind, as I'm currently living at the Mall of America on a =
research project.) The image is in fact abused as a gimmick to =
attract rather than meaningfully communicate. (Stafford's point.)
>
>An urbanistic approach to the image would foreground these
>dwelling-patterns; an imagistic approach to the urban would describe the
>construction of the urban through representation. How could we describe
>these hybrid coherencies of urbanity and image? In formations of
>subject-surface-space-society?
So where would these take us? To imply that the image can be studied =
through the language of class politics, cultural diversity, and =
corporate control may sound tempting, but in the end it seems to =
suggest that the urban is no greater than the image. And to suggest =
that the urban can be analyzed with a language of the image is to =
directly make this reduction. I do think that the 'hybrid =
coherencies' represent an interesting aspect of this development, but =
it is important to assert the fundamental differences between the =
mechanisms of the image and those of urban. The urban of course =
offers its inhabitants the politics and operations of physical space; =
the image, those of a controlled two-dimensional spatialness.
brian lonsway
......................................................................
j erik jonsson distinguished visiting assistant professor.
rensselaer architecture.
lonsway@rpi.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------