https://hypothesis.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vl5JoW1-RXKlENMtSny7pg

This also feels like it would create some sort of comradely between the people who live in "the city." A shared sense of belonging brings people together and makes them feel like they are a part of something greater.

This trust is so incredibly important in community. Trust between people living in proximity to each other provides a space of safety. It opens the heart to the possibility of deeper relationships. How do we build trust? What activities can we engage in to nurture this care for each other?

This idea is so fascinating! It's true! Cars are a way of carrying the private sphere wherever we go. It restricts our encounters with the other and with the public realm. They're too comfortable? And yet I do love being able to hid away in a car in the city — to come back to a safe place wherever I am. I do believe that it plays into (and is in a direct parallel with) social hierarchy. The less you have to appear in the public space, the higher you are. How can we move around this? Even the playing field?

I love this idea conceptually, but it seems difficult to put into practice. In creating an art installation, how do you cater to all the people who move through that space? How do you make the piece in line with the existing psychogeography of the space?

I love this idea. The space bonds the community through a social contract. It is something that the people have created intentionally, and therefore declared themselves (as individuals) a part of something greater (the community).

This feels like a fairly direct reference to the individualization of communities. I had never thought of time and the rhythms of a community as being so central to holding a place together. But it's true — as we move away from placing ourselves in time by noticing the pulse of our neighborhood, we lose track of that community. It separates us.

Hopefully there are no Christians in this neighborhood...

could it be true that public art through architecture is a way to sort of get around the system that prioritizes functionality and infiltrate those spaces?

so by this logic, does it matter if a space is inside or outside in the modern era? in the age zoom, does it even matter if a public space exists in the physical realm at all?

interesting to think about this intersection between capitalism and community; the desire to consume can be used to form a sense of community

who counts as the public? anyone who wants to? peoole that were born and raised there? people who have just moved there? people who's family has been there for centuries? people who just like the area?

As a result of the changes to our societal structure, there must be a decisive effort on behalf of other people (and others?)

this appears to be a comment on the era of mass consumption of material goods, some of the same themes that various art movements such as pop art have picked up on. This can even be paired with the concept of individualism and subsequent lack of community that has been increased by the consumption based, capitalist society we live in.

I don't think this is true anymore. Algorithms personalize and control everyone's internet, which asserts the point of the last paragraph, that the internet is a composite of private, self-sufficient and self-serving cities. If public can be a composite of privates, as Acconci states, then 2021 internet would still qualify as a public space, but the increased difference between individual experiences online intuitively seems like it should make it a less public space.

this is topical

How does this relate to how we look at public monuments, which tend to memorialize moments from the past? What is the relationship between time and space in those situations, and how might it be thought differently?

Is Acconci right about this? He's using the metaphor of the bar, where you have to pay a cover fee or for your drink? But are there forms of place-making that are free from such economic exchange?

But home for who? And what if you are not a member of the tribe, but an outsider or a visitor?

What are some possibilities for this "point" that Acconci mentions? He's talking about a catalyst that brings a public together and helps to give it an identity. How does this happen?

What are some of the ways that we make spaces public? Acconci mentions it happening "by force," and so this calls to mind protests and other forms of occupation. But are there other ways of turning what was non-public space into a space of publicity? Are there ways that performative bodies in space start to more carefully insinuate themselves into spaces of privacy and change the nature of that space? In short, how might performance function critically here? And is there something potent about the temporary nature of making that place public for just a period of time and then moving on?

We should pause here. What does Acconci mean? How is it that open spaces in the city are not public?

In what ways do we experience time in the neighborhood together? Could the "socializing of time" act as a mechanism for connectivity, solidarity? One way I see this is through the group of Latinx men, women, and children who play soccer most nights during the summer in the field on the NW corner of Powderhorn Park. On warms days I can clock the order of my days with their activities in parallel to mine. Knowing how they will be playing together, the children running around, is a marker on a social clock of the neighborhood and, however abstract, provides a sense of time to the social landscape we share.

this brings the question of "who is a monument for?" into play; does it have to be successful for the people it serves, and who inhabit the place where the monument exists? or in this age of globalism, does it also have to appeal to everyone else (certainly American / Western centric)?

this kind of reminds me of the John F. Kennedy Art Center in DC, which is intended to be a lively, constantly changing and growing cultural and artistic mecca rather than a static monument

and this is definitely something that changes over time

I find the collective aspect of the anti-monument's creation to be important. Though after this, the author mentions some of the creators of the work, the fact that the impetus for the work was broad-based and not singular is crucial. The idea of a from-below way of memorializing is something I want to hold on to.

See above -- is "public acceptance" a necessary precondition for its "success"? Is it not possible to have a successful monument (or any work of art) that is rejected by some portion of the public?

Flagging this with a question here. The author may get to this, but I am very curious how one would gauge "success" with respect to a public monument? Successful FOR WHOM? One person's success will be another's failure, and how are we to evaluate this or prioritize one voice over another?