SUPERFLEX identified a spe-cific and local problem in which powerful corporations were working to oppress local groups.
SUPERFLEX refer to their artistic interventions as tools that the communities can use. They call them tools because they can be used in different ways with different outcomes.
In 2001
SUPERFLEX has done a wide variety of projects, and they base their projects around a set of "tools." To learn more about similar projects click here.
Power is an example of how an oppressed group can take eco-nomic control over corporations in order to reclaim not only their independent livelihood but their culture as well.
If you are interested in movements like this one, Nato Thompson's Living as Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991-2011 is a great resource with beautiful images.
helped the farmers establish control over their own product.
Here is a brief statement that puts the movement in more economic terms.
Guaraná Power also helps the farmers reclaim and celebrate their cultural heritage as the traditional producers of guaraná and as its residents of the region in which it is produced.
For more information about this movement, check out Linda Weintraub's chapter on SUPERFLEX from her book To Life!(available on JSTOR)
In this way, the labeling of Guaraná Power signals the aggressive tactics of the corpo-rations and the history of the farmers’ struggles with them.
This link provides a series of wonderful images from this movement.
, the Danish group SU-PERFLEX
If you are interested in learning more about SUPERFLEX in general, here is an interview with the group.
In that way, it opens up clearings; it “allows” a certain play within a system of defined places.
Could this notion be applied to spaces that were taken over and declared public by its inhabitants?
symbolizes.
Thinking about the way in which COVID altered the way that people interacted with the city and with others. Since the pandemic I have found that when I walk I consciously avoid other pedestrians, and other pedestrians avoid each other, which has changed the motion of the city.
“hand”
I like the notion that how you walk through the city is a kind of signature. When I would walk to the subway to get to school I would take two different routes: one on the way there and one on the way back. It's nice to think that that is a way of making the city one's own.
it is simul- taneously the machinery and the hero of modernity.
Thinking about Debord, does the constant progress of a city cause it to restrict its inhabitants? Because there is a constant flux in the structure, does that hinder people from possessing the city in their own way?
in relation to representations, it remains daily and indefinitely other.
Perhaps the walkers are actually more free than the beings who are stuck as voyeurs from the top of skyscrapers?
His elevation transfigures him into a voyeur.
I have had the chance to go up to one of the top floors of one of the new freedom towers, and there is a feeling of separation that one feels from up there. I really like the idea of the city being a "text" that one reads. I think from up at the top of a skyscraper one begins to identify themself more with the building than with the pedestrians.
New York has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its pasts.
It's interesting that the example that was used (the World Trade Center) has now transformed into a new building (the Freedom tower) which is itself a symbol of rebirth. The Freedom tower is a point of growth, but also represents a clear change in the skyline.
quality-of-life"
monitoring the way in which private space can be used in order to create an "appealing" image of the public.
Our first task is to enable people to stop identifying with their surroundings and with model patterns of behavior.
Could this be achieved through a city that is modeled through the needs of the occupants of the city so that the urban space better reflects the inhabitants?
Besides its unimportance, this aspect of the problem is completely subjective and soon fades away.
This is interesting because it suggests that the perceived "identity" of a neighborhood is not important, rather, it is the different ways that one can interact with the space. An identity of a space is still prescribed by the government to make the space attractive so one must look beyond that.
Each person must seek what he loves, what attracts him.
Could this be interpreted as a spectacle? Isn't that what the government uses as a form of distraction?
Detournement is less effective the more it approaches a rational reply.
Much like the city, a cannot demand a particular type of reception.
Street lamps should all be equipped with switches so that people can adjust the lighting as they wish.
This makes me think of the question of who is the city for? In NYC many "public" places become private at night in order to stop the homeless population from having a place to sleep. For example, public parks are often locked up at night. This makes the statement that people who are homeless are not true residents of the city and that they should not have access to its resources. I know that this is not exactly Debord's point, but I thought this was worth bringing up.
(influences generally categorized as tourism, that popular drug as repugnant as sports or buying on credit)
Suggesting that people frequently follow the path that the city wants them to take, therefore staying within the control of the governing forces of the city itself. If one goes against the suggestion of the government they will have a truer connection with the city itself.
Haussmann's Paris is a city built by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Haussman's Paris importantly also created a clear class divide between the city, and reduced the degree to which members of different classes could intermingle. Through this he created a more homogenous environment. It cannot signify anything because it creates no routes for exploration for an interesting way of life. The city attempts to tell the walker where to go through clear automobile routes and sidewalks.
Consequently, apart from functioning as a memorial by definition, it can also be considered a successful memorial.
Could the anti-monument be considered to be an addition to the unsuccessful monument? It seems that the existence of the first is required for the success of the other. They act in a kind of symbiotic way, as the first is a demonstration of the government's attempt to commemorate the event (a government that was complicit in this event) and the movement by the people who actually caused the successful rebellion.
democracy
It is interesting to consider the timeline in which these monuments are erected. When was this particular group of rebels entered into this historical "canon" and when was it decided that they were heroes that should be emulated?
The built environment is built because it's been allowed to be built.
According to Acconci, the city is a form of oppression, because people are forced to interact with space in the way that has been designated by the architectural formations. Buildings parse up the city into neat categories of ownership, and even public spaces are limited in such a way that people must interact with them in a certain way. This is made clear through "hostile architecture" which pre-determines interactions with the space itself.
is space on the run.
Could the internet be considered as a type of public space? Must the "public" require a kind of physical connection with the people around you?
To keep itself intact, the cluster moves indoors where it has walls to preserve it.
Can a public only be formed in a commercial space as a product of capitalism? Has capitalism asked a fee for membership in a public?
e buildings are too far apart to suggest a place to gather in
Suggests that common spaces around work buildings (i.e. Federal Plaza in NYC) are not truly public because they cater to a limited form of public.
the dots have to form a circle, as if around a point; or they have to form a line, as if toward a point; or they have to blend together so that they form a point them- selves, which blots and spreads out to cover the piazza floor.
For a public to unify a public space must have a purpose, which makes me think of the idea that the public is a place in which the public works together to decide its ideals or sense of morals. What Acconci seems to advocate is a more organic town hall perhaps?
This private and privileged space had inherent in it, from its beginning, the seeds of public space: the fact of its existence provoked desire, its privacy functioned as a taunt to the public that felt left out.
Is there an inherent sense of rebellion in all "public" spaces?
New York doesn't belong to us, and neither does Paris, and neither does Des Moines.
It is interesting to consider that what is often public is not necessarily owned by the public itself. While people may be able to access a certain space, they do not have a fundamental right to it. What then are the conditions of ownership if a group can convene there but do not have the inherent right to be there? This reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street protests and the tension between a space that is technically public but is not owned by the public itself.