Private messages in public space
There is a pink typed message pasted on the side of the RISD Provost’s house that says, “I should do whatever feels right for my needs and acknowledge when I’m obsessing for obsessing’s sake”. The owner of the house did not put it there yet the message has remained in place since December of 2015 – is it allowed to be there? The message is ambiguous not only because it is a personal, seemingly private statement in a public place, but also because it doesn’t “look” like vandalism – it seems that it should be there.
Jeff Ferrell describes the “aesthetic of authority” in public urban space as clean, uniform, predictable and controlled; these characteristics are in place to optimize consumption and passive inhabitants, while forging a universal, shared space (Ferrell, 1993). There is an assumed fixity, so when informal, illegal interventions (such as graffiti, vandalism, Do-It-Yourself Urbanism) expose the malleability of public space, the power of authority is threatened.
Written and sign-based interventions (such as graffiti, vandalism, and appropriation of signs amongst others) pose particular dangers. The placement, style and content of words in public form personalities behind the words and make visceral individuals and perspectives that have been suppressed by authoritative design of space. As these interventions are communication-based, they can appeal directly to passersby (sometimes literally addressing “you”) and question the superiority of government or corporate communication with the public and the necessity of using designated, centralized platforms. In writing on public spaces, individuals simultaneously exercise freedom of speech and claim physical space that is denied to them.[1]
THE INABILITY FOR CITY PLANNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO PREDICT WHERE AND WHEN WORDS WILL EMERGE, AND WHO IS WRITING THEM DIRECTLY OPPOSES THE ESTABLISHED VIEW OF PUBLIC SPACE AS UNIFORM AND EXPOSES THEIR LACK OF CONTROL; WORDS ON WALLS, SIDES OF TRAINS, AND COVERING OFFICIAL CITY SIGNAGE BECOME HAUNTING REMINDERS OF THIS. IN THIS WAY, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE WORDS DIRECTLY STATE POLITICAL DISSENT, OR APPEAR AS APOLITICAL SELF-EXPRESSION – IT IS THE PRESENCE OF THE WORDS WITHOUT PERMISSION, OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, OR DESIRE FOR PROFIT THAT OPPOSES THE ESTABLISHED CONCEPTION THAT POSSESSING PROPERTY AND STATUS ARE NECESSARY TO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO A SINGULARLY-DEFINED CITY. INSTEAD, THE INTERVENTIONS PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO THE CITY BASED ON LEFEBVRE’S NOTION OF Inhabitance WHEREBY INDIVIDUALS GAIN THE RIGHT TO THE CITY SIMPLY BY LIVING THERE AND PRODUCING MULTIPLE UNDERSTANDINGS OF PUBLIC SPACE DEPENDING ON SITUATIONAL CONTEXT (Lefebvre, 1996).
THOUGH THE CONFLICT IN DEFINING THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC SPACE INDICATES RACIAL, CLASS AND GENDER INEQUALITIES AT THE SYSTEMS LEVEL OF A CITY, THEY ARE ENACTED ON THE SURFACE, IN THE REALM OF AESTHETICS AND STYLE. IT IS THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL, CORPORATE, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSERTION OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT BEAUTIFUL, OR APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC SPACE THAT THE VISIBILITY AND ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ARE CONTROLLED (FERRELL, 1993:179). THEREFORE GRAFFITI AND FORMS OF VANDALISM ARE ‘UGLY’ BECAUSE THEY ARE PERSONAL AND REPRESENT UNCERTAINTY AND DISORDER, FACTORS THAT CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITATIVE VIEW OF PUBLIC SPACE, THUS SIGNALING THEIR REMOVAL.
HOWEVER, THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS CONFLICT IS UNREALISTIC, AND THE MORE AMBIGUOUS CASES MUST BE CONSIDERED. JUST AS THE COMPLEX NARRATIVES OF INDIVIDUALS INFLUENCES THE STYLE OF TEXT AND WRITING, NOT ALL RESPONSES TO VANDALISM ARE THE SAME; SOME ACTS OF TRANSGRESSION ARE ACCEPTED IN PUBLIC SPACE, AS THE PINK TYPED MESSAGE ATTESTS. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE STYLE, AND SITUATIONAL CONTEXT OF THIS MESSAGE THAT HAS ALLOWED IT TO REMAIN IN PUBLIC SPACE UNOPPOSED – DO THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIKE ITS APPEARANCE? WE CAN CONSIDER IN WHAT WAYS IT MIGHT ECHO THE “AESTHETIC OF AUTHORITY” AND HOW ITS PRIVILEGED ACCEPTANCE MIGHT DISRUPT ESTABLISHED VIEW OF PUBLIC SPACE FROM WITHIN.
THE PINK MESSAGE IS ACTUALLY ONE IN A SERIES OF TYPED MESSAGES THAT APPEARED IN VARIOUS PROVIDENCE LOCATIONS IN DECEMBER – ON BROWN UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, A HOUSE, A DOOR AND PRIVATELY OWNED SHOPS. I INTERVIEWED PIERIE KOROSTOFF (ARTIST? VANDAL? INHABITANT?) WHO CREATED THE MESSAGES ON BUILDINGS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE INTENT, AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE TEXTS. |
Brown CSA Incident Report form definition:
|
++
COULD YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THE MESSAGES ARE AND A BIT ABOUT THEIR APPEARANCE? (UNLESS THEY’RE MEANT TO BE SECRET)
THE MESSAGES ARE BITS AND PIECES FROM TEXT MESSAGE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE COLLECTED OVER MONTHS. I CUT THEM OUT OF PINK VINYL IN HELVETICA-- PINK BECAUSE IT'S AN ODD, STRANGELY VULNERABLE COLOR IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE (AS WELL AS HAVING FEMININE CONNOTATIONS) AND HELVETICA BECAUSE IT HAS A CLEAN AUTHORITATIVENESS SUGGESTING THAT IT BELONGS THERE, AS WELL AS CALLING TO MIND THE IMPERSONALITY OF PHONE INTERFACES. MOST OF THE CONTENT DEALS WITH THEMES OF OBSESSION, INTROSPECTION, RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF DOUBT, THOUGH THERE ARE SOME HUMOROUS MOMENTS PEPPERED IN OVER THE ANGST.
WHAT MADE YOU CHOOSE THE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS? AND WHAT WAS YOUR VIEW ON PUTTING THEM ON PRIVATE PROPERTY?
MOST OF THE LOCATIONS WERE CHOSEN FOR THEIR FORMAL QUALITIES-- GOOD COLORS, COMPOSITIONS AND LINES. I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD PHOTOGRAPH WHEN I INSTALLED THEM. THE VISIBILITY OF THE FINISHED INSTALLATIONS AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF ME GETTING CAUGHT WHILE INSTALLING WERE ALSO FACTORS IN MY LOCATION CHOICES. CHOOSING THE SPOTS FELT INTUITIVE, AND I THINK I GOT BETTER AT SELECTING LOCATIONS WITH STRONG VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS AS I WENT ON.
I THINK I ALSO BECAME MORE BOLD ABOUT USING PRIVATE PROPERTY AS I CONTINUED ON WITH THE PROJECT. MY SENTIMENT WAS BASICALLY THAT THE VINYL IS EASILY REMOVABLE, JUST WITH A FINGERNAIL, SO I WASN'T CAUSING PERMANENT DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND I KNEW I COULD PROVE THAT IF QUESTIONED ABOUT IT. PROBABLY THE MOST INTRUSIVE INSTALLATION IS THE ONE ON THE SIDE OF A HOUSE, WHICH I LATER FOUND OUT BELONGS TO THE PROVOST OF RISD. FORTUNATELY, I'VE HEARD HE LIKES IT...
DO YOU CONSIDER THE TEXTS TO BE CHALLENGING/IN CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC SPACE?
I THINK THERE'S AN INTERESTING DISSONANCE BETWEEN THE HIGHLY PERSONAL QUALITY OF THE WRITTEN CONTENT AND THE ASSUMED "IMPERSONALITY" OF PUBLIC (URBAN) SPACE, AND THIS DISSONANCE IS REALLY WHAT THE PROJECT IS ABOUT, FOR ME. I'M FASCINATED BY WHERE THE LINES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE (SPEAKING MORE IN TERMS OF INFORMATION THAN PROPERTY) ARE DRAWN. THERE'S THIS IDEA FROM DELEUZE THAT "LIFE IS NOT PERSONAL" BUT WE ALSO LIVE WITH THIS IDEA (OR SLOGAN?) THAT "THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL," A MAINSTAY OF SECOND WAVE FEMINISM, AND THEN THERE'S THIS WHOLE REALM OF LANGUAGE AROUND THE CONFESSIONAL... WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS AN EXTENSIVE RELIGIOUS CONTEXT, BUT ALSO IT'S PART OF THE WORLD OF REALITY TV. THE WAYS THAT FEMALE VOICES IN PARTICULAR ARE PRESUMED (OR FORCED) TO FIT INTO PARTICULAR CONFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL MODES IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING TO ME. IF WE THINK OF PUBLIC SPACE AS SOMETHING THAT'S INHERENTLY UNIVERSAL, CLEAR, AND OPEN, WHAT KINDS OF VOICES ARE PART OF THAT SPACE? HOW MUCH ROOM DOES IT ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR THE MURKY AND CONVOLUTED NARRATIVE EXPERIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL?
ON THE TOPIC OF AUDIENCE, HOW DID YOU IMAGINE THE EXPERIENCE OF PASSERSBY WITH THE MESSAGES? OR DID YOU WANT THE MESSAGES TO BE MORE FOR YOURSELF?
I CHOSE MESSAGES THAT I THOUGHT HELD UP WITH SOME SIGNIFICANCE EVEN WHEN PLUCKED OUT OF CONTEXT, SO IN THAT SENSE, I WAS HOPING THAT PEOPLE WOULD GET SOME MEANING FROM THEM EVEN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ME OR OF THE CONVERSATIONS I WAS HAVING. I WAS ALSO PLAYING WITH THE NOTION THAT THINGS FEEL MOST RELATABLE WHEN THEY'RE INCREDIBLY SPECIFIC-- SO I DID WANT THEM TO FEEL RELATABLE OR RESONANT TO SOME AUDIENCE BEYOND MYSELF. I THINK I WAS ALSO INTRIGUED BY THE SENSE THAT OBSESSING AND DOUBTING AND EVEN JUST BEING AN EMOTIONAL GIRL CAN BE AN ISOLATING STATE, AND I WAS INTERESTED IN THE IDEA OF BUILDING SOME SMALL SENSE OF SOLIDARITY BY MAKING THOSE SENTIMENTS VISIBLE.
HOW DO YOU VIEW THE MESSAGES IN RELATION TO OTHER TEXT OR INFORMAL INTERVENTIONS IN PUBLIC SPACE?
I HOPED THAT THEY WOULD SIT IN SOME KIND OF DIALOGUE WITH BOTH INFORMALLY REGULATED PUBLIC INTERVENTIONS (I.E. GRAFFITI WRITING, TAGGING, STICKERS) AND FORMALLY REGULATED SYSTEMS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE CITY (I.E. GOVERNMENT SIGNAGE, COMMERCIAL INFORMATION). THE FORMAL ELEMENTS OF THE VINYL PIECES (THE COLOR, SIZE, TYPEFACE ETC) WERE CHOSEN SPECIFICALLY TO KEEP MY INSTALLATIONS SEPARATE FROM BUT STILL RELATED TO BOTH "WORLDS" OF URBAN COMMUNICATION.
WOULD YOU CARE IF THEY WERE ALTERED/REMOVED? DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO STAY?
I KNEW THAT THE REMOVABLE QUALITY OF THE VINYL WAS GOING TO BE A USEFUL PROTECTION FOR ME (ESPECIALLY WHEN INTERVENING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) AND PHOTOGRAPHING THE INSTALLATIONS WAS ALWAYS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS, SO I WAS PREPARED TO HAVE MANY OF THEM REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. THE MOST VISIBLE ONES (SUCH AS ON THE BIOMED BUILDING ON BROWN ST.) AND ANY THAT INTERFERED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE (LIKE AN EMERGENCY CALL BOX ON PEMBROKE CAMPUS) WERE TAKEN DOWN RIGHT AWAY, TO NO SURPRISE. I AM PLEASANTLY SURPRISED THAT OTHERS STILL REMAIN, INCLUDING ONE ON THE WINDOW OF A SMALL BUSINESS AND ANOTHER ON A HOUSE-- IT SEEMS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THESE PROPERTIES HAVE SOME ATTACHMENT TO THEIR INSTALLATIONS, WHICH FEELS LIKE THE BEST COMPLIMENT.
++
TYPOGRAPHY AS “AESTHETIC OF AUTHORITY”
FERRELL ATTRIBUTES THE AESTHETICS OF GRAFFITI WRITING TO A “COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE” (FERRELL: 167) SO ONE INSTANCE OF GRAFFITI SIGNALS A LARGER NETWORK OF WRITERS. GOVERNMENTAL STANCE ON OF GRAFFITI, THEN POPULARIZED BY THE MEDIA, HAS BRANDED GRAFFITI AND THE NETWORK OF WRITERS WHO CREATE IT AS ENCOURAGING AN ANARCHIC ENVIRONMENT (FERRELL: 179). WHILE PIERIE’S MESSAGES TRANSGRESS LEGAL BOUNDARIES IN PUBLIC SPACE IN THE SAME WAY AS GRAFFITI, THEY ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD AS ‘GRAFFITI’ DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN STYLE. IN HER RESPONSES, PIERIE DISCUSSES HER DECISION TO CHOOSE A STYLE (COLOR, SIZE, TYPEFACE) THAT IS SEPARATE FROM, BUT REFERENCING BOTH CITY-SANCTIONED AND ILLEGAL WRITING AND SIGNAGE IN PUBLIC; THEY APPEAR TOO off-centered, small and PERSONAL TO BE OFFICIAL SIGNAGE, BUT TOO FORMAL AND UNIFORM TO DISMISS AS VANDALISM. WITHOUT A PRESCRIBED CATEGORY, HER MESSAGES RESIST CONNECTION TO LARGER patterns OR INTENT UNLIKE GRAFFITI, SO INTERPRETATION OF THEM IS LOCALIZED.
FIRSTLY, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HELVETICA FONT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, GIVEN ITS ASSOCIATIONS AND USES. AARON KAPLAN CONTEXTUALIZES TYPOGRAPHY AS A PRIVATIZATION OF THE ALPHABET, AND DEFINES THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR MOST TYPOGRAPHERS (INCLUDING THE DESIGNER OF HELVETICA, MAX MIEDINGER) AS, “LEGIBILITY, CLEANNESS, AND UNITY” (Kaplan, 2014:4). THESE CHARACTERISTICS ECHO THE “AESTHETIC OF AUTHORITY” IN PUBLIC URBAN SPACE, WHEREBY GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS, SIDEWALKS AND PARKS ARE ORGANIZED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME AIMS. HELVETICA’S IMPERSONAL AND INCONSPICUOUS DESIGN HAS MADE IT A FAVORITE FONT AMONG CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNING SYSTEMS, SUCH AS THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM, FEDERAL INCOME TAX FORMS, AND IPHONES. EVIDENTLY, THE FONT HAS BECOME A SIGNIFIER OF AUTHORITY – PIERIE STATES THAT SHE CHOSE TO USE IT FOR THIS REASON, AND THAT IT SUGGESTS THAT THE MESSAGE “BELONGS" in its place. HOWEVER, NOT ALL TYPEFACES WOULD ELICIT THIS SAME RESPONSE. HOW MIGHT THE MESSAGES BE RECEIVED DIFFERENTLY, IN A CURSIVE, ELABORATE TYPEFACE OR AS A HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE?
THE FONT ON THE LEFT IS SIMILAR TO THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNAGE OF BUSINESSES AND PRODUCTS specifically tailored TO WOMEN; KAPLAN DISTINGUISHES THE UNIFORM “NO NONSENSE” APPEARANCE OF 'MASCULINE' PRODUCTS AND SHOPS WITH THE “SUPERFLUOUS” AND SEXUALIZED FONTS OF HAIR SALONS. THE ALLEGEDLY UNIVERSAL FONT HELVETICA, ATTACHED TO SYSTEMS THAT ORGANIZE AND GOVERN PUBLIC SPACE IS A ‘MALE’ FONT, YET IT GAINS THE ATTENTION OF EVERYONE. IN COMPARING THE FONTS ASSOCIATED WITH GENDER IN SPATIAL TERMS, KAPLAN CONCLUDES "MALE LETTERS ARE ENTITIES; FEMALE LETTERS ARE EXPECTED TO MAKE SPACE.” (KAPLAN, 2014:11). THEREFORE FEMALE FONTS REMAIN at the periphery JUST AS FEMALE VOICES have been ASSOCIATED WITH PRIVATE, INTERIOR SPACES.
|
A member of the "cult of sameness". More criticisms of helvetica as a universalizing font can be found in Rob Giampietro's article 'Typographic Modernism' |
While the consequences of graffiti and vandalism generally involve painting over the writing, a fine or sentence with community service, Pierie’s messages were either removed immediately (without fines or police involvement), and others were left in place because the property owners liked them. While people also make exceptions and allow graffiti to remain in place, this is not the overwhelming response. Given Ferrell’s assertion that individuals in power define beauty in terms of ability to control the appearance of their property, were Pierie’s messages not viewed as contesting their position of power because they were written in the style of authority? given their location on or near university campuses it is also possible that the privilege of university students influenced property owners' view of them, or they appreciated the unexpected acts.
The recontextualization of the voice of authority in an act of vandalism presents an interesting conflict; Ranciere describes this type of “paradoxical [scene]” as a means to “bring out the contradiction between two logics” (1999:41). While authoritative signs indicate the right to the city based on property ownership and status, vandalism supports the right to the city based on inhabitance. As the message remains on the side of the house it is unclear which logic is more powerful. Additionally, Pierie’s message on the side of the house is placed in competition with the formal signage on Providence houses that documents the historical owners of private properties. These signs maintain the visibility of past upper-middle class, conservative, East coast families– identities that continually remain the most visible in public, and in positions of authority. Therefore as an act of vandalism, the authoritative style of the message challenges rather than supports the ideology behind the historical signs.
However not all aspects of Pierie’s messages are devoted to reflecting authority - the pink color, small size and private content complicates the extent to which the messages are eliciting attention from the public, as opposed to just inhabiting space. The small size, presence of text on usually blank surfaces and personal content invites passersby into a more private, individual encounter with the messages as people might relate to the content in various ways given their specificity. Pierie’s doubts about, "the assumed “impersonality” of public (urban) space” is particularly visible here. What is the significance of private messages having a right to public space?
ASSERTING VULNERABILITY IN PUBLIC SPACE
The increased privatization of and legal interventions surrounding public space emerges out of the desire for protection and separation of “the self from others” – autonomy - according to Nicholas Blomley (BLOMLEY, 2010: 332-35). He also describes the understanding of the pedestrian in public space as mobile and bounded - views that have been constructed over time by liberal thought. The mobility and protection granted to individuals (who participate in the city’s economy, own private property and vote) extends to the treatment of public and commercial art, which also aid the circulation of capital (Ferrel, 1996: 174). Conversely, Ferrell describes graffiti and other informal interventions in public as “vulnerable to direct response” from pedestrians as well as city-officials (IBID.). Pierie’s messages contest both of the ‘desired’ traits, making the messages vulnerable rather protected, and static rather than mobile. The ease of removing the vinyl physically makes the messages precarious. So, she contests authority, but does not claim any control for herself; this reflects Iveson’s question: “do interventions which contest the power of existing authorities also challenge the basis of their authority?” (IVESON, 2013: 946).
Pierie describes her color choice, pink, as “an odd, strangely vulnerable color” and the messages as texts taken from her phone about “obsession, introspection, relationships and self doubt”. The themes of uncertainty and isolation are usually limited to private spaces as in public they negatively impact the city’s ‘brand’ and clash with the view of public space as a controlled and certain environment (both emotionally and structurally). Graffiti and vandalism are decidedly unrestricted by emotion (Ferrell, 173), so pose a threat to the constructed view of public space.
In this way, Pierie’s messages are similar to Devin Costa’s “Lonely” graffiti on commercial buildings in Providence, both painted in pink letters and expressing feelings relating to isolation. In writing their own emotions in public, the term “censorship” that Jeff Ferrell uses in relation to the removal of graffiti takes on a greater potency – the removal of the messages signals that they are not allowed to express these feelings in public. In this way, the vandal as attacker and property owners as victim conception that moral entrepreneurs suggest (Ferrell, 1996: 174) does not apply, given that Pierie and Costa present themselves as vulnerable to the public as an appeal for solidarity; they need vulnerability not protection for their messages to be effective.
|
"We had a lot of complaints, not only from businesses, but people who don't want to see that kind of stuff,"
|
The vulnerability of Pierie’s messages targets the privatization of space and the laws that protect some individuals in public while isolating the homeless. But it also interrogates ways in which female voices appear in public and digital space (given that the messages originated as texts). Pierie discusses the privacy and personal element of spaces associated with women, yet there are also constructed narratives surrounding women emerging into public. In an essay titled “Exposed Net Porn”, Nishant Shah discusses the involuntary exposure of images of women on revenge porn sites. He argues that the images published online were often those of women already in physical public spaces, but they were damaging online as the women in the images were unable to control the conditions in which their images became public – how they were contextualized and who had access. In making her own private text messages visible in public, (something that usually occurs involuntarily, or as a result of “leaks”) Pierie provides a counter narrative where a woman becomes visible in public, but remains present and vocal. Also, as the typed messages do not reveal her identity the ambiguity of the artist’s gender prevents this factor from informing the way in which the content is read. Unlike the speed at which information can be publicized and circulates online, the small scale of the messages ensures a slower dissemination of the information and retains the personal experience of reading texts, instead of a mass audience; the conditions of becoming public are controlled. The typeface adds to the intentionality of the messages – their emergence into public was planned and voluntary.
CONFESSIONAL IN PUBLIC
CONFESSION IS A PRACTICE WHERE PEOPLE ADMIT OR REVEAL INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD HELD PRIVATELY, EITHER MOTIVATED BY MORE POWERFUL ACTORS OR THEMSELVES. YET THE SETTING OF CONFESSION - THE CONFESSIONAL - THAT PIERIE DISCUSSES, CAN ASSUME DIFFERENT SCALES AND AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN RELATION TO EXPOSURE THE INFORMATION MIGHT ONLY BE VOLUNTARY AT ONE SCALE BUT NOT ANOTHER. HER MESSAGES NEEDED TO EXIST IN PUBLIC SPACE IN ORDER TO DISPEL THE ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN WITH PRIVACY AND INTERIORITY; THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGING IF THEY WERE WRITTEN ON LIBRARY DESKS OR BATHROOM WALLS ALONGSIDE MESSAGES EXPRESSING SIMILAR SENTIMENTS.
PINK MESSAGE VISIBLE TO GLOBAL ONLINE AUDIENCE ON INSTAGRAM |
HOWEVER, WRITING SOMETHING IN PUBLIC SPACE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT BECOMES PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT CAN BE USED IN ANY CONTEXT. In the same way that the appropriation of an authoritative style for an act of vandalism prevented the messages from categorization, the text messages’ detachment from known individuals and their subsequent ambiguity prevents them from being shocking, as there are many similar anonymous messages, or in a position to objectify once at a greater scale; they are meaningful only at the intended small scale of individual interaction in public. Consequently, the success of the messages at the public small scale complicates Iveson’s view of micro-scale tactical intervention as “[thriving] on a form of invisibility” (Iveson, 2013: 947), as the messages are successful because they are visible, but not too visible; the messages ensure some privacy is retained in public, without sacrificing visibility. |
The content and style of the messages are nebulous; their ambiguity reveals the limitations of ideologies about public space and and the extent to which people actually desire to be public, but avoid displaying a clear position within arguments. In appropriating Helvetica font that has come to signify an authoritative view of public space to challenge the privatization of property through vandalism, the established system of control exposes its own limitations in the grasp of public space. In doing so, the messages communicate the equal ability "to govern as to be BE GOVERNED. [2]. The direct accessibility of the messages contest laws of protection in public space, but only to a certain extent, as Pierie exercises the agency to withhold some information in the messages. Lastly, the voluntary display of text messages targets the outdated yet lingering association of women with private, interior spaces - however, having asserted their place in public the messages still communicate introspection and privacy; while women cannot be categorized as personal, or private individuals, it does not mean that they cannot desire privacy. The convergence of these unresolved understandings of public space anchor the messages to a singular individual’s lived experience, even though the content might resonate with many people. Pierie describes the way in which she chose the locations of her messages, responding intuitively as she continued, thus not exercising any formal rule. The assumed impersonality of public space is undermined with evidence of individuality, yet the personal, situational experience of the messages cannot take the place of the universal, as it is also uncertain.
[1] Rancière, Jacques, Hatred of democracy. Verso, London: 2006 cited by Iveson, Kurt. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself urbanism and the right to the city.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 37(3). 2013: 945
[2] Rancière, J. Disagreement: politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 1999 cited by Iveson, Kurt. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself urbanism and the right to the city.”: 946
WORKS CITED:
Blomley, Nicholas. "The right to pass freely: Circulation, begging, and the bounded self." Social & Legal Studies, 19(3). 2010.
Ferrell, Jeff. Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. Boston: North Eastern University Press, 1996
Iveson, Kurt. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself urbanism and the right to the city.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 37(3). 2013
Kaplan, Aaron. A Field Guide to Urban Typography: Confronting Typographic Racism, Sexism, and Elitism. Providence: n.p., 2014
Lefebvre, Henri. The right to the city. In E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds.), Writings on cities: Henri Lefebvre, Blackwell, Oxford: 1996
Rancière, Jacques. Disagreement: politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 1999
Rancière, Jacques, Hatred of democracy. Verso, London: 2006
Shah, Nishant. “Exposed Net Porn: Penetrating Regulation, Bodies and Sexuality in the Age of the Internet,” NMOM, 539-551
IMAGE CREDITS:
Korostoff, Pierie. "Murkyyy". <http://pieriekorostoff.com/sms/murkyyyy>. December 2015
Craig, Kris. The Providence Journal. <http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150902/NEWS/150909809/13748/NEWS?rssfeed=true>. September 2015
Frieder, Tal. nt. Instagram. 2015
[2] Rancière, J. Disagreement: politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 1999 cited by Iveson, Kurt. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself urbanism and the right to the city.”: 946
WORKS CITED:
Blomley, Nicholas. "The right to pass freely: Circulation, begging, and the bounded self." Social & Legal Studies, 19(3). 2010.
Ferrell, Jeff. Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. Boston: North Eastern University Press, 1996
Iveson, Kurt. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself urbanism and the right to the city.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 37(3). 2013
Kaplan, Aaron. A Field Guide to Urban Typography: Confronting Typographic Racism, Sexism, and Elitism. Providence: n.p., 2014
Lefebvre, Henri. The right to the city. In E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds.), Writings on cities: Henri Lefebvre, Blackwell, Oxford: 1996
Rancière, Jacques. Disagreement: politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 1999
Rancière, Jacques, Hatred of democracy. Verso, London: 2006
Shah, Nishant. “Exposed Net Porn: Penetrating Regulation, Bodies and Sexuality in the Age of the Internet,” NMOM, 539-551
IMAGE CREDITS:
Korostoff, Pierie. "Murkyyy". <http://pieriekorostoff.com/sms/murkyyyy>. December 2015
Craig, Kris. The Providence Journal. <http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150902/NEWS/150909809/13748/NEWS?rssfeed=true>. September 2015
Frieder, Tal. nt. Instagram. 2015