I spent the second half of our wednesday class still completely distracted by a small bit of discussion about our place in cities, our constant movements, and the idea of place. Certeau's apparent thesis concerns the everyday, and mostly through the lens of being from up above. Physically removing himself from the city enabled him to see things in a textural manner.
This is where we began to talk about the nature of humans as "in motion", as Certeau sees us as walking. This environment that from up above, emotionally and physically removed it might appear that we are in a city structure built for motion. All aspects of our atmosphere promote motion or at least facilitate a function. From the moment we wake, we step in to the role of preforming tasks in multiple locations (i.e. the laundromat, the fast food dinning experience, taking trains, buses, and cabs). All these allotted spaces seem to function harmoniously from up above and posses almost a utopian feel that Mark stated was almost beautiful, if this were the case. Even sleeping feels like a task or act while the walkers or voyuers hustle to the spot where they are designated to lay down and recharge for more activity.
While discussing this I wondered, who is the "first mover". When we "Step in" to being human are we utilizing the city or am I a function of New York City? Lefebvre says "The Social Text encompasses us", making our Texturology less about qualities, language, and the uniqueness of the everyday, but more about the mechanical patterns Certeau had to step out of or rise above to comment on many other aspects of city life.
I found this line from the top of page 151 interesting but perplexing:
ReplyDelete"Escaping the imaginary totalizations produced by the eye, the everyday has a certain strangeness that does not surface, or whose surface is only its upper limit outlining itself against the visible.”
I understand the concept of the “totalizing eye” to mean the way we picture the world when we close our eyes; a sort-of all-encompassing world view. Perhaps Certeau asks us to disregard these imaginary totalizations in order to comprehend the construction of a city apart from its appearance. There seems to be an “otherness” presented throughout this text. He describes invisible theoretical frameworks, and the “metaphorical” city that seems to migrate within our conscious thought yet fit within the concrete walls of the city. This metaphorical city is like the “other” city only visible through forms and operating systems. Separate from the actual, physical layout of the city, does human motion create this metaphorical city through our daily operations? And is this metaphorical city a part of the “strangeness that does not surface?”
I Feel like when i close my eyes, my world view is more limited, in the sense that there is nothing but my imagination inhabiting the space, whereas with them open i don't have ability to limit the the occurrences/objects i perceive, perhaps only, if i try, the way in which i perceive them. Even then, it may take me some 'real-world-occurrence' to contextualize and make real the 'strangeness' of my closed-eye-vision. I don't know if this thing under the surface is more created by the physical city or if the under the surface thing creates the city, likewise, to Tyler's question, do i use the city or does the city use me? well i guess I'll have to compromise and say both. I want to bring up the Ashcan school doing city-scape paintings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_School)show both within and without the city. I do believe in a metaphorical city influencing us all, because it was created by us, and now in certain regards, we are limited by it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, good post Tyler. Second, I have to agree with Mark in regards to perception. I find it increasingly difficult to perceive things, even when I look for things with a heightened sense of awareness. The daily clutter of our routine and the addition of the power a city has on us takes its toll on us, and we are sensitive to the affliction, but we continue. Granted, we are reflexive beings, but more often than not, a moment of introspection or wonderful/morbid realization requires us to look at the city as Certeau did, or in a private setting, letting imagination take over. If we do not dedicate time for this reflection, an exercise of consciousness if you will, most things would go unnoticed. Furthermore, I believe public discontent would transform into inactive, apathetic discontent, accepting things as they are, and will always be.
ReplyDeleteAs I read Certeau's piece, I could not stop thinking of cities filmed from above, unedited and played on fast forward to depict the daily activities and contributions in a span of 24 hours. Suddenly, it rests, you assume it sleeps, but you can never be too certain. In a capitalistic society, perhaps the most unconscious system, the city resembles a terrarium, ants rumbling and stumbling overtime to get something done. Ants, every single day, some in a collaborative effort with a common goal, others wandering off, misguided, or driven by a individual purpose. A repetition of it, as if they forget what happened the day before, fooling themselves to believe that tomorrow will be different. Some rise and fall, but most plateau, and they have no idea. There may be variation in the little things that they do, such as what to have for breakfast, but the big things remain the same unless you are part of the terrariums monarchy. Fortunately, for the majority, the dream keeps them going, just like with us.
I think it is dangerous to dream and remain unconscious the rest of the time. That is the reason why they are often never realized, but don't destroy the drone's spirits, or what's left of it.
Moving on, human nature, although it contains the latter word, goes against nature as we know it. If we cooperate with the city, we will most likely remain unscathed. However, cooperating is not necessarily changing the city, rather, it is being part of the tidal wave. That's a scary thought.
This is a really compelling discussion of "Walking in the City." Tyler, when you state: "Certeau's apparent thesis concerns the everyday, and mostly through the lens of being from up above. Physically removing himself from the city enabled him to see things in a textural manner."—remember, this is only where the piece begins; it moves to the ground level, and *that* is where the 'everyday' takes shape. This seems to be what Elissa is getting at by directing us to the passage in which de Certeau talks about the everyday as what 'escapes' the "totalizing view." And the "totalizing view" is the view from *above*—that perspective that is always a little imaginary, *as if* one could be disconnected from the structure of the city. Even in a plane, one is tied technologically and epistemologically to the city—no aerial vision without accompanying ground technologies (at least not for long). (Consider Dr. Strangelove.)
ReplyDeleteMark, I was intrigued by this statement: "I do believe in a metaphorical city influencing us all, because it was created by us, and now in certain regards, we are limited by it." Why is it a 'metaphorical' city that influences us? For de Certeau, the city is very much *real*, isn't it? Yes, we are 'limited' by the city, but also, isn't part of de Certeau's point that the 'everyday' is constantly allowing little modifications and subversions to occur? The limitations of the city, as it were, give the city its structural freeplay (to evoke Derrida).
Fernando, I want to press you on this issue of whether "human nature goes against nature as we know it"—this sentence almost resembles a contradiction in terms, wherein humans have to be within nature to know nature, in order to know that they are outside of nature. How or where could we ever locate the point at which humans are apart from nature? And, to think about it from the other direction, might it be useful to reorient our thinking in order to ask how humans are always inescapably a part *of* 'nature'? And if so, what technical or critical *use* is this word 'nature' to us any longer? I think we need a more sophisticated vocabulary to describe the collusions and distinctions in human/nature. I love your figurative reversal wherein the city becomes a tidal wave, and this seems to intuit my point: what if we saw cities not as unnatural but as a different form of natural? What if we saw human migrations as migrations, and urban expansion as natural growth? Might this not change the ways we evaluate our own actions, and give greater (self-)significance to what we build? These are big questions, hardly easy to answer...and yet I think they relate fundamentally to 'the everyday' in de Certeau's sense of the word.