more questions than ideas
This is the point where it becomes very clear that I am not from a computer related field. And I am at an extremely beginner level in terms of understanding things like software. For example I was impressed that Thrift et. al. who appear to be geographers were so well versed in areas of computer software. To those of you in computer related fields their ideas may have seemed very basic.
I also want to say that I have recently left the workforce where I was conducting empirical research and reading empirical articles. I am trying to get back into the mode where I read, contemplate and synthesize conceptual and philosophical pieces, but I am still a little rusty. I have read de Certeau’s work before on my own, but think I missed a whole lot with the absence of discussion and lecture. If others feel the same way I would love if we could dedicate some time (either in the course or on the blog) to some of his ideas. I am particularly interested in his distinctions between tactics, and strategy. This may be perfectly clear to some, but I would like to hear interpretations of his ideas. (On the other hand, I don’t want to hold others behind so I can also meet with Paul).
What does resonate with me about de Certeau’s work are his ideas related to the user. The notion that the way in which we use and consume things may be very different from their intended purpose is critically important in terms of both planning and design. The way people use spaces is to some extent unpredictable. There is a “push pull effect” in which we adapt and adjust things to work in the way we want and need it to. It reminds me of this photography project by Richard Wentworth called “Making Do and Getting By” where he documents the way in which people adapt to their environments. A fence may become a way to hand a lost glove or a Kleenex box may become a door- stopper. These images are interesting because they provide visual evidence for some of these ideas.
The article “The automatic production of space” is something that I should have read a long time ago. Like I said before I am not on the cutting edge of technological advancement (this is probably why I enjoyed this article – I am probably their intended audience). If possible I would like to know, from the point of view of those of you who are in the computer field, to what extent the ideas from this article have changed or evolved. I have little idea about the current state of “space changing” technology and the direction in which your field is moving. I think these conversations will be important because people in planning and fields need to make predictions about the future of urban spaces. Decisions and plans are made based on changes in the next 20 years. So I think it is increasingly important that we understand (the way these geographers understand) the directions of your field and for your field to be at the forefront in decisions made about the uses of space.