Metropolis

SUBVER[CITY] SEMINAR

Armando Montilla

When analyzing the idea of Cityspace as a result of overlapping socio-economical, psychological, urban & architectural elements in constant interaction creating multiple-layer systems of appropriation and definition of territorial rights, the condition of subversion at the level of use of the space arises as a transformative key element, coming from the collective consciousness (Jung), as well as from adrenaline-driven instincts of human frame of action over the urban realm, the 'right to the city' (Lefrebvre) As part of this process, the definition of publicness in the space of the city is redefined, following historical referential frames now filtered through globalization processes and means of technology today. Using the concept of subversion as Leitmotiv for the creation of a brand-new type of publicness in cityspace involves the violation of pre-set rules for the use of space and the exercise of propinquity and self-expression. Subvercity responds to the mainstream urban frame of disparity, multiculturalism, consumption, fear, and a search for identity and belonging. Subvercity is driven by radical survival instincts as well as by mass phenomena, including the reclaiming of the streets and the implementation of anti-establishment platforms conveying political, civic, and lifestyle identities acting in the space of the city and leaving a traceable mark on it. While subvercity can normally manifest at the macro-scale, it also occurs at the micro-scale, under concealed conditions changing the use and qualities of the space itself, while at the same time responding to behavioral codes of action accessible only to specific targeted users, the active creators of subvercity. The aim of the Seminar is to discuss brand-new conditions of urban space created by subvercity and to provide a comprehensive analysis of how subvercity space is generated.
During the course of the Seminar specific examples submitted by the students will be utilized as primary means of discussion, while existent referential frames will be applied to the identification of subversion in public space through actual recognizable conditions in the city, explained by mental and physical means of appropriation.

"Humans tend to relate to their immediate environments through a variety of filters and systems that allow them to colonize their territory through behavioural patterns. When looking at the mind, we must frame ourselves in cross-cultural East-West references. From most Western Psychology schools, the image of the city does possess a psycho-social base, being this base sustained on two different levels: One coming from the range of individual perception and the other from the level of the collective and social perception. From the Eastern point of view, the mind itself plays a more powerful role over that of the surroundings...[...]... Discussing perception, experience, and mechanisms of reading space means elaborating how these notions (perception and experience) cover and how they constitute the point of contact between humans and their surrounding space. We then tend to examine what could be called a physiology of space, an analytic approach to the processes of interaction between humans and their visible environment based on literary references as well as personal observations and assumptions or, perhaps most appropriately, on a sort of self-referential pseudo-scientific examination of spatial perception (misreading, misunderstanding and misappropriating) The method of the analysis could be in one hand a theoretical investigation far without the claim of entirety in relevant concepts from sociology and spatial studies, and on the other hand a building up of a suggestive understanding of the reality of the space accompanied by a series of empirical observations and speculative assumptions together with circumscription of phenomena that, although constituting the process of the examined interaction, have not been attempted to be put on the level of a (pseudo-) scientific discussion"