Abstract This paper presents an examination of the relationship between urban liminal spaces and creative action. As a point of departure, the Dome of Visions project epitomises space use at sites of liminality in a city in constant flux, Copenhagen. The dome has acted as a focal point upon which to establish, experiment and learn what sort of factors influence citizen creativity, participation and involvement in liminal spaces in general. For this we have used studies of self-performativity, spatial dynamics and theories of liminality. The goal as far as creating the event was concerned to craft an environment within which event attendees could act in a free, creative manner and use the abstract, undefined space of the dome of visions to become active performers in the discourse of the evening. Operating on the performance design maxim of one not being able to dictate people's behaviour as such, focus was on creating the conditions under which event participants could be free to act upon as they chose. Democratising the space realms at the Creactive Space event held at the Dome of Visions on the 2 nd of May 2013 was a pivotal process in the research process of this project. Abstract in Danish Dette projekt vil udforske forholdet mellem det liminale byrum og den kreative aktion. Dome of Visions på Christianshavn, er en levende manifestation af, hvordan kreativitet kan forvandle et kedeligt byrum til et centrum for kulturel nyskabelse. Derfor har Domen været i fokus som et sted, hvor man kan etablere, eksperimentere og lære nye faktorer og rammer. Således kan borgere involvere sig, blive inspireret og være med til at skabe og udvikle det rum de befinder sig i. Dette projekt bruger teorier om performativitet, rummets dynamikker og liminalitet. At skabe en event var en del af vores projekt i dette semester og vores event, som blev afholdt d. 2. maj 2013. Målet var at skabe debat og dialog omkring hvordan man kan være aktiv, kreativ og engageret i sit brug af byrummet. Som udgangspunkt valgte vi at skabe et miljø hvori folk ville føle sig fri til selv vælge hvornår og hvordan de ville bidrage til de forskellige aktiviteter. Eventet indhold derfor både passiv og aktiv elementer. En stor del af arbejdet gik derfor ud på at demokratisere rummet på domen.
1
1. Tabe of Content 1.1. Introduction 1.2 Problem Definition 1.2.1 Research question 1.3 Concepts 1.3.1 Urban liminal space 1.3.2 Creative action: Cre-activity 1.4 Methodology 1.5 Delimitations 2. The Event: Creactive Space 2.1. The space: Dome of Visions 2.23 The Event: Organization and Planning 2.2.1 Target Group Analysis 2.2.2 Event Hosts 2.2.3 Press Strategy and Communication Goals 2.3 Creactive Space 2.4 Evaluation 3. Analysis 3.1 Passive vs Active Participation 3.2 Use of Space: movement 3.3 Dome of Visions: Space as a Theatrical Signifier 3.4 Creactivity 4. Conclusion 5. Further Research 6. Bibliography
2
1. Prelude Throughout the decision making process of our subject for this year’s semester project we explored several ideas. Our initial focus was aimed at the activity of urban gardening. Since we share a common interest for ecology and sustainability, we wanted to discover more about Copenhagen's relationship to these areas of interest. We started exploring the local scene and discovered several projects all around Copenhagen linked to the concept of urban gardening. Thereafter, We then contacted three organisations involved in this field: Dyrk Nørrebro, Prags Have and Byhaven 2200. These organisations were approached with a view to us creating some sort of event, in keeping with the intentions of this semester’s course in Performance Design. In fact our initial idea was to create an event that could attract and gather different communities already working in this field and create a network for them. We felt that such an occasion could strengthen the network and cooperation within urban gardens and help the concept to expand. Despite the appealing idea of becoming the mediators of an innovative network, we had to accept the fact that there was little concrete interest in this specific course of action. The already settled communities seemed to be content with the established settings and there was no imminent need for further connections. Through detailed discussions with Dyrk Nørrebro we tried to understand the real nature of the challenges urban gardens face in the present day. It seemed evident that they needed support in working towards fulfilling large, long-term projects such as the construction of a rainwater collect-system or a biotope, as was the specific case here. However, it was difficult to find a common ground for the more practical aspects of the event. Smooth, viable collaboration appeared to be too demanding and problematic considering the limited amount of time we had to create and organise an event. Therefore we decided to develop a new extended concept and an independent event with it. We wanted to create an event that could inspire people to reach out and participate in the shaping of their city in a more creative and sustainable way. Our experience with urban gardens became an example of how people can re-cycle, re-design and re-invent spaces and their functions. At the same time we discovered the Dome of Visions. From the very first moment we approached this peculiar construction, we knew we had to host our event there. This temporary dome, a spatial construction in between an experimental feat of architecture and a modern-day greenhouse was to be the playing field for our research and event. In itself a construction that was built to challenge the norms of modern-day living by creating dialogue amongst citizens of Copenhagen, the Dome of Visions was a location with numerous synergies with our own ambitions.
3
From here we developed the idea of Creactive Space: an innovative, more creative and green way to use the space available in our city at the moment. Our desire to create something long-lasting led us to the decision to incorporate an active aspect to our new project, something which could involve the participants more actively and work as a eye-opener to new solutions and perspectives. It is with this approach in mind that we chose the different hosts (individuals and organisations involved in sustaainable and / or creative space use) for the event and designed the evening from start to finish. What followed was the creation of a catalyst event that called for a more sustainable and creative use of our public and private space via a active citizen participation.
(Creactive Space: Flyer )
4
1.1. Introduction We live in a world in which we are surrounded by space in every context of life. It can be argued that spaces, may to a certain extent define the way we move, feel and ultimately the way we perform in specific contexts and frames within the broader spectrum of our daily interactions with people and places around us. When it comes to the question of performing the self, which part of this paper devotes itself to exploring, it is crucial to pose the question: do spaces dictate the nature of performativity within them or are they merely by-products of the manner in which people perform within in them? On the surface, one might say that spaces, and in particular their architectural dynamics are the dominant factor in this discourse. Doing so would however significantly negate the role of the individual in such spaces, and indeed on his / her creative capacities. This paper examines the relationship between space and interaction between people in an attempt to open up the debate raised by the aforementioned questions. Rather than examine this loose phenomenon in a general manner, this project narrows down the playing field to a discussion of temporary space (see section 1.3.1). We intend to examine the relationship between such spaces and creative action. In cities, such spaces exist as road shoulders on the smoothly paved path of development and progression, manifesting themselves as construction sites, temporarily disused buildings and industrial sites and so on. These sites, by virtue of their temporary nature, pose very abstract challenges to city planners and citizens alike, as they tend to be undefined. This implies that the dynamics within such spaces may also be undefined, or certainly less defined than they are in other established city spaces, such as parks, playgrounds and so on. Creativity, and more importantly citizen creativity in liminal spaces is a focal point in this regard. Creative action, or Creactivity (as we have come to coin the term in relation to its use in this project) defines the nature of people's involvement in such spaces. Focus here is on examining what sort of factors need to be present in liminal spaces in order for people to take initiative and perform actively within them. These relations are examined using theories of self-performativity in urban contexts from the likes of Paul Makeham and Charles Landry coupled with space-related theory that hinge on architecture and its performative implications by Doritha Hannah and Gay Mcauley. We also explore discussions of liminality by Victor Turner and Richard Schechner, as the underlying theoretical assumptions made in this paper.
With these preliminary intentions in mind, let us now highlight the core of our research intentions and examine how they factor into what we intend to find out through this paper. 5
1.2 Problem Definition This project aims to examine the relationship between liminal spaces and creative action, by examining how people behave and interact with each other in a given liminal space under specific circumstances. To do so, this project examines what is meant by a liminal space, what is implied by creative action and finally, how people behave in a specific liminal space (The Dome of Visions) under given conditions. 1.2.1 Research question At its core, this project aims to discuss the following question: “What is the relationship between urban liminal spaces and creative action?� Sub questions 1. What is urban liminal space? 2. What is creactive action? 3. How do people perform in liminal space?
1.3 Concepts Thus far we have defined two concepts, which constitute the core of our research. In this chapter, we will elaborate on them in order to make the further discussion clear and concise. 1.3.1 Urban liminal space Urban space is the space of the city, the metropolitan area with its architecture and its population. It is the space where the community performs the everyday life and unfolds its collective memory, imagination and desires. Therefore urban space is not just the physical space of the constructions, but the primary 6
location for human interaction (Makeham 2005, 156), it is the space where, by the fact that we live in it, we express ourselves: our individual identity, our need for transgression and our differences. These processes and the urban space are in a constant dialogue creating urban scenes: spaces that facilitate the unfolding of collective and individual identities. As Makeham formulates it, there is a human need –“ a biosocial and economic need – for individuals physically to interact, to create and inhabit scenes” (Makeham 2005:156). These scenes are strictly related to the concept of performance, in fact they “create the space for cultural manifestations taking place in an actual time and space” (Makeham 2005:156). On one hand, the city can be regarded as a performance: the performance of individual and collective values, desires, memories and aspiration. On the other hand, the city can also be viewed with its buildings and infrastructures which have material and long lasting characteristics that a performance may lack. (Makeham 2005:157). In this sense, the city and its spaces and frames can facilitate or impede these performances. Of particular interest for us are those urban spaces that embrace the idea of liminality, creating a peculiar encounter between architecture and performance: urban liminal spaces. In studies of anthropology, liminality (stemming from the Latin term, Limen “threshold”) connotes “a quality of ambiguity or disorientation that occurs in the middle stage of a ritual, when participants no longer hold their pre-ritual status but have not yet begun the transition to the status they will hold when the ritual is complete” (Thomasen 2009:51). Arnold Van Gennep in Rites de Passage (1909) and later Victor Turner (1967) conceptualized the idea of liminality referring to the status of ”neither here nor there; (…) betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial” assumed by individuals in the context of rites of passage. (Turner 1969:95) This definition lends itself to our conceptualization of liminality, as an attribute that governs the description of certain spatial dimensions such as those found in the cities and settlements of the modern day, where rituals in this context can be understood to be the day-to-day processes and sequences that constitute the operation of society. Hence, this concept applied to urban spaces refers to those places that, through their placement, architecture, and/or function assume an ambiguous status. These places can experience destruction and creation at the same time, a suspension of the common structure of society and may also be characterized by temporality. The dissolution of order during liminality creates a fluid, malleable situation that enables new institutions and customs to become established (Szakolczai 2009:141). Such spaces exist today, in small towns as bazaars and marketplaces, many of which are not permanent fixtures on the urban fabric, but that nonetheless form an integral part of the social interaction spectrum of society. Other common examples are: borders and frontiers, hotels, and airports. In urban landscapes we can refer to spaces with multiple functions or placed in a context that alters their functionality by making use of spatial dynamics in a different manner as is the case with urban gardens.
7
What is the the link between such spaces and the actions that takes place inside them? More importantly, what do we mean when we refer to creactivity taking place in such spaces?
1.3.2 Creative Action: Cre-activity The concept of a performative utterance is crucial to understand the idea of creative action. A performative utterance is an utterance that means what it does and it produces the reality it is into. (REF) It is an utterance that requires expression with the right intensions and under the right circumstances. Therefore it is an expression related to its context in which we find a speaker and a listener (Jalving 2011:47). The utterance is composed of a locutionary act, the expression of the act itself; an illocutionary act, the doing what we expressed in the circumstances we are in; and a perlocutionary act, the effect the utterance wishes to have on the listener (Jalvig 2011:50) The other component of our portmanteau, Creativity, denotes a mental process. It can be argued that we, as human beings, through an abstract progression, use our imagination and our ideas in order to mentally create a product. Creativity becomes active in the moment we give physical shape to our thoughts, in the moment we take action. In this instant creativity becomes performative; Creativity becomes cre-activity. It is the signifier being present in the expression itself: creativity and action = cre-activity. Thus the locutionary act is expressing the action of one's creativity; the illocutionary act is the cre-acting in the context and the prelocutionary act is the product of our cre-action. These two concepts can be inserted into the wider perspective of the creative city debate. “Creativity for the world or for your city, (or even more aptly, cre-activity) generates civic values and civility” (Landry 2007:335). In fact, the concept of creactivity has great economic potential since that which is classified as creative tends to attract ambitious and talented people, as Charles Landry contends. “They will later be responsible for generating innovations, inventions and copyrights;” “these are the new way of being competitive in the global economy, going beyond low costs and high productivity.” (Landry 2007:388). Creactivity is what supports interactions in the city flow, nurturing the cultural system. Such creactivity wants to shape its own urban spaces. It requires ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability. It is also ready to adapt (Laundry 2007:339). It is a concept that lends itself freely to liminal spaces for “it is in these in between places that we feel empowered to shape, create and make the place we are in: we become active participants rather than passive consumers, and we are agents of change rather than victims” (Landry 2007:349). 8
With these clarifications in mind, let us now look at the research process we have used in the writing of the project.
1.4 Methodology Performance Design is a broad, nascent and dynamic discipline that combines various study fields. This project reflects this underpinning characteristic of the Performance Design discipline in that this work is a fusion of different research areas. This paper is therefore replete with elements of social anthropology, architecture and spatial dynamics, human behaviour and other varied fields of study. By contrast to many projects, this paper does not involve a significant phase involving the collection and analysis of primary empirical data. Rather, the methodological approach used is one whereby knowledge of the theoretical factors being discussed is gained through the creation of an event itself. This implied that we approached the subject of creating an event that encouraged dialogue about temporary space without conducting an in-depth field analysis of what sort of target group we ought to have tailored the event to. Instead, we targeted young adults, hinging our assumption that this target group is one of the subgroups of society that is most interested in performing the self in liminal spaces. It can be argued that, on account of the abstract nature of the dynamics of liminal spaces, it is difficult to establish strictly defined behavioral codes that determine the manner in which specific target groups in society behave in such spaces as a whole. Behavioural patterns may therefore be location specific; i.e. Generic to a particular site. An initial visit to the Dome of Visions for a musical event provided a solid preliminary indication as to how people moved around the space and interacted with each other from which point, it was obvious that the dome could easily represent a democratic space within which it would be easy to analyze human behavior. Were one to consider a theory that guided the aforementioned research process, one could refer to Dr. C. Otto Sharmer's theory field theory within his research on the much-publicized theory U. (Sharmer 2009). This theory is generally applied to managerial projects and processes but that nonetheless lends a hand to the research process used in this project. Our Performance Design course this semester has been a mix of practical event planning and more abstract historical and social considerations related to human behaviour in a performative context. Sharmer's theory, albeit not part of our coursework, elicits characteristics generic to the more structured element of Performance Design; planning and organisation. It does not factor into the core theory of this paper, rather, it is merely a reflective tool that allows us to
9
chart the research process we applied in the course of developing our concept, a process which entails the following key phases (or “fields”) according to Sharmer: Downloading, Fact processing, Empathy Creation, and Generation. This creative process for our project was as follows: Field 1: Downloading (collection of information and data relevant to the problem field. As mentioned earlier (in the prelude of this paper), our problem field shifted from focusing on urban gardening to examining space use as a whole. Downloading in this context involved discussions with various people involved in urban gardening, such as DYRK Nørrebro members and Prags Have's administrators Some of our discussions were taped, and our observations charted for more detailed data gathering. Field 2: Fact Processing (Determination of the playing field, stakes and game rules. This involved processing the downloaded information and gaining an understanding of the nature of the field we'd be operating in, in as open-minded a way as possible). Hence, in our initial discussions with DYRK, we were careful not to sound too imposing in our visions, but rather, to understand the exact nature of the problems and challenges facing the garden and indeed urban gardens in the city in general. Field 3: Empathy Creation (Critical reflection on facts and situation, creation of dialogue between different parties and adjustment of visions to suit those of other project stakeholders). At this point in the project, it became clear that we had different expectations to DYRK Nørrebro and that their visions would only be compatible with ours in the long term, which implied an alteration of orientation and a change of focus on our part. We considered other preliminary options and opened up to alternative courses of action, such as the Dome of Visions. Field 4: Generation: Adjustment of visions (This is the point in the project at which we realized that we would have to change course or risk a crisis situation as far as not being able to stage an event). Alternative courses of action were narrowed down and Scharmer's field process was re-initiated from field 1 (downloading) whereby information about the Dome of Visions was gathered. This time round, we repeated this process in a quicker manner, which was also aided by the fact that we were working in a more directed manner, communicated more clearly and our aspirations synergized better with those of the Dome of Visions. Adapted from (Sharmer, 2009, 2) Scharmer maintains that one becomes more involved and developed in the processes above, (Scharmer 2009: 2) which is true of our project, whereby our own visions and aspirations gained clarity over time, allowing for more focus and adding ballast to the development and growth of our concept. Moreover, he also asserts that good project leadership entails an involvement and immersion in the project and an 10
avoidance of delegation. (Sharmer 2009:2). Again, as the project developed and we became more involved in it, we could take more of a leading role in steering it in the right direction. We were more attuned to our own visions at this stage, rather than being overly flexible and dependent on the interests of other stakeholders as we were at the start. Getting the balance right between project ownership and creating frames for co-creation and active involvement was always tricky, especially since our roles in the project were, for the most part, mediative. For reflective and research purposes, information about the experiences people had at the Dome and their perception of the Creactive Space event was also gathered, in the form of a short questionnaire handed out to all participants at the end of the event on the 2 nd of May. This questionnaire enabled us to gain perspective as far as analysing the event was concerned, by providing concrete feedback with which one could gauge the outcome of the Creactive Space event versus the intended effect. As a final remark, part of the methodological process involved documenting as much of the process as possible. Initially this took the form of recorded conversations between ourselves and potential project stakeholders, which we listened to again and analyzed with the aim of gaining an impression of what was said and where we were headed. The actual event at the Dome was also documented through the use of a video camera and film crew, both in keeping with the long-term goals of the project (as far as planting the seeds for an idea that would last beyond the duration of the project) and also as a method of data collection which allows us to study the behavioral patterns of people in the Dome.
1.5 Delimitations Extensive topics such as spatial dynamics offer a vast area of material to work on and with. This means that for the creation of our event we had to adopt a very conscious and diligent approach to these topics. The main goal was to create a common thread through the whole event, which could ease the assimilation of new knowledge such that it was clear, accessible and not too dispersive for the audience. Therefore, considering the wide variety of subjects related to these notions, it was necessary to exclude some of the possible themes despite their importance and appeal.Our project, for instance, will not cope with aspects such as age or gender differences in relation to one’s use of his/her surrounding space. The aim of our event, Creactive Space was to motivate and inspire people to use in a more sustainable and creative way the urban space around, regardless of their gender or age.
Furthermore, when thinking of space, one may directly connect this notion to a wide variety of concepts and studies related to architecture. Architecture may play an essential role in relation to social interaction and active collaboration, yet this project refers to architecture only briefly in relation to the impressive 11
location where we hosted our event. Hence our approach to architecture is merely related to the specific contexts we encountered during the project and not to the role of architecture and urban planning as a whole. In addition, despite the significant presence of interesting and varied studies on human social interaction and active collaboration, our project does not explore and research this subject on a chronological/historical level. It could have been interesting for instance to observe how the use of a space and active participation has developed and evolved through centuries. Yet we preferred to maintain our focus on the set of chances and circumstances we are surrounded with nowadays, since we would like our peers to be more engaged in the shaping of a more creative and sustainable Copenhagen. Since the event took place in Copenhagen, we believed that a better impression and everlasting effect on the audience could derive from focusing on the actual city where the event took place. Therefore we did not focus on projects or experiences in other countries or cities but related ourselves merely to the local scene of Copenhagen. This decision was taken with the main purpose of giving a concrete frame to our audience in order to inspire them to take concrete action. Lastly, we decided to take on a passive role during the event. We wanted to observe how people perform spontaneously in such a context as the Creactive Space event and therefore facilitated dialogue between participants instead of leading the show ourselves. We also wanted the atmosphere to be as democratic as possible. Participants should not have felt as if they were observed or directed by somebody else, but rather, it was hoped that they would feel free to move as they wanted.
2. The Event: Creactive Space 2.1. The Space: Dome of Visions The Dome of Visions project is an example of a cultural initiative that aims to immerse citizens in sensory, absorbing experiences that allow them to perform the self within urban space. The aestheticallypleasing installation consists of 10.5 meter high, 21-meter wide Plexiglas dome inspired by the minimalist construction philosophies of the American architect Buckminster Fuller, who pioneered the idea of geodesic (self-supporting) dome constructions in the 1960's. Geodesic domes, over and above being a revolutionary form of architecture in the 60's, became part of the counterculture mindset at the time as the construction philosophy behind them was adopted by numerous fringe groups within society whose say in national affairs increased somewhat as a result of their lifestyles. The hippies were an example of a fringe element in society who took a liking to the geodesic dome idea, owing to the 12
simplicity of setting one up and the sustainability of being able to live in such a construction. Fuller's original idea was that based on post-WWI geodesic dome designs by Walther Bauersfeld, the original purveyor of the geodesic dome idea. Fuller patented Bauersfeld's ideas as he consolidated them by specifically determining the mathematical formulae by which to construct the geodesic dome, which he thought would, if only partially, act as a solution to solving the housing crisis ravaging the U.S.A at the time (BuckMinster Fuller Institute, 2013). For this reason, Dome of Visions architect, Kristoffer Tejlgaard pointed out that the dome, albeit a futuristic-looking construction is actually fundamentally hinged on the ideals of the past, in his speech at our event. The Dome embodies urban liminal space characteristics in many ways. Primarily, It is situated in the harbour of Copenhagen, which is geographically, an in-between area: the shore area of the harbour and the space between sea and mainland. Furthermore, the surrounding space is a construction site; a zone under development. One of the dome's aims is to rethink urban development by making use of temporary sites, such as construction zones. “Practically, the dome will be a platform for debate. It is also, however, a city planning experiment in itself as it attempts to make use of the urban space “in-between” and the temporary locations that appear when we are busy tearing down the old to make way for the new, such as Krøyers Plads. The city currently lacks these sites which give time and space for the sharing of ideas” (www.domeofvisions.com). The Dome of Visions takes 2 weeks to assemble and can be constructed using minimal resources, in itself a physical manifestation of the dialogue it aims to generate around ideas such as sustainable living, sustainable architecture and creative space use. The resulting construction is something in between a greenhouse and a house: it incorporates an indoor garden and, at the same time, a small construction that could resemble a basic house. It has been the location for numerous avant-garde concerts, yoga lessons, debates and workshops. This ambiguous site is therefore fully immersed in the notion of liminality. Creating life and movement in such "stagnant" zones through attracting cultural actors and activities and providing frames within which local residents and other city citizens could engage each other in dialogue and co-creation is a central component of the Dome's philosophy, and the crucial point of synergy between our visions and theirs. As stated previously, where we once initially hoped to encourage people to rethink space use from the perspective of urban gardening with DYRK Nørrebro as a catalyst, the Dome of Visions allowed us to open our problem field by expanding the dialogue such that it covered the overall issue as a whole. An event about ways of using space at a location that was created to catalyze dialogue on the same issue was, it goes without saying, a synergy that needed to be exploited. As a democratic, free space the dome provided a tabula rasa of sorts upon which to stage an event such as ours.
13
Dome of visions by night
2.23 Event Organisation and Planning
A key part of the coursework this semester involved the creation of an event. The parameters for doing so were fairly broad. However, one maxim that was clearly underlined from the start was that of creating frames within which social interaction could take place rather than coming across with our points in a dictatorial or instructional fashion. (Harsløv, Performance Design Theory & Method Class 2013)
Organisation The Creactive Space event took place in the Dome of Visions on the 2 nd of May and had duration of four hours. The vision behind this event was that of spreading knowledge and ideas about creative ways of using the commodity of urban spaces. New ways of using existing spaces was the subject of the dialogue and DIY initiatives were key in this regard. Planning the event involved different considerations, such as: 2.2.1 Target Group Analysis There are two principal target groups of the Creative spaces event. Firstly, we targeted various professionals, groups and think tanks that are involved in using urban space in a creative manner or in generating creative ideas with regard to the use of urban space. Enthusiasts and passionate professionals mainly compose this group, which made it was easy to identify their core interests. Our principal focus was to motivate them to participate as hosts in our event. We had to communicate in a effective way in 14
order to highlight the benefits they could gain from working with us. Emphasis was on the fact that they would not only spread their knowledge and experiences, but that they could also meet new others with similar interests. In doing so, the aim was that they would expand their network and not only inspire, but be inspired by new inputs and visions. The second target group for this event was young adults aged between 20 and 35 years of age, primarily students or new graduates who are progressive, modern and slightly more pragmatic than they are idealistic, if one were to place them on the Minerva target segmentation model (see attachment ##). Thus we decided to emphasize the practical aspect of our event by pointing out the participative element of it. Furthermore, we did not want to present neither the evening nor ourselves as some sort of authoritative figure, telling or instructing people what to do per say. For this reason dialogue was an important element that was highlighted in our communication discourse.
2.2.2 Hosts We selected the following organisations as catalysts of the evening, on account of their experiences with working with liminal spaces. They appear below as they did on the evening, in chronological order on the programme. Dome of Visions Architects (Kristoffer Teilgard): The builders of the dome were tasked with explaining the construction philosophies and visions behind it and set the stage for the rest of the evening. OAN Open Air Neighbourhood (Louise and Ellen): Open Air Neighbourhood have experiences in creating and co-ordinating citizen-led architectural activities from scratch.
The two architects
documented some of their experiences in the field, with a keynote example from their work in small towns in Denmark, illustrating how a few resources could be used to instigate concrete change. 100 p책 1 Dag /100 in 1 Day (Max): 100 in 1 Day an action-philosophy based change pilots whose aim is to trigger and co-ordinate citizen-driven urban initiatives that find solutions to spatial problems in cities. With experiences in catalysing such actions in cities such as Bogota, 100 p책 1 Dag have now moved their concept to Copenhagen where they are in the process or spearheading and catalysing numerous usercentered urban initiatives. Cultura 21, (Oleg Koefoed): Cultural 21 are a philosophical think tank based in Copenhagen whose aim is that of bringing about concrete change in society through an action-based teaching. They are known for involving the audience actively, working with space and a more democratic approach to it. 15
Through the planning process we elaborated some criteria we wished to be fulfilled in order to give the event more consistency. These benchmarks have helped us to choose the different host as they each represent one key aspect of the characteristics of creactive space users. VISION. We wanted to give a concrete, practical and usable frame for our audience within the subject of using urban space in a more free, democratic and creative way. This element was mainly covered by the Dome of Visions architects whose hands-on experience, knowledge and vision would act as points of inspiration. PRACTICAL. Highlighting practical examples of how people work with urban space in practice was another focal point in this project. As a key example, OAN were selected as hosts of the night as they could give a broader perspective on projects of different sizes and scale, both self- arranged and organized with the help of the public. However, one criticism of the OAN presentation would be the fact that it failed to link their efforts and visions to the Creactive Space idea, which created a lack of clarity. LOCAL INVOLVEMENT: 100 pü 1 Dag was the local example of active citizenship, where intervention and change come from the bottom-up. Their participation in Creactive Space was intended to highlight the possibilities of concrete involvement in local projects here in the city. The organisation held an action-day with urban-creative- interventions all over Copenhagen the 25 th of May, exemplifying their work in the field of creating citizen involvement in cities. ACTIVE PARTICIPATION. As a final point for the day, Cultura 21 were selected in order to create and exemplify active participation in urban space. This was elicited by an activity that involved all participants in a task that consisted of drawing (using chalk) in different (unspecified) locations at the Dome. There were elements of reflection, contemplation, co-creation and interaction throughout this process. As the evening had, up until this point, primarily been a sender-receiver affair, Cultura 21 democratised the space at the Dome by involving everyone and using the full space available, in such a way that it encapsulated the aim of the evening: using space in a creative and innovative way. In addition, two more organisations had been invited to participate in the event but had to cancel at short notice. One further organisation had also been approached but lacked the manpower to make a showing (the social innovation organisation DANSIC) The organisations that we approached were as follows: DYRK Nørrebro: Urban rooftop garden in a low-income area of Copenhagen that transformed an ordinary rooftop into a self-sustaining garden, albeit a poorly run one. This garden was supposed to be the site at which we would organise the original event. However it was difficult to reach a consensus so 16
we relocated our ideas to the Dome of Visions and tried to incorporate DYRK in the process, which, to our chagrin turned out disappointingly at the last minute. Open Garden Copenhagen: Another urban garden initiative, led by Signe Voltelen, which focuses on selfsustainability and experimentation. One of Signe's proposed activities for the organisation's participation in Creactive Space was that of giving a tutorial on how to make a Kokedama; a Japanese-based plant concept that can hang upside down in houses, thus transforming their spatial dynamics. Participants at the event would have left with their own Kokedama's, as living evidence of what can be done to change space in a creative way using relatively few resources and in a short amount of time. A Kokedama construction activity involving everyone present at the Dome had been envisioned and a budget was allocated to doing so.
2.2.3 Press strategy and communication goals Different concepts have different goals. Communication goals can also be numerous and can include, amongst other objectives, attracting attention, spreading knowledge, establishing networks or triggering an opinion (Class notes, Design Praxis & ledelse 13/03/2013). Creactive Space’s aim is that of spreading and sharing knowledge, working on the performance design tenet that one cannot force people into taking action, but one can indeed provide the conditions under which people may feel inclined to take action, mentioned at the start of this section. For this very reason, even though Creactive Space was a one-off event, the knowledge generated on the day will hopefully live on past the duration of the event, such that it was merely a catalyst in what should be a long series of dialogue and knowledge sharing processes between actors and potential actors in the spectrum of urban space use. This implies that the role played in this process by us as communication planners was a mediative one. We acted as facilitators and instigators in a user-driven context whereby problem solving and the exchange of dialogue took place for the people involved by the people involved. Our communication strategy reflects this in that it was not pushy, but rather one that encouraged stakeholders to see the sense in sharing and exchanging as much knowledge on the subject matter as possible. We developed a logo, created a flyer and generated a slogan that reflected our philosophies.(include the flyer SEE ATTACHMENT!) We also wrote a pitch in both English and Danish that we later on adapted from time to time, accordingly to our different interlocutors. (SEE ATTACHMENT). A marketing slogan “Space is Yours� was also applied to our promotional strategy, as a manner of consolidating our aims. Gaining the attention of the first target group (professionals, groups and think thanks) involved clear, concise direct communication between them and us, primarily over the telephone. Using the KISS (keep it simple silly) communication maxim (Class notes, Design Praxis & ledelse 13/03/2013) we developed a 17
short, concrete pitch in English and Danish which we sent to different stakeholders, followed by phone calls to reinforce it and iron out misunderstandings. An important element in this process was that of selling the concept to specific groups and stakeholders. This involved tailoring the pitch to suit the interests of each individual stakeholder, such that no two pitches were identical. This is not too different to the AIDA communication principle of Attracting attention, holding Interest, arousing Desire and finally obtaining tangible Action, whereby an actionoriented outcome rather than purely a learning-based experience is the focus. (Class notes, Design Praxis & ledelse 13/03/2013). Working in such a manner not only made our aims very clear for anyone interested in the topic field, it also clarified our overall direction for ourselves as a project group. In the case of the Nørrebro rooftop garden, misunderstandings came up because, amongst other things, the actors involved in the garden project stated that it was unclear where we were headed and what our aims were. Following a consolidation of our aims and a clearer communication approach, it would seem that we reached our intended target group more effectively. This is evident in that within a week of switching the focus and upping our game we managed to secure the participation of our key hosts. For the second target group we decided to adopt viral campaign strategies such as marketing the event through social media and word of mouth. This involved getting in touch with contacts in different student-related environments in and around Copenhagen, including university housings, student faculties, student organizations, Facebook pages for students and so on and spreading the word about the event in order to create hype, curiosity and hopefully attract attention. The nature of our target group also meant that most of our communication with this micro-component of the target group took place through online social media, easing the weight of expenses on the limited budget of this concept and saving time. This notwithstanding, small flyers that pinpointed people to getting more info about the event on social media sites were printed and handed out at different locations. Last but not least, we sent different press releases to both national and local newspapers though without any luck. Our planning process also involved other typical organisational considerations, such as the creation of a budget and applying for funding. Since we could host the event for free at the dome, our cash concerns were significantly limited. As mentioned, we did apply for and allocate funds for Open Garden Copenhagen's proposed activity at the Creactive Space event. The funds were returned upon this organisation canceling their participation. 2.3 Creactive Space Our event was hosted in the Dome of Visions on the 2 nd of May. It started at 19:00 and ended at 23:00. A Master of Ceremony moderated the evening and took charge of leading the communication process, as a 18
student of communication himself. We chose English as the official language of the evening, taking into consideration that the vast majority of the participants were English-speaking. As mentioned previously, two of our hosts cancelled their participation on very short notice. This meant that we had more time for questions and comments between the different hosts, a readjustment that did not have any measurable negative consequences for us. We started with the introduction, explaining our motivations and how the evening would progress so that everybody had an overall picture of what was about to happen. Afterwards the word was given to Kristoffer Tejlgaard, one of the architects that designed the Dome of Visions. He briefly explained the history of the concept of the Dome and highlighted some significant examples of geodesic domes throughout history. He also illustrated the core concepts of the space. Questions from the audience were mainly concerning the technical aspects of the construction. The second speech was by Open Air Neighborhood. The two young architects illustrated their last project as a sort of best practice: BygAmok in the small town of Kirke Sønnerup. The task was to build a playground in 24 hours in a specific area of this town. The presentation was a little slow and lacked rhythm, but their example was a great case of creative intervention in a very limited time. Aspects of cooperation with local communities, sponsors and media coverage were discussed. At around 20:30 we had half-an-hour break where we served some cakes baked by one of the participants and it was possible for the people to explore the Dome, talk to each other and enjoy some refreshments. After the break Max from 100 på 1 Dag had his speech. It was a brief but very thorough and inspiring talk, that explained in a concise way what the 100 på 1 Dag project is about and its intention to intervene within the urban space of Copenhagen. The last participant was Cultura 21, who arranged an activity focusing on the concept of borders and delimitations of the space. The audience was involved in a game where we had to choose a spot inside the Dome and declare this spot as our world . We delimited “our world“ by drawing its borders on the floor. Afterwards we had to write on a piece of paper one thing that we wanted to be part of in our world and that we wanted to protect. Later on we had to leave our world and walk around exploring other worlds, looking at what was inside them. The last part of this phase consisted of choosing a new world to live in bringing what we wanted to preserve from our world, and possibly deal with other inhabitants and potential conflicts.
19
At the end of this activity we three organizers gathered together again and thanked everybody for the participation. We then handed out a brief evaluation survey. The event finished with an informal gathering and sharing of opinions.
2.4 Evaluation We had two main goals for our event. In the long term, it was important to us to share ideas, knowledge and inspiration about new and alternative uses of the urban space. In the short term the evening was meant to make the participants more aware of their immediate space; the space surrounding them, in such a way that they could engage each other and interact actively amongst themselves and with the surrounding environment. Learning by doing was the relevant maxim for this objective. Therefore we had two ways in which to evaluate the event : One was an evaluation survey. How many people filled out the survey? Here we could see that we hit our target group: 98% of our audience were students between 20 and 35 years old and had found out about the event through Facebook or word of mouth. Furthermore, the participants were invited to share their expectations and impressions about the evening and the different presentations. The response was very positive. Around 75% of the participants wrote they had been inspired either to participate in 100 p책 1 Dag event or being more active in the use of their surroundings. The location received many positive comments for its beauty and peculiarity. The final activity hosted by Cultura 21 was the best rated, pointing out that the audience appreciated being an active part of the debate. Another further comment, present in at least half of the responses, was the coherence of content observed throughout the whole evening and speeches. Another method we used to evaluate the evening was filming the event from beginning to end. This gave us the possibility to re-watch it and observe the different way of moving, participating behaviors and dynamics. We will analyze this part deeper in the next chapter. In the meantime, we can observe that the audience acted engaged and interested during the first part of the evening. The atmosphere was relaxed and informal, as we wished it to be, which made the participants feel free to ask questions and comment during the different presentations. In particular during the last activity, participants were engaging themselves in a committed fashion: everybody was following the different instructions and contributing with comments and inputs to the different tasks. Evidently we had created an environment that encouraged and fostered openness and sharing of ideas and experiences. This is definitely the highest achievement we could reach, as far as matching our expectations is concerned.
20
Dome of Visions: Minimalist construction with maximal space optimization possibilities ?
3. Analysis 3.1 Passive vs Active Participation In this section we will outline our observations of how people interacted with each other in the dome. As mentioned before, one of the core aspects of this project involved creating frames under which people could freely interact with the space and each other. We therefore can identify two parts of the event: a passive section and a more active one. In this dichotomy we will refer to the concepts of educational and escapist experience by Pine and Gilmore (1999). With the Dome as a case study of urban performativity, we took on the role of being urban planners for the evening and “in order to avoid a bland aesthetics of authoritarian uniformity” we were “alert to, and willing to accommodate civic dramas of difference and transgression.” (Makeham 2005:153). The result of this was a high level of engagement and involvement on the part of everyone involved in the evening. As discussed in section 2.3, people involved themselves more in the discourse of the evening towards the end of the program as this phase of the night involved activities, which required everyone's participation much as it also meant that the full space of the Dome was to be utilized. Though the initial phases of the program were more sender-receiver based, they also generated a fair amount of participation evinced by the fact that people asked questions and made comments during and after the presentations by the different speakers. This notwithstanding, it is definitely fair to say that a degree of passivity existed during the preliminary stages of the evening. This was accentuated by the fact that none of the three speakers who opened the dialogue on the evening organized an activity that involved everyone as part of their presentation, as we had asked them to when we communicated leading 21
up to the event. Nonetheless the main reason why we had invited them was to share knowledge and visions. We might therefore insert this part of the event into what Pine and Gilmore would call „an educational experience“. It occupies the mind through the absorption process and it involves as well an active participation by the audience (Pine, Gilmore 1999:32). This was we reached through questions and a small debate. Cultura 21 changed the dynamics of the space and by and large those of the evening with an activity that democratized the dome for three quarters of an hour. As an action-philosophy think tank, this was expected of them, though it seems that this organization was the one that understood what we required of them on the evening better than any of the other hosts. The world creation activity involved the full use of the space in the Dome, created reflection on the part of everyone present, encouraged participation and crucially, generated fundamental interaction and contact between people and their surroundings. Everybody, bar one exception took part, irrespective of their social and economic backgrounds, social prowess or status, generating a high amount of involvement; of active behaviour. This created a theatrical event in which “spectators are virtually implicated, one that forms part of a series of interconnected processes of socially situated signification and communication” (McAuley 2000:5). More importantly, this last event consolidated the overall theme of the evening: that of co-creation and co-learning through engagement, interaction and activity. This part of the event can be identified as an escapist experience: it still involves an active participation, but the audience is this time completely immersed in the experience (Pine, Gilmore 1999:33). This means that the audience is able to influence the performance and its result through physical participation. We can hence say that both parts of the evening required a form of active participation by the audience. This happened at two different levels of connection with the dome: absorption and immersion. Learning by doing, i.e. learning by performing took place whereby all present were left with concrete experiences in the form of memories from the evening that will hopefully linger in their minds for some time to come, in keeping with the objective of this event not merely being a one-off occasion, but rather a catalyst for change and action. The manner in which people engaged themselves with the dome environment, either passively or actively is evident from the way in which they moved around the dome. The next section elaborates on how people moved during the Creactive Space event and on what such movement indicated, considering our overall objectives. 3.2 Use of Space: Movement
22
As mentioned in the foregone chapters, one of our main interests was to motivate people to take an active part in shaping their environment. This process was tested during the event at the dome, which attempted to verify if such an urban liminal place could influence active participation. A way to start to take action in revolutionizing the surroundings, is by discovering the space around us. As a matter of fact such action requires an essential factor: movement. The Oxford Dictionaries define the verb to move by stating : “ to move means to go in a specified direction or manner; change position” (“Movement”, Oxford English Dictionary, 2013). Taking into account this definition and the development of our event, we could directly state that movement was everywhere: from people entering the Dome, ordering a drink at the bar, to participants looking for a place where to sit or chat. Yet, during the initial stages of the event, dominated by debates and static performances, people were barely moving; they were not involved physically, except for the decision of either sitting on pillows on the floor or on benches and chairs. In fact, as mentioned in the previous section about active/passive behaviour, the first phase of the programme was not actively engaging the audience, since the proposed debates did not require any sort of physical interaction from the participants. For this reason, our focus in this section is dedicated more specifically to the movements which took place in the last session of the event, more precisely during the workshop proposed by Cultura 21 Nordic.
As previously introduced in chapter 2.3, Cultura 21 were invited to take part in our event because of their ability to express the advantages and benefits of active collaboration. The workshop proposed by Cultura 21 significantly portrayed in a nutshell the concept of our event: using the whole space around us in a more creative and sustainable way. This workshop attempted to prove that concrete change in our society is possible if active participation is involved. Our empirical work has hence entailed an observation of how the participants of the event were moving in the Dome of Visions, in order to attempt to find an answer to our research question. When focusing on the architectural aspects of the Dome, it is worth noticing its distinctive shape of a sphere. The whole structure is based on a circular platform, which has neither beginning nor end, meaning there are no guidelines stating where a person should start to walk and where the final stage is. The environment presents a wide variety of directions, thus the visitor is directly given freedom of movement. The disk-shaped wooden floor radiates a sense of accommodation and inclusion, which might motivate people to walk on it. (REF )
23
As visible in Video A, the vast majority of the participants are moving in different directions, no one is standing still. The broad and peculiar configuration of the Dome allows and inspires for endless opportunities of directions. On the other hand, it is also likely that initially the participants might have felt obliged to follow the instructions of the workshop organizer as a form of respect and therefore did not stand still. Nonetheless, eventually most of the participants really engaged in the activity and thus exploited the freedom of space offered by the Dome of Visions (See Video B). Despite the apparent freedom given by the place, certain elements displayed in this varied environment might have affected people's orientation. As Lefebvre observes, architecture has an impressive impact on a moving body occupying space, thus often leading it to a specific direction. ( Lefebvre 1974:170 ) This could be exemplified by the narrow path which was located near the garden of the Dome, following the circumference of the building. Once a person was to start this path, by following the bend of the circular shape of the Dome, there was somehow a feeling of no return, as if the architecture was leading us to a next stage. Thus, people might have be guided by their curiosity of discovering the unpredictability of the Dome. On another note, significant movements did not affect certain spots in the environment. As visible in Video D, nobody decided to move towards the original stage of the Dome. The initial place, where all the participants were seated at the beginning of the event, was eventually abandoned. This is most likely due to the fact that this forgotten area was not well illuminated in the end of the arrangement. Light helps orientation, therefore a dark place does not inspire comfort but rather the opposite, thus distancing the participant from creating or taking action in that spot. Another possible explanation is the fact that they felt that was the area of the passivity, of the static part of the event. Therefore they unconsciously avoided it since its essence did not match with the new atmosphere.
In addition to this, a further avoided area was the middle one. As seen in Video C, for instance, almost nobody was dedicating their inventiveness and energy on the central area of the Dome, where the workshop was explained and initiated by Oleg Koefoed. It was as if the emptiness or lack of attraction did not stimulate the participants’ creativity and actually distanced participants from it. In fact, as 24
noticeable in Video E, people tended to gather more on the sides of the building, exploring more remote areas.
Dome of Visions: Stage space: Used at the beginning of the Creactive Space Event, avoided later on
According to Landry, it is in unpredictable, unusual and ambiguous places that we unleash our creativity (Laundry 2007:339) and become active participants in the shaping of our surroundings. That might explain why many participants seemed to have an urge and desire to direct themselves more towards unexpected locations such as the staircase, under tables or on the upper floor of the Dome. The influence people had on each other is another interesting aspect, which might have affected the way people behaved and moved in the Dome. As stated before, the Dome inspired and allowed for a great variety of movements and choices (going upstairs, around the garden, under the stairs, behind the bar and so on.. ) By looking at the videos it is also possible to sense the enthusiasm and euphoria people had when running around, looking for an unpredictable location to create something. This sort of behaviour and excitement may also be caused by the influence people have on each other via their sense of creativity and competition. In this way, once an individual invaded the upper part of the Dome, his/her attitude inspired someone else’s creativity therefore causing another participant to find a more unpredictable spot, such as the garden for instance. Likewise, it is possible to notice how new considerations intervene: what provoked movement at different stages of the evening? Was the unpredictable space of the Dome the only cause? Or also people’s spirit of creativity and the respect of Oleg Koefoed’s workshop instructions? In order to achieve more precise conclusions, a longer period of examination and other similar events would be required.
3.3 Dome of Visions: Space as a Theatrical Signifier
25
Space and performance are two concepts strictly related to each other. We see this very clearly in the theatre context. . If we theorize as Peter Brook does, that this space might as well be any empty space (Brook , 1968:7), we will, by imagining its absence, understand how big the role of space for a performance is. Space has its own performativity and is crucial for the experience of the performance and the construction of meaning by the spectators (McAuley 2000: 8). Space is therefore a part of the performance and at the same time it performs: space as performance. Even if the Creactive Space event in the Dome of Visions cannot be considered as a classical theatrical performance it still has the characteristics of theatricality: it indeed creates the dichotomy between performer(s) and listener(s) and it takes place in a specific time lapse in a place that differentiates from everyday life (Eigtved 2007). It is therefore relevant for us to refer to it as a theatrical space. The Dome of Visions is an astonishing example of how space can be performative and also on how space influences the behaviour of people with its physical and conceptual characteristics. Gay McAuley identifies five major areas of spatial functions in theatrical performances. 1) the social reality, 2) the physical/fictional relationship, 3) location and fiction, 4) textual space, 5) thematic space (McAuley 2000:25).
1)
The Social Reality: In the social reality we can identify the theatre space with the Dome itself,
which has its function as both a greenhouse construction as well as a venue for concerts, debates and other cultural events. What is peculiar about the Dome of Visions is that we cannot distinguish precisely between the audience space and the practitioner space. In some occasions the area under the wooden constructions that forms a balcony has been used as a stage for musicians or speakers. We used it as well in the first part of our event, arranging it with some pillows and removing any object that might indicate a distinct separation between audience and performers. Nonetheless we overlooked the space for the last activity, which involved the whole area of the Dome. We might identify a distinctive practitioner space in the area under the stairs. Here is where the machinery is hidden, where there is a sort of backstage where some furniture and technical equipment is stored. It is in this space that the audience and the performers meet and work together to create the performance experience (McAuley 2000:20).
2)
Physical / Fictional Relationship: In the relationship between the physical space and the
fictional space we can recall the notion of stage space with its own physical characteristics provided by basic architectural features of the Dome. The presentational space is instead how the stage space is used in the performance: not only the scenery, but also the physical presence of the actors, their comings and goings, their bodily behaviour within the space (McAuley 2000:29:2000): (in this case, the talking, the discussing, the moving, the drawing, the exploring the music etc..). Thirdly we have the fictional place: the places presented, represented or evoked: a cafĂŠ, a living room, a greenhouse, a terrace, a house. The notion of fictional place could be investigated further if we took in consideration the different worlds that 26
were evoked during the last activity. However what is relevant here is to underline the fact that in the moment they were assigned some borders, these worlds began to exist. The liminal spatiality of the Dome as a place in between created a space for the alternative, a space for another order. It is this characteristic that influenced and fostered the creative process that we witnessed during this last part of the event.
3)
Location / Fiction: Since our event was conceptualised mainly as a debate-event, we cannot
refer as a matter of fact to the relationship between the location and the fictional places evoked during the event. McAuley's taxonomy is in this sense too interconnected to the classical notion of theatre performance.
4)
Textual Space: Although there is not really a textual space since there is no play script, we can
still identify it through the dialogues that happened during the evening. Moreover, the schedule we had planned can also be considered as part of the textual space: “The textual space is made really meaningful only in performance” (McAuley 2000:32).
5)
Thematic Space: Mcauley defines thematic space as “the way space is conceived and organized,
the kinds of space that are shown and/or evoked, the values and events associated with them, and the relationship between them” (McAuley 2000:32). By bringing together all these categories of signs and functions we understand the meaning of the performance. The Dome of Visions is not just a space where people meet. It is an urban theatre where the performativity of the place and of the architecture has made possible this process of creactivity to happen.
3.4 Creactivity One of the concepts our research question revolves around is creative action or, as we have called it, Creactivity. Having illustrated in the first chapter what we intend with this term, we will discuss here how we can identify this phenomenon in the frame of our event. The activity arranged by Cultura 21 is going to be our reference. Our behaviour is influenced by the spatial context in which it is inserted; Doritha Hannah (2007) illustrates the relationship between the theatre architecture and our practices in it. Therefore we will use these considerations as a guideline throughout our analysis of the Dome of Visions case.
27
Architecture can, with its materiality, be opposed to the idea of the ephemeral performance. Nonetheless architecture performs as well, as we have illustrated in the previous paragraph. Furthermore architecture can make us perform: “it is not only about how it behaves but also how it forces us to behave” (Hannah, 2007:43). In this sense the Dome of Visions’ architecture with its liminal qualities (see section 2.1) is establishing a connection with the performance signifiers: in this way this space becomes a meeting point for a more transitory understanding of materiality and temporality. Thus the Dome of Visions is going against the contemporary idea of over-regulated spaces that limit the interactions and activities of the audience to outbalance the openness of entertainment situations (Hannah 2007:45). The Dome is indeed a space where citizens are invited to be actively creating culture and not just consume it. The activity arranged by Cultura 21 can be considered a game since it has as all the characteristic of the magic circle (J. Huizinga in E. Kristiansen 2007:5) and of the definition of play explained by Caillois (1961:8-9): it was separate from the ordinary life (it took place exclusively during the event), and it introduced an alternative reality that existed only in the time-lapse while the game was played (the worlds), and it is controlled by very specific rules (explained by Oleg Koefoed). It was voluntary and furthermore it was unpredictable (the result was variable) and unproductive (there was no economic impact). Moreover it is make belief: the players were aware of its separation from reality. The gameframe made it possible to establish and maintain a creative environment. The Cultura 21 game challenged the audience to experience the space in a more in-depth manner. By introducing the concept of borders, the perception of space was tested and it led to the creation of new spaces: the worlds. These worlds are the performative utterance of the participants’ creativity. They epitomise the creactivity we have been talking about for so long. In the moment they were mentally created they were also expressed in their materiality through their being drawn. They gained their performativity in being contextualized as well as repeated in the fact that the other participants recognized them and assigned them significance. These worlds can also be linked to the relationship between the physical and the fictional space discussed in the section 3.3. (HOW ?) In the Dome of Visions we witnessed how the manifestation of architecture as a spatiotemporal event with alternating and overlapping realities, enables the users to be the centre once again and gives them the power to cre-act. 4. Conclusion This project has been a study of the phenomenon of urban liminal space and on the factors that need to be present for active creative action to take place in such space. The test field for analysing this was the creation of an event at the Dome of Visions building during its placement at the waterfront in Christianshavn. 28
Our initial attempts to investigate these concepts through conducting an event at a rooftop garden in Nørrebro buckled due to a lack of seriousness on the part of our proposed partners, DYRK Nørrebro and a lack of clear communication and goals on our side. More synergies between the Dome of Visions and us led to a shifted, albeit more oriented focus. Creating the event at the Dome was done so on the basis of we, as event organizers democratizing the spatial norms as far as possible. Moreover, we acted as facilitators and instigators more than we did as program controllers. In other words, we aimed to sculpt an environment that was as inclusive of everybody present as possible: a space where everyone could participate. Therefore our task was to work with the dome’s norms in the best way possible in order to create the interaction and creative activity between people. Over and above, the dome functioned as an urban liminal context, proving that it is possible for people, when provided with the right stimuli, to actively interact and engage with each other and their natural environment. Whilst we can indeed conclude with some certainty that people did engage themselves actively during our event, it is difficult to ascertain whether they did so on the basis of one particularly well-organized activity of the evening (the game by Cultura 21) or whether it was simply the Dome's spatial dynamics that were the factor that facilitated such activity. We could observe though that creative action and the use of such an urban liminal space as the Dome had mutually exhaustive relationships. The unpredictable disposition of the Dome space inspired creativity, but in the same way the spirit of creativity inspired a more thorough exploitation of the space norms at the dome. With this said, a more detailed, focused study of exactly how people moved and behaved in the Dome would have opened the field for more concrete results. It is therefore presumptuous to say that we now know exactly how and why people move and act in liminal space on the basis of our case study event. What we do know is that altering the norms of space towards the concept of liminality may help people feel as a part of the space. This can encourage action in a spontaneous and creative manner. Furthermore, positive feedback from the participants at our event shows that there was consistency between our objectives and what we achieved. We can conclude that under the right circumstances and in the right environment, it is possible to inspire people to create and interact with each other and the surroundings. We can also conclude that it is possible to coin and implement a phrase such as creactivity through the creation of a learning-by-doing event such as ours.
CREACTIVE SPACE: SPACE IS YOURS !
29
5. Further Research It is interesting to consider how the application of our discoveries can be framed in the context of the city and its liminal spaces. What needs to be present for people to use abandoned warehouses, derelict construction sites, disused concrete fields and other liminal city spaces in a creative manner such that they are not merely sites of ruin, abandon and decay per say, but rather urban theaters where the self can be performed and questioned; where the norms of space can be democratized and worked with in a creative fashion ? When writing an academic project such as this, there are several perspectives and topics that have to be excluded during the working process, in order to make the focus of our study as clear and relevant as possible. This does not imply that the great amount of other possible angles and subjects is not worthwhile to observe and analyse. Therefore, in the following section we would like to propose some different approaches and topics, which could be useful and pertinent for further research in relation to our project. Extensive themes such as space and active participation offer a vast area of intervention and material to work on and with. For instance, since from our project it is possible to extract a certain feeling of interplay between space and participation, a further angle to the project could be a closer investigation of how architecture influences social interaction. It is interesting to consider how the application of this discovery can be framed in the context of the city and its liminal spaces. On the same note, an alternative approach to this theme could be the examination of different cultures’ architectures and their relation to how their structures are created and designed to involve the participation of people. Inspired by a wide variety of nowadays' studies on movement, another interesting way to scrutinize the themes of this project could be a deeper analysis of the ways and reasons behind people’s choices of direction, as far as orientation is concerned. This new perspective could lead us to explore the field of psychology as well. By examining people’s motion choices and by conducting interviews, some of the individuals’ answers and behaviour could guide us to new discoveries and to a likely deeper understanding of the themes examined. In addition to the aforementioned, possible further research could be conducted in order to discover whether a creative change in our society’s environment is more beneficial and successful if overseen by a collective group of people working together (as during the Cultura 21’s workshop) or by a single individual working independently. Incorporating history, it would be also interesting to look into how 30
modern design and architectures have changed through time and along with them also their way of attracting people and inspiring creativity or/and active participation. Lastly, in terms of investigating further into the main field of our project, it could be very interesting to look at some studies on proxemics. Since the main theme of our project is an investigation on how people could be more actively creative with their surrounding environment, an additional study of proxemics could enrich this research by exploring people’s behaviour when sharing a common space for actively collaborating with each other.
31
6. Bibliography Literature ■
“Movement”, Oxford English Dictionary, 2013
■
Eigtved, Mikael: “Forestillinganalyse, en Introduktion,” 2007
■
Jalving, Camilla: “Begrebsafklaring”, i Værk som handling. Performativitet, kunst og metode, København, 2011
■
Landry, Charles: "Ouverture" + "The Sensory Landscape of Cities" in The Art of City Making. London/Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2006, reprinted 2007
■
Lefebvre, Henri: The production of space, 1974
■
Makeham, Paul: “Performing the City”. in Theatre Research International. Vol. 30, No. 2, 2005
■
McAuley, Gay: ”Introduction: Space as Theatrical Signifier.” in Space in Performance. Making Meaning in the Theatre, 2000
■
Pine and Gilmore: The experience Economy. Work is theatre and every Business is a Stage, 1999
■
Scharmer, Otto C., Addressing the Blind Spot of Our Time, An Executive Summary of the Book by Otto Scharmer Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges, 2009
■
Schechner, Richard: “Toward a Poetics of Performance. I:” “ Performance Theory”, 2003
■
Szakolczai, Arpad:
“Liminality and Experience: Structuring transitory situations and
transformative events”, International Political Anthropology, 2009 ■
Turner, Victor: “Liminality and Communitas”, in The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure, 1959
■
Turner, Victor: ”Introduction”, in From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play, New York, 1982
Class Notes Performance Design Spring 2013: Designpraxis og Ledelse ; Frida Maria Jensen Performance Design Spring 2013: Theory / Method, Olav Harsløf Websites
32
■
Dome of Visions: www.domeofvisions.dk
■
Buckmeister Fuller Institute: www.bfi.org
(Links to event hosts) Cultura 21 : http://cultura21.dk/ Open Air Neighborhood : http://openairneighborhood.dk/ 100 på en dag: http://100pa1dag.dk/ (Open Garden Copenhagen:) www.opengardencph.dk (DYRK Nørrebro): https://www.facebook.com/detvarenfejblablabla?fref=ts
Videos: See attached CD with this project : Classified as follows: VIDEO A, B, C, D, E
33