Understand the middle two paragraphs on p. 93 starting with “The ordinary practitioners…” How is a city or any other landscape a text? Get an understanding of what might be meant by the term, operations, and how it relates to the aspect of the city that is not represented as “geometric” or “geographical.”These paragraphs were part of what gave me inspiration for my project.
I believe the events that individuals go through within the landscape of the city are what gives the city it's own story.
The locals of a city are it's ordinary practitioners. People in a particular city go about their daily lives in a unique fashion that separates them from any other local in any other city. The way in which they move about a city, or interact with others may create a metaphorical text. A city would not exist in the same sense if it was not for the people within it. Every moment of our lives we are unknowingly creating a history, and as we interact with our environment we create a history for the environment as well. This is described in the quote "these practitioners make use of spaces that cannot be seen; their knowledge of them is as blind as that of lovers in each others arms". As we move through our lives we are rarely aware of the impact of our existence. We rely on the city to help form our identity, but the city relies on us to the same degree.
There is the city and the concept of the city. Please define each and describe their relationship to each other.As mentioned above, the actual city completely free of human interaction. It is a city created solely by its buildings, shops, road systems. It is the geometric and geographical aspect of the city. When one looks at a view of a city from a map, google earth or google street view they most likely will encounter this form of a city. When you see a city in this way you cannot get a sense of its personality, its ambitions or its history. It is purely literal forms, with no emotion attached.
The concept of the city is the how a person may perceive the city, or the ideal of what a city should become. Each person would perceive a city differently, however, the inhabitants of that city create a specific emotional feel that may come through for the majority of people. I believe that the actual city could exist without the concept of the city, but for the concept to exist the city itself needs to function as a boundary and a source of interaction.
Why does deCerteau claim that the concept city is dying? I believe this deals with the timeframe of a cities existence. When a city first begins to develop the ideals behind that city are strong and direct. Every member of the city may be attempting to reach the same goals, they want to build their city further and improve the lives of those who live there. They may have pride for their city and are thinking in its best interest. As time passes the original inhabitants of the city may move elsewhere and are replaced by others who do not feel as invested in their location. In addition, I feel that over time money becomes the main goal of those who attempt to 'improve' a city. Rather than improving the lives of all it's citizens and all portions of the city, it begins to focus on only improving certain areas and aspects while letting other less profitable locations decay.
How can focusing on the negative privilege a discourse?A bit confused by this question, but i'll give it a go.
This seems to relate to the idea that those in power within a city may begin to see the changes that are occurring, and see that their initial vision of the ideal city is not turning out as planned, and instead of taking that revelation and improving their theories they instead create negative statements as to the state the city is in.
"They transmute the misfortune of their theories into theories of misfortune."
They want to control the population so they do so by discussing problems, and instilling fear that things may get worse, rather then taking the more positive route and speaking of positive changes that could occur.
How does deCerteau relate the decisions we make when walking to speech acts? You may first have to understand what constitutes a speech act. See bottom of p97."The act of walking is to the urban system what the speech act is to language or to the statements uttered. It seems like speech acts are the decisions we make while speaking. I suppose we subconsciously speak a particular way, depending on what we need to get across in our speech, and whom we are speaking to. As we walk to a location we may always take a particular route, we may not consciously realize why we are doing this, but somehow it must be the most beneficial path. Perhaps it is always about finding the most reliable way to get from point A to point B. When we speak we try convey our point in the most sufficient way possible, the same applies to walking as well.
How does deCerteau define myth in the context of this chapter?In the section Myths: what "makes things go" he mentions that as we move we "lack a place". Thus the only aspect of a city that actually physically exists is the architecture and infrastructure of the city. The concept of the city only exists through discourse and perception of those within it. A myth could be the fictitious feeling the city possesses, bringing the inanimate object (the landscape) to life.
Understand the notion of “local authority”. Examples of local authority?Local Authority can constitute any aspect of the city that constrains those within it. Our discourse is constrained by those who keep free speech to a minimum. Those who question us, and attempt to cause us to lose confidence in our actions. Authority is any force in our lives that controls us in any way. This doesn't have to only be those in power, like police, but our family our friends, anyone whose opinion matters. The physical location we inhabit is also a local authority. We are bound by the location of buildings, once a building appears we will no longer ever be able to walk where it is standing. It restricts our movement without knowing.
What purpose/s could be served by eradicating stories and legends that inhabit places? What are the consequences of this? How is this related to walking?By eradicating stories and legends we would be deciding to create a new start for a city. The stories of the past bring a rich culture and history to a space, but also cary with them a need to live in the past. By doing so we lose the need to bring about change and progress. However, it is important to learn from the past, and certain stories give the inhabitant information that could prove useful. For instance, if a neighborhood was known for muggings, and the stories of these occurrences were widespread, it would keep people from unknowingly walking alone in these places. Many stories are created as a means of propaganda, or fear, but others do keep the population safe and knowledgeable.
Think of place that you where you have spent a lot of time. “Walk” that place. Pretend that you are describing the landscape to a person you know quite well. As you “walk” and talk differentiate between the parts of the conversation that describe what is currently there now and the parts of the conversation that detail what is not longer present. This seems oddly similar to what I am doing for my project, contrasting the memories of the past to the images of the present, which will later become images of the past. Ya. I think the most relevant location will be the area of Gainesville I grew up in (the area near the intersection of 43rd and 16th) I would describe by memories of this place, how businesses I spent much of my time in have disappeared. Many banks have popped up, many in the place of restaurants and gathering spots. A rundown dying shopping plaza is now bustling with traffic....but you will hear much more of this in much more detail soon enough, when I am actually speaking from within the space. :)
