This is an alleged new Banksy piece in London. I liked it immediately because of it's play off of a street sign that oen could pass without noticing it. My interpretation of this is that Banksy is making a statement about the fast paced, rat race lifestyle of the city, where no stopping is allowed. The text below implies that people may only truly stop on Sundays, the semi-universal day of rest. During 8-6 on the other days, however, 5 of which of the most common work days, people must keep working relentlessly. The circle the rat is in is representative on running but getting nowhere. This reflects the fast, stressful pace of the city, where though people are always rushing, it's work asking oneself if they are truly getting anywhere by doing so. Ironically, the people who need this message most probably won't stop long enough to see it when they race by on the street.
The link above is in response to the article we read in class about The New Inquiry literary journal.
Gawker, a gossipy kind of website, claims that the New York Times is celebrating "pretentious, literary 25-year-olds who want to spend time with similarly pretentious, literary 25-year-olds."
It also claims that the Style section of NYT is meant either for "people who see nothing problematic with being told by The New York Times what's cool, and think of the Style section is a straight-ahead, unironic record of hip trends and cool people" or "This audience [that] reads the Style section, week after week, and thinks "what the fuck is wrong with rich people?"
Gawker claims that NYT Style uses tactics such as:
Breathless descriptions: "[S]helves of yellowing volumes of Dostoyevsky and Camus reaching to the ceiling and air thick with the musty smell of stale tobacco and old paperbacks"
Frequent references to clothes and and other cultural signifiers: "[D]ressed in untucked oxford shirts and off-brand jeans, mingled around a rickety table packed with half-empty Jim Beam bottles"
Required mention of Ivy League degrees: "REBECCA CHAPMAN, who has a master of arts in English and comparative literature from Columbia University"; "Willie Osterweil, 25, an aspiring novelist who graduated magna cum laude from Cornell in 2009"
Concern about attractiveness of subjects: "Despite the fact that everyone was young and attractive, no one seemed to flirt"
I didn't even notice this came from the Style section, nor do I really care. I just found this on a friend's blog, and remembered we had read it in class. Gawker seems to have some resentment toward the people featured and the group featuring the article. I doubt the group meant to come off that way, it wasn't their fault they were portrayed in a way that made them seem pretentious.
I stumbled across this New York Times piece. I'm not exactly sure what it is, or if it's reoccurring, but it seems to be a section that people can write in and submit short, fun interactions with strangers in the city. Click here to see all the stories The last one is the one I like the best (read below). A lot of our discussion this semester has revolved around a lack of connection and alienation in the city. Though these people have lived in the same building for seven years, they never knew each other. We've discussed this in class, and many of us don't know our neighbors. This short snippet provides some hope of finding connection and becoming less of a stranger in the urban jungle. At least for this moment, a city is a place of potential connection.
Setting: A yoga room at a gym on Columbus Avenue, with 25 students. Daniella: “I know you!” Me: “Really? I live on the Upper West Side.” Daniella: “Oh, sorry. I live in Chelsea. You look like someone else.” Harriet (standing nearby, overhearing conversation): “Where on the Upper West Side?” Me: “Seventieth Street.” Harriet: “I live on the Upper West Side on 70th Street.” Me: “Which building?” Harriet: “205.” Me: “Me, too!” Harriet: “What floor?” Me: “Seventh.” Harriet: “Me, too!” Me: “How long have you lived in that building?” Harriet: “Seven years.” Me: “Eight years.” Harriet: “I never saw you before in my life.” Me: “I never saw you before in my life.” Harriet and me: “Let’s do lunch!”
Though our street art section is long over, this project made me smile while up late writing a paper. Click the link here for more. There's no context that I could find on the page, but the pictures are quite cute.
Hana
I found this on a blog that I follow. "Blinking City" is a chalk pastel piece that is a collage of various Hutong neighborhoods in Beijing, China. It is stenciled onto a wall of a home's courtyard. The colors showcase the changing events of the city. Each color has a meaning as shown on the project's website: http://www.instanthutong.com/blinkingcity_stencil.htm. I'm a bit confused by their meaning, but maybe it will be more clear to the rest of you.
The point of the piece is to showcase "the inadequacy of traditional maps for city environments characterized by fast pace transformation and urban growth. As soon as the map is done, the city it describes has already gone."
How then, can one continue to map a city as they grow and change so quickly? How quickly is an anthropological study outdated with these rapid changes? It makes me wonder if Stoller's research is still valid, or if his subjects have taken on a different way of doing business and a different way of living since he did his study.
I found this article while searching for something else, and though it is two years old, it is definitely relevant to the study of the city we have been doing this semester. This article discusses the difficulty of city life as a "deeply unnatural and overwhelming place" and discusses the psychology of city life.
Scientists have been examining the city's effect on the brain. "Just being in an urban environment, they have found, impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control. While it's long been recognized that city life is exhausting -- that's why Picasso left Paris -- this new research suggests that cities actually dull our thinking, sometimes dramatically so."
I've always thought that city living would enhance one's memory and brain function-one has to remember a lot of directions, frequented intersections, stops on public transportation, alternative ways to get home when the green line is out of service, etc. I agree that city life is exhausting, but was surprised that it may inhibit brain function.
The article goes on to say that, "One of the main forces at work is a stark lack of nature, which is surprisingly beneficial for the brain. Studies have demonstrated, for instance, that hospital patients recover more quickly when they can see trees from their windows, and that women living in public housing are better able to focus when their apartment overlooks a grassy courtyard. Even these fleeting glimpses of nature improve brain performance, it seems, because they provide a mental break from the urban roil."
Perhaps this is a reason for increased green space in urban areas. Maybe there is a real scientific reason behind why I head to the Boston Common to relax on busy days.
Check out the article-it's pretty short and Boston-based, so you'll be able to relate the discussion of being overwhelmed on Newbury Street.
Just a fun short video that made me think of the idea of urban play we've discussed. This is a new "transfer accelerator" to make it faster and easier for commuters to get to the train at the station, but we can just call it a slide. Maybe our commute could be a little less miserable if the MBTA installed these at all stops.
"HIK Ontwerpers capitalized on the opportunity to provide a unique and playful experience for commuters in their hometown of Utrecht. Part of a complete renovation of the Overvecht railway station the transfer accelerator, the official name given to the slide by ProRail the railway maintenance company, provides a fun and unforgettable way of getting to where you are going. The slide was installed as the final piece of the station renovation and opened earlier this month."
Found this on a blog a few minutes ago. I'm still trying to figure out if this a statement about the illegality of graffiti, whether the artist's name is "illegal," if it's just the start of a bigger piece, or maybe something else I haven't thought of yet. It was done by an Oakland protester from an #occupy movement there. Note the anonymity of the artist and his/her wearing of all black. Any thoughts of the significance of this image and why the Wall Street Journal is featuring it on their site?
I selected a sticker that shows a figure stuck inside of the international "no" sign. He is sweating and reaching out towards the viewer. I interpreted this as his attempt to escape from captivity inside some set of rules that prevent him from doing what he wants. In short, this figure seems like a rebel rejecting societal rule.
I placed this sticker besides a few "no" signs in the city before I found this spot. This is the green line Park Street stop on the T, an extremely crowded place, especially during rush hour when I placed the sticker there. I thought it would be fun to place this "no" sticker besides another "no" sign. It works especially well here because the signs are about the same size. The hope is that people will do a double take as they pass by yet another sign that tells them what not to do.
I am not encouraging people to smoke in the T-station, but perhaps the juxtaposition of the stickers have people question the amount of "no's" we see every day, and who is creating these rules that we are forced to follow. People spend a lot of time waiting for the T and likely have a lot of time to stare and think about the sticker while waiting. Perhaps it will change the "place" where one waits for the T to a "space" where one can question rules and conformity.
This reminded me of the irony of hispterism that was discussed in class. It's not entirely the same, but also relevant in our discussion of Occupy Wall Street.
The film about gleaners today reminded me of an article I had once read about freegans. Freeganism promotes saving what others consider as waste and attempting to live without using money. Freegans use dumpster diving as a method to collect food that is still good, just as some subjects did in "The Gleaners and I." Some also are squatters-like the people Rebbecca met in Detroit. The New York Times does a much better job of explaining freeganism here.
(Also, above is a link to a short youtube video about Freegans.)
The article mentions that many of these freegans, like the hipsters we discussed in class, come from middle class lifestyles. "The majority, however, seemed to be iconoclastic young people from middle-class backgrounds living some version of the freegan dream. They Dumpster-dive for food, mend their clothing with dental floss and brew dandelion wine.”
It is interesting to note, something I didn't realize, is that freeganism is not a new phenomenon. "Freeganism is often described as a recent phenomenon, but its premises date back at least to Gerrard Winstanley, a 17th-century English cloth seller. In the 1640s, Winstanley’s business failed, and he resettled in the Surrey countryside, where he herded cattle. These were tough times in England, marked by violence, famine and low wages. Winstanley decided that the solution was to form a community without money. The poor would till the soil and fill communal warehouses with their crops, which would be distributed to all. Winstanley, who abhorred waste, eventually took over some uncultivated public lands along with his followers and founded what was known as a Digger colony."
Why do you think these freegans are so resistant to the middle class lifestyle from which they come and instead choose to live as squatters and dumpster divers? Is it rebellion from the norm? An attempt to challenge the status quo? An attempt to make a statement about waste? Or is it something deeper?
I found this cover of The New Yorker online. It definitely shows New York City from a local's point of view. Note the "No Tourist" signs on the sidewalk and bus and the cynical comments in place of the usual Times Square and Broadway signs. It made me think of the idea of "blase" that Simmel discussed. Obviously these New Yorkers are no longer affected by sensory overload here in Times Square-one of the most overwhelming places in the city, and instead are just annoyed by the foot and car traffic of the tourists. It seems that if it was up to New Yorkers, that tourists would be contained so that residents could go about their daily business uninterrupted, an allusion to Simmel's discussion of fast-paced life in the metropolis.
They are also no longer impressed by the surrounding restaurants and stores, which have been replaced with signs such as "Junk" "Eat Fat" and "Spend More!" Even the Broadway shows, world renowned productions, are unimpressive to these locals. Signs advertising the plays have been replaced with more cynical comments including one that screams, "BORING!" The artist of this cover is trying to portray that at some point, these city dwellers have become so used to these surroundings that they are no longer special or exciting-precisely what Simmel was attempting to convey in his discussion of blase.
