It is clear to me and I have no problems with the language. The section that states ³the potential of translocally networked spatial practices² could have been more simply written, however it is clear in what it says that the research is engaging the potential of networked practices by practitioners who are interested in spaces that transcend the local (the way it was originally written was better). The next section, which states ³urban network processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms of cultural participation and self-determination² is equally clear. Urban network processes are events that occur in urban environments within the network infrastructures of which such environments are composed (communications and transport are examples). Geocultural crises are crises that are caused by geocultural issues. This is shorthand for the post-colonial politics around access to land based resources by different cultural groups (Gaza is an example here, as is Darfur). I do not see what the problem is with the sub-phrase ³cultural participation and self-determination². It seems clear as it seeks to conflate the individuation of self (the forging of self) with participation in social activities (that is, the self depends on others to come into being). Sites of ³alternative urban engagement² simply refers to places where non-normalised social activities can be pursued and social groupings can form that facilitate those who do not conform to dominant social norms (eg: raves, biker cafes, hardcore clubs, etc). The last three words are, I agree, a little confusing. What is the object of the phrase ³emerging architectural cultures². Does this refer to cultures composed of architects or to cultures that are shaped by architecture? I would assume the latter, but the grammar employed here is, I agree, not very clear.
Overall the text is clear and in its linguistic form usefully suggests what its cultural origins are (left intellectual academic). The text as a whole clearly states that its concern is with who gains access to and rights of definition of social and economic infrastructure in culturally contested urban spaces and what the implications are for the communities and individuals involved. Where is there a problem with that? Regards Simon On 3/2/09 10:23, "bob catchpole" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mez, > > Does it mean something? > > Bob > > > From: mez breeze <[email protected]> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 2 February, 2009 23:26:34 > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Does it mean something? > > hi bob [+ assorted netbehaviouralists].. > > bob, i'm curious as 2 by u're assuming that the text ur quoting is > muddy in terms of comprehension/meaning? do u think the terminology is > inappropriate or unclear? > > chunks, > mez > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM, bob catchpole <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > Yann, >> > >> > The other day someone posted on this list about a project that was a >> > "research platform... on the potential of translocally networked spatial >> > practices." The project, it was claimed, investigates "urban network >> > processes, spaces of geocultural crises, and forms of cultural >> participation >> > and self-determination" in which "sites of alternative urban engagement are >> > collected on a database" as research into "emerging architectural >> cultures." Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art [email protected] www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ [email protected] www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
