 |
research process |
In considering a new technology system for use in public space, our next
questions in the research process concerned potential cultural and social
dimensions. Rather than starting from a (stereo-)typical audience or from
ourselves, we wanted to gain new perspectives on the wide range of emerging,
expressive uses of the city. We engaged people that have quite particular
or personal urban practices through interviews and a workshop.
On October 26, 2002, in Paris, we held one such workshop with 3 French
practitioners of + Parkour,
a physical art or sport making use of urban architectural infrastructures.
In the first phase of the workshop, we accompanied them as they showed
us how and where they practiced. In the second part of the workshop, we
engaged a discussion around their personal stories, histories, and lifestyles.
Through mapping activities, we explored the rituals of preparation, social
relations and organization, and situations of perceptual and physical
engagement with the city.
From this, we drew inspiration for developing Sonic City in ways that
leveraged and complemented both existing and unexpected ways of using
the city. A very interesting realization for us was the evolution and
personal adaptation of each workshop participant of their own practice:
from mastery of individual moves and personalized sequences, to the appropriation
of particular objects or systems of architectural elements in the city.
It was the physical urban framework and basic physical rule-sets that
enabled creativity, expression, and integration of the practice into their
(personal and social) lives in a meaningful way over the long term.
Resulting from this workshop and the other interviews, +
experience
scenarios acted as guides and counterpoints in decision-making in
the system design. The stories we collected ourselves helped us imagine
and design for Sonic City as a extensible platform supporting emerging
urban behaviors and potential sonic subcultures, aspects which were explored
in later experiential prototypes.
Location: a street/space in the participant's suburb; Focus: contextual
sequences
The description started with a clear drawing to scale of the characteristics
of the whole physical environment, everything drawn as a continuous, joined
line/shapes – afterwards moving through and use of the aspects of
the space were drawn in alongside verbal description. Size, shapes and
scale of things (analytic aspects) seem to be important, but as part of
a continuous experiential circuit that could continue (off the paper)…
The description was of a confined area meant for 'playing' already. Each object in the environment was carefully described – the fence, gates, trees, even the garbage can was carefully marked. Each object was used and reused for multiple purposes and moves, with an emphasis on mastery of the physical technique in relation to the existing objects as given challenges.
While drawing simple shapes, the participant explained the ways in which they accommodated the kinds of moves, with a focus less on continuous movement across/through a space than on exploring (perfecting?) multiple actions within the limits of a small space. Often there are 'breaks' when the participant must to stop and think or walk to the next space. Man-made and natural objects (from walls to tree branches) require different techniques and interesting new combinations.
Physical technique: classic moves are 'saut de chat (cat jump)', 'saut de bras (arm jump)' – they start with these first (learning and as a basis of practice) and then improvise; mostly, they would approach an object, one would try and the other would follow, and sometimes they would repeat it, discuss together, or move on.
Practice: On participant practices diligently 10 hours a week and alone; another practices on the way home from school informally; two of them practice a lot together. Mostly they practice every day (not at night), year round. It seems to be a 'complete' sport in terms of physique and exercise/martial art, concentration, achievement and pride – what defines them is the practice itself, not the tshirt or the website.
Group identity: They recognize other practitioners (strangers) by how they move and walk in the city, rather than a way of dressing or other social code. It seems to be a mode of expression, a way of meeting people (coming to Paris, through the internet etc), though the standards of belonging are defined by level of dedication and accomplishment in practice.
|
research process |