Temporary Sites & the Artist as a Cultural Nomad.
“With the advent of modernity, time has vanished from social space”
Henri Lefebrve
The modern city proclaimed by the likes of le Corbusier was to be navigated by rapid forms of
transport, closing the distance between places the in between spaces of the city would be granted
a sort of timelessness. No longer being connected to these areas, space would be destroyed by
time. Now with the advent of the internet, it is possible to say that this effect has multiplied
dramatically, and has physically, psychologically and economically changed the contemporary city.
Transforming the location where business’ physically take place, the internet also caused a global
economic frenzy which changed how it operates. Since the recent market crash, the rapid
fluctuations of capital have altered the way in which we can invest both financially and socially in
space. It is not just transport and communication that has changed with the advent of the internet,
but the criteria of valuing physical space has too.
“The airport, like the shopping mall, the theme park and the new gaming places of multimedia
combines, will remain free of the disturbing presence of the truly homeless, leaving them open to
the vicarious and temporary homelessness of privileged nomadism”1
The speed of an economy operating in the contemporary city demands for space to be adaptable.
Places of work and leisure are no longer distinct from one another, omnipresent WIFI connections
turn coffee shops into impromptu meeting rooms, ‘hot-desking’ enables many different business to
take office in the same place, and smartphones allow every worker to be permanently at their
desk. Public space is forever in a constant state of transition and therefore has a ambiguous
distinction in the contemporary city; although public space is rarely initiated with a distinct purpose
in mind, now more than ever it is subject to the fluctuations of economy; and becomes inhabited by
what is economic viable at the time.
Constantly being rebuilt and reshaped, the city has always been a mirror of the society that
inhabits it. However, the current nervous twitching of capital has left the city in an erratic state of
flux. With little economic certainty, spaces in the city have often numerous identities as is uncertain
of what will be successful; ‘flexible offices’, ‘pop-up’s’ and ‘meanwhile projects’ offer up a complex
division of space and it often has multiple usages. With these capricious changes, momentary
spaces are often able to articulate fluid social relations unfound in the established areas of the city.
Moved on from the robust ‘industrial’ manifestation of a city, do complex contemporary social-
economic agendas demand something else from an urban space? Does society desire this rapid
fluidity of space or actually require it? Artists and architects are often ideators for temporary spaces
in the city in a fever for architectural follies and festivals. Each of these events hosts a particular
and passing social role, initiating a space with a specified cultural agenda for a short period of
time. Often taking place in neglected parts of the city, which have become unoccupied due to an
economic downfall allowing the growth of impromptu cinemas, lido’s or art spaces is an easy
method of investing minor cultural assets to reap an impressive economic return. But the main
question is; is the culture in these areas as transitory as the spaces that house it? Temporary sites,
‘pop-ups’ and the staging of exhibitions can only really be understood as propositions of how the
space could be used - a sort Utopian architecture of protest. They become suggestions for an
alternative usage of space free from the fetters of direct economic gain. However, often these
projects only really exist as a ‘meanwhile’ hypothesis until the true capital, and economic gain can
be reaped. Marketing space through propositions of its possible usages is a short-term cultural
answer for the identity and financial crisis of the late stages of Capitalism.
Artists and musicians have always been nomads, moving from court to court broadcasting and
flaunting their trades. It was crucial for their development as artists as well as for the evolution of
culture and society. The dispersal of art propagates more art, and the increase of ease accessing it
is an important factor of its development. However, there is a distinct difference between this idea
of the nomadic artist and the current trend for ‘temporary sites’. Namely that the use of temporary
sites for art has a closer connection to the increasing privatisation of what was once public space;
and their passing function as cultural centres has the very specific economic gain of bolstering
prices for private space in an economic down-turn. Although we should be excited at the utopian
prospects of these projects, we should question the ethicality of using the public cultural sphere as
a means to sustain the private economic one.
The arts are readily employed to fill the cracks in the city, ‘temporary sites’ often encourage
collective involvement and a sense of ownership whilst promoting a culturally diverse topography.
A shared agency and interest of a community can animate it to freely explore spaces to facilitate a
diverse range of needs, across the whole of society, As Slavoj Zizek explains in his book
‘Welcome to the Desert of the Real’, “The ultimate goal of radical politics is gradually to displace
the limit of social exclusions, empowering the excluded agents (sexual and ethnic minorities) by
creating marginal spaces in which they can articulate and and question their identity.”2 But why are
these projects temporary and only taking place in the peripheral cracks in the city? If public space
relies on the possibility of it being flexible, it must be permanently situated across the city instead
of the areas next in line for rejuvenation.
With the economy changing rapidly it is hard to think that we are truly building for a definitive
future. It is difficult to make total assertions of what are the definitive needs for space in the city
when the ground keeps shifting beneath us. However, like the Post-Modern mantras of Relativism,
Pluralism and Scepticism suggest, definition is often described by its in-definition. The indistinction
of space, and notions of the Temporary offer possibilities of what can be done, short-term projects
often allow the potential for fluid social and cultural relations. Making space available for
architectural follies and meanwhile projects despite its economic probability will allow for all
cultural, economic and social activity regardless of the changes in labour and capital.
No doubt Arts initiatives will continue fill in the gaps of the city and to wander nomadically in the
knowledge that new cracks will appear, but the serious question is - Are propositions for cultural
centres merely propositions? With severe budget cuts to community centres there is a new
urgency for grassroots projects, but they also need to be sustained. Forcibly relegated to the
backwaters and forever in threat of the privatisation of space, short-term cultural projects are
endangered by their own success.
1
Anthony Vidler - Warped Space p62
2
Slavoj
Zizek - Welcome to the Desert of the Real, p101