RE: artificial eyes that search for lawbreakers

From brian carroll <>
Date Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:22:02 -0800
In-Reply-To <04B7DE2B1C66D41190BB0060B06705D256FF41@SAENEXCH>
References <04B7DE2B1C66D41190BB0060B06705D256FF41@SAENEXCH>

>Your comments on reconceptualizing public and private space is interesting.
>Could you elaborate a little?
>How is it that some are considering that public space might not exist or may
>never have? Seems the electric world is turning private space into public
>space (Or is it somehow just obsolescing the distinction between the two?).
>And for a wave of 1990s architects that falls under New Urbanism,
>establishing strong public spaces is a main concern. Where does the "no
>public space exists" come from?
>Pat D.

  hi Pat. Stephen Perrella, (Hypersurface Architecture, Columbia U,
  NYC) has stated, based on his readings of Deleuze and Guatarri,
  that the concept of public space is a misnomer today, in so many
  words. i disagree in several ways with this perception, as i think
  it is based on a psychology that has been privatized, where public
  issues (i.e. social issues) are not in the domain of architecture.

  that 'the public' may never have existed as a pure encounter, is
  demonstrated by lanuage, where the collective of people on the earth
  are still defined by concepts such as "mankind" and "man" meant to
  equal humans and humanity. thus, while some say we are in a post-
  human stage, it seems to me we have yet to get there, linguistically,
  and, as a psychological logic, way of being, identity, etc.

  a specific case like New Urbanism, while developing public space,
  still works within a realm of privatization, and thus what may be
  considered 'public', and meant for all, may be limited to a certain
  socioeconomic or even political group. all debatable, of course.

  some ideas. thanks for asking. brian

  the electronetwork-list
  electromagnetism / infrastructure / civilization