
An ongoing project.
City has been understood through the metaphor of text. One is read through the eyes negotiating blocks of text, the other through the body negotiating blocks of city. Both have authors, conventional narratives, sub texts, etc.
William Burroughs subverted received narrative through ‘cut up,’ reading the text in sequences other than that which the author intended. In this way the familiar was made strange, fixed meaning denied. This project attempts something similar with the text of the city.
From home to work, there is a usual route, a path that follows conventions of movement, and results in a quotidian reading of place. Now, a line is drawn with a ruler, from home to work. A determinist shortest distance from A to B – or a landscape section line, or a course plotted. I then attempt to walk the line from home to work. The actual route is plotted against the hard line.
The resulting readings of place are quite different from the easy precise of the map.
I have done these walk works in Singapore, Wellington New Zealand and Denver Colorado.
Here is the first, the Singapore line. The wide outside line is the taxi route – the ‘familiar narrative‘, comprised mainly of tunnel and highway, via air conditioned cab.
An ongoing project…
Living in cities in different countries has nurtured an interest in how walking experiences compare between metropolitan areas. How navigable on a simple practical level, how interesting as a pedestrian, how suited to more adventurous roaming.
The idea of City can be understood through the metaphor of text.

blocks of city blocks of text
The comparison is stronger when we think of negotiating a city with a map in hand: A two dimensional, ink on paper representation – literally a text of the city. Both text/map and city itself, are interpreted through our bodies. Negotiating and understanding text is characterized by reading, while negotiating and understanding cities can be characterized by walking. (Urban designers plays close attention to the walkable experience of cities). Both text and cities have authors, conventional narratives, sub texts, etc. On a map, conventional narratives are quite apparent, (such as hierarchical and prescribed routes), while subtexts can be hidden, (maps are unlikely to point out ‘dangerous’ areas, or regions socially restricted, for example). On the ground, reading the city is more nuanced, and can be quite a contrast to the totalizing determinism of the map/text.
