Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (43.2010)

Theorizing the Participatory Space
Henri Lefebvre's concept of an abstract space
that reiies on répétition, exchange, and homogene-
ity to create a systém where differential values are
contained by a set of standards, bodes well for the
theorization of an itinérant post-spectacle practice.
According to Lefebvre, the abstract space is 'H A-
AA čw<? AA AAryp* A^ AA^rř Ati?
/o A At AA772A t//A
7^A od A orAr A At
Arguing that the abstract space is a
conséquence of late-capitalist society, it is a space
that assigns special statuses to particular places,
serves profit, stipulâtes exclusions and intégrations,
ail the while arranging a systemic hierarchy. The
abstract space is an mstitutional space that is both
political and state-centered. The operational notions
of arrangement and classification serve, according
to Lefebvre, a systemic institution that confiâtes
understandings of public and private, allowing for
private ownership to dictate the means of produc-
tion and public space. This is what Lefebvre refers
to as mimesis, but it should not be confused with
the Greek term, it is an abstracted mimesis where
the BIOS of public space, controlled through private
ownership, reproduces the social relations that allow
for a continued domination over the control of space
itself by private interestsA
A comparable theoretical systém is Deleuze's and
Guattari's concept of the abstract machine, where
capital replaces ail forms of production in order to
become the singulár means of perceiving how the
earth is viewedA In addition, what Habermas calls
the post-national constellation, where multi-national
corporations supersede nation-states as power is re-
placed by money, activâtes an awareness that markets
are stamping out politicsd" It is a society based in
the economic tenants of neo-liberalism, which is a

LEFEBVRE, H.: TA PT-vAAw A Oxford 1991, p.
370.
^ Ibidem, pp. 285-290.
^ DELEUZE, G. — GUATTARI, F.: A TA^jwA PGvwv
Minnesota 1987, p. 11; HARDT
— NEGŘI 2001 (see in note 8), p. 25.

society based on private rights that calculate the use
value of civil liberties in regards to private enjoyment
and autonomy, activated by a surplus of capital.^
The question becomes, in order to theorize a
participatory public space, how do we move away
from art practices that espouse a commanding
or ownership of public space as an inversed and
micrological private sphere that follows the same
function as Lefebvre's abstract space? How do we
move away from being our own private spectacle,
activated as a public?
Evaluating the Itinérant
Post-Spectacle Practice
Our examination opened with a quote from Guy
Debord that reads: "TA<? t?Ä7yv<? AAgo&y ApvA Ai*
jpmAtA A itAA' As such, I would now
like to argue that the critique that goes beyond the
spectacle is one that embraces the positive aspects
that the spectacle, ultimately dehned as a market
economy of exchange highlighting individual agency,
espouses. The major fault underpinning many
instances of art activated m the public sphere is
that it assumes a public that is oblivious to its own
function, as if they, the herded masses are unable to
understand their own place within the consumptive
space of a late-capitalist economy. The reality of it
is that many, better, most people are fully aware of
the conséquences of our society. They are aware of
the spectacle and, more importantly, realize how
little they can do about it without severe financial
repercussions, or, in the case of graffiti, post-graffiti,
and Street artists, criminal repercussions. Participa-
tory practices in urban public sphere(s) can activate
what Waclawek calls 'G Aji/GřTA pyA A A AA
yf A^ytALq/, /A A/ysnyA %<9%-twrA<?A ?^PAAA/? yw<?
rzAoRvyG ^nAAr AA y<%vfAAy mAA Ai?
AG o/

^ HABERMAS, f: TAHE-H2A72TL<772Vi?/A'tA72.'PcATAEviy)7j'.
Cambridge (Mass.) 2001, pp. 78-79.
4° Ibidem, p. 94.
4' WACLAWEK 2009 (see in note 25), p. 24.

79