efeefe - gambiarra

Gambiarra: repair culture

felipefonseca — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 00:24:41 +0000

Maker culture has gained a lot of ground in the last few years. Maybe too much, in fact. We can of course ignore those people who are only, as always, surfing the current wave of hype. They seldom have any clue of the ideas they are selling themselves with anyway. But it also feels as though everybody else is talking about maker culture. Those words are even being uttered by people who have always been opposed to what they should mean. Or is it me? Did I get it wrong all the way?

First time I read about a "maker culture", it was a sort of relief. I had finally found - or so I thought - a way to explain a number of initiatives some of us in Brazil had been involved for some years before that. Framing those things as "making" enabled us to mix critical thinking with DIY (as brilliantly put by Matt Ratto on "critical making"), proposing a sort of creative engagement that escaped the dead-ends of tedious market-driven innovation. A culture of conscious makers could recognize and promote alternative solutions and new perspectives for everyday problems, valuing distributed and collaborative approaches and seeking the common good. It would help overcoming traditional institutions and their clogged circuits of information. Local, cooperative formations would challenge the logics of global industrial capitalism, treating every human being - or small group, however loose it was - as potentially creative and productive. Industrial products that suffered of planned obsolescence would be repaired as armies of amateurs used the internet to share digital models of replacement parts. New kinds of meaning and engagement would evolve influenced by such approaches to material and cultural expression. Possibilities emerging from the free software and hacker movements would finally evert to the world of things.

And yet, we ended up in a world of newbie geeks assembling prefabricated kits of 3d printers, with which hipster designers-to-be (often the new-geeks themselves) can melt lots of plastic which is hardly recyclable into prototypes of new products, hoping to become rich and famous. Most such prototypes will never be used to anything at all, but their creators will anyway spam all over facebook, twitter and instagram trying to convince us they are building our (better, in a way no one can precise) future. Who knows, they may be invited to do a TED talk or raise some buck on kickstarter. Or at least become consultants for an international NGO willing to develop "technologies for education".

And there we go. Forget about hackers getting blisters in their hands as they struggle to become carpenters. Those times are gone. Sadly, the most important skill in the maker culture these days seems to be keeping a spreadsheet on google drive with a business plan and a consistent strategy on social media. Numbers everywhere.

In more general terms, instead of portraying an acceleration towards the end of industrial age, celebrity author-speakers are now talking about a "new industrial revolution". In the same direction, the Obama administration in the US is reportedly planning to pour one billion dollars to set up 15 "manufacturing innovation hubs" with the goal of sustaining industrial growth. As if the centuries oriented by industrial paradigms didn't bring enough harm to the world already. Sure, one can not deny the improvements brought about by industry - especially in terms of driving scientific development and its implications in food, transportation, health and communications. At the same time, though, we have seen some aspects of contemporary life go in a totally wrong way. Think for instance about waste and pollution, inequality, disintegration of cultures and social ties, permanent global war and many other consequences of the industrial age. I'm not sure we should be even trying to promote a new industrial revolution if those aspects are not carefully taken into account. And judging by the prevailing discourse within the current breed of maker culture, I'm not sure they are.

When the maker culture becomes eminently entrepreneurial, we should wonder what mechanisms are set into motion. It may as well be the old capitalist drive to turn the critique to itself into the gears of its own reinvention gaining ground. Could we ever escape that path?

---

It was 2002 when a group of people in Brazil first discussed the ideas that eventually led to the creation of MetaReciclagem. In the first projection of those shared cyberpunk dreams, we would use the internet to gather local groups to work with the discarded PCs we saw piling up everywhere. Once repaired and put back to work using free and open source software, those computers could then be configured as nodes in autonomous wireless networks that promised digital communications beyond the constraints and market limitations of corporate internet. Nevermind the fact that in that time none of us had ever touched a wifi card, and only a couple had any working experience with free/open source software. We were opening up those magical black boxes with our own hands and changing the way they worked. And it felt great. It was a group of passionate explorers of new possibilities, however remote those might seem. I don't think we did set up a lot of those Utopian networks, but by decomposing the steps that would bring us there we managed to accomplish a lot.

We were of course following the huge tidal changes taking place by the turn of the millennium. Some of us had been dragged into the dot-com bubble (the first one, still in the last century) with hopes of infinite creative challenges, only to end up finding office doors closed with locks after stocks imploded. Others were involved with urban demonstrations against WTO and corporate globalization. The second edition of the World Social Forum in 2002 offered some of us glimpses of hope in a world otherwise still paralyzed by 9/11. Despite the bad times, within MetaReciclagem it felt as if faith, good intentions and hard work would allow us to create better futures. Whatever that meant. Our part, it seemed by then, should start by gathering every Saturday in a warehouse in the southern part of São Paulo to repair discarded computers.

MetaReciclagem turned from an idea into a distributed group, and then onto a methodology that was open to be appropriated by whoever wished to, anywhere. At some point, a network of about half a dozen self-managed MetaReciclagem labs in different regions of Brazil would receive donated PCs, make them useful again in some way and then give them away to social projects and movements. Some of us were also invited to advise on and implement public policies related to information technologies and society. At some point MetaReciclagem came to be explained in such an elastic definition as a loose network promoting the "critical appropriation of technologies for social change". During that evolution, we discovered a number of groups, people and initiatives in other parts of the world that acknowledged the huge potential of using discarded equipment and free/open source software to address both the uneven distribution of and the enclosure of knowledge into information technologies.

Our own contribution to this context was related, we found some time later, to the way our actions were deeply informed by Brazilian cultural practices such as gambiarra and mutirão. Mutirão is the sort of collective dynamics that take place when we Brazilians need to find solutions - say, building an extra room to accommodate a newborn child - and proceed by inviting neighbors, relatives, friends and acquaintances to help out, often with their own hands. The result is an autonomous, iconoclast and celebratory sociability that is abundant and productive. Gambiarra refers to all kinds of improvised solutions to concrete problems that appear when one doesn't have access to the proper tools, materials, parts or specific knowledge to perform a given task. It is all about repairing or re-purposing objects that seemed to be of little use but end up acquiring new value out of tacit, applied creativity. I sometimes call it "everyday innovation". Spanish designer Victor Viña draws a parallel between gambiarra, jugaad and bricolage. Those are cultural practices which are naturally tactical, deeply rooted in the essentially human and widely available ability of understanding objects with one's mind and hands, and then taking action over such objects. They see the world as abundant in potential solutions instead of precarious or scarce in resources.

Some years into that game, I had already heard of and even visited a number of the projects which for over a decade then had been proposing and implementing similar ideas. In particular European hacklabs, rooted into a social context that I could relate with. People involved with those hacklabs stemming from an activist context - squatters, hackers, engaged artists, even critical theorists - talked of other possibilities for contemporary living, of cultural diversity and common good reaching far beyond the tired mechanisms of a market economy ruled by big media. They promoted networked politics that were radically inclusive. They strove to fight cognitive capitalism, consumerism and alienation. DIY was the norm, as well as copyleft and consensus-based decision-making. In that context, free and open source software was not only an efficient way to organize the production of knowledge but also a cultural and critical take on the pervasiveness of relationships mediated only by economic values. That universe made a lot of sense to our projects and political momentum in Brazil as well.

The same can't be easily said of formations that would emerge later on, even ones inspired by the very same context. A symbolic example is the transformation performed by the hackerspace movement, translating and transporting the largely underground practices of (basically) European hacklabs to a wider public first on the US and later in the rest of the world. The association of hackerspaces with what came to be known as a "maker culture" gave me, as said above, an amazing first impression. Indeed, while reading Cory Docotorow's Makers - first published in 2009 - I was pleased to recognize practices, methods and aspirations that felt similar to ones common within the MetaReciclagem network in Brazil. I also noticed essential differences in the world portrayed by Doctorow's novel, such as the central role attributed to commercial modes of operation. But I eventually dismissed the relevance of these nuances, treating them as result of particular cultural biases.

It seems however that the current breed of maker culture has completely surrendered to market forces. I won't even start discussing the prevalence of proprietary operating systems inside the laptops (and smartphones, tablets, etc.) of today's so-called makers. Let's try to focus on the bigger picture. Not only did the hackerspace movement give room to somewhat domesticated practices of commercial entrepreneurship, but their close and often submissive relationship with models such as MIT's Fablabs brought along a vocabulary packed with terms stemming from industrial age. In 2008, Bre Pettis wrote an article for 2600 magazine promoting hackerspaces and technologies of digital fabrication. In this three-page long rant, Pettis mentions "prototypes" or "prototyping" over 20 times. As already noticed by Gabriel Menotti, the prototype is to an extent the opposite of the Brazilian gambiarra. The prototype, as an object, wouldn't have an existence on its own - only a sort of rehearsal for "proper" products to be mass-produced at some point in the future. In itself, a prototype is already a piece of waste. On the other hand, gambiarra is about finding multiple concrete solutions, often by re-purposing two different objects to perform a task none of them was originally built to. In the context of a contemporary society struggling for sustainability, meaning, creativity and value, gambiarra seems to have more to offer than the weak existence of layers and layers of plastic-made prototypes.

Back in the beginning of MetaReciclagem - when we were still trying to find out what was it that we wanted to accomplish in those lost, sometimes frustrating saturdays - someone shared a link in our e-mail discussion list. It pointed to a project in the UK called Lowtech(.org). Associated with Access Space, a digital arts centre in Sheffield that used exclusively discarded computers and Linux to carry its activities, Lowtech offered valuable insights that were definitely incorporated into our practices. It wasn't before half a decade later during an edition of Futuresonic (now FutureEverything) in Manchester that I had the opportunity to get acquainted with James Wallbank, the British artist who ran Access Space and created Lowtech. We started then an open-ended conversation - that is still taking place today - about machines, hands, skills, scents and futures.

When I met James again a couple years ago in Finland for the Bricolabs programme during the Pixelache festival, he was promoting the Refab Space. It was then his own take on setting up a lab with digital fabrication equipment - some of it donated from local factories that were moving abroad. Instead of buying into the holy grail of maker culture, James was curious about the actual potential of using those technologies that were becoming increasingly available. He told me the laser cutter was a real workhorse. On the other hand, the 3D printer was - if I remember James' words - the least useful and most complex of those equipments. Nevertheless, it still had an indirect role for Refab Space as it attracted talented people willing to have the chance to explore new possibilities.

But there was something else there. I wanted to ask James what did he make of the whole maker culture thing. Unfortunately, I can't tell what he would have replied*, as suddenly the idea of a culture of repair struck me as too important to be overlooked and I was lost in daydreaming. Why had the maker culture become concerned only with industrial methods - prototyping future mass-produced objects? What would be the concrete outcomes of a number of success-eager young talents spitting out objects made out of melted plastic, hardly - if ever - recyclable, everywhere in the world? Doesn't the planet have enough useless objects made of plastic already?

Of course, a repair culture isn't about repairing things only. We could try to find a better way to define a culture of reuse, repair and re-purposing. But proposing repair - the physical act of mending things in order to extend their lifetime or else turning them into something else of use - as a core value sounds good enough for a current need: criticizing the path apparently taken by maker culture that is addicted to novelty, becoming consequently toxic, unsustainable, superficial and alienating.

In a sense, repairing may be rooted into tradition the same way startup making is related to novelty. Indeed, a number of makerspaces and fablabs sound all too anxious to reach an abstract future, often at the cost of discarding any sort of tradition. Repair culture, on the other hand, is nothing new. It has evolved with human history since thousands of years before the industrial revolution. In fact, it was only recently that repairing objects came to be regarded as something society as a whole and any person individually should avoid. But if we agree with that, something very important is being taken from us: the exercise and accumulated knowledge of matching everyday problems and the countless solutions available for them. There would be hipster designers everywhere, but the fundamental divide between makers and mere users would linger, or even increase. In other words, a renewed industrial sector, now distributed and even more dynamic, is planning to take creativity away from our everyday lives. We can not afford to lose that.

Perhaps we could start by shifting focus away from "what valuable new thing can I come up with that will make me famous/rich/sexy". Repairing things as a cultural trend is inextricably related to organic food, natural birthing, cultural diversity, upcycling, sustainable mobility, urban farming, fair trade, culture of peace and digital commons. Repair culture, in that sense, is not a mere side effect of the development of industrial societies. On the contrary, it is one of the very few distributed and consistent niches of resistance against the transformation of all human creativity into quantifiable commodity. I reckon it's not hard to pick a side on this matter.

----

* After reading a draft of this text, Wallbank told me he resigned from Access Space and opened a shop in Sheffield dedicated to maker culture. He is excited with the way youngsters are curious with "remaking, reuse, crafting and making" these days.

References

DOCTOROW, Cory. Makers. Novel available on http://craphound.com

FONSECA, Felipe Schmidt. Redelabs: Laboratórios Experimentais em Rede. Master thesis. Campinas: Unicamp. 2014. Available (in Brazilian Portuguese) on http://redelabs.org/livro/redelabs-laboratorios-experimentais-em-rede-2014 .

MAXIGAS. Hacklabs and Hackerspaces: tracing two genealogies. In: Journal of Peer Production. Vol. 2: Bio/Hardware Hacking. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/hacklabs-a....

MENOTTI, Gabriel Gonring. Gambiarra: the prototyping perspective. Available on http://medialab-prado.es/article/gambiarra.

PETTIS, Bre. Hacker Perspective: Bre Pettis. In: 2600. New York: 2600 Enterprises, 1984-2008, vol. 25, N 4, 2008. Trimestral. ISSN 0749-3851.

RATTO, Matt. Critical Making. In: Open Design Now. Available on http://opendesignnow.org/

VIÑA, Victor. DIY in Context: From Bricolage to Jugaad. https://pt.scribd.com/doc/98988556/DIY-in-Context-From-Bricolage-to-Jugaad

Intro

felipefonseca — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:06:21 +0000

Last year I spent two weeks as a designer in residence in Doha, hosted by the MFA in Design program at VCUQatar. The focus of the residency was working with the idea of a "repair culture" that first occurred to me while talking to members of the Bricolabs network during Pixelache Festival 2013, in Helsinki. Of course, repairing broken things is nothing new. But it seems to become less fashionable everyday in many parts of the world. Lots of economic as well as cultural issues contribute to that, at the same time as there are significant experiences resisting the disappearing of repair.

One specific concern I had was the way people are adopting the so-called "maker culture". Back in 2009, some of us were excited with the renewed interest in making and the promises of defying industrial capitalism - proposing alternatives to its heavy environmental impact, logistic costs and the fundamental drive to alienate people from the inner workings of the products they buy and discard. Currently, though, digital fabrication technologies seem to be increasingly turning into mere tools for new sorts of commercial entrepreneurship that can instead give new breath to the industrial age.

Qatar was a meaningful context to expand those thoughts. The country's economic development in high speed exacerbates the worst implications brought about by practices of contemporary post-industrial capitalism. Most people there are able to buy things and shortly throw them away. And being a country in which recycling is hardly viable, "away" may as well mean "somewhere in the desert". Or "somewhere abroad where we can't see".

During my days as a resident we visited craftsmen and repairmen whose individual futures are currently threatened by overproduction and throwaway behavior. We set out to visit a graveyard of discarded tires and a place where broken cars are sent. In order to engage with problematic aspects of consumerist culture, we organized a two-day repair cafe - Salleh Lab - in the university's premises. People were urged to bring over broken objects and we would try to fix or else repurpose them. Some of the paths we took can be seen in the next pages.

It was a remarkable experience to work with such a fantastic composition as VCU. Not only did I find an open-minded partner in Thomas Modeen, coordinator of the MFA program, but other members of the staff were also eager to exchange and collaborate. Professor Marco Bruno and a group of ten bright MFA students - Ozi, Malaz, Sultana, Noha, Yasmeen, Faisal, Barbara, Hawa, Hadeer and Sameer - made an amazing team to help turning ideas into concrete experiments. I hope we can work together again in the future.

I want also to thank (again) Thomas Modeen and Marco Bruno, as well as VCUQ and QMA for the invitation, welcoming attitude and infrastructure. And John Thackara for performing the old art of connecting people who have similar interests.

This book is an attempt to document those days in and around Doha. Enjoy it!

Repair culture

felipefonseca — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:04:50 +0000

Is maker culture as new and revolutionary as tech gurus lately claim? How are those practices related to the all so human creative impulse to solve problems - which has been around since the dawn of times? Has maker culture been appropriated by startup hipsters eager to become rich and famous?

Repair Culture is an outcome of my two-week period as a designer-in-residence in Doha last november, hosted by the MFA in Design program at VCUQatar. Seeking a critical take on maker culture and its current status of raw material to entrepreneurial hype, in this book I try to relate its roots to the background of critical, autonomous hacklabs and media activist groups, as well as draw a parallel with practices of brazilian digital cultures which articulate gambiarra as a social creative habit.

This first edition of Repair Culture is a shorter version, text-only. The upcoming full version will feature also reports of some experiments we've done while I was in Doha.

Browser version.
Kindle Store.
Ebook (epub).
Entry on Google Books.
Full PDF with images (soon).
Send some BTC (thanks!): 1LLqhtt3CQ8xKVFyV71Tm5WysoKrRqrPtY

Anexo	Tamanho
repair-culture.epub	409.46 KB

Mídia zumbi

felipefonseca — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:42:31 +0000

Este post foi agregado por RSS. Link original:

---

Encontrei aqui:

1) Somos contra a ideia de mídias mortas. Apesar de a morte da mídia poder ser útil como tática para opor-se ao diálogo que foca somente na novidade das mídias, acreditamos que as mídias nunca morrem. A mídia pode desaparecer em um sentido popular, mas nunca morre: ela decai, apodrece, reforma-se, remixa-se, e torna-se historicizada, reinterpretada e colecionada. Ou ela se torna resíduo no solo e no ar como mídia morta concreta, ou então é reapropriada por metodologias artísticas e fuçadoras ["tinkering"].

2) Somos contra a obsolescência programada. Como base da ecologia mental de circulação de desejos, a obsolescência programada mantém um impulso de morte ecologicamente insustentável que está destruindo nossos meios de vida.

3) Propomos uma despontualização das mídias e a abertura, entendimento e raqueamento de sistemas ocultos e caixas-pretas: seja como produtos de consumo ou arquivos históricos.

4) Propomos a arqueologia das mídias como metodologia artística que segue as tradições de apropriação, colagem e remix de materiais e arquivos. A arqueologia de mídias obteve sucesso em escavar histórias de mídias mortas, ideias esquecidas, alianças e narrativas menotres, mas agora é hora de desenvolvê-la de forma textual em uma metodologia material que leva em conta a economia política da cultura de mídia contemporânea.

5) Propomos que o reuso é uma dinâmica importante da cultura contemporânea, especialmente dentro do contexto do lixo eletrônico. "Se fecha facilmente, deve abrir facilmente". Concordamos que a cultura aberta e de remix deveria se estender a artefatos físicos.

Kluge

felipefonseca — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:42:14 +0000

Rafael Garcia na fôia mais:

"Engenheiros americanos costumam usar a gíria "kluge"ao se referirem a soluções improvisadas para problemas em projetos. A falta de iluminação numa casa nova pode rapidamente ser resolvida, por exemplo, com um fio desencapado, uma lâmpada velha, uma extensão e esparadrapo."

design para variabilidade

felipefonseca — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:09:10 +0000

uma pergunta que fiz ano passado:

levando em conta que tem cada vez mais, ou pelo menos a gente tá tomando cada vez mais consciência de movimentos, grupos, projetos, pessoas, que têm essa intenção da gambiarra, essa questão de desconstruir o objeto técnico, desconstruir idéias pré-concebidas, desconstruir paradigmas... pensando na possibilidade de isso ser uma parte de um sistema que tá aí, mas que isso pode pautar o desenvolvimento tecnológico, ou seja, por causa de toda essa movimentação a gente acabar influenciando o poder de decisão do processo de planejamento e desenvolvimento do objeto tecnológico... pensando na possibilidade de já existirem objetos pensados com essa questão da imprevisibilidade... ou seja, um objeto técnico produzido com isso. como é que fica essa relação com, sei lá, imaginar que uma corporação vai encampar essa idéia, vai lançar um objeto técnico com essa imprevisibilidade, mas às vezes vai lançar essa imprevisibilidade controlada, vai dizer "até aqui tá aberto, a partir daqui é fechado". a nokia já tá usando software livre no tablet, quase tudo é aberto, mas tem uma parte do software que é fechada. eles lançam uma imprevisibilidade, tem som, microfone, wifi, faz o que quiser, conecta no celular e tal, mas nessa parte aqui cês não tocam. e até que ponto isso não acaba até desmobilizando a gente. quer dizer, toda a questão de resistência, a gente acaba dizendo ah, os caras tão entrando no jogo, ajudando o software livre. como é que a gente pode garantir que o caráter de inovação, de contracultura, resistência, seja lá como chame, não vai ser apropriado [de uma maneira ruim], não vai ser desmobilizado a partir do momento em que essas idéias passem a influenciar o próprio processo de desenvolvimento.

e tentando pensar em uma resposta, acho que aqui tem algumas pistas.

Obsolescência programada

felipefonseca — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:56:01 +0000

Estou escrevendo uma série de posts no lixo eletrônico sobre uma visão sistêmica pra todo o ciclo de produção, consumo, descarte e reciclagem de eletrônicos. Já publiquei uma introdução e a primeira parte, sobre produção e consumo. Agora estou me esforçando pra falar sobre descarte e reuso. No meio do caminho, parei pra respirar um pouco e li mais algumas páginas da tese de Rodrigou Boufleur sobre a Gambiarra. Lá na página 67 ele conta:

A partir da quebra da bolsa de Nova Iorque em 1929, a indústria começou a implementar mudanças na maneira como produzia artefatos, deixando de favorecer a durabilidade e a boa fabricação para priorizar estratégias que apelassem ao aumento do consumo (MALDONADO, 1976; DENIS, 2001). Um dos movimentos simbólicos em relação ao projeto de artefatos é o advento do Streamline ou Streamform, era buscado valorizar mais a forma que outros elementos nas produções. Essa mudança de concepção provocou efeitos que residem até hoje no universo dos artefatos industrializados. Não bastasse isso, alguns defendem, atualmente, a idéia de que muitos produtos são fabricados com componentes de baixa resistência para provocar o rápido descarte, gerando o conseqüente aumento do consumo. Essa é uma das condições que definem a chamada obsolescência programada.

Cidadejando

felipefonseca — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:54:09 +0000

Mês passado, peguei o penúltimo dia da exposição Post-it City, no CCCB. Cheguei lá a partir de um convite que recebi por email de Francesco Jodice, que conheci em Sampa. A base da mostra eram as camadas que se acumulam em cima da idéia comum de "cidade": estruturas móveis e piratas, movimentos não planejados, dinâmicas sociais. Fiquei bastante feliz com o caminho de pesquisa por lá, e cheguei a ficar cansado ao tentar passar o tempo necessário em cada um dos trabalhos expostos. Bastante material, muitos insights e idéias expostas de uma maneira clara e acessível. Comecei a juntar com todo o caminho de pensar em gambiarra como adaptabilidade e criatividade cotidiana, e acho que algumas coisas boas vão rolar no futuro. Em paralelo, voltei a pensar na questão urbana. Nas últimas semanas, alguns bons textos apareceram por aí que têm a ver com isso tudo:
Um post excelente no we make money not art falando sobre uma palestra de Juan Freire ano passado. Selecionei alguns trechos:

Can the ineffectiveness of the "analogical" public space, which we can also call the analogical procommon, be explained by privatization? Many people complain that public space is useful and well designed but because there is a Wal-mart or a Carrefour in the neighbourhoud, we desert public spaces and go to Carrefour (or Wall-mart). Freire believes that that vision needs to be nuanced. Such vision is the one of someone who looks for someone else to blame, does not assume any responsibility and does not even try to solve the problem.

De qualquer forma, uma coisa que eu acho que não se questiona muito no Brasil é a própria idéia de cidade. Depois de um ano de Europa (completado hoje, aliás), eu sinto que existe toda uma herança da evolução da idéia de cidade por aqui que no Brasil a gente não vê. Em outras palavras, o processo que levou ao desenvolvimento da idéia contemporânea de cidade por aqui correu em paralelo com o desenvolvimento de toda uma idéia de sociabilidade e vizinhança que a gente não tem muito no Brasil. A sensação da rua como espaço público, em oposição à rua como espaço de ninguém, muda tudo. Claro, mesmo isso que pra minha percepção é fantástico, vem se transformando também aqui.

The public spaces we inherited from the 19th century can be called modernist. They were designed from top down, by an elite that cared for the wellbeing of the citizens yet, they have failed under several points of view. Those public space have given way in the 20th century to what we can call the Post-Modernist Public Spaces (even if the expression is questionable). They emerge as an answer to the obsolescence of the previous ones. If people are not going to the public spaces anymore, new -and this time private- opportunities are created for them: the shopping malls, the perfect example of post-modernist public space.

Em lugares que não tiveram essa elite desenhando projetos de cima pra baixo (o Eixample aqui em Barcelona, a atuação do Barão Hausmann em Paris), a situação é ainda mais difícil. Ainda pior é a situação em Brasília, onde o projeto urbano parece querer o desaparecimento das pessoas. A rua é só o caminho entre dois lugares fechados. Moradorxs sentados em cadeiras na rua são uma imagem impossível. Mais do que ser um reflexo de uma sociedade, isso acaba também realimentando a própria sociedade. Eu conheço paulistas (paulizzas, segundo meu mais novo neologismo) que chegam em qualquer cidade do mundo e a primeira coisa que procuram é um Shopping Center. Triste. Ainda sobre espaço público, o post continua:

Berkley University urbanist Christopher Alexander has written: For centuries, the street provided city dwellers with usable public space right outside their houses. Now, in a number of subtle ways, the modern city has made streets which are for "going through," not for "staying in.
The traditional public space, made of squares and streets, have become what anthropologist Marc Augé calls the "Non-Places". Rem Koolhaas goes further by christening them as Junkspace. In the post-modern vision, we move from private space we have to pay for and, as they are often located outside city centers, we have to drive through junkspace, non-places, spaces which have no immediate utility. The problem in the scenario is that interaction seem to have vanished. Social networks have shrunk to our own family circle or to shopping malls.

E fala, não sem algum questionamento, da retirada da publicidade das ruas de São Paulo:

When the Mayor of Sao Paulo in Brazil decided to eradicate any kind of advertisement in the city, his move has been welcome with not only wonder but also praise. Sao Paulo is the third city in the world. It counts almost 11 million inhabitants. Citizens, foreign observers, the press applauded the measure. Those who live from the revenues of publicity were less enthusiastic about it. But to which extent isn't publicity part of our genome, of our ADN today? If you look at photos and videos of Sao Paulo without its billboards and advertising posters you get a slightly deshumanized vision. The structures that supported advertising are still there but they are empty, switched off. The buildings do not seem to be complete anymore. It seems that a crucial part of the city has been lost in the process. Maybe this effect is only transitory.

E depois vai pra um ponto fundamental:

Public space depends on the capacity of auto-organization that we have. We must see further the concept of public space designed by the government for the citizen. The space cannot really be public if it doesn't come with a certain capacity of self-management. Public spaces are hybrid, they combine market with community processes. The Common is much more sophisticated than we might think.

Não dá pra não pensar n'A Morte e Vida de Grandes Cidades, de Jane Jacobs, e toda a questão de espaços mistos, de ocupação mais espontânea do que planejada. Pelo contrário, no Brasil idéias de ocupação auto-gerida do espaço público, como a Jardinagem Libertária, são vistos como subversão (no mau sentido, se é que isso existe).
No fim, algum otimismo ao incorporar a internet:

Internet is the element missing from today's equation. We cannot leave the internet aside anymore when we discuss public space. We live in a networked society. Many people say that we live both a physical life and a virtual life but Freire thinks that these two realities are getting more intertwined every day.
(...)
Freire believes that we can achieve this hyper-reality through a re-appropriation of public space. 4 key elements will help us get there:
1. free knowledge,

2. free electro-magnetic space,

3. a post-spectacular architecture,

4. a digital skin layered over tarmac and concrete.

O segundo ponto tem um pouco a ver com meu post de ontem sobre wireless. Lembro de andar por Paris e ficar impressionado com as pessoas com seus iphones, ou até com o laptop no colo, usufruindo do wi-fi oferecido de graça nas praças e parques. Hoje me disseram que já tem wi-fi na beira da praia aqui em Barcelona, e acho que lembrei de projetos semelhantes no parque Ibirapuera e na praia no Rio, mas aí eu duvido que haja segurança - eu não abriria meu laptop em nesses dois lugares, por mais velho e feio (mas muito apreciado) que ele seja.
Ele continua com alguns exemplos de projetos experimentais que propõem idéias interessantes:

Recetas Urbanas
Sociopolis
WikiPlaza, do pessoal da Hackitectura

O post termina mencionando um artigo do Bruce Sterling sobre o futuro "hiperlocal", falando um pouco sobre situacionismo e deriva, e enumerando algumas idéias relacionadas a locative media que não vou copiar aqui (recomendo a leitura do post inteiro).
Por conta do post, fui atrás de mais coisas do Juan Freire. Ele tem três blogs: Piel digital (dentro do soitu), nomada e Ciudades enredadas, uma coluna no ADN que me liguei que eu já tinha lido algumas vezes. No último encontrei algumas coisas bem boas, como dois artigos sobre vazios urbanos: 1 e 2, que volta na questão das cidades post-it e de estruturas efêmeras no cenário urbano. O primeiro aponta para um concurso sobre o tema chamado Urban Voids. O segundo dedica alguns parágrafos a São Paulo e manda o link para o Urban Age São Paulo Workshop, recheado de PDFs, e também para uma exposição que rolou em Madrid chamada São Paulo 300mm.

Também um post do Pedro Dória sobre uma entrevista com Enrique Peñalosa, o ex-prefeito que transformou Bogotá. Ele descreve muito bem a impressão que eu tenho de São Paulo:

Calçadas não me parecem prioridades nos países em desenvolvimento. São a última coisa que fazem. A prioridade é fazer estradas e avenidas. Fazemos cidades para carros, carros, carros, carros. Não para pessoas. Carros foram inventados muito recentemente. O século 20 fez um desvio horrível na evolução qualitativa do habitat humano. Construímos, hoje, pensando mais na mobilidade de carros do que na felicidade das crianças.

Como sempre, alguns comentários ao post do Pedro Dória são interessantes, e o resto é disputa de espaço.
Outro post que me chamou a atenção foi uma entrevista com John Tackara e Sunil Abraham para a revista Cluster republicada no blog do Doors of Perception. O foco principal é design & a cidade:

JT. All cities are part of a larger ecology of resource extraction, energy use, environmental impact, waste flows, and social networks. The rules that govern how this larger ecology works - or not - are political rules shaped by an era in which we could burn cheap fossil fuel while ignoring the ecological consequences. That era is now over, and its eco-cidal politics (and economic development) have become obstacles to our survival. The only meaningful task of design, now, is to help people transform the ways they obtain food, energy, materials, and water - in cities, or outside them.
(...)
SA. First, the dynamism of a city can be found in the informal sector which in most developing countries accounts for 70% of employment. It is also where legal, technical and market limits and norms are challenged and redefined as everyday practice. The informal economy also has a much lighter infastructure.

E depois ele quase fala de Gambiarra:

JT. We have to escape from this absurd idea that “creativity” is a specialised profession limited to people like architects and public relations consultants. For true creativity, go to shanty towns in Asian cities: these are sites of intense social and business creativity. Formal (and therefore expensive) networks of technical support and maintenance simply don't exist as they do in the North, so people turn to the temporary fixes, or “jugaads”, carried out by street technicians and pavement-based engineers who keep engines, television tubes, compressors and other devices working. The irony is that bureaucrats in Asia want to get rid of these so-called suitcase entrepreneurs - whereas I'm certain we'll need systems like this ourselves in the not-too-distant future.

Pra finalizar, mais otimismo com a internet ao falar sobre o crescimento de megacidades:

JT. I don't agree that cities will keep on growing. The race towards cities will come to an abrupt halt when the high entropy systems that keep them going start to degrade. At the moment it's better, just, to be poor in a big city than outside it; but that balance will change - and fast - as it becomes harder to survive in them. Would you leave the countryside and go to a city filled with empty supermarkets and hordes of desperate people? Also, don't forget that mobile communications are transforming the dynamics of subsistence economics in many developing regions.
SA. I agree with John. Though I am not sure it will come to an abrupt halt. It is indeed true that location used to determine the degree and extent of participation - both in governance and in the market-place. But the rise of Internet and mobile technologies will reduce the appeal of cities. But still, as human beings - face-to-face interactions will continue to be important. The solution, however, is not to move migrants to the periphery. Stopping the growth of mega-cities requires addressing the myopia of city-based policy-makers and planners. Hopefully Internet and mobile technologies will amplify the demands of the rural poor for a greater share of state resources and attention.

Eu quero concordar que um uso criativo de tecnologias podem ajudar bastante, inclusive evitando a concentração urbana - linkania na veia! -, mas também sei que a resistência é grande - as coisas sempre são como são porque tem peixe grande faturando alto. Continuo com esperança de que movimentações como o Nossa São Paulo consigam incentivar mais discussão pública, mas essencialmente que também consigam ter repercussão e fazer barulho suficiente a ponto de o poder público não ter alternativa senão agir. A luta é árdua, mas que opção a gente tem?
E aí, bora metareciclar a urbanidade?

Devaneio de domingo

felipefonseca — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:12:16 +0000

Ontem a gente saiu pra dar um rolê no Fórum Social Catalão. Banquinhas e abaixo-assinados interessantes, alguns adesivos pra tampa do pretovelho (que essa semana recebe sua bateria nova e vira um computador portátil de verdade). Nas palestras, nada de muita novidade, não cheguei a assistir muita coisa, mas no geral deu pra sentir um pouco daquele clima do FSM. Peguei um documentário feito por um pessoal daqui, o Processo do Possível. Depois de assistir eu comento. Na cabeça, o tempo todo dialogando com o Mutirão da Gambiarra, que devo começar a agitar logo logo. Fiquei me perguntando o quanto a MetaReciclagem foi influenciada pela movimentação dos FSM. Que outro mundo? Outra coisa batendo na cabeça esses dias é o tema da mesa-redonda em Berlim, web 3.0 - conspirando pra manter a rede pública. Eu tenho relido um monte de loas e críticas ao hype de web2. A crítica poucas vezes se refere às mesmas coisas. Concordo em alguns pontos aqui e ali. Mas me preocupa um pouco os fundamentalismos. Qualquer pessoa que tenha se envolvido de verdade com projetos de transformação social ligados a tecnologia sabe que se não tiver um perfil no orkut e conta no messenger vai ser esquecido em dois segundos. Dá pra pensar nisso como um uso superficial da rede, voyeurismo de coluna social, entregar nossa capacidade de relacionamentos de bandeja pra servidores corporativos que no mínimo ajudam a mapear públicos-"alvo" pra publicidade online, e no limite entregam nossa privacidade pra agências e governos de maneira no mínimo suspeitas. Difícil pensar em um futuro interessante com isso. Será que a rede aberta, livre e com privacidade está definitivamente comprometida? Tô brincando de ficção com um desdobramento dessa idéia, mas meu ficcionador é bem mais lento que meu blogueiro. Mas também tem o outro lado, pensar a rede como caldo em ebulição que não se estabilizou (e quem diz que ainda vai?), e nessa onda tem uma outra questão: será que a geração dos noventas tá virando reacionária com novas possibilidades? A ferramenta que eu mais uso é o e-mail, e existe todo um código de utilização dele, a netiqueta nas listas, essa coisa toda. Eu sou o mais velho de 7 irmãxs, e me liguei que quanto mais jovem, menos importância se dá ao e-mail. Insistir em ensinar "o valor do e-mail" em oposição à rede social ou ao instant messaging não se compara àquelas ONGs que insistiam há alguns anos em ensinar a manobrar o mouse, decorar uns botões e usar editor de texto e planilha. Pra quem não acompanhou todo o processo de desconstrução dessa fase, só uma pergunta: pra que serve um editor de texto pra quem não tem familiaridade com o escrever? Pra quê planilha pra quem não sabe organizar informação (claro, o editor de texto pode ajudar a tomar gosto pelo escrever, a planilha pode ensinar a organizar informação, mas o foco desses projetos nunca tomava essa perspectiva). Há uns cinco anos, fiquei impressionado porque uma das minhas irmãs conversava e combinava baladas com as amigas só usando SMS e mIRC. Hoje me parece mais natural que outra irmã, de doze anos, não tenha visto os e-mails que mandei há dois meses. E-mail é coisa de velho, gente séria, que lê jornal, essas coisas. Eu estudei quase a vida toda em escolas públicas em Porto Alegre. Por mais que algumas professoras, supervisoras e diretoras tentem fazer a diferença, o papel da escola pública é preparar mão de obra. Não seria diferente. Na sétima ou oitava série (ou nas duas, não lembro), em um dia da semana a gente almoçava em qualquer lugar e atravessava a Redenção pra ter aulas extra-classe ali num instituto na João Pessoa, na frente do antigo cinema Avenida. Eram quatro cursos: técnicas domésticas, técnicas agrícolas, técnicas industriais e técnicas comerciais. Varrer, plantar, mexer em instrumentos de carpintaria, construir um tear até que são coisas interessantes. Mas as técnicas comerciais eram as mais disputadas: tínhamos a chance de aprender datilografia, e o mais impressionante: preencher formulários e recibos. Nada de criatividade, inovação, gambiarra, empreendedorismo - os cursos só ensinavam a repetir coisas. Será que insistir no e-mail, editor de textos, planilha não é insistir nessa bitolação?

Lagnado sobre Gambiarra

felipefonseca — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:05:03 +0000

A gambiarra, mesmo que utilizada com diferentes nuances, com mais ou menos alegoria dependendo da vocação do artista para o símbolo, é a peça em torno da qual um tipo de discurso está ganhando velocidade. O mecanismo da gambiarra, cujas anterioridades antropológicas não cabem aqui ser discriminadas, assim como um desvio pelos projetos arquitetônicos de Lina Bo Bardi demandaria uma dedicação integral, tem um acento político além do estético.

Há uma ressonância do Parangolé, pelo fato de abranger toda uma rede de subsistência a partir de uma economia informal, com soluções de baixo custo e de puro improviso. "Da adversidade vivemos!", conclama Hélio Oiticica em "Esquema Geral da Nova Objetividade" (1966-67). E "adversidade" não significa apenas "pouquidão", mas também "oposição". Para validar sua posição cultural crítica, Hélio não tergiversava: "Tem-se que ser contra, visceralmente contra tudo que seria em suma o conformismo cultural, político, ético, social".

(...)gambiarra não se faz sem nomadismo nem inteligência coletiva.

Lisette Lagnado na Tropico: O malabarista e a gambiarra