Below is an excerpt from an essay by curator/critic Steven L. Bridges concerning contemporary practices in art in the public sphere. Let’s hope this doesn’t sound too pretentious, but sometimes you feel like someone knows exactly what you’re going through… (and they’re a lot more well-versed at it than you are) Thank you to Doug Lewis, for indirectly leading me to it. The full essay can be found here.

photo from me, February 2010

The current climate surrounding contemporary art production—including recent curatorial and exhibition practices—is especially marked by an ongoing expansion of the field across disciplinary boundaries and beyond the conventional spaces of display and reception.  This expanding field of artistic production spreads in multiple directions, an expanding universe without any definite center or edge.  One facet of this expanding field concerns the arm of contemporary art production today that takes the very nature of human relations as the source material for the undertaking of a project or research initiative.  In doing so, artistic processes are combined with social processes of transformation through the “making visible” of that which is otherwise invisible: that is, the very socio-politico-economic tensions and power relations that organize societal life, as well as the “invisible” people within society, the marginalized and/or disenfranchised.

Many projects of socially engaged, collaborative art are highly complex systems that entangle both aesthetic and socio-politico-economic issues.  These kinds of practices often speak to diverse groupings of people, who—while deeply interconnected—may or may not have access to the necessary socially, culturally or politically viable opportunities for the articulation of their personal views and concerns, their own subject positions.  This type of working process—layering aesthetic and sociopolitical issues; employing open-ended, dialogical modes of production; testing the very publicness of the spaces in which the work permeates—requires a kind of artistic and curatorial prowess that focuses on notions of collaboration, representation and improvisation.  Yet, the very mutability of these practices does much to dissuade the use of oversimplified categories and concepts, and without sufficient tools (theoretical or practical) to measure and gage their multiple values and points of reception, analysis can often lead to a reduction of the works to a single dimension or create a misleadingly narrow critical framework.

In order to avoid the numbing effects that accompany the use of generic terms—the pitfalls of overgeneralization—I will take a moment to further explore the concepts of collaboration and representation in the hopes of reactivating them within the context of this analysis.  My interest in collaborative processes extends far beyond merely the definition of two or more people “working together.”  This is a rather mundane interpretation and does not convey the sense of reciprocal activation—processes that create a sense of agency and empowerment among the participants that they may not otherwise put into practice—that is fundamental to collaboration.  The exhibitions, and works of art within, develop situations for the expression of multiple subject positions, and it is through these kinds of exchanges that the possibility for change is enacted, with careful attention paid to the aesthetic potential of the communicative act.  Above all, these projects come to function as critical sites of debate and contestation, a form of productive interaction that invariably metabolizes the different viewpoints of those involved in order to produce other viewpoints to be mulled over and debated.  Such processes are ultimately dialectical in nature, productive in their sustained oppositionality and interconnectedness.

–
Read the rest of “Making the Invisible Visible: A City in Multiples and the Art of Multiplicity“.

HEI 嘿 HEY news // february 2010

WEAR journal is taking part in the “Art Publication” exhibition at 1a Space in Hong Kong, opening today and running through April 20, 2010. The second issue of WEAR is slowly trickling out, publication expected this spring…

very simple project, easy to engage, and really perfect address to dutch cultural tendencies!

window event 03
title: BREAKFAST
date: Wednesday may 6th
window: Private home, Indische Buurt
Delicious breakfast for two. At a table that connects street and living room. Inside and outside. They belong together.

City-eyes addresses the border between the private and public domain. Subject of research are the Amsterdam windows: as windows are the eyes of the city. City-eyes offers a personal view into the souls of Amsterdam homes and thereby reveals the city’s hidden stories.

All window events are miniature test cases, playing with the characteristics of the window as a screen between interior and exterior. This way, one’s private parquet will be part of the outdoor pavement for a moment, and the city becomes home.

see the entire series: http://www.city-eyes.nl/

The next meeting of the Happy Friends Reading Club will take place in an uninhabited hutong near the South entrance to Nan Luoguxiang. The discussion is taken from a chapter from one of Yi-Fu Tuan’s earliest publications, Space and place: the perspective of experience. Download the chapter “Attachment to Homeland” here [PDF, 9.5mb], and the book’s Epilogue there [PDF, 1mb].

We are meeting on the corner at the South entrance to Nan Luoguxiang on Sunday at 2:45pm and will proceed to the location from there. We will head over there, too, anyone is welcome to join, just be on time so that we can head to site. If there are any problems, please phone Mr. Eddy at 15001127304.

For further reading, try aaarg’s Yi-fu Tuan essay collection.

Mercer Consulting, the world’s largest human resource firm specialising in investments and outsourcing, prepared their 2009 survey of the world’s most livable cities, always a favourite among statistics fanatics who enjoy seeing where they stand relative to everyone else. In the current setting where our cities are becoming more and more alike and many of us are more and more able to act as agents of cultural exportation and outsourced production, surveys such as these are immediate markers of the mass human structuralisation, where according to real variables we can judge the quality of our lives.

The downside of this cosmopolitanesque proposition is that it establishes one standard for what “high quality” should mean and how we can hierarchically rank ourselves next to everyone else. This is useful, of course, to the sorts of companies to which Mercer’s research is tailored, but we should be careful not to confuse the criteria of “global firm” with that of the richness of daily life at ground level.

To be able to accurately calculate their findings, Mercer must be able to find horizontally equivalent categories of comparison. These include: consumer goods, economic environment, housing, medical and health considerations, natural environment, political and social environment, public services and transport, recreation, schools and education and socio-cultural environment. What does this mean, exactly? That we should be buying the same types of goods, that we can only be worthy if we are wealthy and that we should all be receiving the same type of education? Can our socio-political freedoms be counted in numbers of legislation when techno-media influences are deeply linked to certain underlying economic/political agendas?

Thinking a bit about the cosmopolitan geographies that Bea is building for her research, I wonder how the real diversity and livelihood of a city can be calculated. The local seems to be neglected in a large-scale survey such as Mercer’s, but like Butler asks, what are the useful outcomes of contingency “whereby the terms that constitute us are simultaneously deployed, deconstructed, and reiterated”? And like the example of the interviewee who replied that eating at fast food chains such as KFC and McDonald’s have been absorbed enough into contemporary Chinese practices so as to be considered a part of Chinese culture (no longer merely Western), how we distinguish the local from the global is not always so clear. Standardisation in terms of technologies, market diversity, public services and healthcare can be useful and of course in certain terms be beneficial to a greater good. But these standards should hopefully also allow for creativity, recontextualisation and sustainable practices. Western neo-liberal hegemony (with Mercer’s survey as an example of that) has been cunning thus far with its abilities, but we are coming to realise that it cannot and should not be so easily adopted as universal standard.

After that, well…still stuck. Bea, let’s keep going…

HEI 嘿 HEY news:  january 2010 // David Lyon’s text on the 2008 Peasant Games in WEAR journal has been included within the curriculum for the course “Sport, ‘Race’ and Popular Culture”, taught at York University in Toronto by Sean Smith and Barbara Fornssler. Study hard, study hard, study hard…

above: Fake rice seedling picking at the 6th National Peasant Games in Quanzhou, October 2008. [photo courtesy of David Lyons]

-courtesy of the Overseas project, September 2009

[originally posted 31 December 2009 by HappyFriendsReadingClub 欢乐读者俱乐部 at Our Vitamin: 交叉小径的花园 Garden of Forking Paths]

Architect daucle’s installation at HomeShop contracted or expanded between planes of public and private, opening up varying usages of space according to daucle’s working hours. On the left, daucle is at home; on the right, daucle is at work.

Happy Friends Reading Club met at HomeShop in Xiaojingchang Hutong at 8pm on December 14th. A convertible stretcher and canvas installation by architect Claude Tao provided a setting for dialogue, which from outside on the street resembled a shallow-depth stage for a chamber drama. A small round table loaded with bottles of beer held the center; the fluorescent tubes above flattened the off-white cube: TV space.

The reading was a substantial passage from David Harvey’s The Condition of Postmodernity from 1990. Written on the other side of the postmodernism hump, Harvey had much material to go over, and many interpretations to play off each other. As the observations of a geographer, Harvey’s book puts space in a central role. But one of the most intensely-felt accomplishments of the postmodern age is the twisting of space and time around each other, annhilating their former understandings. Harvey points out that earlier theoretical formulations of postmodernism, such as those of Fredric Jameson (Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, first published 1984) in which he called for a program of “cognitive mapping” in the midst of the disorienting effects of late-capitalism, neglected to examine in-depth the received conceptions of space and time, and their variations under varying regimes of time-space use.

Harvey therefore sets to the task of describing several of them, from the (gendered) cycles of peasant lives to the more recent mastery over space by processes of “flexible accumulation” (flexibility with respect to labour processes, labour markets, products and patterns of consumption). He outlines a tripartite diagram of spaces (with diagrams themselves as a category contributing a significant position in a spectrum of spaces) and presents a typology of social times as assembled by Georges Gurvich.

He refers to the theorists who have tried to define time and space in historical and phenomonological terms: space marking social reproduction and control (Foucault); space produced through use and necessity (de Certeau); time memorialized not as flow but as still memories, and history as poetry (Bachelard); the social practices that produce space and time mediated by a “durably installed generative principle of regulated improvisations”– by social formation, or “habitus” (Bourdieu).

Harvey’s discussion measures all of these attempts at grasping definitions of time and space against the ever-mutating capitalist determinations and uses that structure the world at large. For instance, Harvey plays “place” off against “space,” the former (place) marking the limits that revolutionary or worker movements are able to effect; the latter (space) falling more and more, through technologies and social and political crises, under the control of capital–workers can occupy a factory, but not the distribution or transport networks, nor the distances in between the financial centers and the developing nations to which their jobs are being shifted.

Through the terms of geography, Harvey’s critique points out that “the ‘othernesses’ and ‘regional disturbances’ that postmodernist politics emphasize can flourish in a particular place. But they are all too often subject to the power of capital over the coordination of universal fragmented space and the march of capitalism’s global hisorical time that lies outside the purview of any one of them.”

The members of Happy Friends who were present for the discussion agreed that Harvey’s text, written in 1990, seemed remarkably apt at describing the current crisis-ridden moment accompanying the deterritorialization of the internet and political and social changes that occurred in the 20 years since the text was written. Harvey’s observations were uncannily prescient. For that reason, it is unsurprising that they have been almost entirely subverted in the last 2 years. Space has been digitally re-imaged such that the crevasses formerly separating places are so miniscule as to require decades of travel before one’s limbs are fatigued by the traverse. The flattening imposed on space and time by their masters (cartographic satellites, information engineers and, above all, transportation-communication industry) has progressed neither unidirectionally nor fractally. Control of invisible space can be used to localize as much as to globalize, to connect as to disconnect. Whether one is in Beijing or Urumqi or Asia, space is predicated on will and place is a dialectic between space and the individual. To quote the author, “If there are limits to the accumulation and turnover of physical goods…then it makes sense for capitalists to turn to the provision of very ephemeral services in consumption.” The question is how to limit infinitude.

One late-arriving participant made a meta-observation on the group that had been discussing, trying to identify the positions of those sitting around the round table: the Foucauldian, the Marxist, the Eastern philosopher… those appointed squirmed uncomfortably.

There were other attempts at vocabularies to describe the differences between postmodernism and modernism. Using one of the paper cups as an object-diagram of time, one participant pointed at the lip and the space that it contained; this was an argument for space-as-place.

about description and understanding

The object lesson dissipated to the interstices of the discussion; one participant commented that this is what most Taoist interjections do. Other labels for the promiscuous and not mutually exclusive dichotomies of space/time, post/modernism, included: pleasure, usefulness, efficiency, recycling.

最近我们的社区居民于他们的一些故事在城市画报 (2009年11月28日，第22期)被出版了~

our local residents and their stories are recently published in Nanfang Daily’s City Pictorial (28 November 2009, no. 22):

北京的第二场雪后的家作坊。［photo by 杨弘迅 Winson Yang］

“大爷，老张，高哥与大胡子在大市内的小村庄”

我有个邻居非常“猛”。无论哪个季节，只要在我们的胡同里待着就能看见他在“遛弯儿”透气。哪怕他只是从家里到外面的街上走几步、哪怕他只出来晃几分钟，他那“固定”着装看上去总是既整洁又邋遢——这也许是他性格的缘故吧。他一眨一眨的眼睛经常传递着一种真诚的温暖和友好，但有时候，他的眼神又让人觉得他是个爱搞恶作剧的叛逆中学生。但我的邻居已经70多岁了。他曾经作为志愿军到朝鲜打过仗，还曾经参加过某个乐队在全国的巡演。然而，离休和一条坏腿意味着他从此只能在我们胡同的几百米范围内活动。我不清楚，这当中有没有什么难言的感伤情愫，但他的微笑总是让我肯定，活着就好。

有一个夏天的午后，我正在我家门前打扫，亲爱的老大爷又出来了。和平时一样，他靠在墙上，不经意地左右张望着外面忙碌的生活节奏。今天，他的一身行头看上去很旧很舒服了，打扮得像是要去海边一样——恐怕只有那些要去沙滩捡贝壳什么的人才会穿成那样。他穿着鼓鼓的、折边向上的及膝短裤，上身穿一件洗了很多次颜色掉得差不多的黄色T恤，有那么点柏林街头潮人穿衣服的意思。他光脚穿了双帆布船鞋，像穿拖鞋一样懒散地踢踏着。我觉得大爷在看我，于是从街对面冲他招招手，并用胡同里标准的问好方式跟他打了个招呼：“您吃了吗？” 他点点头，我们彼此笑笑，我便继续打扫门廊。

一两分钟之后，我听见身后有一种嘶嘶声，立马意识到是有人在喊我。我回过头，看见老大爷还在那，他正对着我，脸上带着一如既往的迷人笑容。他的双手很滑稽地抓住自己的裤腿，手指头缓慢地移动，看上去是在不停地把右边的裤腿往上拽——往上，再往上。他不停地左顾右盼确保街上没什么人，同时对着我继续他的表演。我有些害怕，而且纯粹惊呆了，只好转身继续扫我的地。

“神奇的中国！”我想。

来北京之前，我从来没想过会遇到这种事情。但北京也不特别——每个地方都有它的特“色”。现在我已经在这里住了4年，在鼓楼附近的小经厂胡同里也住了两年多。倒不是说，我对中国有某种特殊的期待；事实上，在这里，我的生活总是不得不对各种机遇开放，这种状态比我生活过的世界上任何地方都强烈。在这儿你没法计划太多，因为情况总有变化。

我的另外一个邻居也住这大杂院里，过去的8年多以来他一直静静地住在这个胡同里，仿佛因为已经完全融入到环境里而容易被遗忘。大家都爱管他叫“大胡子”，但我怀疑除此之外人们还知不知道这名字背后的更多故事。大部分时间他都一个人待着，不抽烟、不吃肉也不喝酒，但他能讲流利的中文和英语。这令他和那些普通的“老百姓”非常不同。有一次，我仔细观察高哥跟他的对话，高哥脸上露出怀疑、困惑甚至被冒犯的表情，他不能理解大胡子为什么连人生最大的快乐——抽烟——都不去体会。等高哥结束了他如何享受生活的长篇大论之后，俩人没啥可说的了。大胡子呢，也知道自己是异数，只能无奈地笑笑。但他和高哥都对自己的生活方式那么毅然决然，他们的固执在这个院子里共存仿佛正是中国人骨子里的某种“倔”的表现。与此同时，这些有趣的碰撞恰恰反映了北京胡同生活的城乡特质，其背后是北京所特有的“并置”现象。北京大杂院和小社区里的这些群体，就像是缓缓流向城市现代结构的一条条动脉：大街通往环路，再岔开为通向24小时便利店和大型购物商场的条条辅路。也许这跟世界上任何其他城市的现代化没什么两样，但是在北京，这些动脉和关节相互交错作用、彼此渗透，以一种紧迫的语调要求我们对集体全球化所带来的同质性化发出疑问。

哪怕是三里屯Village（名字很讽刺，居然叫“村庄”）这样的地方，它也不仅仅是全球化商品机器孕育的又一个堆砌名牌的闪亮盒子。我喜欢那里，不是因为能在那儿买到来自世界各地的东西，因为那总有农民工在晃悠，他们被地上的音乐喷泉吸引，同时为大城市的浮光异彩感到惊讶。他们的出现对这个城市的发展是那么的重要，而且是中国城市发展中最独特的一面。也许我这么说会激怒某些北京人，但这些“外地人”身上的一些特质跟社会光谱上的一部分本地人是相似的——而他们共同代表了今天中国的各个社会阶层。农民工们也许都住在建筑工地边上的临时大棚，而老北京人则几十年地住在他那25平米的平房里，但这两类人都代表了这个城市发展中缓慢而稳定的一面，这一面不应该被人忽略。住在临时板房里的农民工，和住在他们装修工地隔壁的平房里的老北京，一个来自城市的外部，一个来自城市的过去，却同时在这个空间和时间的交错点里，一起诉说着关于北京的故事。跟成天在鼓楼晃荡的小资青年们比起来，他们的生活方式也许过时了，但正如街坊老张跟我说的，“我在这胡同里住了30多年了。30年后，我还要在这儿住。等周围全变成高楼大厦的时候，我们也还在这这样住。” 老大爷的故事并不陌生——我相信这么多年来他已经吓唬过不少女生了，但他都70岁了，却还那么有精气神。

光鲜与肮脏、传统与现代以及外地与本地混生的同时存在，让这个城市充满生机与活力。它们还为我探索的问题带来了源源不断的创作灵感。我试图去发现，日常生活中的这些一点一滴如何聚集成复杂的人际关系网络，又如何构成当代生活的条条框框？我们一天能纪录的不仅仅是一种变动的档案、也是创作艺术的材料。因此，大部分我们做的所谓“艺术”其实都是按照特定的活动来的，是瞬息性的，同时也是我们安排时间和与人发生联系的一种表达方式。  实际上，我从来没见过比这更好玩的行为艺术：胡同居民们会每天“孜孜不倦”地把石头、砖块搬到路中间以试图阻挡来来往往的车辆。大爷大妈们常常冲过往的汽车喊道，“有病啊你？妈的在胡同里开那么快！！神经病!”这些行为哪怕不足为道，但反映了作为个体的他们，如何努力地参与、管理着这块他们周围的小地方，并对其负责。虽然这些小胡同，仅仅就像嵌在北京大都市里面的村庄，但这些“村庄”和大都市间的微妙联系，组成了中国生活真实一面。只有理解这种联系，我们才能真正理解中国是如何跟世界发生联系的。

像老张这些人表示自愿留守的想法，我不确定是不是真能持续30年。胡同中的老北京人和外地人似乎都向往着住楼房，最好还有中央供暖。80后和90后们则有着他们自己的打算。的确，过去的几十年以来，社会经济条件改变了一切，包括我们；然而，分享胡同居民们的这些琐碎小事情的时候，我们总能看到更多的可能性。对我而言，老大爷那神奇的“打招呼方式”或者一句简单的“吃了吗？”、“回来了？”，都比“你好”来得有创意，而这些细节不仅来自于习惯，还包括自发性和彼此对对方的尊重与感情。关注这些东西给了我们视觉、思维上的新体验——并且，未来，我们还可以再分享它们。

不是么？那些很琐碎的事情也能激发我们去思考，我们的日常生活还能包括什么。

修车师傅宋贤根穿着蓝色工服干活 ［photo by 杨弘迅 Winson Yang］

家作坊支持我们鼓楼安定门小区的小生意~
HomeShop supports neighbourhood small business!~

下载全媒体告 |  download full press release

temp_space x time_plot_ratio continues next week by hosting a cross-bred meeting of the Happy Friends Reading Club and the Beijing Critical Theory group. The reading is from a section of David Harvey’s The Condition of Postmodernity, a chunk of “The experience of space and time” [download PDF here], self-consciously to be reviewed:

HomeShop, Tuesday 15 December, 18.00-20.00

All are welcome~  For directions or more information, call: 131 2133 8508

崔师傅无敌 Master Cui is invincible

来自daucle temp_space by daucle

后面 back side

from daucle@Atelier ClaudeveretT:

“Discard Space” refers to the total space occupied in the twelve hour timespan from eight in the morning when I leave HomeShop until eight in the evening when I return. At the same time it refers to the two week period in which Elaine W. Ho leaves Beijing, whereby if I had not entered HomeShop, it could be deemed as such “discard space”. During this period of time, the effective capacity of this space is zero. But it is a temporary space. Just as my residency within the space creates a use value for it, as it resolves the possibility of my residency elsewhere, this space is full of possibilities.

If we take such possibilities (without a violation of basic rights) and divide them temporally, then there exists a segmented but equally non-violable use of space, and these are what we call temp_spaces. To face the use value of temp_space signifies allowing its users to make such use of space and access the latent potential for communication and exchange made possible by the null space of office hours.

As such, within this two-week period we make a discussion of the time_plot_ratio of residency time (temp_space). My residency fulfills one part of this, but during office hours from Monday to Friday, there remains a “discard space”. We would like for the time_plot_ratio of HomeShop’s temp_space to achieve its greatest possible potential.

HomeShop is divided into two primary spaces, one which is used as a bedroom, the other as a studio. Because the bedroom serves as a private space in which personal articles are stored and the routines of personal hygiene are not usually shared, the general public does not usually have the possibility to enter the space. But with the studio space as temp_space, therefore, its use can be made open and shared under agreement of deed. This space with its open front facing the hutong alleyway and moveable screen can be made multifunctional (commercial, display, etc.). Users have the possibility to open space or close it by the moveable screen. Given the size parameters of the space and that which opens it onto the public street, the screen serves as a crucial determinant of the space.

temp_space x time_plot_ratio will take place from 8-11 December and 14-15 December at HomeShop from 8:00 until 20:00
.

In order to participate, please fill in the temp_space deed [download WORD doc or PDF] and send it by e-mail to claudeverett [at] gmail [dot] com or directly contact by phone at 13811418056.

There are no fees involved, the only requirement is that at the end of each day the space must be returned to the original condition when entered.

douban event page: http://www.douban.com/event/11328214/

In the end we may discover, resolving space is not necessarily a return to something natural, but in fact a manner by which the rich man resolves the seat in his car. Resolving space may mean the new architecture that suddenly springs from the earth, or that’s the architect’s scheme, anyway. Space is a rich man, time is a poor man.

ranking cities is quite popular these days! beijing is of course no exception and decided to measure its wenming-ness by observing, for example, if people are disciplined in queuing, crossing roads, etc. But last week, during an interview, someone made an interesting comment, saying that the difference between Beijing and Paris or Berlin, is that here, you can’t just borrow a cigarette from some random people in the street. I noticed that in Scandinavian countries too, and the reason is that cigarettes are so expensive there, that you would not even think about asking! but here the reason seems quite different: you can’t  – apparantly – trust anybody. who knows, the cigarette might as well contain some drugs! it’s probably not the case, but I think this small thing says quite a lot about how people “live together” in cities. what is trust built upon? and how far is it important to make cities more urban? maybe this could be an interesting way to compare cities and think about the implications of such a small, daily fact.

“home” is whoever stays in.

废弃空间指的是我从早上8点离开家作坊到晚上8点回来这中间的12小时内家作坊内部的所有空间。同时指在何颖雅离开北京的两个礼拜内，如果我没有住进去的话，家作坊内部的所有空间。在这段时间内，此空间的时间效应为0。但它是一种临时空间。正如我的入住使得两个礼拜的废弃空间得到了利用，并节约下了另外某处我可能入住的其他空间一样，它充满可能性。

如果把住宅的不可侵犯性进行时间划分，那么在某段时间内必然存在相对不那么不可侵犯的空间，这部分空间也被称为临时空间。对住宅内临时空间的使用意味着用单位空间的废弃时间段满足与他人潜在的交流与交换，同时节约出使用者在这段时间内原本使用的所有空间。

所以在这两个礼拜内，讨论住宅的时间容积率。将住宅建筑面积按时间计算，则
时间面积=建筑面积×24h；
时间使用面积=使用面积×使用时间；
从而有
时间容积率=时间使用面积/时间面积。
我的入住满足了一部分，而周一至周五白天的上班时间则使其再度变为废弃空间。我们来使家作坊的时间容积率达到最大。

家作坊的空间主要分为两个部分，一部分为卧室兼起居室，另一部分为工作室。将卧室空间作为完全私密空间，用于私人物品的储藏及出于个人卫生的不可共享，非主人允许的情况下不可进入。将工作室空间作为临时空间，主人不在时以契约的形式任意使用。对于面向胡同开放的功能（商业、展示等）通过可移动的帘子进行空间分割（阻挡视线与灰尘），形成门面；对于个人使用的功能可直接在室内进行或用帘子进行分割；如果空间大小允许，也存在部分空间向胡同开放，部分空间供室内使用的情况，用帘子进行分割。无人使用时则作为面向胡同邻居的公共空间。

只要您在白天的时候需要一个这样的空间，欢迎一切形式的介入。你可以利用它和这儿的胡同邻居交流，也可以将其变成完全封闭的个人场所。建筑的所有权在这段时间内完全自由交换，没有歧视，不分你我。

家作坊邀请您来玩！

临时空间的开放时间： 2009年12月8日-2009年12月11日，每天的早上8点至晚上8点
预订方式： 契约将在报名后收到，将契约填好 [下载 WORD 文件 或者 PDF] 并发至claudeverett [圈a] gmail [点] com等待回复或直接联系13811418056。对此空间的使用无需支付任何费用。

豆瓣：http://www.douban.com/event/11328214/

最后我们将发现，节约出来的空间并没有归还给自然，而是为富人节约出来了一个车位，或者是新的建筑拔地而起，这是建筑师的阴谋。空间属于富人，时间属于穷人。

– daucle@Atelier ClaudeveretT