How to (de)Construct a Place Setting in Three Easy Steps

1 - Define a place setting.

What is a ‘place setting’: the setting of a place, to set a place? The opposite of ‘to set’: un-set…unsettle. A place for whom/what? A set placing. A place for a subject. A setting of a scene. To set the scene for the subject of the place.

1 place /plays/ n 1a physical environment; a space 1b physical surroundings; atmosphere 2a an indefinite region or expanse; an area…4 a particular part of a surface or body; a spot…5b an important or valued position…7a a proper or designated niche…8a an available seat…8c PLACE SETTING

2 place vt 1 to distribute in an orderly manner; arrange 2a to put in, direct to, or assign to a particular place…2c to put in a particular state 3 to appoint to a position…5a to assign to a position in a series or category; rank 7 to put, lay…

3 setting /’seting/ n 1 the manner, position, or direction in which something (e.g. a dial) is set 3a the background, surroundings…5 PLACE SETTING

2 - Ascertain the limits of the place setting.

“How is it possible to determine, in such a situation, what truly belongs to the inside and what does not?" (Derrida 1987: 138).
The place setting exists as a singularity in space and time: on the spatial plane it exists on a surface without clearly delineated edges, and temporally it is unclear at which point the place setting becomes itself, or when it is no longer that of which it is known in regards to assembly/disassembly.

Somebody puts together the place setting. It could be the diner, it could be the cook, it could be the silver service waitress/waiter . . . it could be you. A number of possible people construct it. The placemat, cutlery, glasses, plates are laid out by following certain cultural conventions. The dining paraphernalia is placed on a surface, a table. Some of the items may rest on the placemat, if there is one, and some will not, for instance the glasses do not, although they too can sometimes sit on their own object, a coaster.

Where is the edge of the place setting? If you were to draw around the limits of the place setting you would quite probably draw around almost every single separate item that makes it up.

The margins are unclear. It appears that the outside of the place setting is also contained within the inside of it, in the fluid space between the items. The outside pours into the inside. What belongs to the place setting and what does not? Does the tablecloth belong to the place setting: the tablecloth could be removed and the place setting could still be considered to exist. What of the table? What could be utilised in the place of a table that would still enable a place setting to be called such: a kitchen counter, a TV dinner tray, a wooden packing crate. How many individual items that make up the place setting need to be removed for it to not be a place setting? Everything but a knife and fork . . . maybe . . .

How significant is the setting of the place setting: could one assemble a place setting on the pavement of a busy street, or in an art gallery? The context of the place setting might mean that a diner could not be present at the scene of the place setting. If it were physically impossible (or dangerous) for a diner to be in attendance, is it still a place setting: could a place setting be set on an airport runway and it still considered to be a place setting. It would certainly be recognisable as one, but how much does the context effect the place setting, inasmuch as it is part of the dining event. On a spectrum of contexts it is difficult to ascertain an absolutely clear point at which a place setting would not be considered to be such.

The place setting, in terms of its existence, comes into and goes out of being surreptitiously. At some point in its manifestation it becomes what is recognised as a ‘place setting’, but its materialisation is gradual and rather furtive. It is carefully assembled piece by piece, comes to rest for a period of time, then is gradually dismantled by the diner and/or an-other: disarranging the original construction. If the place setting was only considered to be a place setting at its most complete (prior to the diner’s arrival, prior to their unpicking of it), its disassembly could be seen as a destructive act. The diner destroys the place setting, like one might destroy a work of art. This could be considered an act of violence.

Considering the place setting to be a ‘place setting’ only when it is whole and complete, allows for it to be described as such even in the absence of a diner. If the place setting is set, but the diner never arrives, the place setting is still a place setting, even if its origins are not so sure. However, at some point, the items making up the place setting will all be removed.

If the place setting is seen as something more nebulous, uncertain in terms of when it begins and ends in time, the diner’s re-arranging of the items that form it, and the removal of those items during the dining process, could also be included in what is recognised as the place setting. But, we still have the issue of a beginning and end, though. Does the place setting begin when the placemat is laid or, maybe, when the first piece of cutlery is set down. Does it end when the final item is removed?

The place setting is a fragile thing.


3 - Ensure the place setting is ready for the diner's arrival.

The place setting awaits a subject. The place setting is calling a subject. The diner is hailed by the place setting, “interpellated” in the Althusserian sense, whether the place setting has their name on it or not, as it might at a formal dinner when written on a card. The place setting has a subject in mind, whether it is a named subject or a generalised other. The type of dinner will dictate, to a large degree, certain characteristics in the diner: it may dictate their class, wealth or social status; their associations with other diners (relative, friend, business associate); their membership of a certain group. All these qualities define the event, the place setting, and the subject. Therefore the place setting holds certain notions about the subject before they arrive at the dining table.

At a formal dinner the place setting exists for the sole purpose of a subject to be sat at it, and for that subject to utilise it within a given framework. It is an object requiring a subject to fulfil its purpose. The place setting anticipates an always already subject. In this sense the subject comes before the place setting, they exist before the place is set, as a knowable, expected attendee of the dinner. But, does the subject exist as a diner before the place setting is set? If the place setting is a one-time-only event, it is possible the subject only exists as a diner at the point they sit down at the table. If this is the case, then the place setting comes before the dining subject.

It appears that the tendrils of the place setting spread temporally in both directions. It forms a nexus which connect a past and future subject in the singularity of an event. This event, operating around the hub of the place setting, is also contingent in the changing of the subject. The subject will have been altered by the event and will not be the same subject that sat at the place setting at the beginning of dinner. Conversations might have taken place, dialogue exchanged, the subject’s psyche could be transformed, however minutely.

The place setting, as an assembly, is also part of the greater assembly which is the dining event. This could be considered to be like the Deleuzo-Guattarian “assemblage” which comes together and then disassembles. If it were considered in these terms, we could not separate the subject from the event, the subject does not attend the event they are part of the event. The place setting and the diner would be intrinsically linked, because they make up the processual dining experience.

The place setting retains the history of the event. Before the final items are removed, what remains of the place setting contains a trace of the event that has just taken place. The place setting is a recording device for the event as it is for the particular individual subject as diner. How the place setting is left at the point the diner leaves the table is an audit trail for the actions of the subject during their dinner party. If the recording could be played back the subject’s steps could be retraced. The used place setting, at the moment the diner leaves and prior to the point it is finally removed by the attending staff, alludes to an absence. The dining subject leaves their signature (their autobiography), in the rumpled silk placemat, in the not-quite-finished glass of vintage port, in the highly-polished unused silver dessert spoon. Disorder replaces order. But this disorder is telling. It speaks of a past, of an attendance.

Each individual diner will leave their history behind on the table: an archive of the event left behind in their wake. The dining subject has left their mark. Their absence leaves a sign of a past presence. ‘Elvis has left the building’ but he still exists in the discarded crumpled gig programme and trampled cigarette butts of the deserted dance hall.

The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago 1974-79, the Brooklyn Museum

References:
Derrida, Jacques. 1987. The Truth in Painting. Trans. by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press).

Non-Representational Theory - Part 2: 'Challenging Ossified Systems of Power'

Edited by Candice P. Boyd and Christian Edwardes, Non-Representational Theory and the Creative Arts has just been published by Palgrave MacMillan in 2019.

Below is an abstract for my own chapter in the book - a photo essay - 'Psy(co)motion: Anti-Production and Détournement in Affective Musical Cartographies'. And below that is a list of contents for the book:

This chapter discusses the musical compilation series psy(co)motion in the context of a Guattarian analysis. It introduces the set of psychogeographically-oriented CDs within the mix-tape/CD phenomenon while situating it as a form that challenges ossified systems of power. The chapter goes on to discuss whether psy(co)motion manages to successfully recuperate itself through the molecular creation of the object, and via its virtual and physical dissemination.

CONTENTS

Foreword

Non-Representational Dreams

Nigel Thrift

1          Creative Practice and the Non-Representational

Candice P. Boyd and Christian Edwardes

Part 1  Situated Practices in Art, Craft and Design

2          Geo/graphic design

Alison Barnes 

3          Geologic Landscape: A Performance and a Wrecked Mobile Phone

Veronica Vickery 

4          Micro-Geographies of the Studio

Christian Edwardes 

5          Making, knowing and being made: hand-stitching beyond representation  

Emma Shercliff 

6          Feeling Queer Art in Public:  The Gay Liberation Monument

Martin Zebracki

Part 2  Artistic Engagements with Geography

7          Affecting Objects:  Enacting Gesture Within a Performative Research Enquiry

Sarah Bennett

8          Circadian Rhythms, Sunsets, and the Representational Thresholds of Time-Lapse Photography

Kaya Barry

9          ‘Call That Art?  I Call It Bad Eyesight’:  Seeing or Not Seeing in the Context of Responsive Art Practice

Annie Lovejoy

10        Forward, Back, Together – and the Materialities of Taking Part

Simon Pope

11        Where Does ‘Your’ Space End and the Next Begin?  Non-Representational Geographies of Improvised Performance

Candice P. Boyd with Yan Yang, Juana Beltrán, Clinton Green, Jordan White, Carmen Chan Schoenborn, Elnaz Sheshgelani, Chun-liang Liu, Michael McNab, and Ren Walters 

Part 3  Geographers Exploring Artistic Practice

12        Making Theatre That Matters:  Troubling Subtext, Motive, and Intuition

Ruth Raynor

13        Creativity, Labour, and Captain Cook’s Cottage:  From Great Ayton to Fitzroy Gardens

Tim Edensor 

14        Material Conditions in the Post-Human City

Andrew Gorman-Murray 

15        Attuning to the Geothermal-Urban:  Kinetics, Cinematics, and Digital Elementality

Matthew Shepherd 

16        Thresholds of Representation:  Physical Disability in Dance and Perceptions of the Moving Body

Michelle Duffy, Paul Atkinson, and Nicola Wood

Interlude

Supervising

Harriet Hawkins and Rachel Hughes

Part 4  Sound, Music, and Creative Mobilities

17        Audio Recording as Performance

Michael Gallagher

18        Psy(co)motion: Anti-Production and Détournement in Affective Musical Cartographies

Tina Richardson 

19        Walk with Me

Jeffrey Hannam and Lawrence Harvey 

20        Imaginal Travel:  An Expedition in Fine Art Practice in Search of the Loneliest Palm

Gayle Chong Kwan 

21        Fragments (formerly Tales from the Asylum)

Thomas Jellis and Joe Gerlach

22        On Edge:  Writing Non-Representational Journeys

David Bissell

Afterword

Sensing the World Anew

Barbara Bolt

Bureaucracy in the Corporatised University

I would like to look at the activity and ethos of the corporatised university as it pertains to bureaucracy by first providing a definition of the corporatised university by Henry Steck:

the corporatized university is defined as an institution that is characterized by processes, decisional criteria, expectation, organizational culture, and operating practices that are taken from, and have their origins in, the modern business corporation. It is characterized by the entry of the university into marketplace relationships and by the use of market strategies in university decision making. (1985: 74)

Bill Readings explains that it is excellence in its manifest bureaucratic forms - for example, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) formed in 2007 - which is the driving force behind harnessing the university function of the past and in postmodernity placing it under the forces of the market (1999: 38): "Like the stock exchange, the University is a point of capital's self-knowledge, of capital's ability not just to manage risk or diversity but to extract a surplus value from the management." (1999: 40)

The decentralised movement of capital from its original position in the nation-state into what in postmodernity appears in the form of globalised flows, also recapitulates the process for the postmodern individual: what once was the centred humanist subject oriented in their singular culture, now becomes one with a capital-oriented consciousness, a worldview that is legislated to the level of a norm. Jean-François Lyotard explains that this is done through "formulat[ing] prescriptions" which appear in the form of utterances that legitimate particular statements. (2004: 31) This means that it is difficult for those who operate in the institution to not take up these narratives and continue to promulgate them. Readings explains that in capitalist society we are no longer citizen-subjects but "operatives" that take part by adopting a "corporate identity". (1999: 48) Felix Guattari says that we all have a number of different subjectivities available to us, depending on our relationships with other individuals, groups and specific social processes. However, he sees capitalist subjectivity as being the most extensive.

Mark Fisher makes direct reference to university bureaucracy, including providing an extensive list of documents a module leader has to complete for each module they oversee. (2009: 41) Fisher says that the constant checking, monitoring and production of figures does not provide "a direct comparison of workers' performance or output, but a comparison between the audited representation of that performance and output". (2009: 42) We no longer have a system focused on knowledge (learning and teaching), instead we have a system that concentrates on measuring performance and output, and disseminating that data: “The true goal of the system, the reason it programs itself like a computer, is the optimization of the global relationship between input and output – in other words, performativity.” (Lyotard 2004: 11) It is essential for the functioning of the bureaucratic university that this system is open, even if its process of self-defining (for example, in using terms like 'excellence') is internal and closed. The university needs to reduplicate itself internally, and also express that reduplication externally, in the form of representable data. What this means for the university is a spectacle-like appearance in the form of signs that appear as representable data, the output of the excellence process. These signs present the university in the guise of what Guy Debord would describe as "commodity as spectacle". Debord explains that the spectacle is "where the tangible world is replaced by a selection of images which exist above it, and which simultaneously impose themselves as the tangible par excellence." (2005: 36) This is problematic for the university because it means it can become removed from its original idealised functions - the pursuit of knowledge, high quality academic research, education for all - meaning that others might also see it in purely economic terms too (anyone who works in the university knows that some students see their degree only in the form of exchange value: a degree for a job)

Bureaucracy, as a measure of excellence in the corporatised university, as Fisher describes, "floats freely, independent of any external authority" (2009: 50). It produces a style of surveillance culture for academics that is rather like an invisible postmodern semblance of the time and motion study that constantly hovers over them in the form of a bureaucratic superego.

Links:
Input/Output at the University of Excellence
Schizoanalysing the University Campus
Austerity and the University of Excellence

Bibliography:
Debord, Guy. 2005. The Society of the Spectacle (Detroit: Black and Red).
Fisher, Mark. 2009. Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? (Winchester: Zero Books).
Lyotard, Jean-François. 2004. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Readings, Bill. 1999. The University in Ruins (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press).
Steck, Henry. 'Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 85 (2003), 66-83.

The Overdetermination of the Space of the University

An event or a thing at a point in space cannot be understood by appeal to what exists only at that point. It depends on everything else going on around it [...] A wide variety of disparate influences swirling over space in the past, present and future concentrate and congeal at a certain point [...] to define the nature of that point. (Harvey 2006: 124)

Space is fundamental in any form of communal life; space is fundamental in any exercise of power. (Foucault 1991: 252)

Whichever mode of space we are discussing (abstract, virtual, concrete - might be one form of categorisation) it is difficult to separate it from other forms in the same way that it is impossible to talk about space without also discussing those processes involved in them. One factor that is concurrent in those different spaces is us, and our experience of those spaces is influenced by a multiple of factors. Since modernity space has been transformed in relation to the lived experience. In his 1903 essay 'The Metropolis and Mental Life' Georg Simmel presents us with a representation of the individual's internal life in response to the modern city. He discusses the acceleration of pace and the collapse of space-time resulting in the “intensification of nervous stimulation” (2004: 132). Postmodernity brought with it an even more complex response to space, as discussed by cultural theorists such as Frederic Jameson in Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991), where he calls for a new cognitive map to help the individual negotiate the postmodern terrain. The spaces we occupy in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century are so complex that new words have been invented to enable us to even discuss them, such as: hyperreality (Jean Baudrillard and others), non-place (Marc Augé), heterotopias (Michel Foucault), to name but a few. Therefore, space is not only overdetermined because of the many different groups of individuals who operate in these spaces and, hence, have a different aesthetic of them, but also because of the multiple ways of analysing space.

Theoretical approaches to space occur in many fields of academia, even if we just choose to analyse concrete space as it appears in the urban environment. Urban space can be critiqued from multifarious fields such as sociology, geography, cultural theory architecture, urban planning and even psychology, and within those fields there are many different approaches. The term 'urban space' will be defined differently depending on the particular field of analysis. For example, in his text aptly named Urban Space the urban designer and architect Rob Krier describes it thus: "If we wish to clarify the concept of urban space without imposing aesthetic criteria, we are compelled to designate all types of space between buildings in towns and cities and other localities as urban space." (1979: 15) Two important factors become apparent from this definition, the first is this: because Krier is bracketing the aesthetic, this demonstrates how significant it is to any discussion of urban space. Secondly: it is difficult to talk about urban space without also talking about the city (or the town, or even suburbia).

Henri Lefebvre's socio-philosophical synthesis of real and mental space in his book The Production of Space (1974) presents us with one of the most significant texts on space. It is rare to read a subsequent work about space without it referring to Lefebvre's text. The Production of Space has influenced David Harvey, Edward Soja and Manuel Castells; Castells book The Urban Question (1977) being a criticism of Lefebvre's Marxist-Humanist approach. Lefebvre categorises his formulation for analysing space by using the following terms: "Spatial practice" (the space that society utilises for the purposes of both work and leisure, and the praxis involved in these relationships), "Representations of space" (how space is defined and represented by the various dominant agents in society) and "Representational space" (a response to how space is lived through the various signs that represent it, this includes dominant images of space but also the possibility for other more inventive representations) (1991: 38-39). In his homage to Raymond Williams, the Marxist geography David Harvey offers us another approach to looking at space. In his essay 'Space as a Keyword', Harvey breaks down space into absolute, relative and relational. He explains that absolute space "is the space of Newton and Descartes and it is usually represented as a pre-existing and immovable grid amenable to standardized measurement and open to calculation" (2006: 121). Relative space allows for "multiple geometries" and can be approached in a multitude of ways depending on who and what are being investigated, the Einsteinian conceptualisation (Harvey 2006: 121-122). And relational space, which Harvey attributes to Leibniz, states that "there is no such thing as space or time outside of the processes that define them" (2006: 123). Both of these frameworks allow for methods of categorising space that highlight a space that can appear at once dominant or rigid, but also subjective or fluid, allowing room for negotiation or even appropriation.

In their essay 'Postmodern Urbanism' (1998) Michael Dear and Steven Flusty cover the discourses attached to the two most influential schools of urbanism in the US: The Chicago School, which appeared in the 1920s and 30s, and the Los Angeles School which emerged in the 1980s. They explain that the model of the city adopted by the Chicago School is one of concentrism with a view of the city that is organised around a central hub (1998: 65). The Los Angeles school, with its postmodern approach to the city (its main case study being Los Angeles itself), sees a break with the traditional concept of the city described above. It prefers to view the city as "fragmented parcels [...] within the collective world city" (ibid.). Dear and Flusty provide an interesting list of adjectives associated with Flusty's own work on city space, such as: "stealthy", "slippery", "crusty", "prickly" and "jittery" (1998: 57), demonstrating a complex aesthetic response to the space we occupy in present times.

While Krier's definition of urban space intentionally excludes the aesthetic and subjective, when discussing urban space in my thesis I shall be concentrating on these aspects. This individualised response would lend itself to the relative approach mentioned by Harvey: it depends on who or where you are as to how that space (time) appears. However, the mode of space I intend to be challenging is the one that 'appears' as absolute and unquestionable, the one that Debord would put down to the project of the capitalism, the spectacle. Nevertheless, because the appearance of space-time has internal to it various processes, which indeed cannot be separated from it, then the relational view takes those processes into account: "external influences get internalized in specific processes or things through time". (Harvey 2006: 124) At the university these processes can be spatially observed, not only in the more obvious physical movement of staff and students covering the campus terrain, but they are also actualised in both the actions taken up by the various actors at the university (for example, in taking up a practice of completing an administrative process) and in the concrete form of the buildings, or other campus phenomena, that support these processes. Therefore, Harvey's formulation of space, with its geographical critique of capital accumulation provides a useful springboard into a critique of postmodern space and "relational aesthetics". This term can be attributed to Nicolas Bourriaud, based on his text Relational Aesthetics (1998). It refers to a response to art (predominantly from the 1990s) which not only emphasises the social nature of the lived experience, but that also draws the viewer into the work as participator. One of his definitions is: “art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space”. (2002: 14) The conceptual artists that interest Bourriaud are concerned with changing the more traditional position of the gallery visitor as 'beholder' to one of an interactive process. Very often the works Bourriaud discusses do not even take place in a gallery setting but in everyday social space. In his book, Bourriaud also uses the theory of Guattari to discuss relational public art.

Above I have provided two different ways of examining space from two different (although not inseparable) fields of theory. My own theoretical analysis will include theory from both postmodern geography/urbanism and also the work Harvey has done in regard to how capital contributes to formulating our landscape. It is also the case that the processual and relational factors that influence space (and that are influenced by space in return) can be related to the work Guattari has done in the area of "molecular revolution". Guattari explains that it is possible for individuals to not be reliant on "the spatio-temporal specifications of the social phantasy". (1984: 97) In other words, the representations of the university - which also includes how it appears in space - while they may be encouraging a certain semiotic (in the case of the examination under way here, a capitalist-oriented one), can also enable a different aesthetic paradigm through differing connections and alternative existential territories. Guattari explains that this occurs when moments are no longer ideologically cloaked but become a "nucleus for processual relay"(1995: 105-106). Changing one's position, either physically or mentally, might encourage a shift away from the dominant aesthetic, to what Guattari would describe as "access to a-signifying nuclei of subjectivation” (1995: 68).

Foucault's own analysis of space, which is apparent in much of his work, including The Order of Things (1966) and Discipline and Punish (1975) - becomes inseparable from other factors in his interview with Paul Rabinow 'Space, Knowledge, and Power'. As discussed in Discipline and Punish, fields of surveillance are spatially manifest: operations and procedures applied to the body-politic take place in material structures that appear in the concrete form of the institution, whether it is a prison, a mental institution or a university. The authority attached to these procedures (and hence these structures) come in the form of statements that become naturalised upon being repeated by not only those designated to do so, but also they become legitimised by being taken up into larger groups. In ‘Truth and Power’ Foucault explains how the individual is under the influence of various propagated discourses that exist in the environment under the aegis of ‘truth’. He states: “‘Truth’ is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.” (1980: 133). These very statements, exist in their moment of utterance, defined by their enunciative domain and materialised by their particular formalised mode of power. Statements are supported in the structures of particular institutions through the practices that reaffirm them and in the discourse transmitted by them, they are also delineated in the images that represent them.

Bibliography:
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2002. Relational Aesthetics, trans. by Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods (Dijon: Le presses du réel).
Dear, Michael and Steven Flusty. 'Postmodern Urbanism', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, 1 (1998), 50-72.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, ed. by Colin Gordon, trans. by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham and Kate Soper (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press).
Foucault, Michel. 1991. 'Space, Knowledge, and Power', The Foucault Reader, ed. by Paul Rabinow (London: Penguin). pp. 239-256.
Foucault, Michel. 2001. 'Of Other Spaces', The Visual Culture Reader, ed. by Nicholas Mirzooeff (London and New York: Routledge). pp. 237-244.
Guattari, Félix. 1984. Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics, trans. by Rosemary Sheed (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
----- 1995. Chaosmosis: An ethico-aesthetic paradigm, trans. by Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press).
Harvey, David. 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development (London and New York: Verso).
Krier, Rob. 1979. Urban Space (London: Academy Editions).
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space, trans. by Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell).
Simmel, Georg. 2004. ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’, Art in Theory – 1900-2000, ed. by Charles Harrison & Paul Wood (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing) pp. 132-136.

The Collage Seaside

“Collage is simultaneously innocent and devious.” Colin Rowe and Red Koetter

The above schizocartographic image was made by cutting photos of Hunstanton from various brochures and leaflets that advertise the seaside town. The pasted words and phrases are mostly popular terms that refer to seaside resorts, but were actually taken from the adverts of businesses or organisations located in the area. The other terms refer to the analysis and theory of urban space and have been added digitally. The quotes are comments on urban space by the following:

1 - Iain Sinclair
2 - Brian Jarvis
3 - Felix Guattari
4 - David Harvey
5 - Henri Lefebvre

This 'map' has been named after the book Collage City by Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter. It has been created for the following project 'Reading the Arcades/Reading the Promenades'.
Please see my blogs on A Schizocartography of Hunstanton located here:
Part 1
Part 2

Bibliography:
Row, Colin and Fred Koetter. 1987. Collage City (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press).