This article provides a study of precarisation through the lens of dress work: the mundane practice of dressing the body for work. Based on intimate in-depth wardrobe interviews and analyses of workers’ narratives about their dressing practices, we develop a perspective on what insecure work feels like for workers in the interactive services and creative industries. We understand dress work as a materially mediated practice in which workers often aim to achieve a level of comfort: a state in which they are allowed to become less reflexive about their bodies. One of the ways in which precarisation makes itself known, we contend, is through the temporal logic of the interruption. The temporality of zero-hours contracts and short-term, insecure labour interrupts the achievement of comfort as workers are not allowed the time to experience their work, colleagues and spaces. The discomfort and sometimes pain of insecurity of post-Fordist labour is thus felt on the body.
DOCUMENT
This is a critique of how designers deal with contending histories and multiple presents in design to speculate about socio-technical futures. The paper unpacks how embedded definitions and assumptions of temporality in current design tools contribute to coloniality in designed futures. As design practice becomes implicated in how oppression extends from physical systems to global digital platforms, our critique rejects the notion that it is only AI that needs fixing and it dissects the Futures Cone used in speculative design to make these issues visible. As an alternative, we offer a hauntological vocabulary to aid designers in reorienting their speculative tools and accommodating pluriversality in anticipatory futures. To illustrate the benefits of the proposed metaphors, we highlight examples of coloniality in digital spaces and emphasize the failure of speculative design to decolonize future imaginaries. Using points of reference from hauntology, those that engage with uncertain states of lingering or spectrality, and notions of nostalgia, absence, and anticipation, this paper contributes to rethinking the role that design tools play in colonizing future imaginaries, especially those pertaining to potentially disruptive technologies.
DOCUMENT
Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage’s socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.
DOCUMENT
This text has become a performance of (affirmative) entrepreneurship. This is done by a set of writing (and methodological) techniques: autoethnography, the triptych of mimesis, poiesis, kinesis and a life journey that forms the base of the chapter. As such, this text challenges some well-known shortcomings of entrepreneurship research such as being enacted by a distant observer/writer, decontextualized accounts of entrepreneurship and disregard of creativity and playfulness. The main contribution of the chapter is methodological, in its broadest sense (Steyaert, 2011): I propose autoethnography as “more than method” for engaging with processes of (affirmative) Entrepreneuring that speak to the increased attention for narrativity and playfulness in entrepreneurship (see for example Hjorth, 2017: Hjorth and Steyaert, 2004: Gartner, 2007; Johannisson, 2011). The autoethnographic story offers an engaging and relevant account of the practice of entrepreneurship and provides rich emic insight into the socio-materiality of lived experience. It also highlights the temporality of entrepreneurship – both in terms of chronos (continuous flow of time) and Kairos (taking advantage of the “right moment”) (Johannisson, 2011). And as I continue performing affirmations, I am curious how you are Entrepreneuring your life – tell me. This is a draft chapter/article. The final version is available in Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Behavior, Practice and Process edited by William B. Gartner and Bruce T. Teague, published in 2020, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788114523
DOCUMENT
This article shows that employment of temporality in nativist discourse is not limited to just the past. The perception of “threat,” central to nativism, does not only inform historical claims made by nostalgic nativists, but also refers to the present and to the future in which this threat is to be overcome. After defining nativism, the article focuses on nostalgic invocations of the national past. To what (imagined) times do nativists refer when they speak about the “good old days”? What exactly is perceived as attractive about those days? The next section deals with the dystopian and utopian invocations of the future. We focus on the two most influential representatives of the Dutch radical right: Partij voor de Vrijheid and Forum voor Democratie. By analyzing the nativist entanglements of past, present, and the future, this article enriches our understanding of temporality in the dominant debates about national belonging.
LINK
Een kunstenaar moet hedendaags zijn, wil hij serieus genomen worden. Maar waar komt die verheerlijking van het hedendaagse vandaan? Hoe relevant is hedendaagsheid in de kunst en het kunstonderwijs eigenlijk? Dit boek gaat vanuit diverse perspectieven dieper in op het thema hedendaagsheid. Wat maakt het hedendaagse nu zo belangrijk dat haar schijn een haast mythologiserend karakter krijgt?
MULTIFILE
Transcript of a lecture during the conference 'Is contemporary art history', Institute of Fine Arts, New York, 28th february 2014.
MULTIFILE
Early landscape designers were very aware of the fact that time is a key feature of landscape and of landscape architecture. Today, practising landscape architects will confirm the importance of time in landscape. However, both in the drawings and in the actual proposals of today's practitioners, aspects of time are often secondary - an ambiguous situation that is the focus of this essay. Given that landscape is so strongly time-based, we can ask what aspects of time are present in today's landscape architectural designs? We can also ask whether drawings reflect time and if not, why not?
DOCUMENT
Since the arrival of cinema, film theorists have studied how spectators perceive the representations that the medium offers to our senses. Early film theorists have bent their heads over what cinema is, how cinema can be seen as art, but also over what cinema is capable of. One of the earliest film theorists, Hugo Münsterberg argued in 1916 that the uniqueness of cinema, or as he calls it photoplay, lies in the way it offers the possibility to represent our mental perception and organisation of the reality, or the world we live in: “the photoplay tells us the human story by overcoming the forms of the outer world, namely, space, time, and causality, and by adjusting the events to the forms of the inner world, namely, attention, memory, imagination, and emotion” (Münsterberg [1916] 2004, 402)
LINK
In 1960 Kevin Lynch analysed the ‘city-image’ in The Image of the City; seven years later American artist Robert Smithson surveyed the suburb of Passaic in ‘A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey’. Both approaches use narrativity as an instrument to connect urban space with the lived experience of its users. Where Kevin Lynch analyzes the visual perception and mental representation (‘imageability’) of the postwar American metropolis, Robert Smithson explores the temporality of its peripheral terrain vague. Where Kevin Lynch frames his inquiry within then-current conventions of perception and cognition, Robert Smithson rejects these conventions precisely because they do no justice to his experience of the suburb and offer him no method to analyze or describe it. In his analysis, there is no coherent map of the territory, no mental representation to consult. How does Smithson’s practice relate to the paradigm of ‘imageability’? What is being narrated, and how does narrativity operate? By juxtaposing the two approaches this text reflects on some ideas and issues that surround a narrative analysis of urban landscape.
DOCUMENT
