1.0. Theoretical Concepts Explored in the Experiment:
Sociologist Lyn Lofland identifies 5 sources of aesthetic pleasures and 4 sources of interactional pleasures in the public realm in her book titled, "The Public Realm: Exploring the City's Quintessential Social Territory".
Sources of Aesthetic Pleasures:
- Perceptual Innuendo
- Unexpectedness
- Whimsy
- historical layering/ physical juxtaposition
- crowding/stimulus diversity/spectacle
Sources of Interactional Pleasures:
- Public solitude
- People-watching
- Public sociability
- Playfulness/frivolity/fantasy
The event will invite residents of Wards and Algonquin island to sensorily engage with 3 of the five characteristics of their physical public spaces. They all represent the visual qualities of the physical public spaces. Below I clarify their definitions using discussions provided in Lofland's book.
Perceptual Innuendo: By 'perceptual innuendo' Lyn Lofland refers to the pleasure that arises from glimpsing a small piece of the built environment, a glimpse that suggests that an interesting, exotic, weird, enticing and even enchanting social world exists just outside of one's range of vision.
According to Lofland, one takes pleasure in the very incompleteness of the information one is able to gather exactly because incompleteness gives reign to imagination.
Unexpectedness: By unexpectedness, Lyn Lofland suggests the quality of unfamiliarity in the built environment. In her study, she found some people took pleasure in not knowing and being surprised by the unexpected encounters.
However, she recognized that the definition of pleasure exists primarily in the eye of the beholder. This means what is surprising to one person is 'old hat' to another.
Whimsy: By whimsy, Lofland refers to frivolity, eccentricity, kookiness, nuttiness, capriciousness and oddness. She suggests people take pleasure from objects or arrangments found within a built environment that are merely fanciful or frivolous.
The event will also invite residents to sensorily engage with the social dimension of their neighbourhood public spaces. Here I will encourage residents to visually observe how their public spaces perform through means of social/human activities. What social fabric unfolds on a daily basis, what narratives of public space one gathers from the unfolding social fabric, what such observation of public life brings to the life of residents or how it shifts their perception of their public spaces - are my point of interest in this part of the experiment. For this I use Lofland's concept of 'people-watching' which she describes as follows:
People-watching: Activities in the public realm that involve watching people go by, to be entertained by street life and to inhale the atmosphere of the city. Lofland uses the theatre metaphor to describe the activity of people-watching from a sidewalk cafe since in this activity one group of people - for instance, the passers-by- take on the role of 'performers' while the other group - customers of the cafe occupying intentionally street facing chairs-take on the role of 'audience'.
2.0. Solo Sensory Investigations (visual) on Toronto Island:
When:
Week of June 19, 2023
What:
Prior to the participatory event, I conducted solo investigations of the everyday life in public spaces of the island residential neighbourhoods to explore, identify, engage with and reflect on the sources of aesthetic and interactional pleasures, as described by Lyn Lofland, that exist or potentially exist on the island. The sources I am interested in are - perceptual innuendo, unexpectedness, whimsy as sources of aesthetic pleasure and people-watching as a source of interactional pleasure.
How:
I conducted the exploration through sensory walking and improvisationally moving through the residential streets while focusing on sight as the primary sensory input receptor in this case. I began walking and moving from the intersection of Fourth Street and Channel Avenue. The movement was not planned ahead of time. It was improvised but slow. The only thing that was planned was my intention to visually explore and engage with the perceptual innuendo, unexpectedness and whimsy of the streetscapes. Just after a little bit, it became clear that the street section starting from Fourth and Channel and ending at Fifth and Bayview offered an amazing opportunity of perceptual innuendos of the built environment. So, that visual quality of the built environment became my interest for exploration. As my body moved, my gaze moved with it which allowed me to explore the streetscape from various visual perspectives. During the activity, I responded spontaneously to my impulses and walked or moved accordingly. Three different physical modalities were employed in this exploration - the visual perspective from the standing height (of an adult), the visual perspective from the crawling position (assuming the perspective of a child) and visual the perspective from a curious moving body (such as dancers, movement practitioners).
Similar investigations were made on the island in Fall 2022, however, during the exploration in June 2023 on the island, the focus was particularly on the sources of pleasures of the built environment that Lyn Lofland proposed.
Documentation:
The exploration was documented through photographs and videos.
5.3. Summary of Participants' Feedback (July 23, 2023)
Score 1: Social Life Watching
In this participatory event, two residents from my neighbourhood and my partners participated. There was time for only one score exploration. Score 1 was explored at the neighbourhood park.
The participants formed a small group of 3 members. They conducted each task - 1,2,3 - of the score together.
Although the score asked them to explore the social life at the site, participants seemed more interested in exploring the natural environment of the park. They looked at the green willow tree in front of them on one side of the park, the Hydro Poles and the expansive field on another side, the houses on Liverpool road and the high school on their final side of viewing. Because of the weekend and summer holidays, participants mentioned that they did not notice much social activities around. They noticed a few children riding their bikes, a middle-aged man riding his skateboard and a highschool student learning to drive. Those were the only social activities that they identified. The other activities that interested them were the construction site at the schoolyard and the backyard of a large old house right next to the park.
Again the activity engaged them in different kinds of narrative creations about the things they were looking at and paying close attention to at the site. Everyone had attention on different things although they were collectively looking at the same side of the park at the same time. Somehow each was attracted to different things- one was interested in the greenery, one was interested in the man-made objects while another was interested in finding people as the activity suggested.
They mentioned that on a regular day, they would normally drive past the park. Hence they would not have the opportunity to pay close attention to what is here. Even when they walk in the park, their walking is one intention driven and that is the intention to walk fast or jog in order to stay active. None of these activities they mentioned offer the chance to observe mindfully.
With the frame, they all agreed they could focus better. However, one suggested if the frame had a narrower hole, the visual isolation of an object or activity from its surrounding context would have been more effective. A frame with a narrower hole would have created a more performative quality of the subject of visual interest.
5.4. Reflections (July 23/24, 2023)
Score 1: Social Life Watching
This was the first event where I had more than one resident as participants.
The activities - walking, observing, framing - did not come across as exciting to them in the beginning. However, when they started the task, they quickly got into it and began to go deeper into them. These residents have been living in the neighbourhood for more than 13 years. One has been here for more than 25 years and yet she acknowledged the activity made her experience of the new again.
Here in this experiment too, the activities intrigued participants to create new visual narratives of the place. How close they were to the true narratives of the place or the things they observed was not very important. What was important was the score's capacity to initiate a sense of curiosity among the participants about their environment that otherwise is taken for granted. The exchange of dialogue about their visual sensations, about different things each one observed seemed to have generated a collective visual sensory understanding of the park. Although the participants were conducting the activity in a group, their visual engagement varied. And as they shared their experience with one another, each participant's sensory experience became richer than what it would have been if they were conducting the activity alone.
In creating descriptions for the park, participants reflected deeply on their personal and collective experiences of the park that emerged through the activity and shared them with each other. This sharing connected participants with visual narratives beyond the dominant visual narrative of the place. The descriptions for the park agreed on by the participants were:
1. Tranquil Meadows
2. Cartivity
3. Sprawling
Image 1-4: Visual sensing of perceptual innuendo of streetscape while moving
Image 5-6: Other kinds of interactions and embodiment that are triggered by the visual sensing of the environment
Image 7: Streetscape within Toronto Island's residential neighbourhood
Visual engagement using a physical frame with visual qualities of the streetscape
Image 8: Framing perceptual innuendo of the streetscape
Image 9-10: Framing unexpected visual quality of the streetscape
Image 11-13: Framing whimsical visual qualities of the streetscape
Image Descriptions
Image 32-34: Participant is exploring Score 2: Perceptual Innuendos of the built environment on Third Street - with frame and without the frame.
Image 35: Participant is reflecting on the exploration, re-naming the Third Street based on his exploration experience.
Image 36: Participant leaving the intervention at the site. The wooden plaque contains the 3 new names the participant gave to 'Third Street' based on his exploration of perceptual innuendos.
Image 37-38: Public interaction with the intervention. Next day, when I went to visit the intervention site, I found Someone erased part of the written text. It suggested public interaction with the intervention. The motive behind the interaction was not clear to me.
4.5. Reflections (June 24/25, 2023)
Through participatory events, my intention was to create residents' collective understanding of the visual and social dimensions of their neighbourhood public spaces. By visually deeply engaging with the visual qualities of public spaces and the social life that unfolds there, residents start developing a collective sense of place that can lead ultimately to generating a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood.
In the event, I used a visual frame for two reasons - # 1. to create a better visual focus # 2. to create a performer-audience relationship between participants and actions/objects viewed by them. The latter is to understand when everyday action/object in public spaces is viewed as a performance in a similar spirit as watching a performance in a theatre that demands a viewing with focus and intention, how does that action of viewing or visual engagement help develop a deeper understanding or shift our understanding of the observed? I am trying to understand if we visually engage with the physical and social dimensions of public spaces in a similar fashion we visually engage with a performance in a theatre through a visible or invisible frame how does that shift our relationship with our everyday public spaces?
In the beginning, the participant did not seem too enthusiastic about the scores. He was probably expecting more challenging tasks. Walking, watching, framing social activities did not come across as exciting activities to do. However, that changed as he started exploring further.
The active visual engagement helped him explore the unfolding social life of the neighbourhood park from multiple perspectives. The perspectives led him to create multiple narratives for the place. For instance, based on the types of activities that people were doing at and around the park, some people came across as tourists while others as residents to him. Even within the group of tourists, he assumed some as long-term tourists while others as short-term. Whether or not those narratives were true is not as important as recognizing that this task of active visual engagement could unconsciously and voluntarily intrigue him in creating those narratives for this place. Without this active visual engagement, he would have continued with a generic understanding of the place and would not have known that the social life in this place comes in multiple flavours.
It seemed that the social life on the residential side of the park created a more 'sensational' experience for the participant in comparison to the activities on the other two sides. By 'sensational' I do not mean an exciting experience. What I mean is that the activities evoked the participant's memory of his own everyday life, his own way of going about in his life at home and that resonance between his observation and his daily experience somehow created those 'sensation of knowing' or 'sensation of familiarity'.
By the time, the participant started score 2, he seemed a bit tired. Perhaps the event needs to be re-organized in a more manageable way. For instance, one group of participants can be asked to explore score 1, while the end group score 2. In this event, it was just my partner who was present for the event. So, I did not have the option of splitting the activities.
It seemed the concept of perceptual innuendo was a difficult concept to grasp in the beginning. Even the definitions did not help much. But after I demonstrated it once, the idea became clearer to the participant.
The activity drew the participant into the exploration of the streetscape. Once he realized what perceptual innuendos were, he spent more time in exploring them in detail - walking forward, walking away, from different angles and from different locations on the street. The reflection on his experience, re-naming the street and doing small interventions were activities that the participant found very rewarding. I could sense it from his conversational tone and his gestures. Reflecting on the experience through thinking, writing and creating urban interventions seem to offer a more lasting and embodied experience of the score.
From the participant's feedback, what emerged was that the framing was more effective in Score 1 than in score 2. The variety of social activity within the vastness of the public park makes it difficult for any one or two activities to stand out from the crowd. The frame helped focus the participant on the specifics. It helped him to isolate what he wanted to explore further from the mass. By isolating his interest from the mass with the help of the frame, he could create multiple narratives for it depending on how he was relating it to the background. However, he did not find the frame very useful in score 2 where he explored perceptual innuendos. He mentioned the small/narrow spaces of perceptual innuendos did not offer much difference in his visual experience with our without the frame.
These activities of visual engagement with the neighbourhood streetscape seem to create a richer experience of the surrounding among the residents/participants. They seem to take more interest in their everyday experience of walking through these public spaces, noticing nuances, creating a more embodied experience, slowing down to live moments on the neighbourhood streets and developing empathy for the space they share with neighbours.
On the public interaction with the art interventions:
It seems the unannounced urban interventions draw more participation from the public than the organized participatory events. The missing wooden plaque from the park, the erasure of text from the street post on the Third Street reflect that these interventions do catch people's attention. Perhaps their absurdity, in the sense that they are not expected to be there, makes people express their voices/opinions about these interventions through different interaction actions.
Publicity of the event at all strategic locations on the island
Image 17: At the residency's community notice board
Image 18: Community notice board at the entrance of Algonquin Island
Image 19: Community notice board at Wards Island's community club
Image 20: Community notice board at the island ferry terminal
4.4. Summary of Participants' Feedback (June 24, 2023)
Score 1: Social Life Watching
While observing the social life of the neighbourhood public park, the participant noticed the differences in activities between the residents and tourists. The island is a popular summer destination for tourists.
According to the participant, residents usually walk by or ride their bikes through the park without stopping or paying much attention to the surrounding whereas tourists stopped, wandered around and took more interest in the area.
On the side of the park where there is a cafe, the participant noticed people walking in and out of it with either drinks or some other small paper bags (possibly some snacks in them) in their hands. Some customers stayed inside the cafe. He also noticed different types of service vehicles on the roads next to the cafe.
On the side of the lake facing the city, according to the participant, the social activity of people varied quite a bit from those that took place on the other sides of this neighbourhood park. He found that on the lake side, people were more interested in observing the city skyline whereas on other sides of the park, people were busy with playing, talking to each other, listening to music, reading books etc. The latter groups were focused more on the activities and things around them. He acknowledged that this difference in social activities was not very visible to him on his regular days of walking or biking past this same park. Only during the tasks in the score 1: Social Life Watching that he became clearly aware of different kinds of social activities that take place in this neighbourhood park.
He continued that people on the side of the lake did not take much interest in the island itself. They were more glued to watching the city whose hustle-bustle they ironically wanted to escape to find a more natural and calm environment on the island.
On the side of the park that faces the residential area, the participant again found the social life different from the ones that he experienced on the other two sides - cafe side and the lake side. The residential side was quieter, more stationary in terms of the activity. He could also sense the social bonding between neighbours as he saw them talking to each other from their respective front porches. On this side, people were more focused on their household activities and did not seem to be bothered by the activities at the cafe and/or the tourist activities on the lake side. The activities on this side of the park resonated more with the participant's personal experiences. He felt as if he was watching himself through the activities of the residents. He felt that this side gave him a more steady picture of social life of people who live on the island whereas the other two sides gave him pictures of instantaneous, snapshots of momentary activities that are not necessarily part of people's everyday life.
Using the frame, the participant felt more focused and more connected to the specificities of an activity, however, the activity was sort of made isolated from the rest of the surroundings by the frame. Without the frame, things look more generic to him and he mentioned the specificities got washed away within the mass. The frame helped define the specificities for him and to his experienced eye of a photographer, the observation of moving objects/people through the frame created a sense of performance for him. performance to him.
When thinking about the descriptions for the public space in the final task of Score 1, the participant mentioned it allowed him the opportunity to analyze the variations in the social activities and his experience of observing and noticing them further. Without guided tasks such as in the score, he mentioned he would not have thought about creating narratives for this park. In fact, he would not even have realized that how different the social activities are on each side of the place and so no one narrative can describe the place in its entirety.
Score 2: Perceptual Innuendo, Unexpectedness, Whimsy
In score 2, the participant decided to explore perceptual innuendos of the 'Third Street' because he saw that the streetscape was dominated by bushes, green fences and shrubbery. They obstructed his views of the houses. He could barely see any of the houses entirely. The bushes created small openings which he called 'windows' through which he tried to make 'guesses' about the household. He mentioned whatever he could see through those openings intrigued his thoughts and imaginations about the houses inside. He mentioned that he explored two sites on the street more closely than the others. At one site, he looked through the opening of the shrub and thought he was looking at a red object that he could not figure out what it was from that perspective but then when he looked at the same object from another opening in the shrub, he thought it was a red sculpture or installation. But eventually, he couldn't figure out what that object exactly was because no matter which perspective he took through those openings, the object was never fully visible.
At the second site, the view of the house was even more obstructed by the dense shrubs. It was a large property. The participant tried to look at the inside through multiple openings in the shrubbery to piece together a narrative for him. In one spot, he saw part of a chair, in another spot he saw some children's toys etc. So, every opening gave birth to a new narrative to him about the house and what was inside. But again everything was left to his imagination by the obstructed views.
The frame in this case helped to find a focus on the visuals but he did not find the use of frame very useful overall in his exploration of perceptual innuendo. He mentioned that in score 1 where the site was large in size, the framing helped to isolate different events and activities from a mass of other activities, but in score 2, since the area of observation was small, the framing did not make much difference other than helping see the same thing through the frame from different angles.
After discovering and exploring the instances of perceptual innuendos on Third Street, the participant felt that the naming of the street did not reflect the lived and embodied experience of the street.
My reflections on the participant's feedback:
In the beginning, the participant did not seem too enthusiastic about the score. He was probably expecting more challenging tasks. Walking, watching, framing social activities did not come across as exciting activities to do. However, that changed as he started exploring further.
The active visual engagement helped him explore the unfolding social life of the neighbourhood park from multiple perspectives. The perspectives led him to create multiple narratives for the place. For instance, based on the types of activities that people were doing at and around the park, some people came across as tourists while others as residents to him. Even within the group of people he considered tourists, he assumed some as long-term tourists while others as short-term. Whether or not those narratives were true is not as important as recognizing that this task of active visual engagement could unconsciously interest him in creating those narratives for this place. Without this active visual engagement, he would have continued with a generic understanding of the place and would not have known that the social life in this place comes in multiple flavours.
It seemed that the social life on the residential side of the park created a more 'sensational' experience for the participant in comparison to the activities on the other two sides. By 'sensational' I do not mean an exciting experience. What I mean is that the activities evoked the participant's memory of his own everyday life, his own way of going about in his life at home and that resonance between his observation and his daily experience somehow created those 'sensation of knowing' or 'sensation of familiarity'.
A total of 3 residents from my neighbourhood (Pine Ridge neighbourhood) participated in this participatory event - 2 residents and my partner.
Image Descriptions
Image 39-41: Invitation letter to the participatory event was distributed to every house in the neighbourhood by going door-to-door.
Image 42-43: Participants exploring Score 1: Social Life Watching without and with the frame and discussing/sharing their findings among themselves.
Image 44: Participants brainstorming to articulate short descriptions of this neighbourhood park based on their experience with the score.
Image 45: Participants creating an art intervention following their exploration.
Image 46-47: Proof of public interaction with the intervention. The plaque went missing the next morning.
Image Descriptions
No resident showed up to the event despite all the publicity attempts by me, by the neighbourhood network as well as by the Artscape Gibraltar Point where I was a resident artist in June 2023.
So, I decided to go ahead and conduct the event with my partner.
In the image, you see my partner exploring the scores.
Image 26: Event Poster at the meeting point.
Image 27 - 28: Participant is exploring Score 1: Social Life Watching at the neighbourhood park on Wards Island - with frame and without the frame.
Image 29: Participant is reflecting on his explorations. He is describing/summarizing his perception, based on the social dimension of this public space.
Image 30: Participant is intervening into the public space with his new perception.
Image 31: Despite the fact that residents did not participate in the organized event, they participated indirectly in it. The wooden plaque left at the park went missing the next morning. This suggests that the public noticed it and someone interacted/took it from the site. The motivation behind the interaction is unknown but it suggested that unorganized participatory interventions generate more interactive participation from the public than organized ones.
5.0. 2nd participatory event details - Pine Ridge Neighbourhood, Pickering
Event Name: Seeing the Ordinary Anew
Venue: Public Spaces within Pine Ridge Neighbourhood, Pickering
Meeting Point: Halsey Lane and Abbey Road
Date: Sunday, July 23, 2023
Time: 4:30-6:00pm
Participants Arrive at the Site by 4:20pm
Sign-up for the event by emailing at kathakexchange5@gmail.com
Please bring your camera or a cell phone
Scores to Explore within the public spaces of the neighbourhood:
Score 1: Social Life Watching
Score 2: Perceptual Innuendo, Unexpectedness, Whimsy
2.1. Reflections on the solo investigations:
Week of June 19
My solo investigation took place on Wards Island on Fifth and Fourth Streets between Channel and Bayview Avenues. It was done over 3 days, June 21-23, for 2-3 hours each day.
The intention first was to identify the aesthetic pleasures of the streetscapes and once identified, the task was to establish deeper visual and embodied engagement with them by moving around them in an improvisational manner responding to visual impulses.
The questions that I had in mind were: What do I see when I alter my movements through the streetscape, when I do not simply walk by a perceptual innuendo but rather move around it, take time, slow down, move up and down, in other words, improvise my walking? What perspectives surface when I make an attempt through my body to visually engage more with the streetscape?
And what does framing of those perspectives do to my experience? Does it help establish a deeper visual engagement? Does the frame make the framed perform for us and in doing so change our relationship with the framed?
In the beginning, I took a quick walk on a few residential streets of the island. During the walk, it became quite obvious that Fifth and Fourth streets would provide the best opportunities for exploring perceptual innuendo of the streetscape.
These two streets had large, tall and expansive shrubbery on either side. My sight of the houses on the other side of the fence was blocked by the shrubbery.
I chose a few houses for my investigations. I walked by the shrubs slowly and at the same time tried taking a peek at the environment/houses through the shrubbery. Then I started moving around the shrubs in an improvised manner - sometimes standing and moving next to it, sometimes crawling next to it etc. while responding to my impulses.
While the slow walking brought to my awareness the presence of the perceptual innuendo on the streets, the movement around it from different heights added deeper layers to the engagement with the environment. It not only helped me explore its different visual perspectives but also helped reveal its relation to surrounding streets as well as to pedestrians. What if a pedestrian slowly moves around a perceptual innuendo of a built environment instead of simply walking past it? How would his/her visual experience of the incompleteness of the built environment change? Would it make the pedestrian more curious and more imaginative about the incompleteness of the environment and thus develop a better sense of place? The movement also helped embody the space better which in turn contributed to the stimulation of sensory experience not limited to visual sensations.
Visual framing is a new method I explored during the solo investigation in period 3. What difference do we experience of an environment when it is observed through a frame? Does the frame help establish a deeper connection with the subject of interest? Does it help the environment perform for us? During my investigations of perceptual innuendo on the Fifth and Fourth streets, I was constantly using the frame to frame the small openings in the shrubs. With the frame around them, they looked like small windows that allowed me to pay more focused attention to what was visible through the opening. Without the frame, the openings were sort of lost within the shrubs and bushes. The frame helped define a visual focus by blocking the surrounding off of my sight. The frame also helped create new narratives and new performances of each part of the shrubs that were framed. By isolating the framed segment from its larger environment, it created a new meaning for the segment. Each new meaning resulted in a new visual perception of the streetscape.
Two Locations Of the Event on Toronto Island
Score 1: People-Watching was explored at Location 1
Image 21-24: View of all four sides of the neighbourhood green space/park
Score 2: Perceptual Innuendo, Unexpectedness, Whimsy was explored at Location 2
Image 25: View of the 'Third Street' where the participant explored 'perceptual innuendo' of the streetscape.
4.1. Invitation Letter and Email to Residents
Residents of Toronto Island were invited to the participatory event via:
- Neighbourhood email network: Two weeks before the event, island residents were communicated of the event via emails. A senior member of the island community helped distribute the invitation via the neighbourhood email network
myneighbours@groups.io
She was introduced to me by the Artscape Gibraltar Point where I conducted my week-long residency from June 19 to June 26, 2023.
- Letter invitation: Residents were reminded of the event via an invitation letter. It was dropped off at each resident's house during the week of the residency. About 200 paper copies of the letter were distributed on the island.
3.0. Visual Engagement Scores Created for Residents
Activity: Walking, watching, framing everyday activity
Materials Provided:
- A wooden frame
- An area map with detailed instructions on sites and walking routes,
- Activity instructions and simplified definitions of theoretical concepts.
Score 1: People-Watching: Here we are particularly interested in observing everyday social life as it unfolds in front of our eyes on public spaces within our residential neighbourhoods.
Site: Bayview avenue and Sixth street
Task:
Task #1 (5 minutes)
- Participants are divided into small groups of 2-3 members in each group. The group members stand together and observe the social life of Sixth Street and discuss among the group members what they observe.
Task #2 (7 minutes per spot)
- Each group is given a wooden frame and is asked to occupy a physical spot at the site.
- Note for the facilitator: please choreograph the site, i.e. choose 4-5 spots at the site and distribute the groups among the spots.
- Each group starts at a different spot at the site. The spots should not be too close to each other. From the spot, each group observes a particular side of the public space - first without the frame and then through the frame. No two groups should be observing the same side at the same time.
- Each group member identifies social perspectives that interest them and share within the group.
- Groups switch their spots.
- The activity continues until each group has been to all designated spots at the site.
Task # 3 (5 minutes)
- Each group is given a wooden plaque. Based on the two tasks above, each group comes up with at least two short descriptions of the site.
- These descriptions could tell in a few words what new perspectives of the public space they have discovered. Groups could also give names to this public space based on what they have observed. (5-7 minutes)
- Note for the facilitator: Please help participants brainstorm ideas.
Task 4 - Optional: (5 minutes)
- Each group writes down the descriptions from Task 3 on a wooden plaque using chalk or marker.
- Leave the plaques at the site, where they will be most visible. Use strings to hang them from trees or poles or simply place them on the ground.
Reflections: (3 minutes per group)
- What new social perspectives have you discovered?
- How do they change your social perceptions of this public space?
- How do the visual frames affect your observations and experience?
- How did the activity help develop a sense of place for your group?
Score 2: Perceptual Innuendo, Unexpectedness, Whimsy: Here we are particularly interested in discovering and observing these visual qualities in the streetscapes in order to develop a sense of place.
Site: Third, Fourth and Fifth Street on Wards Island
Task:
(Note for the facilitator: Before the walk starts, the facilitator will explain the visual qualities and provide an example of each on-site for demonstration purposes.)
Task # 1 (10 minutes)
- Each group will take a slow and attentive walk on the street.
- Identify the visual qualities - perceptual innuendo, unexpectedness, whimsy - of the streetscape (follow the examples the facilitator has provided)
Task # 2 (15 minutes maximum per visual quality)
- After the walk decide collectively which one or two visual qualities you would like to further explore as a group.
- Once decided, do the following: if
a) perceptual innuendo: for example shrubs, fence, or something else that you think is a perceptual innuendo
- Each group member walks slowly next to the perceptual innuendo while facing the street. Your peripheral vision is alert during the walk but you are not directly looking at it.
- Why did it come across as a perceptual innuendo to you in the first place? Collectively, create an explanation for it.
- Collectively, imagine what is on the other side of this perceptual innuendo. Each group member can come up with a short story.
- Now use the visual frame and observe the perceptual innuendo through the frame.
- Hold the frame in your hand. Walk away from the perceptual innuendo, walk towards it. Observe it independently and observe it in relation to the surrounding.
- Each group member should try it.
- Take photo(s)/video(s) of what you see through the frame.
- How does the perceptual innuendo perform for you through the frame?
b) Unexpectedness/whimsy: for instance, objects one doesn't expect in a space/objects that create a feeling of playfulness.
- if it is a non-living object,
- The group walks slowly around it, if possible, and observes it.
- Collectively discuss or decide why it brought the feeling of unexpectedness or whimsy to you in the first place.
- Now walk around it again but this time use your frame to observe it from different perspectives.
- Walk away from it, walk towards it while observing it through the frame.
- Observe it independently through the frame and observe it in relation to its surrounding environment.
- Each group member should do this.
- Take photo(s)/video(s) of what you see through the frame.
- How does the unexpectedness/whimsy perform for you through the frame?
- If it is an ephemeral event that creates unexpected encounters, for instance, a sudden appearance of a man/woman dressed up in funny clothes who disappears quickly from your sight
- Take a moment and discuss collectively why it was unexpected/whimsical to you.
- What was your first reaction when you saw it?
- If the encounter was simple enough, each member of your group can re-enact the action/event while the rest watches it through the frame. The next member then re-enacts and it continues until everyone has re-enacted it at least once.
- Take photo(s)/video(s) of what you see through the frame.
- How does this re-enactment of this action/event in relation to the street perform for you through the frame?
Task # 3 (15 minutes)
- Each group will rename the street based on the visual quality it has investigated. They will write these new street names on wooden plaques and hang them from the street name post.
(Note for the facilitator: Facilitate the naming process)
(these new names manifest residents' lived experience of these streets. These names as opposed to the names given by the city to these streets, therefore, are better reflections of how residents think of and experience these streets on an everyday basis.)
Task # 4 (5 minutes for each street)
- The entire team will walk to every street and check the mini interventions (renaming of streets) made by the groups. Each group briefly describes the significance behind the new name.
Feedback (5 minutes per group)
- How did your perception of the streets shift when you explored them through these new lenses of visual qualities – perceptual innuendo, unexpectedness and whimsy? What did you already know and what did you discover new?
- What role did the frame play in your exploration process? Did the frame help those visual qualities perform for you? How?
- Reflect on the naming activities of various streets. How did they help you re-imagine streets that are part of your everyday life?
(Notes for me on re-naming streets based on visual perspective exploration
For instance, in Fall 2022, I extensively explored the Fifth Street on Wards Island through visual means. I found that the exterior of every single house on that street is painted with bright colours. Five colours were dominant since they were seen more frequently than the others. Based on this observation, I wanted to rename the street from 'Fifth Street' to 'Penta-colour Street'.)
-
4.0. 1st Participatory Event Details - Toronto Island
Event Name: Seeing the Ordinary Anew
Community Partner: Artscape Gibraltar Point
Venue: Public Spaces within Wards Island Residential Neighbourhood
Date: Saturday, June 24, 2023
Time: 1:30-3:30pm
Participants Arrive at the Site by 1:20pm
Facilitators arrive at the site by 1pm
Participants Sign-up For the Event by June 22nd by emailing at kathakexchange5@gmail.com
Research Question:
- How can public spaces help build sensory communities with residential neighbourhoods? How can such sensory communities develop a collective sense of place within neighbourhoods leading to place attachments and ultimately a sense of belonging to neighbourhood community?
- What effect does a physical frame have on the visual engagement process with public spaces? Do the aesthetic and interactional qualities evoke a sense of 'performance' when observed through the frame? Does it shift residents’ relationship with their neighbourhood public spaces?
Before the activities begin:
- Participants are divided into small groups with 2-3 members per group. Each group is given a name A, B, C....
- Participants are supplied with Name tags, marker pens, A4 size papers, mini wooden plaques.
- In order to create a collaborative working environment, participants are encouraged to introduce themselves and let everyone know what interested them to participate in the event.
Invitation Letter to the Event Distributed by Going Door-to-Door
Image 14-16:Letter distibution on Toronto Island
What's in Here?
1.0. Theoretical concepts explored in the experiment - sources of aesthetic(visual) and interactional pleasures in public spaces
2.0. Solo sensory investigations (visual) on Toronto Island
2.1. Reflections
3.0. Visual engagement scores created for residents
4.0. 1st participatory event details - Toronto Island
4.1. Invitation letter and email to residents
4.2. Event Posters and Publicity at Strategic Locations
4.3. Event Images
4.4. Summary of Participant Feedback
4.5. Reflections
5.0. 2nd participatory event details - Pine Ridge Neighbourhood, Pickering
5.1. Invitation letter to residents
5.2. Event poster, images
5.3. Summary of Participants' Feedback
5.4. Reflections
