NONSPACE

nathan eisenberg & james curry-castillo pictures / fragments / chat / citations syllabus / archive

[nonspacegallery]

Temporary Services

[springbishop]

[nonspacegallery]

From Traces on the Rhodian Shore by Clarence J. Glacken (p.118, chapter Creating a Second Nature)

[jrcbouillabaisse]

[nonspacegallery]

to read...

[nonspacegallery]

from The Production of Space by Henri Lefebvre, early in the chapter “Social Space” (70):

Why do I say that nature does not produce? The original meaning of the word suggests the contrary: to lead out and forward, to bring forth from the depths. And yet, nature does not labour: it is even one of its defining characteristics that it creates. What it creates, namely individual ‘beings’, simply surges forth, simply appears. Nature knows nothing of these creations—unless one is prepared to postulate the existence within it of a calculating god or providence. A tree, a flower or a fruit is not a ‘product’—even if it is in a garden. A rose has no why or wherefore; it blooms because it blooms. In the words of Angelus Silesius, it ‘cares not whether it is seen’. It does not know that it is beautiful, that it smells good, that it embodies a symmetry of the nth order. It is surely almost impossible not to pursue further or to return to such questions. ‘Nature’ cannot operate according to the same teleology as human beings. The ‘beings’ it creates are works; and each has ‘something’ unique about it even if it belongs to a genus and a species: a tree is a particular tree, a rose a particular rose, a horse a particular horse. Nature appears as the vast territory of births. ‘Things’ are born, grow and ripen, then wither and die. The reality behind these words is infinite. As it deploys its forces, nature is violent, generous, niggardly, bountiful, and above all open. Nature’s space is not staged. To ask why this is so is a strictly meaningless question: a flower does not know that it is a flower any more than death knows upon whom it is visited.

[fotograffs]

[nonspacegallery]

a stranger’s garage southeast portland, or january 2014

[fotograffs]

[nonspacegallery]

southeast portland, or may 2014

[nonspacegallery]

entry 431 of “On Blogging”

Nathan has a certain theory about nonspaces. I don’t know exactly what it is, but I feel like we developed it together. Here I explain my own theory about nonspaces, hoping that perhaps Nathan will explain his own view of the matter in the future.

Capitalism effects strange transformations upon the fabric of spacetime. Among these transformations is the marking—or perhaps not the marking but the un-marking, the passing-over—of certain zones as nonspaces. Nonspaces are those locations that are not figured as properly real within the dictates of spectacular consumer capitalism. What does it mean for a space to be real in spectacular consumer capitalism? It means for the space to be visible. Visible to whom? Visible to the consumer, the proper subject and audience of this particular form of capitalism.

The most apt metaphorization of the relation between space and nonspace is the structure of a theater building. The space that is most properly “real” in this case is the stage, which is the most gazed-upon location of a theater building. Huge amounts of labor, performed there and elsewhere, converge upon the stage and give the impression of a seamless and fully-formed spectacle. The goal in most theater is always the perfection of spectacle, with a concomitant erasure of the tremendous labor such spectacle requires.

The sets of a theater production, for example, are built in a separate room called the “scene shop.” These rooms are properly nonspaces, and it is plain to see that they are so; when one enters a scene shop, one is struck by the utter pragmatism of the space. Nothing is manicured, made to look slick or presentable. At most, the space is cleaned and organized in such a way as to least interfere with the proper functioning of labor. Aesthetics are of secondary concern—unless, that is, aesthetics are determined to be somehow crucial to even the obscured labor process. This point may perhaps lead us to a consideration of the difference between aesthetics and ergonomics, as well as the difference between visible and invisible laborers. Leaving the former aside for now, I take us now toward a consideration of the latter, embodied in the difference between the tech worker and the actor. For now, regarding the tech worker, it suffices to emphasize that they, who aspire to be invisible, are the most proper inhabitants of nonspaces. So what of that other laborer, the actor?

Some (though not all) of the labor of the actor is plainly visible. They are, after all, seen in a way that the tech worker is not. But the actor’s labor is the most purely affective labor, a perfection of the technique employed by service workers across industries. The most successful actor is not thought of as a worker engaged in labor, but rather as an entirely different person, determined by the role they play. The same is true for the affective laborer in other industries. If the barista is cheerful enough, then they are not a worker selling their labor for minimum wage out of material necessity—no, they are rather thought of as a young bohemian, or perhaps somebody on the way to greener pastures. Thus we see the way that the spectacular relation inherent to consumer capitalism produces transformations at the level of social ontologies. Because a person or a space looks like a certain thing, it subsequently becomes that thing for all intents and purposes.

This is all I will say, for now, regarding nonspaces. There is much more to be said, but it is a Monday morning and I need to prepare for French class.

[fotograffs]

[nonspacegallery]

construction site barrio logan, san diego ca june 2012

[nonspacegallery]

[ SEPTEMBER 11, 2015, 10:51pm ]

NATHAN EISENBERG: Congratulations on 310 fucking on blogging posts, I’m amazed. And its turned out so brilliantly

JIMMY CURRY: :~) thanks dood i got a lot more comin up

NE: Yeah I bet I wanna contribute but I literally can never get my shit together, idk why

JC: nathananaaaaan you should write one about non-spaces

NE: The debut Ok, I’ll try to but one together Put

JC: i just sent you access to the latest doc

NE: Ok cool I’ve been wanting to revive non-spaces and contribute to on blogging, so this is good

JC: yea i almost started writing my own entry about non-spaces all i wrote was, “Nathan has a certain theory about non-spaces.”

NE: Haha its a start

JC: and then i was going to expound on my own theory of non-spaces but,

NE: You should do it

JC: i’d like to see your thoughts on the matter i’ll do my own also we’ll have, the two explore the difference

NE: Do your own, I’ll slowly assemble my ideas and we can put them together in an e book with lots of pictures I was imagining a coffee table book

JC: ogm mg a coffee table book about nonspaces yess with pictures yea ok! but first, get one in for on blogging to keep it in our minds

NE: Yeah, imagine, it’d be perfect in that format

JC: keep it in the conversation

NE: Yes agreed It originated as a photo project Very much influenced by your photos

JC: ohhh my god nathan i wrote a letter to shawn bradford the other day

NE: And me entertaining myself while doing Christmas lights The OG

JC: because, i was walking around the town, looking at things thinking about you, thinking about the way i look at things gosh photography seems to me a really important thing when thinking about non-spaces the special way that photography can bring a space into being

NE: we have such a good aesthetic Co influence

JC: yea i agree

NE: I think the thing is that non spaces are everywhere around us, so having photos us crucial to get people to recognize them

JC: i feel like i’m in a band with you

NE: Such a good feeling! Multimedia group

JC: :~) CRUCIAL, is a good word omg

NE: Detritus collective

JC: because, i think, like umm tosia said you were saying non-spaces were often workspaces; or at the very least these are non-spectacular spaces, right and the whole thing about spectacular capitalism, that spaces of labor are made to be invisible

NE: Roughly

JC: even when they are literally right in front of us

NE: Actually that’s exactly it

JC: we can be looking at something, but because it’s banal, we don’t notice it

NE: Exactly!

JC: our eyes are trained to only even perceive the manicured, the made-spectacular

NE: The trick is that the theory of non-space is actually a theory of space Made-spectacular is so good, use that!

JC: :~) ok!

NE: I should go, but we should def talk more. Thanks for the encouragement and future collaboration!

JC: hell yea, talk to ya later!!

[nonspacegallery]

"stairs to nowhere" northeast portland or october 2015