politics of psychogeography

as i have been jotting down notes for my biennale article for a publication (and a travel grant application to go back to venice), i have been thinking a good deal about politics of navigating space, perhaps better put as a foucaultian/neo-marxist approach to psychogeography, a term i learned last year at the conflux festival. urban dictionary.com defines "psychogeography" as:

1. the practice of exploring the urban environment while being led by curiosity and a paused sense of time and place. While it is important to let your senses absorb the spaces around you, it is equally, if not more important to find yourself in new spaces, spaces stumbled upon by chance; paying attention to the smaller details, the lost objects, the signage, the fragments that make walking a reward in itself, with a slower pace and an increased opportunity to revel in the simple pleasures of things. A sense of wander/wonder is essential to find the simplicity in urban living.

2. the study of the effects of geographical settings, consciously managed or not, acting directly on the mood and behaviour of the individual.

now, my assertion is that there is no such thing as "pure chance." while we navigate a city or any given space, we make subconscious decisions to turn here or go there, determined by 1. our conditions (upbringing, culture, lifestyle, etc.) and 2. layout of the physical space.

over the past decade or so, i have noticed certain patterns in the difficulty and ease of getting to certain places. i have also noticed that money unfortunately plays a great role.

for example, i used to commute everyday to my high school via the 1 train. i took the train from the 86th street stop all the way to the very last, 242nd street. from chambers street to 96th street (central manhattan areas with a lot of people traffic) the 1, 2, and 3 trains follow the same route, but 2 and 3 are express, the 1 local. above 96th street, they all branch off to different routes and make "local" stops (a stop every 7 blocks or so).

at least, they are supposed to.

particularly during morning commute times, it is relatively difficult to see the 1 train make all the stops above 125th street, the last "major" traffic point. sometimes, the train is basically "express," only making about three to four stops (usually unpredictable) before the last one.

this was generally ok with me, especially when i was running late. but sometimes, when it was cold out, i preferred to get off at 231st street instead to take a bus that stopped right by the school. at 242nd street, i would have to walk up a big hill. so taking the 1 train was always a gamble. will it stop at 231st today? should i walk?

for people who commute to areas between 125th and 242nd, this means extreme inconvenience. they may have to spend an extra 20 minutes of their time to get off at a stop, then take a downtown train back (given that the downtown, too, doesn't skip that stop). 

i understand that "manhattan" is generally considered more of a "central" commuting location, but i also can't help but notice that there probably aren't that many wealthy people commuting there who would complain about their stops being skipped on work days. mta does suck in general, and the trains skip important stops on weekends for construction, but as far as i know, the 1 train skips on weekdays when many people work, and not because of construction. (sometimes they cite the reason as the "train is running behind schedule." as if the mta stuck to any schedule at all).

my impression was that inconveniencing the people frequenting harlem and bronx were of little importance than those moving around manhattan, which certainly has higher rent and real estate costs.

i also perceive and FEEL this relationship between power/money and accessibility/location when viewing art as well.

the museum is very straight forward: you pay a fee to enter a space in which you understand you are supposed to look at things. (the question of whether you can afford to pay $24 to look at indecipherable objects, or worse, sit in an empty room listening to incomprehensible "sound art" is a related but kind of separate issue).

the gallery experience differs by neighborhood. viewing art in galleries is "free." but some places come with a price of "insider" knowledge, a bit more than others.

for example, the chelsea gallery layout is more like an open-air museum--you make your way to the general area, then walk through each street between 10th and 11th/12th avenues. other than being stared at (not always) by guards at certain mega galleries (like gagosian), it is pretty close to a museum experience where no one really bothers you so you can just enter, look, and leave.

the upper east side, i feel, is more of an insider, upscale boutique kind of deal. either some have signs and storefronts like jewelry stores (matisse, picasso, renoirs!) or little indication of their existence at all, so that you really have to know where they are. the finding the townhouse and buzzing the door to be let in can be intimidating. as if by pressing that buzzer, you are really letting them know, "I AM ENTERING NOW," and also bothering them, since they have to individually respond to every buzz to open the door. this could just be me, but i feel more like i am accessing something more exclusive, and potentially having to make up my presence there by being a collector or "serious" art person.

the lower east side is generally more overtly commercial (i have seen more price tags next to work than other neighborhoods) but a little more down to earth than the upper east. they feel kind of like stores, too, but less exclusive. there are many galleries hiding in odd floors inside random office buildings next to chinatown markets, but it feels "cool" to know they're there, rather than let's say, taking the sleek elevator up to the gagosian galleries on the upper east. it still feels very insider, though, like only "art people" are allowed. 

as a rule, the more established the neighborhood is as a "gallery" area, the easier it is to find the galleries. pretty obvious observation, but i feel as though when it gets to more contemporary, cool, "less known" art galleries (i.e. not chelsea) you really have to know where things are, and in places like brooklyn, they are fairly scattered so you can't really get a "gallery tour" done in a fairly short amount of time in comparison to other neighborhoods. if you're short on time, sometimes this means visiting only a few galleries or not bothering to commit to a trip at all. you get "more bang for your buck (time)" when you go to the expensive areas. (or more expensive in comparison to….)

i have made some hasty jumps from navigation/access to money, but i know the connection is there. just have to develop a better argument linking the two.