Let the games begin!

Our first formal meeting began at 09:30 this morning in the C building. The classroom space is very modern and clean-cut, a somewhat significant change from the rest of the city. Clifford and Jessica gave us a bit of an introduction and Mirjam Schieveld of the Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) went over our schedule and provided a more formal orientation, including a lecture entitled "Introduction to the Netherlands"

After a few days of roaming around the city, I have several notes on Dutch culture. First, the Netherlands is an extremely densely populated country; this is noticably manifest in all of the sandwiched "townhouses" lining every street. While in the city itself, the street level is packed with retail shops, restaurants and cafes, the second through fifth or sixth stories are all apartments. Interestingly, while there is a housing shortage in the areas surrounding Amsterdam, most of these apartments remain empty; at present, the government is trying to find a way to defer the housing crisis by filling these apartments. It is interesting to note, too,that all of the houses and buildings lean in on each other because, like old Seattle, the city is built on a swamp buy pounding in wooden stakes (approximately similar to telephone poles) upon which the city stands.

The Dutch: liberal and tolerant or controlling?

Mirjam Schieveld, professor at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, developed this thesis: the Dutch regulate tolerance to exercise control.

The Dutch people are "pragmatic" (a term which they frequently use, and as Mirjam notes almost over-use, to describe themselves) which leads to forced tolerance, which in turn eventually leads to condonation. Cooperation is a necessity and the composition of the population requires a consensus (poldermodel). For centuries the Netherlands has been a mercantile country (remember the Dutch East India Company?) which historically empowers the merchants moreso than most other countries.

Sex, drugs and... gay marriage?:
Principle socio-cultural differences between the United States and the Netherlands (as a function of legislation)

The legality of sex work, soft drugs and gay marriage. Two main points to keep in mind: the Dutch pride themselves on their pragmatism but also the idea of compassion instead of punishment. While sex work is legal in the Netherlands, this does not mean that it has social/societal approval. Just because it is not criminalized as it is in the United States does not mean that it is a fully accepted practice or profession. The emphasis is on work, prostitution is seen as a necessity: the oldest profession in the world (another example of Dutch pragmatism). There are main concerns for the population (both for prostitution and soft drugs): abuse of minors and public nuisance. With such a densely populated country, most Dutch laws are to "keep the peace" and prevent/reduce any public disturbances.

Finally, while gay marriage is legal here (in the Netherlands), it is a purely secular practice. This, to me, is the fundamental issue in the United States: it seems to me that US citizens are unable to separate civil marriage from holy matrimony. I'm not about to dictate your religious practices or comment on your spirituality, and while I feel that same-sex couples should be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, maybe that's just my pragmatism speaking. If gay couples are going to exist anyway, why discriminate against an unavoidable situation? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are not preventing homosexuality or preventing the formation of same-sex couples; not providing basic rights is not preventative, so how can you justify this type of legal discrimination?

The whole legal issue surrounding soft drugs originated in the 1970s and they certainly provide a health/medical issue. Drugs are seen as a reality: people are going to use them, so do not criminalize them. The original goal of this legislation was to separate the worlds of 'normal use' and criminality. A lot of people are able to use (soft) drugs without becoming addicted, and of course, coffeeshops pay specific taxes for operation. While it is legal for coffeeshops to have up to 500g of cannabis on the premises, and only able to sell 5g per customer, it is illegal to grow marijuana. While seven plantations are shut down every day, seven more are opened. If the local government wants to enforce the law, they can do so (the iron fist in the velvet glove), it looks liberal and tolerant, but is actually a highly controlled and regulated practice. This applies not only to the drug policies, but also policies concerning sexwork.

We watched this video from 2006, which is a song written by (and featuring) the may of Amsterdam, Gerd Leers (of the Christian [protestant] Democratic Party), about the Netherlands drug culture:


Heideroosjes feat. Gerd Leers "Da's Toch Dope Man!"

He sings: "A coffeeshop can sell, but where it comes from, no one knows. You can smoke it, but you can't grow it, that's odd, how can you distribute something that doesn't exist?" He also specifically says: "Legalisation to Control"

The Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, also a Christian Democrat, responded to Gerd Leers clip with one of his own:


"De Don" Piet Hein Donner

While I'm terribly amused by these innovative forms of propaganda, I'm almost embarrassed on behalf of the Dutch Parliament. Who can take these public officials seriously if they are rapping on YouTube?

Netherlands Politics:
In the 1960s the Netherlands underwent a very sudden and very fast depillarization and secularization of the government. The current government is a pariliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. This means that while the monarch (at present, Queen Beatrix) is head of state and has considerable constitutional power, this has mostly fallen into a ceremonial role. This is not to say Queen Bea has no control: she acts as the neutral party to determine the composition of the cabinet and to moderate between the parties. The major parliamentary players are: the CDA (Christian Democratic Party), the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party), the SP (Socialist Party) and the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) which are centre/right liberals who advocate both private enterprise and public welfare. Hmm...

We closed out our lecture oriented portion of the day with a nice lunch, and a trip over to ARCAM: architectuurcentrum amsterdam, an independent architectural centre for the city of Amsterdam. We received an exceptional lecture on the history of Amsterdam and its architecture, from 1200CE to present. As you may know, the entire "province" of Holland is below sea level (which prompted Al Gore to predict in "An Inconvenient Truth" that the Netherlands will be completely underwater in 2015-2025) but what you may not know is that the Netherlands is composed of 12 provinces, of which Holland (technically a combination of two provinces: North and South Holland) holds the three most important cities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague. Amsterdam is the capitol and largest city (but, ironically, is not the capitol of North Holland), Rotterdam (the lowest point in the country at 7m below sea level) is the largest and most important European port (both historically and at present) and the Hague which is the parliamentary seat.

We spent the next few hours touring Amsterdam with Dick Weeda, our temporary tour guide. For more details, see my inaugural entry in the Amsterdam 2008 Daily Video Blog.

"Touchdown turnaround..."

Note: all times are Amsterdam Local Time (Seattle +9 hours), so while the time stamp tells you when I wrote the post in Amsterdam, it will not be posted until the corresponding time in Seattle (nine hours later)

Mimi, Katherine, Fiona and I flew out together on the 12:55p Northwest direct flight from Seattle to Amsterdam. Direct flights are always a double-edged sword: it's wonderful in that you're not traveling for quite as long, or dealing with potentially missing connections and being stranded, but at the same time, you're stuck on the same plane for 14+ hours with a very limited range of motion. We landed in Amsterdam at 07:18 local time (22:18 Seattle time), took the train to Amsterdam Centraal station (a 12 mile journey), bought our train tickets for our weekend in Paris and parted ways. Fiona took a second train to get to her dorm on Prinsengracht, overlooking a canal, and Mimi, Katherine and I took a taxi to our dorm, on Prins Hendrikkade, which was only about a mile from the station, but almost an insurmountable distance with our luggage.

The three dormitories on Prins Hendrikkade are composed of three buildings surrounding a courtyard: the C building, where our classrooms are located and two A buildings (A1-32 and A-33-75) where Mimi and Jessica are staying, and the A building where Katherine, Clint and I are staying. The C building are split-level apartments with a bathroom, kitchenette (including mini-fridge, sink and gas stovetop) and bedroom on the bottom, then a second bedroom in the smaller loft space above the kitchen and bathroom, overlooking the second bedroom and ten foot windows facing the courtyard. The A building is also composed of two-person apartments: a bedroom facing the courtyard (like mine and Katherine's) with blue marmoleum flooring and a bright blue railed-off door opening to the courtyard below, a kitchenette and bathroom, and a second bedroom in the back.

Katherine and I ran around for a bit, found Dam Square (but not the grocery store), came back, took a nap and met up with some of the group and went out for dinner, drinks and exploring. Dam Square is monumental and absolutely bustling! Because of Amsterdam's fluid reputation and the time of year, there are throngs of tourists in the area. Dam Square is filled with street performers, gawking tourists (complete with over-sized fluorescent Hawaiian shirts and cameras hanging from their necks) and no less than three McDonalds' (in addition to a Burger King and KFC) We wandered around the side streets and alleys around Dam Square, filled with little cafes, coffeeshops, kebab and felafel stands and of course, my favorite European culinary phenomenon: Chipsy King, a fastfood chain that specializes in french fries. Served in a paper cone and 8 different kinds of sauces including garlic mayo, thai peanut, red curry and of course, ketchup.

In Short...

A summary of my project, thus far-

The Exterior as Interior:
public space in amsterdam

Investigating Form and Function:

Objective: Determine the role and/or purpose of public spaces in Amsterdam. In what ways does the exterior function in the same way as the interior?

Context: While the United States is sadly devoid of public squares, open markets and other public, exterior (architectural) spaces that have a social component or function, Amsterdam is not. These spaces, despite their nature as exterior, outdoor spaces, function in much the same as interior spaces. These are the spaces where we meet friends to "hang out" in and around shopping malls, I am interested in finding the Dutch equivalent of these spaces, as manifested in public squares, markets and plazas.

Conceptual Framework:

Following Mieke Bal in “Telling, Showing, Showing Off”

- Connecting Culture and Space
- How the design / form of a space affect its cultural role / function

While I have been sitting atop the proverbial fence for some weeks now in regard to incorporating Benjamin and the Arcades project, I have ultimately decided that while I will keep it in the forefront of my mind, I do not think I will formally include it in my framework at this point. Of course, once I cross the Meridian, all bets are off.

Methodology:

Observation
- a la Jacobs: detect clues to the nature of activity in a space and the level of intensity
- observe the use of space, noting relationship between form and function, design and culture
- is there an aspect of a space that is ineffective, misused or under-used?

Survey
- Brief, informal surveys (positive/negative)
- Ex. Do you often visit this space? Why/Why this space over another? What makes this space unique? Would you change anything about this space? Why/Not?

Th-th-th-that's all folks!

Public Scholarship & the Academic Lexicon

First, I would like to verbalize my absolute excitement about my enrollment in Professor David Domke's class fall quarter - I was unsure what to make of him as, prior to reading this article, I had no previous connection to him; now, I am stoked beyond belief. Talk about a passionate professor!

Publication Methods:
-Digital Media (YouTube, this blog [or another dedicated to research])
-Print (Submitting an article to an academic journal, but more likely, to a 'lay publication' like Architectural Digest, or more importantly, writing a book designated for the general population; a publication of this nature will reach a much broader audience than a simple academic essay/article/book) This is public scholarship, it should be accessible to everyone from third graders (although I doubt they'd be interested) to doctoral students to your grandma.

In terms of my presentation, it is most important for me to be mindful of jargon; when you are so familiar with a subject and its associated terminology, you often forget what is jargon and what is not. It is important to keep the audience in mind (even at a scholastic conference).

Armed with this knowledge, I hope that when it comes time to present my findings from this project, I'll be able to assemble a presentation that is engaging, informative and humanistic. The Academic Paradox: you may have just had the most brilliant and mind-blowing idea in the history of mankind; but if you cannot effectively communicate your thoughts to others, it is as if the idea never existed.

FOaM

Fashion, Objectivity and Mythology.

Roland Barthes was born in Cherbough, Manche, Lower Normandy, France
He is a semiotician
He studies semiotics
Semiotics is the studies of signs and their interpretation
Signs are a combination of the signifier and the signified
He died in Paris in 1980
He was run over by a milk truck.


Language is the grander structure; a tool of human communication. Speech is individual; it is written, spoken, screamed, etc.

Signs, as I mentioned, are the relationship between the signifier (Sr) and the signified (Sd):
Sr / Sd

In my previous post, I described physical appearance (primarily, my clothing) from third person (limited) and first person perspectives; but in describing myself in the third person, I wondered: can anyone ever be objective? About anything? I look at myself in the mirror, and I describe my appearance based on how I would describe someone else, but I can only describe anyone, anything, anywhere, the world at large, in one way: as I see it. And I see it from my own unique perspective on the world, based on my worldview, my past and present experiences, thoughts, observations. Even in describing something as simple as an outfit, can anyone be objective? Get outside themselves and speak? I don't think so. Because if you are not speaking as yourself, not thinking as yourself, not describing acting feeling as yourself, who are you? Who are you impersonating if none of us can get escape ourselves? I experience through the lens of my worldview; so do you, so does your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend, your boss and your gardener. So if I am attempting to be objective and get away from myself, to view the world without bias or pretension, exactly whose worldview am I assuming?

In discussing research: how does ones provide objective (or authentic/impartial) data? If authenticity is allowing that which you are speaking about, to speak for itself as much as possible; it grants integrity. How does authenticity (objectivity) apply to the interpretation/inference of data? If viewing authenticity as an extension or component and integrity, which implies ethics, then it can be, at the very least, suggested. However, if you try and remove integrity, ethics and morality, you are left with two seemingly separate worlds; authentic and impartial data collection may imply but does not propose or create authentic or impartial results. This is the nature of interpretation.

"Who is that girl I see staring straight back at me?"

Entering a cafe, your eyes alight on a petite brunette standing a few feet back from the register. Her curling hair reaches just beyond her shoulders, glowing gently in the soft lighting, the color reminiscent of espresso, streaked perhaps, with caramel. Perhaps these analogies are only present because of circumstances, but whatever the case, these associations seem to fit. Tucked into her hair a pair of plastic, unbranded Jackie-O style sunglasses perch atop her head, catching the light as she turns her head. As she reaches up to tuck a stray curl behind her ear, you note small glowing pearl earrings studding her ears. She is wearing a sky blue polo shirt, collar laying flat against her shoulders, neither tight nor baggy. Like many, she is dressed for the newfound summer weather in a pale-wash jean skirt, coming to halfway between her hip and knee, definitely not qualified as long, but not fashionably short, either. You note her well-manicured nails adorned with a pale shimmering pink polish and, following the line of her pale untanned legs, you note matching polish on her toes and slightly worn brown leather sandals, not quite flipflops but not any other high-fashion style either. Overall, her appearance is on the preppy side, all of her clothes of a simple, classic style that borders on elegance - if such is possible with jeans and cotton. She could fit in almost anywhere: on campus, on the street, at the beach, in a cafe, driving with the top down.

I am a creature of comfort. While I give care to my appearance (I style my hair every day, I put on makeup, etc.) I don't get dressed every morning with the express purpose of looking good at all costs. I make sure that all of my clothes look good on me (if they don't look good I get rid of them), and I wear whatever is most comfortable knowing that I at least look decent. However, my hair, make-up and clothing are all carefully composed to look natural. My makeup is all natural tones, bronzes, browns, neutrals and transparent shades; denim is a staple of my wardrobe, and I hardly wear t-shirts, choosing instead polo shirts, though more often another type of semi-fashionable blouse or shirt. I take care, too, to always seem... put together. If my hair won't cooperate - not necessarily achieving perfection - I'll put it up. If my nail polish is starting to crack and peel, I'll either take it off or reapply instead of walking around with fragmented color, however unnoticeable or minor. My personal style, which frequently deviates from mainstream, leans towards casual, understated elegance. Pearls, jeans, polos - brands are not a necessity, but these timeless styles seem to find their way into my wardrobe.

(re)Search Me

"Social research is one among many ways of constructing representations of social life... and these representations tell us something about society." (Ragin, Constructing Social Research)

First, let's define:
concept: a general notion
intersubjective: existing between conscious minds; shared knowledge

With that in mind...

Concepts: Tools of Intersubjectivity
a la Mieke Bal

- facilitate discussion via comnon language
- abstract representation of object (reminiscent of a synecdoche)
- neither simple nor adequate, in and of themselves
- function to distort, unfix and/or inflect object
- not a metaphor, but rather a miniature theory

Using these definitions as an aid, my hope is that these tools will find their way into my arsenal, knowing that once I touchdown in Amsterdam, my entire project will shift into something wholly new. With this in mind, I have tried to keep my project and malleable as possible, in an attempt to avoid total devastation while walking the canals.


- an analysis of objects situations and other theories

I've been framed!

The Exterior as Interior: How are specific functions of a space defined in design? Specifically, how do you create the sense of being inside, when out?

The framework I'd like to use for my research is from one of the latest articles I've read, one that I have absolutely fallen in love with: Telling, Showing, Showing Off by Mieke Bal; she explicitly discusses space and how it is used, how to changed the connotation of a space by specific elements and/or the way in which a feature is presented and explained. I feel like this framework would fit best for my very physical and spatial project. While the Arcades project may appear to be the most appropriate, and this may turn out to be the case, Bal's writing had much more of an impact on me. On the flip side, I still harbor an absolute infatuation with de Certeau, and I would like to work in both the notion of the synecdoche and urban semiotics. Further, how these spaces actually exist and the relation to arcades. Too many frameworks, too little time.

Having chosen Bal's article and principles as my framework, the next step was methodology. Likely, I'll be using both 'close reading' of an environment (much like de Certeau) but also Zeisel's observation methods inasmuch as both acting as removed observer and participant observer as well, though likely steering clear of examining traces.

Questions From the Audience

I found both of Mieke Bal's articles Telling, Showing, Showing Off and "Tradition" from her book Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide incredibly interesting. It is not often the museum is examined in and of itself, nor the catharsis that results from the embrace of tradition in cultures drowning in history.

Telling, Showing, Showing Off:

In this article, Bal discusses the 'metamuseum', this concept that not only are museums preserves for whatever topic upon which they focus, but also act to preserve the museum itself; museums also exist to preserve themselves. She goes on to discuss not only the construction of the museum, but the motivation for the creation of the museum: the difference between 19th century colonialism and the 20th century focus on education. In this she notes that Donna Haraway has already criticized the way in which museums have obtained their relics and notes that she, too, will be discussing Akeley Hall of the elusive Second Floor of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). The following struck me, for some reason: "There is a tension here, perhaps a paradox, inherent in the museum as a whole, between common and strange." (Bal, 562) Bal goes on to say, "[This discourse] claims the truth to which the viewer is asked to submit, endorsing the willing suspension of disbelief that rules the power of fiction.[. . .] this is the equivalent of the 'once upon a time' formula, the discourse of realism setting the terms of the contract between viewer or reader and museum or storyteller." (Bal, 563,564) I was further intrigued by the way in which she addressed how the museum deals with the "transition from this cultured "nature" to culture as nature - from mammals to peoples" (Bal, 564) She exemplifies this transition in the Queen Maya Exhibit and it is here I went from piqued to enthralled. She comments that the Queen Maya Giving Birth to the Buddha from her Side exhibit, a small black-box exhibit between the Indian rhinoceros and the water buffalo, has a "specific transitional function" (Bal, 566) What does that mean? How can a small statue of Queen Maya, placed between two quadrupeds, serve as the transition between animalia and human?

How does the Queen Maya relic serve as and/or exemplify this difficult transition? How does the accompanying text indicate this role? How does this minor exhibit fulfill its role as diplomat? Is this intended as a conscious or unconscious transition? Is it effective?

"Tradition" from Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide:

In this chapter, Bal discusses how traditions have shaped society and further, where they have come from and, now that their (sometimes unpleasant) origins have been uncovered, what do we do? Do we allow the traditions to continue uninhibited? Do we try and change them? How do we respond to the newly formed darkness that surrounds some of our most cherished traditions?

Why allow the tradition to continue? After noting the pain and confusion it inflicts, why perpetuate these acts? To what end?

Technological Revolutions

The Information Revolution: The Origins of the Personal Computer and the Internet
The history of computers (and later, the internet) is unique; from the room sized over-grown calculators of the 1950s and the Cold War era, complete with punchcards; the feared tool of military-industrial complex in the 1960s; the development of the mouse, icons and drop-down menus by Xerox at Palo Alto in the early 1970s (and of course, a laser printer), this technology however, was not as profitable to Xerox as they had intended and they chose to sell it to a team of researchers in Silicon Valley. In 1977, these researchers (Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs) produced the Apple II computer, followed by the Macintosh which utilized these technologies that Xerox had discarded, also including a floppy disk drive and Apple's signature streamlined design. In 1983, IBM introduced the first Personal Computer with spreadsheet and word processing software, earning it the prestigious title of Machine of the Year from Time magazine. IBM used a new technology created by William Gates called MS-DOS, marking the trailhead of the careers of both Bill Gates and his Microsoft Corporation. It was at this point that the U.S Department of Defense funded the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to create an intercommunication/interconnection system that could survive a nuclear holocaust called ARPANET. In 1971, ARPANET became so central to computer use, the core of interconnectivity even and was renamed the Internet. As they say, well, the rest is history.

From military technology designed to survive a nuclear war to user-based, user-defined webpages: the Internet has had a remarkable journey.

The Digital Revolution: Web 2.0
In his short webvideo, now all over YouTube, Mike Wesch, Professor of Digital Ethnography and Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University concisely and effectively explains Web 2.0, that is, how text and hypertext have evolved; how the very construction of web pages has transitioned from HTML to XML, creating a user-defined, user-operated digital world that puts millions of bites of information at our fingertips. I was absolutely captivated by this short, and could not picture the presentation in any other way. Had this been presented in text (hard copy, digital, &c) it would not have been nearly so effective. Not only was video extremely interesting and much less difficult to traverse than black and white, but by using the media (the internet) he was describing as the method of presentation, it truly demonstrated and exemplified what Professor Wesch's point: The Machine Is Us/ing US

Michael Wesch's webvideo:


A response to Web 2.0



The Genetic Revolution: Round I (1870-1920)
Philip Thurtle, professor of Comparative History of Ideas (CHID) at the University of Washington, has introduced his latest book The Emergence of Genetic Rationality: Space, Time, and Information in American Biological Science, 1870-1920. While I have not had the opportunity to read this text, I cannot help but feel that it will be captivating (as much as Professor Thurtle's lectures) and offer a unique, insightful, thorough look into the history of genetics. While I have been in the audience for several of Thurtle's digital presentations and, while they were effective and educational and I was for the most part engaged, I cannot help but feel that Thurtle is perhaps more comfortable with text, and further, that the material he is presenting is in fact much more suited to text. I cannot give any specific reason why I feel this way, and I really have no evidence either.