Freewrite #6

My original questions with my topic were simply a question of intent and purpose in creating the turf fields, and how they were to be operated. While this was partially simply a question of curiosity on my own part, since I am an active participant on the fields, it also can define exactly what the definition of public space could be. I mentioned in one of my earlier entries that I wanted to compare it to the volleyball fields in Mitchell’s The End of Public Space, and see whether it was more of a volleyball field or a public space. While some of the above questions have essentially remained the same, others I now recognize cannot truly be answered without some sort of subjective adaptation, which is what I am intent to avoid in this paper. There is an amount of relativity that would figure into any of the above questions, which, after research, I see makes none of them truly advantageous. Especially after directly asking in all my surveys and interviews what people thought the intent of the turf fields was, I got all different answers and, though there was some correlation, I recognized that I would need a point of view to answer the question, while I need to remain omniscient.

As I mentioned before, my primary analysis revealed that I cannot answer the question of purpose of the turf field without an established point of view. While each respondent had a different level of involvement in events of the turf fields, they revealed the main discrepancy between the town and its citizens in the turf field. Although the fields are posted as being a “park” and therefore really conceived as a truly public space, my interview with the Supervisor of Parks was very telling, in that he said that the main purpose of the fields was to support East Brunswick Youth Programs, while pickup usage took a backseat. This was consistent throughout the Parks Supervisor’s answers, through questions about turning off the lights after those playing league-sanctioned games were finished, and in the case of posting of the times that leagues had practices and which fields they occupied during that time. While this is clearly not something that the township shouldn’t be doing (supporting its own leagues with its own money and resources), it is something that isn’t communicated well within the confines of the park and isn’t communicated otherwise. This brought me to my point of the location of the turf fields, and why they’re not visible from any streets, and don’t have any kind of website or available resource to find information on them. The Parks Supervisor answered that the distance was because of where they could fit, between farms and County land, and on the flat farmland that existed before, and that the lights can’t be seen from resident’s homes, which is an advantage by any means. However, they cannot answer as to why the park is essentially invisible to town residents who don’t know about them. This is in part to avoid advertisement of facilities to out-of-towners, it also completely avoids advertising to in-towners. These many questions can hopefully be answered by secondary research that can propose how to use indirect non-visual clues to hint at the park’s creation and availability, and how to find a balance between league-sanctioned events and those unorganized pickup games.

In my research I am able to find plenty of information regarding public parks and their upkeep and their maintenance, purpose and usage. I’m also able to find a good amount of data on youth sports leagues, their effects on children and teenagers, their advantages and disadvantages. I’m also able to find information on youth fields and ballparks being built and how they are maintained and why they were built. However, the problem is that I have been able to find each aspect of the turf fields, but no examples that really begin to explore all of them, or try to bridge the gap in between them. The discrepancy between the town residents and the division of parks is also a clear gap in research that cannot be prevented through any kind of research, it’s a lack of communication that can only be fixed in change in policy, which can only be enacted if both sides acknowledge the lack of communication, which could be difficult.

When speaking of my original ideas, my main concern will be trying to bridge these gaps with analysis of current comparable situations and use the concerns of both sides of the town vs. residents to enact a proper compromise between the two. The concerns of conservation of money and of restricting the park to town residents are real and very legitimate, so this is not an easy topic to solve with simply one change in policy. It requires a change in mindset in one or two of the sides of the issue. This has to be proven not through simple primary analysis, but through the research of situations that do or do not encompass all of the park, league and usage elements that the turf fields do. I would love to try to define what kind of space the fields are, and where their boundaries really lie in their ability to be a “public space”. Though they are far from a “private space,” the binary is clearly not, as we discussed in Unit 1, black and white. This can help to establish how they should be used by both the township and its residents, and what is the correct balance of restriction and freedom in their upkeep.

I feel that my thesis needs to be kept somewhat removed from the specific topic of the turf fields. Instead, I need to keep the focus on the broader concept of multiuse public spaces and their implications on youth and other residents of the town. My argument will be developed by analysis of my primary and secondary research, but it is essentially comprised of the crucial role of correct usage of communication between a town and its residents. Whether it is through a website, through posting of signs, or through local advertisement, a balance for parks must be found, and then made clear in this communication. This seems to be the main place where my township has fallen through, because their reasoning for decisions is sound, but it is not communicated well, and therefore my primary research has resulted in inconsistencies.

Possible thesis:

In the creation and upkeep of multiuse public spaces, a crucial bond of communication must be maintained between administrators and the general public to ensure the proper maintenance of the space.

Freewrite #5

Part A

Sibley first bolsters his argument that capitalism and exclusion are intertwined by mentioning Williams, Mumford and Engels and their writings on the topic. He goes on to use the examples of South African apartheid and Nazi Germany to exclude these examples, thereby specifying his argument yet expressing his awareness of its breadth. He mentions that he is using a “cue for analysis” from Paul Rabinow, to emphasize his current point and also to show the origin of his thought, helping the reader to understand his current argument. After further specifying his argument concerning the role of sexism, he gets to examples that directly support his argument, about the Meadowhall Shopping Center and the Gateshead Metro Centre. He supports this  example using the quote from Coventry. Finally, he gives a supporting example that also serves to explain and clarify his argument in the Rittenhouse Square example.

This method of using sources differently is done extremely effectively by Sibley. We know, first of all, that he structured his argument first and then bolstered it with quotes, increasing his credibility in the reader’s eyes. Next, we know that he went to find sources that specifically reduce his topic, so he doesn’t only find articles within the breadth of his argument, but also outside. Not only does this engage the reader in its specifics, it also demonstrates that he searched deeply to find these sources, not just the surface arguments. Finally, he finds more abstract and vague sources to limit his breadth, and goes on to very specific sources for explaining and supporting his topic. This makes the essay more readable and easy to follow, and again exhibits his careful selection of which sources were most appropriate.

Part B

Marshall Kilduff.  “The worst job in the city. ” San Francisco Chronicle  22  Sep. 2008,ProQuest National Newspapers Premier, ProQuest. Web.  31 Jul. 2009.

Robert Bridge.  “Moscow: The Accidental Environmentalist. ” Moscow News (in English)  6  Apr. 2007,Research Library, ProQuest. Web.  31 Jul. 2009.

Rhetorical Analysis done in Freewrite #4.

“According to the Moscow City Administration, there are 96 parks, 18 gardens, and four botanical gardens to accommodate lovebirds who cannot afford Moscow’s exorbitant hotel rates.” (Bridge)

This quote, to me, seems to be an accurate representation of the Moscow Parks System. While it doesn’t provide much rhetorically, it’s a good number to provide a benchmark of what we’re working with in Moscow, which wouldn’t immediately be considered a green paradise. This proves that its park system is comparable to that of San Francisco, and therefore other US cities. I could use this to prove the point of Moscow having an extensive parks system and how it is tied in to how it is maintained during building projects.

“Nevertheless, urban forests, parks and various green zones are still granted a high degree of protection from the developer’s bulldozer…I am inclined to believe this is due to the Russians’ inherent love of nature, combined with a cynical attachment to bureaucracy and a late relationship with the automobile.” (Bridge)

This bit of commentary seems to explain the figure above on the amount of parks and gardens. While it is very editorial and not extremely quotable due to its subjectivity, it provides an explanation for Moscow’s bureaucratic protection of these parks to a seemingly unnecessary degree.

“Each developer is ‘ticketed’ for every tree, bush and shrub that he is forced to remove during a construction project. The money is tallied by a designated city official and the developer pays to have new trees planted elsewhere in the capital (in addition to sometimes paying to replant old tenants from their coveted dwellings)…Developers are charged up to $1,000 for every tree and bush disturbed during construction.” (Bridge)

This quote helps to explain, specifically, the way in which trees and parks are protected by bureaucracy and the government. While this wouldn’t be a model used for my town, I would use it to prove the sometimes accidental nature of being green. This relates to the situation of the turf fields because of their origin. In my interview with the town Parks Supervisor, he mentions that farmland was removed to put in this turf. Although this sounds like a move that may not be “green,” the turf is more sustainable because it doesn’t have to be mowed or watered or irrigated or anything, and can freely sit all year round. While the correlation isn’t very strong, it can be used as a counterpoint to the San Francisco example.

“Now consider another basic city function – the Recreation and Park Department and its constellation of more than 100 plazas, green spaces and ball fields. Chances are nearly every resident from tai chi grannies to pre-dawn joggers visits one regularly. Even coyotes are taking up residence in the trees and shrubs. Yet this world doesn’t rate much official respect. It’s not protected come budget time at City Hall. Major projects like new sprinklers, jungle gyms or field houses are paid for by occasional bond issues. Strange to think this can happen in a city that talks nonstop about greening, obesity and personal fitness.” (Kilduff)

This quote is a good one to explain the issue of parks and their restrictive funding and attention from town councils and state and federal government across the country. While it specifically speaks about the situation in San Francisco, it can be applied to East Brunswick, and relates to why the Turf Field was built and why it was specifically an astro-turf field. It’s more economical yet less green, and helps to avoid child obesity for a town that is full of commuters and their children. It highlights the importance of an issue that may not seem important to the average passer-by.

“As these arguments suggest, the definition of a park is always changing. ‘When I was growing up, nobody played soccer,’ said a middle-aged department hand. ‘Now there are leagues for every age, men and women, you name it.’ Frisbee golf has its own course, and there are cricket fields in the Crocker Amazon playground. Also, the city’s mild weather means there’s a slate of year-round sports that bring out more players and complaints.” (Kilduff)

This quote further elaborates the reasoning for the turf fields to be built: to be a year-round facility for activities that cannot necessarily be accommodated in a normal park area. The lighting and easy-to-maintain fields make it easy to use for leagues and consistent pick-up players alike. The quote maintains that this is a problem that is occurring all over the country, and serves as an argument for the idea of a turf field over a regular one, especially in the 21st century.

“There are even park lovers who are anti-park. A growing contingent in the city wants traditional planted-and-pruned parks turned back to ‘natural areas’ with minimal grooming for the wild touch missing elsewhere.” (Kilduff)

This quote points to the contradictions that some park enthusiasts have, and further bolsters why the turf fields can have both a good and bad reputation in the eyes of park lovers. It’s also situated next to a dog “park,” a highly-fenced and divided turf area in an area as barren as it is dry. While this is a park to some, to others it is an abomination, a glorified parking lot. This brings into the discussion the argument of perspective, and the challenge to the East Brunswick Division of Parks (and that of San Francisco) to creating the right facilities.

Part C

While it seems clear that there was a need for a new set of fields in East Brunswick, the reason for the use of Astroturf rather than traditional grass might not be as clear. The advantages to turf fields, however, are evident when looking at high-traffic city areas with needs for multiple sports. In San Francisco for example, in wake of the recent growing need to accommodate year-round sports, park officials responded by creating specific fields for unique sports, such as frisbee golf courses and cricket fields (Kilduff). Although the turf fields do not need to venture into such specific territory, they are marked for three different sports (soccer, football and lacrosse), and, according to East Brunswick Supervisor of Parks Leigh Gerhart, new lines could easily be added and maintained for years to come if a new sport were in high demand. Other sports, such as ultimate frisbee, do not require specific lines, and instead relish the opportunity of a level, dry terrain that is marked only for distances, something that cannot be found in any other city park. The final, and likely most desirable, quality of the fields is that they are lit at night, something that no other field or park facility within city limits can lay claim to. While the hours of lighting may be restrictive, it stretches their usage time past the traditional “dawn-to-dusk” hours of all other East Brunswick Parks.
Besides the usability advantages, a turf park can be, surprisingly, much more “green” and sustainable than a traditional grass park. Although it required destroying farmland (hence, Heavenly Farms Complex), the turf requires no watering, irrigation or mowing, making it superior to either farmland or a traditional grass soccer field. This concept is difficult to grasp for some, especially those park lovers who are “anti-park,” and would prefer parks to be “natural areas” without need for pruning and planted constantly (Kilduff). Although the turf fields are far from “natural,” they don’t require the gas-guzzling services of lawnmowers, they maintain the forests, grass and farmland around them, and they don’t require the installation of expensive and extensive sprinkler systems. In some places, where the advantages of “unnatural” parkland to replace “natural” areas may not be as clear, they are backed up by the laws themselves. In Moscow, for example, “each developer is ‘ticketed’ for every tree, bush and shrub that he is forced to remove during a construction project” (Bridge). While building a year-round sports facility, builders had to mark down every tree or bush that they had to destroy or relocate, and then either pay fines of up to $1000 per tree or arrange to plant these trees in another Moscow location (ibid). This type of legal support, while extreme, preserves the sanctity of natural green areas while supporting the green initiatives of facilities like turf fields.

Freewrite #4

1.

http://proquest.umi.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1558741151&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1223516469&clientId=3739&cfc=1

a) The author is Marshall Kilduff, an editorial writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and other San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Kilduff is a local who went to San Francisco State University, so he can essentially represent much of San Francisco majority opinion. While San Francisco is a liberal city, the San Francisco Chronicle is distributed to much of California, and like other newspapers like the New York Times, attempts to be as neutral as possible, but can have some liberal bias.

b) The audience includes Bay Area and other California residents, where the newspaper is circulated. It reaches a large range of people, and the newspaper’s circulation represents the 12th largest in the United States. I think it is assumed that the audience is as liberal as those writing the paper itself, on a general scale anyway, with much deviation assumed.
c) Purpose is news media.

d) Relevant, current, valid, balanced, credible, comprehensive

2.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T7039346996

a) The author is Robert Bridge, editor-in-chief of the Moscow News, the primary English-written newspaper for Moscow and all of Russia. It was started by a socialist, and was approved by the communist government under Josef Stalin during its founding. The paper was one of the first to be critical of Russian establishments during Gorbachev’s glasnost, even though it is fueled by Russian information agencies.

b) The audience is the population of Moscow that speaks English, where the newspaper is distributed in many cafes, newsstands and other establishments, and is sometimes free to its readers. While it is not distributed in America, it caters to some westerners in language but not content.

c) Purpose is news media

d) Relevant, current, credible, valid, biased, limited

Even in the most opposite of political and economic atmospheres, a priority for all countries in the modern world is the desire to be “green” and to respect the environment. In San Francisco, a particularly liberal United States city, the desire to keep parks as sacred environmental oases remains as strong as ever. However, as San Francisco Chronicle writer Marshall Kilduff explains in his article “The Worst Job in the City,” that the upkeep of these parks in San Francisco is an overlooked, difficult, and expanding job that few people in the city are even aware of. In his vivid description of the responsibilities of the Neighborhood Parks Council, which is a “watchdog” of the city’s park system of over 100 park or garden areas. The article is critical of the job the city is doing, by cutting short funding for parks programs and therefore diminishing the city’s support of children and park-lovers. However, it does so while going into the difficulties involved, such as the fact that some park lovers are also “anti-park”, since they feel the parks should be more natural and untouched than constantly upkept landscapes and turf fields. Even with the Neighborhood Parks Council working with the city, the job is very difficult and has little reward, since while the issues are changing (parks are needed for soccer, frisbee, other things that weren’t practiced as much before), the outside world sees them as the same. So while they are seen as “green”, they are upkept with resistance and have difficulty keeping up with the times.

This is juxtaposed with the upkeep of the Moscow Parks system, which itself also maintains more than 100 parks, gardens and botanical gardens. And while the city is intending it or not, the charge for disturbing these green areas can be very high. Moscow News writer Robert Bridge describes the labors of construction workers to build a roofed sports complex (serving purposes of many US parks), but to also fence off every tree and bush during construction. Apparently, the punishment for disturbing or uprooting them is a hefty fine, due to the deference of the “green” concept to bureaucracy that simply fines per plant uprooted. So while the cause is good and toward the support of youth programs and being green by protecting natural areas, the workers have to be extra cautious of the environment in their construction. The companies either need to afford for each tree and shrub they uproot to be planted somewhere else in the city, or pay the fine of $1000 per tree. The author adds that this doesn’t afford for the trees that had to be killed to support the paper trail of this bureaucracy. While the source is credible, it is very editorial, and pros and cons to the issue are not immediately clear due to the anti-bureaucratic opinions of the author. But one thing that is clear is that there are difficulties maintaining “greenness” of parks in two countries that are polar opposites in their political views, no matter how the problem is approached.

Primary Research Methods

The turf fields are an area of contention and really, mystery, to myself and my friends and family who play on them. After going to the site and taking pictures of all posted signs (there were more than I expected!), I needed further methods for determining the purpose and  intended participants of the turf fields. Additionally, I want to determine who is determined to maintain and operate the turf fields, and whether the public can influence their maintenance.

My main forms of primary research concerning the turf fields (beyond the pictures) revolve around two sets of interviews/surveys that I will be conducting over the next week. The first is an interview with an official from the East Brunswick Division of Parks, who operate the turf fields, and have posted their phone number for concerns and questions surrounding the turf field. I hope to conduct this interview either live in person or on the phone and see if I can get some straight answers concerning the fields and the questions I have about it. This interview has the potential to resolve many of the questions I have concerning the fields, but may also complicate my research and really make things more difficult and ambiguous.

The second set of research I will conduct is a questionnaire that I will distribute to users of the turf fields like myself. I will send it out to those friends of mine who play on the fields on Facebook. While my friends use it to play ultimate frisbee, on any given night, there are multiple groups, both affiliated and unaffiliated with town leagues, playing multiple sports. I hope to distribute these surveys to these other field users and determine whether the opinions of my fellow frisbee players follows suit with the general thinking of the users. I plan to ask questions revolving the fields’ use, maintenance, location, and knowledge of posted signs.

Getting past my own personal biases surrounding the fields will definitely be a factor in my writing of the research paper. However, I think that the purposes of the paper nearly superscede any biases I have. Knowing the intended purpose of the turf fields and the difference between that and its current use can reveal the town’s inconsistencies, but I merely participate in its use. Knowing who maintains the park will more pointedly inform the public (if I am able to publish this paper) about its use, and again, doesn’t hinge on my personal thoughts or biases. I’m hoping to discover whether the town’s plan for the turf fields and the Heavenly Farms complex is clear to the public, and whether this influences its practice on a daily basis.

Questionnaire for Turf Field Users (handed out on the fields)

Age:

Town of Residence:

Primary Sport(s) Played on the fields:

Is/Are above sport(s) township/school/league-organized or independent/pick-up style?:

Have you ever participated in an East Brunswick township/school/league-organized activity on the Turf Fields or elsewhere?:

Did you attend East Brunswick High School/Churchill Junior High School/Hammarskjold Middle School?

How did you hear about the Turf Fields?:

How often do you participate in activities on the Turf Fields?:

Are you aware of the rest of the Heavenly Farms complex near the Turf Fields, but not including the Turf Fields?:

Are you aware of the bulletin board that posts the times when East Brunswick leagues have the fields reserved?:

If so, does this ever affect your attending an event at the fields?:

Are you aware of the metal signs posted in the chain-link fence of Field A that lists rules and regulations?:

Are you aware that the fields now turn off their stadium lights at 9:15pm Monday to Saturday, and do not turn them on Sundays (Last year the lights were turned off at 10:15pm on weekends and 11:00pm on Friday and Saturday)?:

Does this regulation concern you, and, if so, do you feel you have an adequate forum to voice these concerns?:

Does it concern you that the fields are not visible from Cranbury Road or Dunhams Corner Road, the two streets it is accessible from?:

What do you see as the purpose of the Turf Fields, based on their current use and their integration within the Heavenly Farms Complex and the Fairgrounds?:

The questionnaire in the form I’m distributing it online is located here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?yuitn2zzz3z

Freewrite #2

For my second freewrite, I am still interested in focusing on the East Brunswick Heavenly Farms Turf Fields a few miles from my house. In order to background the turf fields, there is some explanation necessary for their purpose. Growing up, the most popular sport for either gender child to play was definitely soccer. The East Brunswick Soccer Club (EBSC) is a very large organization, and accounts for a lot of the friends I made as a child, as well as an opportunity to play a great sport. The main hub for the EBSC to play is was the Middlesex County Fairgrounds, technically a county park in East Brunswick, where there are five soccer fields. Attached, and used by the club also, was Diderickson Park, housing another five soccer fields. However, a few years ago, the township lost their lease on Diderickson Park, and could no longer use the soccer fields as part of the EBSC. So the club resorted to using different school fields across town, but needed a more permanent solution. This solution came in the form of the Turf Fields, two astro-turf soccer/football/lacrosse fields that are located next to the Fairgrounds. They are part of the Heavenly Farms complex, a plan by the township to reinvigorate this part of town, which is home to mostly farmland and forests. The Heavenly Farms Complex includes a public amphitheater, a dog park, and the turf fields, which are the only fields in town that have stadium lighting at night. So after the fields were designated as the prime practice site for soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and other teams, word spread that they were open for use to the public. There is no lock on the field, no policeman posted, no signs posted that say they are not allowed to be used. There is no dawn-to-dusk rule, since the fields are lit at night. This makes them an optimal location for what became the hobby of myself and many of my friends last summer.

We use the facility to play games of ultimate frisbee 2-4 times a week. We began in other parks, but found that the lighting and turf were ideal conditions, even in the rain. Last summer, we had to compete with many organized league teams, such as the EBSC, for space. There is a bulletin board posted with when teams have official practices and have primary use of the field. This sign doesn’t really allow for outsider sign-up, so we could never reserve the fields for our frisbee. Though we couldn’t do so, last summer, the lights stayed on until 10 on weekdays and 11 on weekends, and all practices and games ended at 9. However, we don’t have this extra hour this year, because the township decided that they are turning the lights off at 9:30. So, we have resorted this year to playing in the morning and weighing our options for new location as school lets out and we’ll have to again compete with practicing league teams.

The turf fields are governed only by the occasional Department of Recreation vehicle that changes out the garbage cans in the mornings, and the sign from the Township that designates when leagues have use of the field. Otherwise, it is a free access park, and open to the general public. However, the fields, even with their tall lights, are not visible from either of the two streets that they are adjacent to. The sign on the access road doesn’t indicate “turf fields”, only “Heavenly Farms”. To an outsider, this means nothing, and there is no indication that there is a public park visually in any way. One has to know, either from a league, or from a friend, that these two fields exist, and this is a good way of keeping exorbitant crowds out, but thereby reducing their credibility as a “public park”. I am interested in pursuing who really owns the turf fields, what their purpose for existing is, and whether my friends’ frisbee play is encouraged or discouraged by the township. I will take into account the fields’ signage, location, stated purposes, and current uses, and its hours of operation. I hope, also, that my research will produce an answer to the question: “Does East Brunswick really need its Turf Fields?”

“secure” zones

Target stores

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrules/3167906446/sizes/o/

This first image is one that surprises many people. It is the interior of a Target store, a pretty common site to most people. However, all those black circles in the ceiling? All cameras, making this a very, very jittery space, as defined by Flusty. Most people don’t notice these cameras. In my Target, which is a small one located in Milltown, NJ, there are 120 cameras. I used to work there, so I know a number of security specs and details. This picture is of the DVD section, one very potent for shoplifting, but it just goes to show how jittery a space can be regardless of whether the occupant is aware. But by entering the store, a private establishment, a person gives up their right to privacy and can be “watched”. Every aisle has a camera, and some aisles have multiple cameras. The segmenting of the store makes its recordability streamlined and very effective. However, the sheer number of cameras makes them impossible to all watch simultaneously. There is an entire department dedicated to “product retention” and they employ rent-a-cops and review tape if suspicious activity occurs.

However, the bottom line is that I know many employees and shoppers who have stolen from the store, without ever being followed up on. The cameras are  there and make their presence known. They are black on a white ceiling, with high contrast. They act as a deterrant more than an actual security device. 120 cameras in a small store not even doing their job well sounds silly, but it likely saves Target millions. They could even just place these black bubbles in the ceilings with no actual cameras there and they probably would still retain more products.

These cameras attempt to control people to prevent them from shoplifting, and it attempts to keep these people out of the store altogether. This tends to support Flusty’s arguments of public space turning into more stringently watched private space, as old stores may have not been monitored because they were essentially public space, these spaces are clearly private due to the cameras and flexing their “private muscles”.

Burger Joint NYC (Le Parker Meridien, 57th Street)

This is a quite different example that I myself find very interesting. Inside “Le Parker Meridien,” a very expensive hotel and restaurant located on 57th Street between 6th and 7th, holds this secret in its lobby. You start in what looks like an innocent hotel lobby (image 1), and there is sometimes a line coming out of the curtains. Only when you come far enough into the lobby to see inside the curtain, you see where the people are going (image 2). The sign (image 3) is the first indication that this place exists, and that it serves burgers. After waiting in the line, you see the prize (image 4), a dirty-looking, underground burger joint. There is no indication outside on the street or in the lobby until one sees this sign. Though the reason for its secrecy is not security, it still chooses to make itself a stealthy and slippery space.

The reason for this secrecy is really just to monitor who comes in. It does not attract the usual crowd of the Parker Meridien, and due to its location it does not attract the usual crowd of, say, a McDonalds down the street. Its menu is a cardboard sheet, and the walls are plastered with rock and movie posters. The restaurant is mostly to filter to “hipsters” and those who know the NYC restaurant scene. It deters tourists, and only allows insiders who hear about it through word of mouth (like myself), since they do not advertise at all. Even the name, “Burger Joint NYC” is completely client-produced. Their “name” is the neon sign of the burger. I think the materials and settings are perfect for this public space, and I think they seem to disprove Flusty’s arguments, because they are not for security, paranoia, or really anything. They merely exclude those who don’t “know the ropes” of New York, and do not attempt to exclude anyone who hears about them.

East Brunswick Turf Fields

These are the topics of my possible unit 1 paper, the turf fields in my town. Though they are totally open to the public, only surrounded by a 4 ft fence (to keep balls and players on the turf), they are still a slippery space. The fields, as one can see, are secluded from the two main roads they are near, Cranbury and Dunhams Corner Rd. They are not visible from either road, and there are no signs to indicate where they are from the entrance on Dunhams Corner Rd. Their only indication for outsiders are their bright lights that are lit during the evenings. Though the spaces are totally public, they exclude those who weren’t previously informed of their existence. They, in this way, exclude people who shouldn’t be there, basically anyone who shouldn’t be watching or playing on or maintaining the fields. While I understand that the fields shouldn’t be ruined by too much human traffic, I just don’t understand this aspect of their creation. There is plenty of space closer to the roads, and even though this could be a safety hazard, they are intended to be public spaces, and their current location in no way “invites” people to come unless they know about them.

This combines some aspects of Target, reducing crime (like possible sexual predator crimes), and aspects of the Burger Joint, exclusion of those without prior knowledge. So just due to their location, the turf fields, which seem like the most public of the spaces, is really the least public. This is not to say that they’re private, but merely that they’re less public. The road you drive on to get there, in the desolate old farm fields, reminds one of the privilege it is to know of this free location, as it drives you away from society. These implications of privilege in public space speaks clearly to Flusty’s essay, and begs the question: who are the field makers really trying to exclude from the space?

transgressive semiotics

http://www.yatzer.com/1004_jan_vormann..dispatchwork

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39219355@N07/3625754121/

This is a project I’ve come accross a few times on the internet, and upon reading the assignment I think it applies perfectly to the category of transgressive semiotics. I am a huge Lego fan and have been for as long as I can remember. As an architect, they’ve inspired me and I still see them as a great way to model projects and express in a unique medium.

This project was done by Jan Vormann, an artist from Berlin, and the project was done in Bocchignano, Italy. She filled in pieces of missing brick and stone with Lego bricks, some of the stones dating back to Roman times. This, to me, is a prime example of something being transgressive because not only does it break the boundaries of the accepted canvas (like the BLF and the Banksy), but also breaks the borders of the accepted medium (Lego, rather than paint). She created the pieces to contrast with the old, dust-covered gray and brown stones and intrudes upon them with bright, shiny plastic. Though the pieces are more of a temporary medium due to the nature of plastic materiality, they emphasize the difference between the “serious” foundation of the old town and the new, modern styles of today. She created the installments in part to introduce the “sleepy” town of Bocchignano to the present.

Though it is considered by some to be art (like any modern art), it is considered a disrespectful intrusion by others. After the work was displayed on the internet, some of her supporters in Berlin then responded by “dispatching” Legos of their own between broken bricks in her hometown of Berlin. (http://www.yatzer.com/feed_1696_dispatchwork_in_berlin) The exhibition (as can be seen in the comments section of the previous link) was applauded by some for being innovative and unique, but lauded by others as being childish and irreverant. Personally, I think that these are valuable pieces of art, and, though temporary, can remind the old world and its art of what the new world has to offer.

I think the most interesting part of transgressive semiotics is who is considered the one to judge it as being transgressive. Even in the case I introduced, there were multiple sets of viewers: those passing it on the street, those participating in Berlin, and those commenting on the images on the internet. Each has a different standard, and each has a different definition of transgression, further perpetuating the graffiti vs. art debate.

Advertisement Assignment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39219355@N07/3606181320/

This is an advertisement from the back cover of Wired magazine, a magazine I subscribe to. Wired is a magazine primarily intended for men around 18-35 with an interest in electronics or even just “nerd” subculture, whether it’s business, economics, politics, computers or the internet. While it began as a very primarily nerdy magazine, it has diverged into being a “hipster” magazine, and includes, for example, an article on putting Mentos in ice cubes in cola to produce a reaction when the ice cubes melt.

I find it interesting that, primarily, cigarette ads are donning the back of such a magazine, for mostly young men. Smoking, at least in my generation, has essentially lost its appeal for being “cool” and is the primary focus for older generations is to get people to quit. But the advertisement itself portrays a young man listening to music while holding a cigarette and smiling or laughing. First of all, the image is odd to me because it looks like the cigarette could simply be photoshopped in, it is very subtle and the image itself doesn’t strongly rest on the cigarette. The man portrayed is successful, due to the leather chair, expensive headphones, and collared shirt, and he is clearly happy due to the smile on his face. The image has a high modality, and is meant to show that all people can enjoy cigarettes and it portrays class. This brings me to the text, and the primary headline says it all. “The only corners we cut are on the pack”. It portrays an image of success, again reinforcing the intent of the image. The block of text explains how the cigarettes themselves have a “smooth, even burn” and are made of “superior paper”. I find this interesting because Davidoff cigarettes are a brand I’ve never even heard of and yet they try to sell that they’ve been around the block and they know the cigarette industry. In fact, they are primarily a cigar company, which leads me to believe they don’t, or at least not as much is portrayed in the ad. I think it is an interesting graphic, as the image is very smooth, it has a simple black and white gradient, and even the red box on the left is very subtle and non-intrusive. The letters in the text are small and don’t have much contrast, and the logo is the primary area of contrast. This tries to juxtapose the advertisement from the surgeon general’s warning on the bottom, and try to make it seem like that is a magazine barcode or some other foreign item in the ad. I think it does a good job of separating itself from the warning, and portraying smoking as something “cool” to do.

This ad tries to portray smoking as something more acceptable than shown in a lot of society, especially in school and health outlets, and that it is definitely not a dead practice. It attempts to control behavior by reversing initial thoughts on smoking and showing that they are for the “in” crowd too. I think it is a problematic attempt because it tries to do this above a surgeon general’s warning, and smoking can lead to lung cancer and other health problems. Even the surgeon general’s warning is not strongly worded “Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health,” using confusing wording to almost avoid the fact that buying cigarettes isn’t.

I think it is interesting how drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, and even meth (as discussed in forum C) are portrayed differently by their advertiser’s and their counter-advertisers. Even when something is so clearly not good for you, it can be perceived as something that is great for you, whether you are a current user or not.

Blog Assignment #1 – Neighborhood Signs

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheenachi/108311326/

This first image is one of a memorial in my town (East Brunswick, NJ) for the victims of the 9/11 tragedy, and especially those who were residents of my town. It was erected in the municipal complex in my town that houses the library, police department and senior center. It lies next to the Veterans Memorial (the flag statue in the background). It acts as an icon, a symbol and an index. First, it is an icon because the memorial is built in the shape of the Twin Towers, and has American flags on it to secure its function as an image of the towers. It is a symbol because it, in reality, is two vertical rectangular prisms, but is understood as the Twin Towers due to its association with the neighboring veterans statue, the words upon it, and the American flags. It is an index because it matters that it is in a town somewhat near New York City. If it were place in Austrailia, for example, it would mean something different, and especially because it bears the names of my town residents who died.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheenachi/3377629728/

This image is from the inside of our local Circuit City, which was doomed to close as all other Circuit City’s were after the company went bankrupt this year. This image really has two signs in it, first, the “PC Accessories” Sign, and next the sale signs underneath it. The PC accessories sign acts as an icon and index. It is an icon for the picture of a mouse, a PC Accessory. It is an index because it is located above the PC Accessories. More important to me, however, are the sale signs. They are symbols and indexes. They are symbols because they contain words, which represent arbitrary aspects of the language. Their role as an index is paramount. They are in reference to the PC accessories section, but also to the sign above them, and also indexes because of the store they are in. They also bring up the fact that they are not only indexical of the sign’s or store’s location physically, but also the status of the store, and that is, bankruptcy. While symbolizing it, it does not indicate this fact explicitly, only through indexing.

http://www.ebyouthcouncil.com/images/EBHS.gif

I apologize for the quality and size of the image, but this is a particularly interesting sign in front of my high school. Its bushes are cut to read EBHS (East Brunswick High School). It faces the road, since our high school is on a hill and not visible from the road. It is accompanied by an electronic sign that projects surrounding school events. The bush sign is a symbol and an index. It is a symbol because it represents the four arbitrary letters of the high school, but could stand for something else in a different place. It is highly indexical, because it stands in front of its namesake, and it indicates the pride of the school it stands for and for the town. During our year of graduation, some students arranged sticks under the sign to read “EBHS ’08″, indicating further pride in our graduating year. It is a unique sign because of its medium, plants, and therefore it symbolizes a regard for the school’s attempt to be “green”.