Anthropology and the Experience of Limits Research Paper

Uninvited Creations:

Abandonment and Appropriation in the Concept-City

[1]

[2]

The pier…was frightening…  It is dangerous…to go into an abandoned place and chop it up—I don’t know what I thought about that. The destructive aspect, I mean…The piece was dangerous to the viewer. It was large; it had scale. He was creating some kind of edge—flirting with some sort of abyss.[3]

Joel Shapiro, an American sculptor, was describing his encounter with Gordon Matta-Clark’s 1975 piece, Day’s End, at New York City’s Pier 54. Shapiro’s language dramatizes a shaky phenomenological experience. He uses a terminology of harm and fear—the piece was ‘frightening’ and ‘dangerous to the viewer’—to demonstrate that this piece poses a threat to the visitor, causes discomfort and apprehension. Furthermore, his understanding of the piece as ‘destructive’ makes clear that the work breaks down structures—both literal and symbolic. Finally, the implication that the work creates ‘an edge’ and flirts with an ‘abyss’ reveals that this piece operates at the social and physical limits; it implies a transgression, an engagement with something taboo-ed, an ‘other side.’ It is, in a word, a violation.

[4]

            I am interested in investigating the intentions of and responses to uninvited, unexpected acts of creation in the urban context. In particular, I would like to look at street art as a transgression of the perceived order of the modern city. I will take as my starting point the work of two geographically and temporally distinct artists. Gordon Matta-Clark worked throughout the US [and occasionally in Europe] in the 1970s creating a body of work known as the Building Cuts. Tyree Guyton has been working on The Heidelberg Project in Detroit since 1986, beginning with his own street and expanding to encompass the entire city. Both artists work explicitly and exclusively with spaces of abandonment—leftovers and cutouts from the [American] modernist street grid. Each of these artists engage with dismantling, disordering, disrupting, and disgusting through an artistic activation (or charging) of spaces of urban abandonment.

I will endeavor to reveal both the broader narrative of urban order that their work violates and the specific ways in which they violate it.

THE ORDER

            Both Matta-Clark and Guyton’s work operates on the modernist street grid of America’s cities. Their work does not respond to or comment on European medieval or American colonial urban form—both quite continuous, chaotic, and improvised. They operate within an urban system imposed in the 20^th century through the Modernist planning project. In order to understand the ways in which this modernist order is violated by their work, it becomes crucial to understand the essence and intention of modernist planning. Modernist urban planning can be understood as a break from the immersive path-based accumulation of a grounded pedestrian world to the totalizing formal and geometric planning of an aerial perspective. To immerse ourselves in this discourse of modernity, I will turn to French architect Le Corbusier, a profoundly influential modernist thinker and designer.

            Le Corbusier’s ideology was crystallized in two enduring documents—his 1923 manifesto Towards a New Architecture and the following series of plans for the ideal modern city form published in 1933 as The Radiant City. In these two documents, Le Corbusier developed and articulated a coherent and complete ideology of modernism advocating "a radical synthesis of the classical perfection of the Parthenon and the design aesthetics of the machine age...the inefficient and unhygienic structures of the past should be thrown on the scrap heap, just as a workman discards an outmoded tool. The city itself should be orderly and legible..."[5] This vision of an ordered and legible city is what Michel De Certeau dubs The Concept-City in his 1984 book, The Practice of Everyday Life. De Certeau explains the Concept-City as "the 'city' founded by utopian and urbanistic discourse [and] defined by...the production of...[a] rational organization [that represses] all the physical, mental and political pollutions that would compromise it."[6] With this statement we begin to see the vulnerability of this vision, the very real threat of ‘pollution,’ ‘disorder,’ and ‘deviance’ to it’s comprehensive and totalizing ideology. De Certeau reiterates this modernist compulsive control claiming that the city is "organized by 'speculative' and classificatory operations. On the one hand, there is a differentiation and redistribution of the parts and functions of the city...on the other there is a rejection of everything that is not capable of being dealt with in this way and so constitutes the 'waste products' of a functionalist administration (abnormality, deviance, illness, death etc.)"[7] Matta-Clark and Guyton’s work is positioned in relation to this Concept-City, as a challenge to that city through the foregrounding of what this modernist order excludes and casts off. Through their progressive violation and erosion of the modernist ordering project, they proclaim, "the Concept-city is decaying"[8] and in doing so challenge not only the integrity of the modernist planning tradition but also the authority of the modernist state. It is in this latter violation that they encounter their most brutal opposition.

OUTSIDE ORDER: SPACES OF ABANDONMENT

            Matta-Clark and Guyton’s relation to and commentary on the modernist project is rooted in the siting of their work. Both work with abandoned spaces, places that have been forgotten, written out, alienated or ignored. The critical power of activating these unused spaces is immense. The self-proclaimed coherence and comprehensiveness of the modernist project is undermined by this activation—to highlight things that are left out, discarded, discounted and unincorporated into this vision is to shake the very foundations of this totalizing ideology. Guyton explained the Heidelberg Project as "his way, as an artist, of reclaiming a neighborhood forgotten by civil society."[9] This theme was reiterated by every source that addressed Guyton’s work—he “incorporates cast-off, abandoned objects to highlight problems such as blight, abandonment, homelessness, drugs, racism, and child abuse”[10] and “to call attention to and provoke thought about ways to address ignored, cast-off urban problems, Guyton began affixing found and discarded objects to vacant houses on Heidelberg Street.”[11] Guyton’s work did not allow the city to hide or discredit these defilements of the urban order. He celebrated them. Les Levine echoes this sentiment in speaking of Matta-Clark work with abandoned structures: “the metapsychology of Gordon’s art was to embrace the abandoned. He worked in old buildings, neighborhoods in a state of rejection. He would nurture a building that had lost its soul.”[12] This tender empathy for and embrace of the rejected and removed violates the modernist coding of these objects as disgusting and devalued. In this light, Matta-Clark and Guyton’s appropriation of these coded objects is a violation, regardless of the ultimate form this appropriation takes.

            The concept of appropriation, then, becomes worthy of scrutiny. Hegel offers perhaps the most comprehensive, potent and sensitive definition of appropriation:

to appropriate something means basically only to manifest the supremacy of my will in relation to the thing and to demonstrate that the latter does not have being for itself and is not an end in itself…This manifestation occurs through my conferring upon the thing an end other than that which it immediately possessed. I give the living creature, as my property, a soul other than that which it previously had; I give it my soul.[13]

Hegel’s definition can be understood as the willful imparting of a counter-narrative, but it doesn’t carry the sort of impersonal and pointed tone that most definitions possess—Hegel’s definition, instead illuminates the tender intimacy of the relationship of subject and object, of appropriator and appropriated. It is, in essence, an adoption. However, while ‘adoption’ may faithfully capture the intention and character of Matta-Clark and Guyton’s working process, it is crucial to maintain the more politically violent implications of appropriation. Every individual appropriation is a re-writing of meaning and hence a re-writing of order. Several theorists help to frame methods of appropriation in relation to the state’s meaning-making machine.

James Holston positions appropriation relative to state authority and modernist theory in his notion of Insurgent Citizenship. He characterizes the relationship in this way:

insurgent forms are found both in organized grassroots mobilizations and in everyday practices that, in different ways, empower, parody, derail or subvert state agendas. They are found, in other words, in struggles over what it means to be a member of the modern state... [which] has never been a static identity...Citizenship changes as the new members emerge to advance their claims, expanding its realm, and as new forms of segregation and violence counter these advances, eroding it. The sites of insurgent citizenship are found at the intersection of these processes of expansion and erosion.... they are sites of insurgence because they introduce into the city new identities and practices that disturb established histories.[14]

Holston notes that “erosions of citizenship are particularly evident in the city’s disintegrating public spaces and abandoned public spheres.”[15] It is this erosion—rather than expansion—of citizenship that Matta-Clark and Guyton’s work addresses. They both operate within a post-industrial, post-modern urban landscape calling attention to the erosions of modernity’s promises. They are physicalizing theorist Henri Lefebvre’s Right to the City—a "demand...[for] a transformed and renewed access to urban life."[16]

            Michel De Certeau notion of Pedestrian Speech Acts offers a humanistic, performance-theory-based counterpoint to Holston’s political-economic notion of appropriation. The pedestrian speech act can essentially be seen as an unconscious and unavoidable act of appropriation and re-definition of the space a given person moves through and is a form of 'writing' and 're-writing' the urban text.[17] Profoundly rooted in linguistics, De Certeau’s pedestrian speech acts "correspond to manipulations of the basic elements of a constructed order [and are] like the tropes in rhetoric, deviations relative to a sort of 'literal meaning' defined by the urbanistic system."[18] The linguistic parallel is a particularly compelling one when considering Matta-Clark’s artistic process as he makes extensive use of puns and oblique references in his work [more on this later]. While De Certeau’s terminology is evidently rooted in the notion of an individual’s body, I believe the concept is easily applicable to Matta-Clark and Guyton’s urban interventions—it is easy enough to see their artistic installations as an extension or manifestation of their individual inhabitation of the urban street grid. Pedestrian speech acts are, fundamentally, a fragmenting and distorting operation—presented as turns-of-phrase or gestures, the spaces they operate on are

transformed into enlarged singularities and separate islands. Through these swellings, shrinkings, and fragmentations, that is, through these rhetorical operations a spatial phrasing of an analogical (composed of juxtaposed citations) and elliptical (made of gaps, lapses, and allusions) type is created. For the technological system of a coherent and totalizing space that is 'linked' and simultaneous, the figures of pedestrian rhetoric substitute trajectories that have a mythical structure, at least if one understands by 'myth' a discourse relative to the origin of concrete existence a story jerry-built out of elements taken from common sayings, an allusive and fragmentary story whose gaps mesh with the social practices it symbolizes"[19]

The direct relationship between the order, or ‘technological system of a coherent and totalizing space,’ and the pedestrian speech act is made evident in this passage. De Certeau’s theorizing of appropriation allows us to position Matta-Clark and Guyton’s artistic interventions as ‘swellings, shrinkings and fragmentations’ of the modernist spatial order.

De Certeau, in a moment of excitement and anticipation at the conclusion of The Practice of Everyday Life, proclaims that the effect of pedestrian speech acts "floods private and public spaces, undoes their readable surfaces, and creates within the planned city a 'metaphorical' or mobile city, like the one Kandinsky dreamed of: 'a great city built according to all the rules of architecture and then suddenly shaken by a force that defies all calculation.'"[20] Let us look at Matta-Clark and Guyton’s work as this shaking force that so animates De Certeau analysis of appropriation.

IDEOLOGICAL VIOLATIONS

Post-Modernity (The Violation of the Modernist Order):

Matta-Clark’s work is consistently discussed as a violation of the modernist spatial order—James Atlee goes so far as to state in his essay Towards Anarchitecture, that "almost every one of [Le Corbusier's] key statements finds its opposite in the writings and the practice of [Matta-Clark]."[21] Matta-Clark, trained at Cornell School of Architecture, was well versed in the rhetoric and creations of the modernist tradition and found ample cause for objection. Matta-Clark claimed  "'we were thinking more about metaphoric voids, gaps, leftover spaces...for example the place you stopped to tie your shoelaces'. These were the places ignored in the architectural master plans and often inhabited by people who were similarly ignored by the system."[22] This intention to invert and expose the problematic skeleton of modernist logic came out most explicitly in his linguistic manipulations of modernist mantras—Atlee writes that, at Matta-Clark’s hand, "Louis Sullivan's dictum 'form follows function' is manipulated through the distorting mirror of the artist's compulsive punning to become 'form fallows function'. If this wordplay means anything, it implies that a rigid adherence to certain ideas of form will restrict an object or a building's usefulness."[23] This intention, while explicit and foundational in the academic discourse surrounding Matta-Clark’s Building Cuts, is never explicitly discussed in relation to Guyton’s Heidelberg Project—perhaps due to Guyton’s lack of architectural training. However, Guyton’s work similarly challenges the modernist spatial order—his work serves as a commentary on and critique of the proliferation of anonymous, reproducible and isolated single-family matchbox homes. Matta-Clark, too, operated on the abandoned single family homes of American suburbia—as Pamela Lee points out in Object to be Destroyed, to work with the single-family home in America is to operate upon “the myth of the suburban home—the dream of middle-class America…. coordinated largely around the twinned ideologies of privacy and retreat.”[24] Encoded in the single-family home were the aspirations of stability, constancy, coherence and consensus. Guyton and Matta-Clark’s violation of these spaces of modernist order was read by many, most importantly by the state, as an insertion of physical anarchy into the already fragile and threatened order of the American city in the post-industrial age.

Anarchy + Chance (The Violation of Planning + Intentionality)

Anarchy, once again, is an explicit aim and premise of Matta-Clark’s work while remaining an unacknowledged element of Guyton’s work. Matta-Clark was a founding member of the Anarchitecture Group, organized to support an exhibit that defined the somewhat elusive formulation of ‘Anarchitecture’ as the “search for qualities beyond the rule. A closer awareness of all the senses with little faith in the efficiency army of problem solving."[25] This statement, like many of Matta-Clark’s personal writings and sculptural works, was a thinly veiled assault on the modernist mantra of utility. As Atlee notes, "the first object [Matta-Clark] suggests for inclusion [in the Anarchitecture Exhibit] is a plain board with the words 'NOTHING WORKS' written on it. This fundamentally anti-functional statement, described in his letter as 'a reaction to the prime-crime axiom of modern design-fighters,' stands in direct opposition to the whole ethos of utilitarian modernism."[26] In his stubborn reversal and dissection of all the modernist aspirations embedded in the Concept-City, Matta-Clark actualized modernisms deepest anxiety: the undercurrent of anarchy. Modernity’s political structures—democratic bureaucracy, communist monarchy, and fascist dictatorship—all encoded this deeply held aspiration for control and order and likewise all saw anarchy as the most terrifying and volatile threat to this aspiration.

            In Guyton’s work, we must look to the state’s reaction to the work to uncover and tease out its anarchistic undercurrents. The project, since it’s inception in 1986, has been demolished twice by the city—once in 1991 and again in 1999. This targeted demolition in a city which has over 30,000 standing structures slated for demolition can only be read as a desperate attempt to erase a threat. This intentionality is widely acknowledged in the discussion of Guyton’s work. The following statements illustrate this direct connection between Guyton’s insertion of a physical anarchy and the state’s re-assertion of control:

Because the Heidelberg Project has focused attention on the failures of government, the city has quickly demolished parts of the Project, despite its backlog of thousands of abandoned structures[27]

The demolitions…stemmed from the Heidelberg Project’s power struggles with city government over the control of space.[28]

Guyton’s threat of anarchy is perhaps most evident in his explicit allusion to the city’s 1967 riots.

            Guyton and Matta-Clark both insert into the highly controlled modernist order an anarchistic spatial disorder. This disorder is most directly associated with a fragmentation of the street grid, a fragmentation that is both volatile and contagious.

Fragmentation (The Violation of Continuity and Coherence)

Matta-Clark fragmentation of a building’s structural logic is reflected and reproduced in Guyton’s fragmentation of the city’s rhythmic regularity. Both produce ruptures that throw off the viewer—Matta-Clark causes us to re-examine gravity as a continuous and consistent force while Guyton causes us to re-examine the constancy of linear progression. Lee comments on Matta-Clarks use of fragmentation explaining, “the person encountering the building cuts is phenomemologically ‘disintegrated’—traversed by contingency, overwhelmed by a surfeit of perceptual cues, and unmoored from the apparent givenness of architectural space.”[29] Walker reiterates and confirms this representation of Matta-Clark’s fragmentation claiming that "he worked to suggest that apparently static and stable disciplines like architecture actually enjoyed multiple and conflicting ingredients."[30] Crucial to the effect of this fragmentation is the maintenance of the original structure’s legibility—while Walker here is discussing Matta-Clark, he could just as easily be referring to Guyton’s work:

the original building in a sufficiently coherent state to permit observers to understand it as a building...the original disposition of spaces is entirely legible...[but his] activities disrupt this legibility, and it is only with a concerted effort that it can be momentarily regained...Familiar sequences of spaces and movements are replaced with new possibilities that simultaneously expand the visual space within and through the building, and both expand and restrict its physically accessible spaces on the limits of perception, and the existence of other kinds of space.[31]

The fragmentation of familiar spaces results in an uncomfortable fluidity, dynamism and simultaneity of rigidly maintained categories and classifications of the modernist urban order. Furthermore, this fragmentation, by virtue of its physical denial of boundaries, necessarily confronts the laws associated with private property and trespass. It is at this juncture that Matta-Clark and Guyton’s violations transition from ideological violations of the modernist spatial order and democratic political authority to literal and visceral violation of that order and authority.

VISCERAL VIOLATIONS

Trespass (The Violation of Boundary)

This is the first of Matta-Clark and Guyton’s violations that can be explicitly coded as a crime—both Matta-Clark and Guyton confronted explicit attacks from the state claiming their work was illegal on the basis of trespassing (and vandalizing) private property. While it is known that Matta-Clark was continuously under legal scrutiny, especially with his work on private homes in the suburbs, it is not as well documented as Guyton’s encounters. The most demonstrative of Guyton’s encounters occurred in response to his expanded scope:

he started polka-dotting abandoned houses throughout the neighborhood. The implied challenge was obvious; how could the mayor's office tear down the Heidelberg Project while doing nothing about 30,000 abandoned houses throughout the city? As might have been expected, the city (which technically owned the houses but was doing nothing about them) fought back. It brought a criminal case against Guyton for trespassing. But Guyton's lawyer successfully argued that polka dots were no different than the political advertising the city allowed on the buildings.[32]

Guyton’s successful circumnavigation of the state’s attack reveals the way in which Guyton (and Matta-Clark) are operating at the limits of the urban order—like their fragmentation of urban space, both artists are careful to conform just enough to the system they are violating. This is the essence of the power behind their transgression—the system of spatial and symbolic boundaries they are violating remain legible in their violation of it. Hence, their violation is read as pointed, directed, and intentional rather than diffuse and dismissible. Because of their focused questioning, their work necessarily becomes coded as violent and dangerous to the continued functioning of civil society.

Violence + Danger (The Violation of Civil Society)

The violence read into Matta-Clark’s work came out most expressly in people’s reactions to his interventions into the domestic suburban context. Lee writes that some read his work Splitting as “misogynistic, a violent attack against the domestic order gendered as feminine. The artist himself received a number of angry letters about the project, one of which accused him of performing an ‘out and out rape’ on the house.”[33] While Matta-Clark rejected this interpretation, he did not deny the symbolic violence of his work, claiming that he aimed to produce a “discrete violation of their [the visitors’] sense of value, sense of orientation.”[34] This discrete violation, as experienced and recounted by Joel Shapiro, was felt as an acute danger to the visitor’s person—to their body and their mind. Walker echoes this interpretation of discrete violation as danger explaining “the visitor’s encounter with his work may have been felt as a violation of their sense of value or orientation, though here again a certain ambiguity as to whether this violation was taken as a teasing disturbance or a harmful gesture, an ambivalent failure to respect particular values or a positive transgression.”[35] Guyton’s work, while rarely coded as violent, is instead coded as disease or dirt. The anthropologist Mary Douglas provides a useful framework to consider the parallel, linked threats of violence and disease.

Dirt + Contagion (Violation of Containment + Normality)

In her seminal book, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, Douglas positions dirt and contagion not as objective scientific terms associated with a socially-neutral notion of hygiene but rather as socially constructed entities used to define social order through negation. Douglas contends "dirt is essentially disorder...dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organize the environment."[36] The rhetoric of dirt envelops the Heidelberg Projects serving as a widespread justification for the demolition (or elimination) by the city. One reporter writes that, “using the complaints of some neighbors that the accumulation of found-objects had become a haven for rats and posed a fire and safety hazard, the city has demolished parts of the project on two occasions.”[37] Implicitly coded in this statement is that the installation was ‘dirty,’ that it was produced out of ‘waste’ which inherently is read as volatile and in need of containment (in the form of trashcans, trucks and landfills). Another reporter confirms this perception explaining "the problem that has plagued the Heidelberg Project since its inception is its perception by many people as a pile of trash. Some of Guyton's neighbors feel that it's just junk."[38] The open display of and embrace of objects coded as ‘dirty.’ ‘unhygienic’ and ‘wastes’ necessarily enlisted the state’s efforts to contain and eliminate this contagious installation: a reporter writes “such confrontational work...pointed out the ineffectiveness of then-Mayor Coleman Young in stemming the tide of urban decay. One day in 1991, Young sent in the bulldozers. By the end of the week the houses and the installations they supported had been carted off to the dump."[39] This carting of decay to the dump represents a removal of ‘dirt’ from the urban context. The notion that fertile dirt, as representative of natural processes of decomposition and decay, has no place in the city denotes a larger ideological estrangement of the urban from the natural. This estrangement indicates that the natural cycling of materials and re-incorporation of waste is problematic for and incompatible with a modernist world premised on utility and progress.

Excess + Waste (Violation of Utility + Progress)

French theorist Georges Bataille positions notions of excess and waste as transgressive to the modernist project. He laments the ideological limitations of his time, in particular the bourgeois valuation of rationality, productivity and utility.  “In former times, value was given to unproductive glory, whereas in our day it is measured in terms of production: precedence is given to energy acquisition over energy expenditure.”[40] The modernist valuation of productivity necessarily obscures the wastes this production casts off. De Certeau points out that New York, America’s beacon of modernity, “has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its pasts. Its present invents itself, from hour to hour, in the act of throwing away its previous accomplishments and challenging the future.”[41] Modernist creation is premised on this complete replacement and hence on the discarding of massive volumes of physical and symbolic material and yet, this discarding is a source of discomfort and insecurity—it is in tension with the modernist notion of containment and control. Guyton and Matta-Clark both take society’s wastes—abandoned objects, spaces and structures—as their material. This intimate engagement with waste material implies a lack of adherence to the social coding of waste as pollution according to Douglas. Douglas asserts that "our pollution behavior is the reaction which condemns any object or idea likely to confuse or contradict cherished classifications."[42] If the condemnation of ‘pollution’ indicates an accepted understanding of the social order, then an embrace of ‘pollution’ denotes a rupture in, or perhaps more accurately, an inversion of the social order. The inversion of the social order suggested by Guyton and Matta-Clark’s work places value on the chaotic over the ordered, the dynamic over the static, the dirty over the clean, and the ephemeral over the permanent.

COSMIC VIOLATIONS

The Ephemeral (Violation of Stability)

All of these violations—ideological and visceral—are so deeply threatening because they challenge the permanence and stability of the urban system. Modernism, while rooted in the idea of progress, understood that progress to be entirely under human control, subject to no external forces only the internal driving force of social consensus. Hence, the root of the transgressive nature of Matta-Clark and Guyton’s violations of the modernist order lie in their highlighting of the ephemeral nature of the urban system. Matta Clark explains, “buildings are fixed entities in the minds of most people. The notion of mutable space is taboo, especially in one’s own house.” [43] Guyton’s work, like Matta-Clark’s work, “addressed the phenomenon of places in dizzying flux…they dramatized the temporality of each site, the timeliness of architecture, through marking the disintegration of social space.”[44] Matta-Clark and Guyton both push their viewers to admit the temporality of structures, to see the passage of time and instability inscribed in the built environment rather than seeing the built environment as representative of a monolithic and monumental stasis. This mobilizing of the immobile and animation of the inanimate accesses the deepest of all modernist anxieties—the re-assertion of Nature over civilization.

Nature/Greening (Violation of Civilization)

A drive through Detroit's residential neighborhoods reveals that many of the city's vacant lots are reverting back to their natural state. In the summer, these fields burgeon with flowering weeds that stretch tall and spindly—clumps of wiry maple and poplar saplings obscure piles of discarded tires and rusted bedsprings from mattresses used as trampolines by neighborhood children....[an] unintentional 'greening' of the city...Detroit's long-vacant houses, factories and storefronts are dramatic artifacts of civic neglect.[45]

This reporter’s description of Detroit captures the involuntarily ‘greened’ city. This is the nightmare of modernity—that the entropy of the natural world will erode our carefully structured and ordered urban sphere. It is a vision of collapse and chaos. It is this vision of collapse and chaos that is celebrated by Guyton and Matta-Clark and it is this celebration that is transgressive.

Bibliography

Attlee, James. “Towards Anarchitecture: Gordon Matta-Clark and Le Corbusier.” Tate Papers: Tate’s Online Research Journal (Spring 2007): 1–17.

Axioti, Eleni. “The Interruptive Spaces of Gordon Matta-Clark.” Floater Magazine, n.d. http://www.floatermagazine.com/issue02/The_Interruptive_Spaces_of_Gordon_Matta-Clark/.

Barberie, Peter. “Zoe Strauss Under I-95.” In Zoe Strauss: Ten Years, 114–139. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Museum of Art Publishing Department, 2012.

Bataille, Georges. “Notion of Expenditure.” In Visions Of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, 14:116–129. Theory and History of Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985.

Bataille, Georges. “The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy.” translated by Robert Hurley, 1:19–41. New York, NY: Zone Books, 1991.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

De Certeau, Michel. “Walking in the City.” In The Practice of Everyday Life, 91–110. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1984.

Che, Deborah. “Connecting the Dots to Urban Revitalization with the Heidelberg Project.” Matieral Culture 39, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 33–49.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London and New York: Routledge, 1966.

Holston, James. “Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship.” In Cities and Citizenship, 155–173. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999.

Knox, Skaie. “The Heidelberg Project: Building Inspiration With Abandoned Objects.” Diggers List, February 4, 2011. http://blog.diggerslist.com/2011/02/04/the-heidelberg-project-building-inspiration-with-abandoned-objects/.

Lee, Pamela. Object to Be Destroyed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.

Lefebvre, Henri. “Social Space.” In The Production of Space, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, 68–93. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc, 1991.

Lefebvre, Henri. “The Right to the City.” In Writings on Cities, 147–159. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc, 1996.

Moore, Ryan. “Tyree Guyton Demolition Man: Picking up the Pieces After the Fall of Detroit’s Heidelberg Project.” Juxtapose, June 1999.

Nasar, Jack, and David Moffat. “The Heidelberg Project--Detroit, Michigan: Tyree Guyton.” Places: Forum of Design for the Public Realm 16, no. 3 (2004): 14–17.

Walker, Stephen. “Discrete Violation.” In Gordon Matta-Clark: Art, Architecture and the Attack on Modernism, 13–27. London, England: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2009.

Walters, Wendy S. “Turning the Neighborhood Inside Out: Imagining a New Detroit in Tyree Guyton’s Heidelberg Project.” The Drama Review 45, no. 4 (Winter 2001): 64–93.

---

[1] http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/8174

[2] https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/2011/12/22/the-heidelberg-project-detroit-mi/

[3] Lee, 130.

[4] http://errormachine.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/days-end-19751.jpg, http://www.lightindustry.org/daysend.jpg

[5] Atlee, 5.

[6] De Certeau, 94.

[7] De Certeau, 94.

[8] De Certeau, 95.

[9] Nassar and Moffat, 14.

[10] Che, 33.

[11] Che, 38.

[12] Lee, 56.

[13] Lee, 56.

[14] Holston, 167.

[15] Holston, 170.

[16] Lefebvre (Right to the City), 158.

[17] De Certeau, 97-8.

[18] De Certeau, 100.

[19] De Certeau, 101-102.

[20] De Certeau, 110.

[21] Atlee, 6.

[22] Atlee, 13.

[23] Atlee, 3.

[24] Lee, 21.

[25] Walker, 19.

[26] Atlee, 3.

[27] Che, 34.

[28] Che, 41.

[29] Lee, 162.

[30] Walker, 16.

[31] Walker, 17-18.

[32] Nassar and Moffat, 15.

[33] Lee, 21.

[34] Walker, 13,

[35] Walker, 15.

[36] Douglas, 2.

[37] Knox.

[38] Moore, 55.

[39] Nassar and Moffat, 14.

[40] Bataille (Accursed Share), 29.

[41] De Certeau, 91.

[42] Douglas, 37.

[43] Lee, 26.

[44] Lee, 2.

[45] Walters, 66.