Main Article Content
This article explores how social artistic interventions provide forms of everyday aesthetic cosmopolitanism – an intellectual and aesthetic openness towards objects, places, experiences, activities that relates to the everyday life of people regardless of identity, occupation, social class, cultural/racial background, and lifestyle – in transforming urban voids into inclusive urban public spaces. Through socially engaged art, artists and artistic institutions do not play a leading role but act as facilitators to provide space and context for events to emerge. Through participant observations and interviews for the period 2015-2018 and using concepts of everyday aesthetic cosmopolitanism, we demonstrate how the art center Recyclart, through socially informed artistic interventions, practices, and performances, contributed to transforming urban voids into inclusive urban public spaces. Our results indicate that local life, enacted by so-called marginalized residents and their everyday practices in urban central neighborhoods, is critical in city-making and contributes to everyday aesthetic cosmopolitanism.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit articles to this journal from 31st March 2014 for publication, agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
For Volume 5 No 3 (2013) and before, the following copyright applied:
Authors submitting articles to UTSePress publications agree to assign a limited license to UTSePress if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. This license allows UTSePress to publish a manuscript in a given issue. Articles published by UTSePress are protected by copyright which is retained by the authors who assert their moral rights. Authors control translation and reproduction rights to their works published by UTSePress. UTSePress publications are copyright and all rights are reserved worldwide. Downloads of specific portions of them are permitted for personal use only, not for commercial use or resale. Permissions to reprint or use any materials should be directed to UTSePress.
Bennett A (2002a) Music , media and urban mythscapes : a study of the ‘ Canterbury Sound ’. Media, Culture and Society 24(1): 87–100.
Bennett A (2002b) Researching youth culture and popular music : a methodological critique. British Journal of Sociology 53(3): 451–466. DOI: 10.1080/0007131022000000590.
Bennett J (2012) Practical Aesthetics:Events, Affects and Art After 9/11-RADICAL Aesthetics, Radical Art. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Berleant A (1970) Aesthetic Field: A Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Springfield: Thomas.
Berleant A (1991) Art and Engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Berleant A (2012) Aesthetics Beyond the Arts: New and Recent Essays. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Berleant A (2017) Objects into Persons: The Way to Social Aesthetics. Espes 6: 9–18.
Berleant A (n.d.) Ideas for a Social Aesthetic. In: Light A and Smith JM (eds) The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Berleant A (n.d.) Ideas for a Social Aesthetic. In: Light A and Smith JM (eds) The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 23–38.
Bishop C (2004) Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. October 110: 51–79.
Bishop C (ed.) (2006a) Participation: Documents of Contemporary Art. London: The MIT Press.
Bishop C (2006b) The Social Turn : Collaboration and its Discontents. Artforum International 44(6): 178–183.
Bishop C (2012) Artificial Hells. Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London and New York: Verso.
Böhme G (1993) Atmosphere as the Fundamental Concept of a New Aesthetics. In: Thesis Eleven. Massachusetts Institute of Techonology, pp. 113–126.
Böhme G and Thibaud J-P (2018) The Aesthetics of Atmosphere. 1st Editio. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Bourriaud N (2002) Relational Aesthetics. Les Presses du réel.
Bourriaud N (2007) Relational Aesthetics. Les Presses du reel 2002: 1–57.
BRUZZ (2018) Brussel schreeuwt om locaties voor nachtleven.
Cartiere C (2016) Through the lens of social practice: Considerations on a public art history in progress. In: Cartiere C and Zebracki M (eds) The Everyday Practice of Public Art: Art, Space and Social Inclusion. London: Routledge, pp. 13–26.
Chakrabarty D, Bhabha HK, Pollock S, et al. (eds) (2002) Cosmopolitanism: A Public Culture Book. Duke University Press.
Chang RA (2018) Temporary Use & Collective Action: How Urban Planning Practices Contribute to Adaptive Capacity Building for Economic Resilience. PlaNext 7: 82–99.
Dewey J (1958) Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Press.
Di Giovanni A (2018) Urban Voids as Resource for the Design of Contemporary Public Spaces. The Journal of Urbanism II(37): 1–28.
Di Paola M (2018) Introduction: cosmopolitical aesthetics. In: Di Paola M (ed.) Cosmopolitics and Biopolitics. Ethics and Aesthetics in Contemporary Art. Barcelona: Barcelona University Press, pp. 11–24.
Dikeç M (2005) Space, politics, and the political. Environment and Planning D Society and Space 23: 171–188. DOI: 10.1068/d364t.
Finkelpearl T (2000) Dialogues in Public Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Galdini R (2019) Urban re-use practices in contemporary cities : experiences in Europe. Cities 87(October 2018). Elsevier: 103–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.026.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ghisellini P, Cialani C and Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy : the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114. Elsevier Ltd: 11–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
Glass PG (2012) Doing Scene : Identity, Space, and the Interactional Accomplishment of Youth Culture. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 41(6): 695–716. DOI: 10.1177/0891241612454104.
Guasch AM (2018) Cosmopolitanism and global contemporary art. In: Di Paola M (ed.) Cosmopolitics and Biopolitics. Ethics and Aesthetics in Contemporary Art. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, pp. 25–36.
Gumbrecht HU (2006) Aesthetic Experience in Everyday Worlds: Reclaiming an Unredeemed Utopian Motif. New Literary History 37: 299–318.
Haapala A (2017) The Everyday, Building, and Architecture: Reflections on the Ethos and Beauty of our Built Surroundings. Cloud-Cuckoo-Land: International Journal of Architectural Theory 22(36): 171–182.
Haas T and Locke R (2018) Reflections on The Reurbanism Paradigm: Re-Weaving The Urban Fabric for Urban Regeneration and Renewa. Quaestiones Geographicae 37(4): 5–21.
Kester GH (2011) The One and the Many. Contemporary Collaborative Art in in a Global Context. Durham: Duke University Press.
Kibby MD (2000) Home on the page : a virtual place of music community. Popular Music 19(1): 91–100.
Korza P, Bacon BS and Assaf A (2005) Civic Dialogue, Arts & Culture: Findings from Animating Democracy. Americans for the Arts.
Lacy S (ed.) (1995) Mapping the Terrain : New Genre Public Art. Seattle, Washington: Bay Press.
Leddy T (n.d.) The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Light A and Smith JM (eds) (2005) The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Low SM (1996) The Anthropology of Cities : Imagining and Theorizing the City. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 383–409.
Mandoki K (2007) Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaics, the Play of Culture and Social Identities. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
Matteucci G (2017) Everyday Aesthetics and aestheticization: reflectivity in perception. Italian Journal of Aesthetics 7(3): 207–227.
Meskimmon M (2011) Contemporary Art and the Cosmopolitan Imagination. New York: Routledge.
Németh J and Langhorst J (2014) Rethinking Urban Transformation: Temporary Uses for Vacant Land. Cities 40(B): 143–150.
Nielsen K (2003) Globalization and Justice. New York: Humanity Books.
Olcese C and Savage M (2015) Notes towards a ‘ social aesthetic ’: Guest Editors ’ introduction to the special section. The British Journal of Sociology 66(4). DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12159.
Olsen CS (2018) Urban space and the politics of socially engaged art. DOI: 10.1177/0309132518807756.
Overmeyer K (2007) Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. Berlin: JOVIS.
Patel AK (2018) Affect: Belonging. In: Di Paola M (ed.) Cosmopolitics and Biopolitics. Ethics and Aesthetics in Contemporary Art. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, pp. 37–60.
Pfadenhauer M (2015) Ethnography of Scenes . Towards a Sociological Life-world Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(3): 1–10.
Potgieter FJ (2017) An Educational Perspective and a Poststructural Position on Everyday Aesthetics and the Creation of Meaning. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 51(3): 72–90.
Rancière J and Trans. and Introd. Gabriel Rockhill (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London and New York: Continuum.
Robbins B (1998) Introduction Part I: Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism. In: Cheah P and Robbins B (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–19.
Saito Y (2007) Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saito Y (2017) Aesthetics of the Familiar. Everyday Life and World-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saito Y (2018) Consumer Aesthetics and Environmental Ethics: Problems and Possibilities. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76(4).
Saito Y (2019) Aesthetics of the Everyday. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-of-everyday/#pagetopright (accessed 20 November 2021).
Simon M and Mseddi A (2020) The Vacant Urban Space: Problems, Possibilities, Processes. Periodica Polytechnica Architecture 51(2): 101–107.
Trancik R (1986) Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York (N.Y.): John Wiley & Sons.
Tuan Y-F (1993) Passing Strange and Wonderful: Aesthetics, Nature, and Culture. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Visser M (1997) The Way We Are: Astonishing Anthropology of Everyday Life. New York: Kodansha International.
Zukin S (2010) Naked City. The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.