”How do you develop a city-wide strategy when you are fascinated by the detail of things? And how can you make something small-scale in the here and now if you are driven by the urge to formulate strategic proposals for the future? ” These are the questions beginning the muf manual; This is what we do.
But what about if we change these questions into worries about humanity?
For example: How can you represent a group of people, when you are just one? How do you develop an equal and democratic society, without hearing everyones voices?
I am going to try to use the formula described in the manual to get to the bottom of this. (detail/strategy=DETAIL)
muf’s work develops from the particular, the detail (in my case the subjective and personal) to the general, the strategy (the voice of everyone and everything) and back to the particular (you).
In muf’s work they use something they call premature gratification, that implies that you get the ’tasty’ parts earlier than expected. There is no build-up process, just instant happiness. The question is asked directly, without going through a middle hand. People are giving a teaser of what’s to come, and the possibilities seem endless. What if?
When you are working with public space, you are also working with a broad spann of opinions from different kinds of people, often not that happy about change in their neighbourhood. I believe, that giving them proof that something good is actually going to come if this change, instantly, might be the right way to go.
If you investigate your own needs, your dreams, your obstacles in life, you may come to feel like you know more about humanity. But you are still a singular person, limited by the years you have lived, your experiences, bound by your sex and gender belonging, hindered by society, by culture, religion or family.
But remember you are also part of this society, this culture, religion or family. You are part of these times. You are part of this everything that you are trying to understand.
What do you want?
muf’s work is worry free. It is here and now. It is experimental and activating. Society at its best should maybe also be here and now, experimental and activating.
The laws and statues surrounding us are there for a reason, they have been developed through time, and are always evolving. Luckily, otherwise homosexually and abortion might still be illegal, while racist behavior could be norm. Exclusion the rule, and not inclusion. The utopia we all seek, a dark and depressing world.
Let’s evolve into better beings, with the knowledge that no one is like you, and you are like no one else, but all are equal.
/ Klara
archandphil 
December 12, 2013 at 11:33 am
Talking about society and humanity probably it can be some formulas to be followed but one solution will not be working in different contexts. Since, it is an important matter who designs where and for whom! Therefore, there should be a ladder of different disciplines and decision. It is a really difficult task for expert/architects…
Ninel Niazi
October 2, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Sometimes in city-wide strategies, and in other cases as well, it feels like the humanity not even have been considered.
It makes me feel sick, and worried about the humanity.
“How can you represent a group of people, when you are just one?”, Klara wrote in the begining.
What else could we ever do other then base what we do on ourself? Wouldn’t that be to leave out the humanity? Because I’m the part of the humanity that I know about.
Yes! We have to remember that WE are a part of this society. As long as we do that there is hope for the humanity.
/elsa
October 2, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Hi Klara,
I find your blog post and the questions you are asking in the beginning of it interesting. I got similar thoughts when I first read Shonfeldt’s text, in what other context’s in the society is this strategy usable? To look at the question at an individual level, make that general, look further on this individual’s role in a democratic society and see how that affects the individual is probably pretty effective. I also think it is important that you are lifting the discrepancy that even that you are only one (who as little as anyone else does think like anyone else) you are still a part of this “society, this culture, religion or family”. Its an important, and not small, note and dilemma. How can we now something about the whole if we only are looking on individuals? With respect for us being all different I don’t think it has to be a big problem, we still have more or less of our basic needs in common. As long as we don’t make our own thoughts and morals to laws that we believe everyone else agree on.
Poppe