Pedro Soares Neves, Userdesign.org, Rua dos Industriais nº2 25 3º esquerdo Lisboa, info@userdesign.org

From graffiti to communitarian self regulation

CRONO Project, Pedro Soares Neves, A. Milano and A. Farto1year, 12 intreventions, website:cargocollective.com/crono

C.M. Lisboa, Turismo de Portugal, 2009 – 2012

“No Rules Great Spot - Wanted ideias for Lisboa square”, Porto.First prize, Jury: Pedro Bandeira, Nuno Grande, Catarina Portas, Pedro Bismarck and João Fernandes.

Esta é a minha cidade, 2011

“The Jury considered, unanimously, that the proposal “White Sheet” from Pedro Soares Neves was the one that better responded to the given challenge by this (No Rules Great Spot) idea competition, both in the aptitude to “understand the dynamic of this space in the context of the city's transformation”, as in the ability to build a critical speech about the urban rehabilitation, involving the community and seeking to creatively articulate new relations between city and citizens. In this sense, this proposal is both pragmatic and radical, putting itself not only as a challenge to an alterna-tive reading of that that can be “public space”, but also as a plausible hypothesis of concretion with low budget and means. A proposal that, leaving Praça de Lisboa in its actual state, aims, through a poetic gesture, to paint in white all the surfaces and elements of the square, wanting to quickly open this space to the city, promoting a set of occupa-tions not only spontaneous but also linked to the urban rehabilitation process.

Jury values, mostly, the fact of the proposed strategy doesn't impose or conform a definitive solution, either program-matically or volumetrically, but, on the contrary, to propose a void and expectant territory, provoking an open occupa-tion strategy, dynamic and in progress. This “leave it as it is”, framed in an unfinished/inconclusive format that assumes the existing ruin of Praça de Lisboa, not only presents a valid strategy form the economic point of view (in low-cost times), but also promotes a public space that doesn't makes itself only from its playful character, but from a reflexive dimension (reflect/reflection) about the vulnerable condition of the city itself. Most of all, it is a proposition that more than avidly search a formal answer, prefers to question and interrogate, give space (literally) to the citizen, as a protagonist , to complete the proposal, acting and thinking about its city. It opposes, therefore, to over conven-tional rehabilitation strategies, proposing itself as a simple gesture, but with a high sense of potentiality and operability in the utilization of public space.”

Far from being linear, the relations that exist between graffiti and the communitarian self regulation are full of chal-lenges and risks. The advertisement in general and in particular the automobile or the urban clothing fashion industries are interested in incorporating the graffiti language(s) in marketing strategies. Even beside the visual copy paste some methods are being used to explore new (non regulated) ways of communication consumption products under the des-ignation of guerrilla marketing35. Another strong example is the (revival) adoption of graffiti (street art, urban art...) by the Art System (agents, galleries, collectors, museums...)

These appropriating phenomena had a strong influence in the development of the impact that graffiti has had in the urban environment. Somehow they have given strength and some legitimacy to several kinds of qualified interventions but at the same time increased the quantity of interventions with questionable quality.

There are clear opportunities that have emerged from these developments, broader audiences, and new perspectives over the usefulness of some kinds of graffiti. However, again, and as in many other phenomena, some preconceptions that detached graffiti from “real life” are crystallized , in other words the anonymous citizen and the common street user are out from this “star-system” of entertainment and consumption equation.

In any case the urban environment is being used without the needed awareness and contribution from the most quali-fied areas of activity to do so (architecture, urbanism, urban design...). This missing link between graffiti and the com-munitarian self regulation is an opportunity for the big quantity and quality of architecture professionals, an opportu-nity that gets even clearer in times of scarcity and when associated with the functional and urban environmental needs that arise mostly in the dispersed city.

If with the Lisbon CRONO Project I have tried to make visible this intentions, in the Porto “No Rules Great Spot” compe-tition I have questioned the nonexistence degree of conclusion that any project in public space have. To better under-stand the range of the proposed ideas I suggest the reading of the “No Rules Great Spot” competition Jury remarks: