URBAN SPACE AS ANTHROPOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2018-2-10-31
The article is devoted to the study of the main anthropological parameters of urban space. The basis for this study is the humanitarian approach in urbanistics. According to this approach, the city is a specific, complex cultural construct, embodying in its material “arrangement” the fundamental aesthetic, social and philosophical attitudes of people. This embodiment has a “two-way” character. The visual organization of urban space, on the one hand, captures cultural meanings, values, myths and priorities. On the other hand, it produces certain emotions, organizes a specific goal setting, affects a person’s life strategy and his daily activity, prescribes norms and guidelines for the person. This dual functionality of the city anchored in visual signs and markers. Any material object that enters the “fabric” of the urban environment can be read as such a sign or marker. The study of the “human” parameters of the urban space should take place in the perspective of convergence of semiotics and urbanistics in the general context of anthropological knowledge. This will allow to understand and form the urban habitat as a sphere of communicative praxis of the townspeople. The article considers three fundamental principles of organization of the urban environment: space, time and values. These principles express the basic parameters of human existence: the uneven extent of material corporeality (different semantic intensities), the historicity of being (the presence of the past and the future in the present), and normativity (value orientations). Practical axiology of urban spaces forms the separate loci in such a way that, on the scale of the general space of the city, they can become spaces of solidarity and complicity. The values of social memory, national traditions, cultural history, civic identity, personal life, constructive development (through the cultural accumulation of meanings) orient the activity of citizens on such solidarity as an integral goal. These values can unite both ordinary citizens and city government officials in their activities in the visual construction of urban space. On this path, a certain contrast can be overcome between the planned “cybernetic” activity of administrations and the spontaneous creativity of the inhabitants. This path leads to the collective urban asceticism – to caring for the city as the common “body” of its inhabitants. Urban space, which is perceived as an anthropological and not a physical phenomenon, is a visually structured sphere of human communicative practices. As a result of such practices, a general biography of the city and its inhabitants develops.
Keywords: city, urban environment, visual semiotics, axiology, humanitarian urbanistics, communicative practices, anthropology of city, space, time, values
References:
Alebastrova 2013 – Alebastrova A. A. The “other” in vital space of the city. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2013. 2 (22). P. 162–167. In Russian.
Avanesov 2016 – Avanesov S. S. Visual semiotics of cities: perspective of urban texts studies. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of visual semiotics. 2016. 4 (10). P. 9–22. In Russian.
Avanesov 2017 a – Avanesov S. S. Tomsk: visual constructing of local urban spaces. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of visual semiotics. 2017. 1 (11). P. 41–47. In Russian.
Avanesov 2017 b – Avanesov S. S. Jerusalem topic: Western Siberia / Lower Silesia.ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of visual semiotics. 2017. 4 (14). P. 65–89. In Russian.
Avanesov 2018 – Avanesov S. S. Sacred topics of Russian cities (5). The Cathedral and the Gate. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of visual semiotics. 2018. 1 (14). P. 70–92. In Russian.
Buchli 2017 – Buchli V. An Anthropology of Architecture. Transl. into Russian. Kharkov, 2017.
Eliade 1994 – Eliade M. Le sacré et le profane. Transl. into Russian by N. K. Garbovsky. Moscow, 1994.
Ellard 2016 – Ellard C. Places of the Heart. The Psychogeography of Everyday Life. Transl. into Russian. Moscow, 2016.
Gornova 2016 – Gornova G. V. Harmony between the city and the man: categorical imperative of urban development. Newsletter of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Research. 2016. 2 (11). P. 22–25. In Russian.
Ikonnikov 2006 – Ikonnikov A. V. Space and form in architecture and town planning. Moscow, 2006. In Russian.
Lefebvre 2002 – Lefebvre H. La production de l’espace. Transl. into Russian. Russian Sociological Review. 2002. Vol. 2. 3. P. 27–29.
Lotman 2010 – Lotman Yu. M. On the Semiosphere. St. Petersburg, 2010. In Russian.
Rickert 1998 – Rickert H. Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. Transl. into Russian. Moscow, 1998.
Rossi 2015 – Rossi A. L’architettura della Città. Transl. into Russian. Moscow, 2015.
Smirnov 2012 – Smirnov S. A. Anthropology of the city. Chelovek.ru.Almanac of the Humanities. 2012. 8. P. 136–151. In Russian.
Soja 2008 – Soja E. W. Writing the City Spatially. Transl. into Russian. Logos. 2008. 3. P. 130–140.
Stepanyan, Simyan 2012 – Stepanyan A. A., Simyan T. S. Yerevan as a semiotic text (the experience of reconstruction of the “beginning” and “end” of Mashtots Avenue). Critique and Semiotics. 2012. 16. P. 6–16. In Russian.
Vagin 2000 – Vagin V. V. Russian cities: new approaches to studying. Russian urban space: an attempt at comprehension. Moscow, 2000. P. 4–12. In Russian.
( 2.29 MB ) 
( 2.27 MB )
Issue: 2, 2018
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 10 — 31
Downloads: 2412