Reflecting on the Semi-Open Editorial Meeting: 'Public and Citizens' (高野広海)
FIG.1
The question regarding the relationship between creativity and the public sphere, which was raised at the semi-public editorial meeting, can be framed—on a larger scale—as an issue of community development driven by communities and associations.
In *A Contemporary History of Community Design* , it is stated that town planning based on “communities”—such as neighborhood associations, which were once the standard approach—has lost its influence, and has been replaced by town planning driven by “associations,” which organize citizen groups that tackle issues of their own choosing without being bound by specific geographic boundaries, through networking and funding.The sense of community that allowed for lengthy discussions within neighborhoods, the development pressure sufficient to bring about small-scale spatial renewal, and the manpower required to build consensus through careful, iterative processes—all of these were unique social conditions that emerged temporarily in postwar Japan and cannot be replicated.
Since the 1990s, “association-based” problem-solving—originating in Setagaya’s community development—has spread throughout Japan and, having become commoditized, has revealed its various limitations. For example, the independent initiatives of NPOs are not sufficiently fed back into the public problem-solving process.Furthermore, individual initiatives rarely leave a lasting legacy in the form of physical spaces, which require significant costs and consensus-building. The creativity and public-mindedness of individual actors are limited; even when funded through community development funds, these efforts often fail to lead to sustainable solutions. Moreover, such mechanisms do not foster ambitious approaches to addressing massive public challenges.
In communities, creativity was not even consciously considered in the first place. This was likely because it was taken for granted that one would recognize conflicts of interest and exercise creativity to resolve them.The issues of creativity and public interest that ASIBA faces—namely, how to harness creativity in the face of increasingly difficult public challenges, and for what purpose should the instrumental value of creativity be applied—can be described as quintessentially “association-based” challenges.Furthermore, ASIBA is the ultimate associative organization and has continued to strive to overcome the challenges of associative problem-solving.
Based on the discussion so far, three new questions arise regarding the relationship between creativity and the public sphere. First, how do we identify the purpose of creativity within a modern society characterized by increasing complexity and pluralism?Second, how do we generate and evaluate localized creativity that is not co-opted by consumer society or propaganda? And third, how do we shape societal expectations of creativity to enable ambitious approaches?
When we dare to view creativity as a means, what we set as its purpose is precisely what determines the quality of that creativity. This may be made possible through autonomous research and curation, as seen in the work of OMA. In countries facing political instability, young people may become central political actors and experience a strong sense of purpose. Nihei finds the answer within himself.The attitude that public-mindedness must lie at the end of a thorough exploration of one’s own creativity shares a common thread with the Upanishadic philosophy, which holds that “the ultimate truth of the universe (Brahman) and one’s own essence (Atman) are, in fact, one and the same.” In any case, in modern Japan, where it is difficult to have deeply meaningful experiences, how can we discover the purpose of design?
Urban creativity is under pressure from an obsession with novelty. Just as Morihara pointed out—that aimless creativity has historically been exploited for national propaganda—during the bubble economy, marginal differentiation was used as fuel for consumer society.We are supposed to create in order to live today; shouldn’t creation be a form of bricolage driven by a sense of urgency? Yoshie argues that a “place” is something “subjectively discovered within the relationships of a community.” What is needed to express “place-based creativity”—not through comparison? Can we create the ecosystems and mechanisms to support this?
As Nihei noted, even if public interest lies at the end of the path of individual creativity, it is difficult to say that such creativity is accepted within democracy in modern society. Morihara, citing Brunelleschi’s dome, states that what enables ambitious creativity to take root is “the breadth of citizens’ cultural literacy.”So, what kind of design is needed to connect individual creativity to public value—or for citizens to regain their expectations for creativity?
Credit
Related Works
