Summary of “Tapestry of Space: Domestic Architecture and Underground Communities in Margret Morton’s Photography of a Forgotten New York’ by Nersessova

 

The article, ‘Tapestry of Space: Domestic Architecture and Underground Communities in Margret Morton’s Photography of a Forgotten New York’ by Nersessova, opened with an introduction about how “Morton’s photographs of New York’s homeless demonstrate how urban space impacts the psyche and directs behavior” (Nersessova). Morton’s photographs show how the homeless use discarded materials to make a place of their own. The homeless men and women of these shanties gain a sort of “space” by aligning their materials to provide themselves with shelter. Nersessova discusses how although these spaces are not permanent, they allow the homeless to express themselves architecturally, which establishes a sense of identity. However, that identity is stripped away when the tunnels are blocked off and their homes are demolished. The remainder of the article is broken into five categories excluding the conclusion: Situationalist International and Material Production, The Role of the Urban Photographer, Psychogeography as Rejection of Imperialism, Public Space vs. City Attractions, and Domestic Architecture. However, throughout this summary, the main focus will be on the Situationist International and Public Space vs. City Attractions sections because those are the most pertinent to me.

 

The first of those categories is the Situationist International and Material Production. In this section, Nersessova compares Morton’s photographs to twentieth century Marxist ides. Nersessova acknowledges Morton’s “commitment to anti-capitalism, psychogeography, and participation in the dérive builds upon situationist ideas…” (Nersessova). With respect to the material production, Nersessova defines the difference between material production and what Morton’s interviewees did. Material production frequently harms the environment, while the interviewees use the space as a way to demonstrate their creativity. By building on the space, the interviewees are not exploiting the environment; they were simply using what was already there to provide them with shelter. The purpose of the Situationist International was to “eliminate the division between art and life to examine everyday life in its entirety” (Nersessova). This section basically addresses the ways in which the homeless men and women are deprived of their homes and displaced.

 

The second category of relevance to me was the Public Space vs. City Attractions. In this section, Nersessova quotes Morton’s interviews and talks about how public spaces are being padlocked and welded shut blocking the interviewees from access. Although the behavior of the interviewees may not be considered ill, “the label “homeless” has been mistakenly approached as a criminal behavior itself” (Nersessova). In order to turn the urban areas into city attractions and profit, “businesses have to expand, bring in the wealthy, and attract tourists. The means to this goal has been to push the poor out of sight” (Nersessova). By banning the homeless from public places, yet shutting down the underground tunnels that they move to, the officials are leaving them with no where to go. As a result, “the war on public space intensified…” (Nersessova).

 

In conclusion, the primary purpose for Nersessova’s writing was to draw attention to the classist, capitalist ways in which urban areas, such as New York, operate. Morton’s photographs depicted the struggles that the homeless population face. Where are they to go if they are banned from public areas and their tunnels are obstructed? Throughout the article, Nerssesova brought up several valid arguments about the nature of the circumstances that the homeless encounter.