• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


W O R K S H O P  -  P U B L I C (redirected from FrontPage)

Page history last edited by Panos Kouros 5 years ago


T H E  W O R K S H O P:


H O W   T O   C O N S T R U C T  P U B L I C   S P A C E  

B E T W E E N   A R T  A N D  E D U C A T I O N? 

  Participants from around the world are invited to discuss the workshop as alternative production site, between art and education. Workshops can provide ways for producing creative work, outside traditional art and education frames. In the context of increasing globalization and privatization of education, as well as the increasing commercialization of art, workshops can function as working environments to establish alternative modes of pedagogy and cultural production, based on experimantation, process, collective work, sharing ideas and skills, collaboration, intervention in everyday environments, etc. We want to discuss the workshop as a new merging site of art, education and everyday space. We will present examples of site-specific workshops, initiated at the Laboratory for Visual Arts, at the Department of Architecture, University of Patras. Key issues to be addressed are: the workshop as self-organized initiative to respond quickly to emergent city situations, forms of collaboration, discussion (as form of intervention), mobility (as expansion of the range of an action / activation of different places) networking practices, communication modes, hospitality, public forum, network of localities. The workshop intends to exchange different experiences and viewpoints, and come out with plans for future collaborations and actions. The workshop will be performative: it will be staged in a semi-circular table, equipped with keybords that will transmit live notes of the participants onto a projection screen. The audience can also intervene at any time with questions and comments. Conversations, transmitted notes and interventions from the public will define the outcome, as juxtaposition of multiple statements.   

Keywords: Art Education, Public Art, Collective Actions, Communication Modes, Network of Localities, Mobility

Stream: Art and Education

Presentation Type: 60 minute Workshop Presentation in English


Working team:

Panos Kouros [Artist], Nikos Kazeros [Architect]

Dafni Aidoni, Marina Biza, Vicky Polychronopoulou, Elli Vassalou, Aggeliki Zervou [students, Department of Architecture, University of Patras]


Participants in Kassel also included: Vanda Chalyvopoulou [Artist], Chrysanthi Kastani [student, Department of Architecture, University of Patras]

Participants in online discussion:


Panos Kouros [PK] Nikos Kazeros [NK] Daphne Aidoni [DA]  Marina Biza [MB] Andreas Floros [AF] 

Chrysanthi Kastani [CK] Vicky Polychronopoulou [VP] Elli Vassalou [EV]Aggeliki Zervou [AZ]













Workshop | Kassel 22-08-2007






the workshop as intervention mechanism [paradigms in VisArts Lab]

[different forms of workshops]



education under transformation, art under transformation

workshop as a response mecahnism



4 discussions in 4 houses



collective work

openness of the process to the city


dialogic forms

parallel internet platform

hospitality (+space arrangement)

use of time (the expanded time-span of workshop)



transformation of student houses:

private places transformed to public forum.


education and city

student houses are public space in the sense of being temporarily occupied

student houses as extension of university-education processes to the city




Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Domain






Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin, 1972.

Ranciere, Jacques, The Ignorant Schoolmaster, 1987.




1. What is public space? Was public space created in the “4X4” workshop? Ιn what ways?

2. What are some better ways to produce public space in this context?

3. Can we consider that the “4X4” workshop intervened in education? In what ways?

4. What are some better ways to ornanize an intervention in art structures?

5. How were dialogic media [discussion, blog, printed matter, e.tc.] used in the workshop?

6. What are the creative issues that were brought up, during the workshop?

7. What are the creative issues that were not brought up? Why?

8. What is your proposal for a next step for the workshop?

9. What are other questions that you consider important?



1. What is public space? Was public space created in the “4X4” workshop? Ιn what ways?


Public space is just a phrasal shape. It has had various different meanings and forms historically. I appreciate that it has two main aspects of appearance nowadays: materialistically, it can be defined as the space provided in the urban environment, to the public, accompanied by a public label/character. Secondly- theoretically: how people themselves understand the meaning of public space, how they use/impropriate and how, after all, do they lively public spaces up.


Some characteristics that I recognize in forms of public space are:

- a shell in which things can occur spontaneously

- space created by people when a public call is done (ex. a demonstration or the attempt of this workshop)

- a place where the only restrictions and regulations are the state’s laws

- a place where freedom of speech is granted

- a place in common with the rest of the society

- a place where the un-expected is most likely to happen

- a place so expected.


With this workshop, with a public call, we tried to create public space. (public call: an act of communication where the subject (caller) does not know the exact objects (receivers) and uses a direct medium to do so (e.g. a poster)..) We tried to transform the (legally) privet space of a house, to a public forum. We opened the door, we stayed inside and outside the building, and we were, sometimes, visible from the street. In one way, the result was successful: people met and talked, paid attention to each other, liked or disliked one another, creating a web of relations, carrying this experience through the city. On the other hand, I should notice that the participation had (if not none) just a minimum of surprises (if we consider the wideness of the participation a sample of success). We, for once more, were talking to us…


<I want to comment here- a friend of mine passed outside my house during the talk we had there. Under normal circumstances, he would have knocked to say hello. He saw the door open and he didn’t do so because he thought I would be busy… he told me this the next day.>




As public we could define the space  which in a theoretical way contains a very basic characteristic. It allows the  conciliation, movement, existence and expression of all the individuals. Of course we have to define what is public space with other criteria which have to do with the historical, social, political and ideological aspects of the primary definition. This aspects could be either established by laws or could be ethically established. Furthermore the individuals that act in the public space do not have kindred characteristics and so they can’t always act as a group in it. Only certain parts of the society have certain rights upon the public space. So, in a more general matter public could be defined the space in which the totality of  the individuals can act in ways and forms that itself has established. But in reality public space has nothing to do with that definition and is strongly  specified by the rights that certain social groups have upon it and by the exclusion of others from the primary rights that all have upon every public space. This has to do with the way that reality is constructed where from the totality of the society very few have the right to establish and do so with certain criteria.                         As a result I don’t support that public space was produced during the workshop. I think that what happened was that a private part of the city (house) was transformed for a certain period of time taking public characteristics.



Θεωρώ ότι ο ορισμός για το δημόσιο χώρο που έχει αναφέρει παραπάνω η Δάφνη είναι επαρκής. Σε μια δημόσια διαδικασία μπορεί να παρευρεθεί, να συμμετάσχει όποιος θέλει.


Με το εργαστήριο «4Χ4» προσπαθήσαμε μέσω της συζήτησης να παράξουμε δημόσιο χώρο.

Βέβαια παρ’ όλο που είχαμε δημιουργήσει μια κατάσταση ανοιχτής συζήτησης σε ‘’ανοιχτά’’ σπίτια, είχαμε τοποθετήσει αφίσες στην πόλη, κυκλοφορούσαμε όλοι εντός και εκτός των σπιτιών, η προσέλευση ατόμων εκτός σχολής ήταν μικρή.  Ίσως επειδή η έννοια της κατοικίας είναι από μόνη της ιδιωτική. Δεν είναι κατανοητό σε κάποιον που βλέπει από την απέναντι πολυκατοικία ανοιχτά παράθυρα και πόρτες, ότι μέσα γίνεται μια ανοιχτή συζήτηση στην οποία μπορεί να συμμετάσχει. Στη διαδικασία αυτή δεν αντιστάθηκε η ίδια η κατοικία [ως κτίριο] αλλά μάλλον οι παγιωμένες απόψεις που έχει καθένας για αυτή. Σε μεγάλο βαθμό προσπαθήσαμε να αναιρέσουμε αυτόν το χαρακτήρα και μέσα σε έναν ιδιωτικό χώρο προσπαθήσαμε [οι συμμετάσχοντες] μέσω της διαδικασίας της συζήτησης να δημιουργήσουμε δημόσιο χώρο. Ήταν μια παραγωγική διαδικασία από την οποία νομίζω πως παρήχθηκε δημόσιος χώρος.


[1] τι είναι δημόσιος χώρος; Δεν απαντάς

[2] αλλά τι συνέβη τελικά;




"Space" is perceived as a physical or intangible [without a physical form] formation. Intangible space stands for human expressions, thoughts, desires, opinions.

[space noun, verb


empty area: 1 an amount of an area or of a place that is empty or that is available for use, 2 an area or a place that is empty, 3 the quality of being large and empty, allowing you to move freely,4a large area of land that has no buildings on it

period of time: 6 a period of time


7 the freedom and the time to think or do what you want to

where things exist / move:

8 the whole area in which all things exist and move

>verb: 9 to arrange things so that they have regular spaces between them]

"Public"is perceived as what belongs to or refers to people

[public adjective, noun


of ordinary people 1 connected with ordinary people in society in general,

for everyone 2 provided, especially by the government, for the use of people in general [OPPOSITE: PRIVATE],

of government: 3 connected with the government and the services it provides [OPPOSITE:  PRIVATE],

seen / heard by people: 4 known to people in general [OPPOSITE: PRIVATE], 5 open to people in general; intended to be seen or heard by people in general,

place 6 where there are a lot of people who can see and hear you [OPPOSITE:  PRIVATE]


ordinary people: 1 (the public) ordinary people in society in general,

group of people: 2 a group of people who share a particular interest or who are involved in the same activity]


Public space is by definition accessible to all and utilized by everyone, not by specific individuals [which distinguishes private space].  Public space is a free zone that is not controlled and does not limit the choices of its users. Although public space is traditionally provided to communities, it nowadays tends to serve the needs and interests of private space. Qualities of controlled private places invade public space and transform it into an exploitable “product”. Public space tends to lose its identity and to become a hybrid of a private-public constitution, like globalization deprives cities of some of their determinants.

Parallel to the traditional public space, nets of virtual public spaces have developed and provide the possibility of free “circulation”. However, in most cases, there is an administrator controlling. [1][1]

Facing the danger of its elimination, actions towards the redefinition of public space are of vital importance and all questions that are raised are critical.

The 4x4 workshop was the starting-point of a redefinition of this kind, by converting private space [student residences] into public space for a specific time period. Access was free to all interested to take part in the discussions [posters were put up in the centre of the city], whilst space was additionally enriched by the creation of a blog on the internet, on which new ideas are posted.




the web (internet) itself is the public space. when someone (or a group) creates a blog, he creates a trace of his invividuality (privacy) in public space, like a person walking through a square.His body is private, but he along with others are the users of the space, they give its meaning, without them is not public, is just space.

[1]The question is to define who is being controlled each time by who and why. Even a blog could be like a public "interface" or like a private one. A blogger who uses censorship terms in his/her blog takes the role of the administrator, like someone could behave towards his/her private space. Considering this, I'm wondering if the existence of public virtual space is true. Actually it could be as public as a central square in a metropolitan city.



           Public space: th term public (demosios in greek), etymologically, comes from the greek word demos, which means people. In ancient Athens, the supreme organ which decided for the life of the city- state was the ekklesia of demos. It was consisted of all male citizens, who had the right to participate effectively in the financial, political and social life of the city.

            Taking on this derivation of the term public, we may consider that public space is the place where every citizen is called to act in it, in a way of participating. It is about a space of communization, expression, fellowship. Space with contradictions, conflictions, movements, networks, flows, uses, information, complexity. Actions take place in this space, these which are not supposed to happen in a private space.

            Cities are places with, mainly, two different qualities of space, the public one and the private, difference which finds expression even legislatively. Therefore, we may define public space as the structured or unstructured space which exists among the spheres of citizens’ privacy.

            Main characteristic of modern cities is the difficulty of users to feel comfortable in public spaces. In these spaces uses of marketing, pleasure even cultural and political are being registered, but so splintered off with clear limits among them. Consequently, the user stands uncomfortable to act in there, beyond the parameters which are predefined. He is weak to take initiative transferring the space according to his needs and will. He pushes aside his active role, staying passive and just a “visitor” of public space, using it mostly as a path through two destinations. [1]

            During the workshop private places were transferred into public, for certain time, meaning that everyone could be present at there and act. The invitation was made through posters. However, did we actually produce public space?

            According to the approach above, maybe there was only the intention… City didn’t react, or even better, city is not used in responding spontaneously in such calls. The open entrance of a private space, instead of embodying messages of an invitation inside, it is most likely to create feelings of questioning and act oppositional.


[1] but when an issue is brought up, like a demonstration or even a remoulding of a square or something, people, suddenly and instantly, remember that public space "belongs" to them as citizents. However, this stays only on words and complaints (in greece) without having the prospect of anything more radical. What i mean is that people are conscious, in a way, that public space is their "property" but they haven't ever thought what does this mean or how they are supposed to act in order to make this awareness, a reality. [DA]



public space is mainly defined under two circumstances, ownership and freedom of action. It belongs to everyone and everyone can express himself however (legally) and wherever he wants. In this workshop no public space was created.  In "4X4", the ownership of the 4 houses (they belonged to individuals), the pre-defined subjects of discussion, even the definition of hospitality (I’m referring to the roles of a hosting person and its guests, who is hosting in public space?), prevented of creating public space.

We could talk about the creation of a public forum (mainly through the blog) or an ephemeral-mobile social space (the 4 houses).

But even if we ignore the specification of time and subjects, How can a house be public?

Even if does not have an owner it will have a certain use and administrator.

On the other hand, public space has administrators too and is being watched if it’s properly used. The question is who is administrating? If all the users had the right to control the p.s. then the role of THE administrator would not be needed .

So we can jump in 2 conclusions, considering the meaning of today’s physical public space:

1.a house can be public, even if it has an owner who controls the others behavior and freedom of speech


2.there is no public space at all, since every square or street is being watched by cctv and the public has no means of expressing how it would like its common places should be except of voting every 4 years for an “administrator”.



In contrary, the virtual public space gives more freedom to its users. It gives the power to speak, discuss, share, co-create… the Network Society is more open to its members, at least it can steel be.

The "4X4" workshop uses this freedom and tries to transform 4 private localities into a common over-local conjunction. It interacts with the virtual public space and tries to provoke reactions into it or, again, passing over the limits of cyberspace into a new locality (like documenta, Kassel).

The web of localities is the created public space and only if this web continues branching then we can talk of  the attempts success.



Public is something[1]  that can be freely used by all members of the society. Public space  is  literally the space provided within the urban environment, that can be used by the public without any discriminations and under certain regulations and restrictions enacted by the governments laws. Public space is also a construction in the way that it is created by the way that people understand it, use it, and define it themselves with their acts and activities. The workshop tried to produce public space, by  following a process (a public call) open[2] to the city of Patras that was communicated by posters. We tried to contact and talk to different groups of people within the city and to transform the private space of the house into some kind of “public forum”. There were some pre-defined subjects for us to talk about, but each of the conversations came out in a different way and didn’t follow a certain procedure. We also created a blog [3] which gives an opportunity for a wider communication and exchange of thoughts and beliefs inside and outside  the people and places involved in the workshop.



[1]you  mean that "public" is a construction? In what way?

I would agree with Dafne concerning the two aspects and the characteristics of public space nowadays that she states. I think this answers this question too.



[2] an open process is always public?

It’s not always open but it holds the prerequisites to be public


[3] how public is a "blog"?

Within the digital space of the internet, the blog has some characteristics of public space. It can be created, designed and used by anyone, it doesn’t require subscriptions or any kind of payment and it’s a place where dialogue can be held through author’s posts and comments by anyone who reads the blog. On the other hand, the blog can only be visited by those who have internet access and it therefore excludes those who don’t.




2. What are some better ways to produce public space in this context?


I, honestly, do not know.



Public space could be produced with similar data (again with limited spatial and chronical conditions) if the structure that tried to transform the private into public was steadier, had wider chronically width and  had been better propagandized ( all these for the project itself). In a more extensive approach we could try to transform public as defined theoretically primarily. Which means  we could try to cancel all the restrictions that are brought upon public space and make it more free.


Αν οι συζητήσεις λάμβαναν χώρο στους δεδομένους δημόσιους χώρους της πόλης, όπως πλατείες, σκαλάκια, η προσέλευση θα ήταν μεγαλύτερη, γιατί σε εξωτερικούς χώρους υπάρχει η πιθανότητα τυχαίας διέλευσης και ίσως παραμονής του κόσμου στο σημείο αυτό. Δημόσιος χώρος αρκεί για να παραχθεί αν μεταξύ των ατόμων μιας ομάδας υπάρξουν οι προϋποθέσεις [how people themselves understand the meaning of public space, how they use/impropriate and how, after all, do they lively public spaces up]. Ο συνδυασμός της θεωρητικής προσέγγισης του ορισμού του δημόσιου χώρου με την υλιστική προσέγγιση [υπάρχοντες κοινόχρηστοι αστικοί χώροι] ίσως είναι ένας καλύτερος τρόπος ώστε να παραχθεί δημόσιος χώρος.   

[1]  μπορείς να μιλήσεις για τα δεδομένα; Υπονοείς ακόμα ότι ορίστηκε εξαρχής ένας τρόπος μετατροπής της κατοικίας σε δημόσιο χώρο. Αλλά η «κατοικία» αντιστάθηκε…]


παρήχθηκε τελικά δημόσιος χώρος; Σε ποιο βαθμό μπορεί μια κατοικία μπορεί να γίνει δημόσια; Με ποιο τρόπο; ] [ ερώτηση 1]



[3] [ερώτηση 2 ]



Within the framework of the workshop concepts such as hospitality, communication and public discourse across a net of “shut” whilst accessible places [residence and blog] were developed. This structure could be reinforced by incorporating places of urban configuration with a hybrid private-public character, as mentioned above, by referring to these places in a series of new initiatives or by merely going to these places ourselves.



Modern towns, in the way they are organised and structured, is most likely to provoke feelings of “guilt” and “fear” facing the invasion in someone’s private sphere. Norma is considered the introversion of the private and its extraction from public reality. “Property”, one of the basic characteristics of private space, gives power to the owner over visitors. The rules in these places are already being given from the owner and this is what it should be done according to the established order, fact which creates studied manners and distance among unfamiliar faces, something which happens anyway in the public space.

Therefore, maybe we should primarily create the appropriate conditions among the participants, among those who had the intention and those who were interested in responding to this call. The conversations could have taken place outside houses, to be revealed at the city, so as not to force someone to cross the doorstep. Not being used to act spontaneously to environmental impulses, it would be better to make the discussions visible to the city and in a next level to ask from the participants to manipulate a private place and transferring it into public.


A workshop can’t produce public space, neither a blog can do so (as it belongs to an administrator) if a workshop takes place in an actual public space, then we could talk about its activation, therefore, indirectly, for its “production”.


Maybe the transfer of those “meetings” and conversations from the private space of the house[1] to the public space of the city, could be a better way to produce public space. We could also use the blog to post some extracts of the actual conversations.[2]


[1] you mean that a house can't be a public space? We can't turn over /reverse this point of view?

The house is basically a private space. In order to transform it into public, we have to create conditions different from the usual ones. In 4x4 we tried to do so, by making an open call to people from all over the city, by opening the front door, by staying and talking inside and outside the houses being visible from the street and passers by. Maybe one problem of the workshop was that we didn’t manage to turn over the private character of the house and open the conversations groups of people other than us.


[2] The new public space [public domain 2.0] is already extended into the home.



3. Can we consider that the “4X4” workshop intervened in education? In what ways?



Firstly a point: education is a life-long procedure. It never starts and never ends within one’s lifetime. Additionally, it never comes or goes one-way like having a blank page someone has to fill. It is an interactive situation throughout which all sides are equally participating. (I am talking about education with physical presence of participants). All kinds of conversations and interactions between people are possibly educational. The difference is the level of awareness that accompanies them. During the workshop, some roles were pre-defined: some of us are students and some teachers. The fact that there was not any matter of specific knowledge transportation, helped re-define those roles and act in the end all equally. It intervened in the educational model that exists in schools and universities, changing the structure and creating the consciousness that the result is a patchwork from all our participation in the conversation and each one of us can (and has to) interfere. It is important to add here that the workshop had bibliorgaphical references (during the discussions as well as mentioned in the blog). This enriches the ineractive educational attempt, not only in a theoretical level, but it makes the discussions (and the people participating) adopt another characteristic: we have and we aquire knowledge that help us talk with arguments, we shape views and opinions based on wider impulses, we are not talking anymore about our -personal-emotional- aspect but we are able to have a creative "conflict" that will help us forward. (I use the term "conflict" in a positive manner: i believe that only through disagreements between opinions, with the good will of moving together forward, a really productive procedure can be accompished)  






The workshop made an interference with the  educational procedure in a manner that it functioned up to a point outside institutional conducts. If  we  don’t take into account the connection that the  final outcome should have with an institution (patra 2006)  the workshop managed to create  an interference. It questioned parts of the  strictly defined educational procedure (hierarchies, relationship between student-teacher, certain each time scientific field, self-negation, partitipation according to each individual’s will and not based upon any kind of  order). As far as the pure outcome is concerned, the knowledge itself, the procedure left the freedom to each person commune with itself. It allowed a direct relationship to be developed among the partitipants. Finally as an other positive aspect, each individual had the possibility to educate itself through the process, something that for a more free educational procedure is a necessity.

Art in our social reality



Στις συζητήσεις που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στα τέσσερα σπίτια ακούστηκαν σκέψεις και απόψεις σχετικές με την έννοια της φοιτητικής ζωή, την ποιότητα ζωής στην Πάτρα, τις σπουδές, την τέχνη και την έκθεσή της [κ.α..]. Το εργαστήριο λειτουργούσε έξω από το πλαίσιο μαθημάτων του πανεπιστημίου αλλά από μόνο του είχε εκπαιδευτικό χαρακτήρα. Δεν υπήρχε ο ρόλος του διδάσκοντα και μέσω της συζήτησης καθένας μπορούσε να προσφέρει και να λάβει γνώση. Το εργαστήριο δημιούργησε κάποιας μορφής παρέμβαση στην εκπαίδευση από τη στιγμή που δεν γινόταν σε κάποιο χώρο του πανεπιστημίου, μπορούσε να συμμετάσχει όποιος ήθελε και δεν υπήρχε [θεωρητικά] η σχέση φοιτητή-καθηγητή. Το τελευταίο βέβαια λειτούργησε σε όλη του τη δυναμική μόνο με τα άτομα εκτός σχολής. Είναι κάτι σχετικό με αυτό που συμβαίνει και με την κατοικία, έχει σχέση με τις εμπειρίες του παρελθόντος, οι οποίες διαφέρουν για τον καθένα. Απλά σχετικά με την κατοικία ισχύει για όλους λίγο πολύ το ίδιο. Προσωπικά δεν είμαι σίγουρη αν κατάφερα να επαναπροσδιορίσω το ρόλο φοιτητή-καθηγητή.


[1] η αναίρεση του ρόλου «διδασκων» με ποιο τρόπο  έγινε; Έγινε; Υπήρχαν πολλά σχόλια επί αυτού. Ακόμα ποια ήταν τα χαρακτηριστικά των συναντήσεων που σε κάνουν να υποστηρίζεις κάτι τέτοιο; Τα σπίτια; Ο διαφορετικός τρόπος εκφοράς λόγου; Η ελευθερία; Τι;



I believe that workshops are a medium someone decides to participate in with the aim to develop his way of thinking, his education, his queries. 4x4 was “born” between university configurations [traditional educational institutions] and the modern arts exhibition that was being presented at that time in the city [alternative educational method]. It did not aim at using configurations of traditional education. In contrary, it was based on the personal urge of the participants for further discussion on subject matters such as public space and say[1][1].

[1] Do you think that the subject matters were vital or urgent enough to create new configurations? Was there a real need - in terms of subjects - that initiated this workshop?

[1]Actually yes, i believe it was and it still exists a real need of the people that participated. On the other hand I'm not sure if these people [including me] were ready to deal with these matters in order to achieve new configurations. Participants usually were speaking about important matters without listening to the others.



Firstly we should define the term education and all the elements which are combined in the educational process. The basic are the trainers and the trainees, roles with no lines between them but in a continuous alternation. This would help to avoid the development of hierarchical relation among the participants and to abolish the notion of the great on teaching.

            The term “knowledge” is the aggregation of data one collects from different sources and, afterwards, the elaboration for the concretion of conclusions. Each book or information is something partial. Converse, intercompletion, confutation, a complex structure of acceptance and rejection, are steps which lead to the “truth” of each one who participates in the educational process, depending on his judgement ability (perception- judgement- interpretation).

            During the workshop “4x4” by defining place, time and the subject of the conversations, a scenery of educational process was set up. The ambiguous limits between trainers and trainees as well as the choice of an out- educational place were elements which gave workshop an interventional character in education. The redefinition of everyone’s role and the consciousness that each one could become transmitter and receiver at the same time, are processes which are far away from what the constitutional educational system suggests.


house_4_talk’s intervention in education is the attempt of re-phrasing it, in an experimental level, by  rejecting the hierarchical model of the instructor –student, deviating from the ghetto of the university, trying to be embraced into the city’s and every day lifes structures.    




[1] could you recite the characteristics of the intervention? of the education process? of the exhibition?

The workshop began with the formation of a group consisting of teachers and students. The facts that: a)it’s proceedings –the conversations- were held outside the pre-eminently space of the educational process(the university grounds), b)they were open to the public and so the composition of the group could change and include groups of people other than university students and teachers c)it was not based on the educational model that exists in universities and concerns specific knowledge transportation through a series of lectures, but on an equal participation of all group members in conversations, made an intervention in the educational process and re-defined the initial roles.

The workshop was held parallel to the exhibition “What remains is future”. This exhibition followed the established structures and works of a contemporary art exhibition-curators, donors, communications consultants, a specific space, specific artists and works of art. The workshop was initially set in the context of the exhibition, shared some of it’s subjects concerning the education process in general and used some of it’s structures such as the fanzine, but made some kind of intervention in it, since it’s activities were held outside the exhibition site and structures and it’s “aim” was not to produce a specific subject-matter for the exhibition, but a different way to produce those subjects.



4. What are some better ways to ornanize an intervention in art structures?

[art structures/ production of a work of art-are they the same thing?- What exactly do we mean by art structures?] art structures are the structures that support the system of art. There are exhibition structures, institutional structures, media structures, economic structures, art education structures, etc.


I believe that the main issue in art structure that needs an intervention is the fact that artists talk to themselves and fail to reach the whole of society. What needs to change is the kind of interaction that we –as producers of works (of art)- want to cause with the public. In fact, I want to change this discrimination- between the artist and the public. Only with the interaction forms and structures can become truly creative procedures. And I do not mean the linear relation of the attempt to cause a reaction to an audience, but the state of co-producing, the state of creative thought.



Art in our social reality should service the doubt and the revolt. To do so it has to appeal to a large social base. The ways with which art funcions as long as they serve the commercial version of art and appeals to self-negation for all the people that either have the means or the ability to have a relationship with art (usually based upon economical criteria), should be totally rejected. So: interfere in places with large population density, partitipation of the “audience” in the creation and the critical analysis of each project, usage of more simple and easily communicated forms of language, etc. I am trying to describe how we should act if we decide to act through art. I believe that another thing we could do would be to try and not produce “art” but other forms of communication such as a critical text for example.



Το «4Χ4» υλοποιήθηκε στα πλαίσια της έκθεσης «ό, τι απομένει είναι μέλλον», με τη διαφορά ότι λειτούργησε παραπλεύρως της. Το υλικό που παράχθηκε δεν εκτέθηκε στο χώρο του Αρσάκειου [Σχολείου] αλλά στο τεύχος που εκδόθηκε λίγο μετά το τέλος της έκθεσης. Η παρέμβαση σε μια διαδικασία ή ένα πεδίο σχέσεων έχει ως στόχο την αλλαγή. Η παρέμβαση στις δομές της τέχνης μπορεί να γίνει μέσα από το ίδιο το [1.]περιεχόμενο του έργου αλλά και μέσω του [2.]τρόπου έκθεσης και προβολής του. Για παράδειγμα η μη συμμετοχή σε εκθέσεις που διοργανώνουν οι  διάφοροι ιδιωτικοί και δημόσιοι φορείς που ελέγχουν το περιεχόμενό τους [π.χ. γκαλερί, πινακοθήκες κ.α..] και αντίθετα η προσωπική επιλογή του καλλιτέχνη [ή της ομάδας καλλιτεχνών] για τον χώρο και τον τρόπο έκθεσης.


[1]  τι εννοείς με αυτό;

[2] λες ότι το περιεχόμενο, ο τρόπος και  η συλλογικότητα μπορούν να λειτουργήσουν ως βασικοί άξονες παρέμβασης. Μπορείς να γίνεις ποιο επεξηγηματική;




The framework of this workshop is the starting-point for a good intervention strategy. And this because, although it was presented in an arts exhibition, it did not use relative methods of arts presentation. In contrary, it commented on matters such as the inhabitance of the city and art itself while trying to activate them in an urban scale. We can thus consider art as an alternative way of brainstorming.[1]

[1] what exactly do you mean by "art presentation" and by "alternative way of brainstorming"?what different methods of "arts presentation" did it use?



Art should cut its bounds from them who think they may manage and evaluate it. It shouldn’t be presented though a window, like it’s something valuable which few is capable, apart from its creators, of perceiving and understanding. From the moment art got away from specialists and expanded its limits and ways of expression, it stopped confronting audience as a witness. The next level should be the self- identification of artists and public, their interaction for the production of a piece




What House4Talk taught us is that in order to get something like that actually working, it has to be done within depth of time, after (or during) long-time discussions so that the members of the group are brewed, the aims are  clarified, common codes and ways of expression are found. Speed and hasty productivity are enemies of research and creative thought, education’s and art’s indispensable elements.




In my opinion one issue concerning art structures that needs an intervention is the fact that the “production” of the works of art for an exhibition is assigned every time to specific artists. This creates closed networks of a limited number of artists in which certain issues and points of view are repeated. The result is the whole attempt being managed and addressed to specific groups of people. What needs to change is the procedure according to which the artists are “chosen”.




5. How were dialogic media [discussion, blog, printed matter, e.tc.] used in the workshop?



The blog was a parallel to the workshop structure, a place where the conversations could have continued and developed. A permanent forum on the net, which would feed and enrich the ephemeral talks. The fact that for most (if not for all) of us, this kind of procedure was something new, neither the blog could trespass the difficulties of understanding what would be of any help for the talk to develop. The posters calling at the workshop, as a direct media, was the most appropriate choice according to the conditions we wanted to create. (though the number of the posters didn’t help at all). Recording, though, the conversations, was like never happened. Or at least it never reached me. Most interesting I find photos from the meetings, that keep the sense of the 4 houses, as well as the notes we kept during the talks that reveal a most personal and spontaneous point of view.



The dialogic means used throughout the workshop had each a different role. The poster was a way to propagandise the workshop to the public in order to create a team that wouldn’t comprise only by students of architecture or students in general. The blog was the public forum. It was the place were every conclusion suggestion and brainstorming was posted. I don’t believe that a blog is an effectual form of communication but it can help some aspects of the project by allowing people that can’t have a physical presence to participate. Finally the conversation was from the beginning the main form around which the workshop would be formed. The main brainstorming was constituted through the conversation, it gave the whole project a more wide prospect, people tried to see thing more critically things that always are main points of a productive conversation. This was the mean that helped any arguments or agreements to be brought up. Also if we consider this procedure to be a form in which everyone is exposed and with the consideration of the importance that a more collective form of action has, the conversation was the main field in which the project succeeded in certain ways and failed in others.



Οι αφίσες σε διάφορα σημεία της πόλης θεωρώ πως είναι το καλύτερο μέσο για την άμεση προσέλευση του κόσμου, απλά θα έπρεπε να ήταν περισσότερες. Η μαγνητοφώνηση των συζητήσεων βοήθησε γιατί οι συζητήσεις ήταν πολύωρες και είναι αδύνατο να θυμούνται όλοι ό, τι ειπώθηκε. Θα μπορούσαμε ίσως να γράφαμε κάτι [σκέψεις, σκίτσα..] κατά τη διάρκεια των συζητήσεων, ή να απαντάμε σε κάποια ερώτηση ώστε εκτός από τις μαγνητοφωνημένες ομιλίες να είχαμε κάτι οργανωμένο και σε γραπτή μορφή. Ο διάλογος και η συζήτηση πιστεύω πως ήταν τα καλύτερα μέσα που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν. Το blog στο συγκεκριμένο εργαστήριο είχε οργανωτικό χαρακτήρα, μετά από κάθε συζήτηση, ήταν ένας έμμεσος τρόπος επικοινωνίας που βοήθησε μια τέτοια διαδικασία. Μπορεί κανείς να προσθέσει ή σχολιάσει κάτι που δεν του δόθηκε η ευκαιρία να το πει ή δεν το είχε σκεφτεί ακόμα, μετά από κάθε συζήτηση έχοντας βγάλει κάποια συμπεράσματα. Θεωρώ ότι το blog αποτέλεσε ένα  κοινωνικό περιβάλλον που λειτουργούσε παραπλεύρως των συζητήσεων, ένας δικτυακός τόπος με δευτερεύον χαρακτήρα, που βοήθησε ώστε να οργανωθεί καλύτερα το υλικό και από τη στιγμή που βρισκόταν στο διαδίκτυο γνωστοποιήθηκε κιόλας. 


[1] στο συγκεκριμένο εργαστήριο; Γενικότερα τι άλλο ρόλο μπορεί να παίξει;



Printed matter mainly focused on informing the city of Patras on the existence of the workshop [posters], and secondly aimed at its partial presentation on the fanzine of the exhibition [description of what we did]. Discussions and the blog were vital mediums of expression; somebody who participated would add: probably the exclusive ones. The subject-queries that were initially introduced to the discussion were not developed adequately by the participants, which indicates the broad extent of the discussions, a fact that allowed the development of new issues, even on the nature of the workshop itself.



One of the most important goals of the workshop was the transformation of private place into public and the interaction of people, familiar and unfamiliar, through a collective process. The use of different means created different qualities of relations among the participants as well as different qualities of spaces.

            During the conversations all the senses were activated (food- taste- smell, music, speech- earring, physical presence- vision- touch). In the blog, distance was being created from natural space of the discussion and everything that took place there, as a result to write down the most intense impression of the process. The posters were the invitation to these conversations for the city, the recording was the exact recall of this process through earring… So each mean offered a different representation and reproach of the workshop.



Discussion in real place: primary element of the intervention. Space of immediate interaction, flexible, lively, unexpected.  Here is where issues are brought up and the first spontaneous reactions, views occur.  

Blog: place of furthermore elaboration, rephrasing, documentation. The blog’s environment is specific, pre-designed. It confines  shapes and homogenizes each member’s ways of expression. It puts thought in moulds, making easier the dialog between different   personalities since they are trying to communicate with the same code (a fact that can’t be accomplished in real-time meeting), is more legible and you can look back on it anytime.

printed matter : they were the alibi of the workshop’s “public act”. One person’s (only) participation outside the university’s environment validates, in some way, their function. They were not enough, though, not just in quantity, but also because today’s society (if we assume at least that we address to all its width) is not ready for public dialog or, at least, needs a multi-dimensional way to approach it.

Fanzine: nothing more than a project’s official documentation that no one read.



The posters were the most important media because it made the holding of the conversations known to the city of Patras and led to the attendance of people other than architecture students. For all that, we didn’t use it to it’s great extent as the number of the posters was small and they were put up late.

The blog worked as an organizing structure for the workshop, where the subjects for the conversations were stated before the meetings and some first thoughts were expressed. After each of the meetings some kind of “evaluation” of the conversation was held through the blog.

The actual conversations were the most important thing in the workshop. Not so much as an “outcome” but as a procedure[1], maybe the whole meaning of the 4x4 were these conversations.[1]

[1] A process could be a workshop? It produce public space? The meaning of process includes "public"?

[1] yes a process could be a workshop. I think that in 4x4 we tried to "redefine" in a way the meaning of a workshop and the way it works. The process doesn't necessarily include production of public space. It can be "used" or "planned" in a context that can help this purpose.

[1] If the discussion is an "end" by itself, can we talk about its form, in the same way that we talk about the "form" of a (performance) work? Are we interested in the "form of the discussion"? and: the outcome (the "results") of a discussion, is it not part of the discussion? What are their forms?




6. What are the creative issues that were brought up, during the workshop?



The main issue (creative or not) was what are we doing/trying to do with this. So, we tried to define, or at least approach, what is a discussion, how do people get connected, what are the connections and relations between them, whether a conversation needs to end up somehow or not, what is a team and what a collective, what is creation and what production, how is a city taken on by students who are due to live there for 5-6 years and how the city is affected by this condition (especially concerning student housing), the network connecting places of interest or public situations we created and the routes between them, connecting them physically or mentally, how a procedure (such as a talk) can be later on presented through various media (e.g. printed fanzine), the difference between Greece and the rest of the world concerning student houses and halls of residence ...




Η έννοια της συζήτησης, ο διάλογος, η διαδικτυακή συνεργασία και η φιλοξενία στα τέσσερα σπίτια βοήθησαν ώστε να εκδηλωθούν και εξωτερικευθούν σκέψεις και συναισθήματα. Πιο συγκεκριμένα η φιλοξενία στο εκάστοτε φοιτητικό σπίτι με σκοπό μια διαδικασία με δημόσιο χαρακτήρα [4Χ4] σίγουρα βοήθησε, θέλω να πιστεύω, στο να νιώσουν όλοι πιο άνετα και να οικειοποιήθηκαν ευκολότερα το χώρο. Όλα τα παραπάνω βοήθησαν στην ανταλλαγή απόψεων τόσο με γνωστά όσο και με άγνωστα πρόσωπα.     


[1] πιο συγκεκριμένα; Πχ για την φιλοξενία;



I personally found the workshop a new creative experience, on the whole, especially its intentions. The hospitable environment in the residences it took place, the food that was offered on the discussion table, broke through the educational standards and transformed the procedure into a pleasant challenge to create[1]. The new public space that occurred was an equally interesting situation, because it brought us in contact with fellow citizens participating, with which we shared similar queries.

[1]do you really think the hospitable environment and the food was enough to "break through" the educational standards?and if so, in what way?





The most important is the redefinition of the educational process through a collective fermentation. What do we mean with the term team, which is its identity, what are the commons and the contradictions among the participants? Which is the difference between teacher- professor and tutor- pedagogue? The alternation of roles such as trainer and trainee. The city and the several paths in it. The production of a piece and basically the creation of a transient team (it existed until the conversations ended up) which had the need to express itself as well as to define its identity.



The main issue articulated, almost unconsciously, was the difficulty of communication. Namely, how a group of people can be expressed collectively, and individually. How they can produce a result that has meaning for themselves (education) as well as for  “others” (art).



The issues were the conversation as a procedure of producing public space and as a form of intervention in an organized exhibition of contemporary art, the “student house” and it’s function as a public space, what is the relationshipbetween students and the city in which they study and live for 5-6 years, the terms of co-operation between the members of the team and the communication with other groups of people in the city of Patras and also the use of a blog and a fanzine as further means of communication and presentation of the work produced.




7. What are the creative issues that were not brought up? Why?

[νομίζω ότι η διατύπωση αυτής της ερώτησης βγάζει διαφορετικό νόημα στα ελληνικά και διαφορετικό στα αγγλικά. Ο καθένας έχει καταλάβει και απαντήσει και κάτι διαφορετικό. Μήπως πρέπει να ξαναδιατυπώσετε τι ακριβώς ζητάτε να γράψουμε?ρωτάτε ποια απο τα προαναφερθέντα(ερωτηση6)ζητήματα δεν απαντήθηκαν/εκφράστηκαν ή ζητάτε άλλα σχετικά ζητήματα που δεν αναφέρθηκαν καν?] "Εκφράσεις" και "μορφές", δημιουργικές ενέργειες και "σημαίνοντα", που υπήρξαν αλλά δεν τα προσέξαμε, που δεν τα σκεφτήκαμε καν, ή που για διάφορους λόγους δεν βρήκαν διέξοδο κατά τη διάρκεια των συναντήσεων.Ή ακόμα, αυτά που σκεφτόμαστε τώρα εκ των υστέρων.

[Στην ερώτηση 7 εννοείται τι ζητήματα/θέματα δε βρήκαν διέξοδο? ή ποια ζητήματα έκφρασης δεν βρήκαν διέξοδο? και τι σημαίνει ζήτημα έκφρασης?] creative=δημιουργικός



…what IS public space? (is it something we can define after all? Are we interested in defining it?)[1] How do we live and act in relation with public circumstances? How much can we do as architects or artists? What is the relation between our different identities (student-architect-artist-citizen-male/female-grownup-child…)? Why these weren’t brought up…? Because I guess there was no much time, and no one mentioned them!

[1] Can you ask the same question in the specific urban conditions that you live? What kind of public space you experience, there?

[1]  i do not intend to give another answer myself. I already tried to approach these issues above. More important i would consider the exchange of experiences (concerning public space) as source of characteristics from real-life events, as another level of approach after the theoretical process. 




Initially, I think that the creative issues that were brought up were many and the difference is to which were analyzed and considered more relative to the character of the workshop and which were not. Such creative issues were the role of art as a social factor, the commercial view of art, the role of the relationship between teacher and student for the educational process, the issue of how the creator and the audience communicate (what language do we use, who can understand and if anyone can understand), when we can say by fact that someone creates and when simply that someone acts, what is talent and other issues that tried to create a minimum dialogic platform based upon historical, social, political, economical and sometimes philosophical analytic ways. They couldn’t be communicated or a certain conclusion/answer couldn’t be given. We can answer why this happened if we consider such issues to be extremely wide. Each individual uses other criteria and if we don’t have the necessary time it is difficult to answer some questions.



Στις 4 συζητήσεις αναφέρθηκαν θέματα όπως η φοιτητική ζωή, η ζωή στην Πάτρα, η έννοια της ομάδας, η έκθεση έργου, ο δημόσιος χώρος, καλλιτεχνική ομάδα κ.α..  Δεν ξέρω αν τέτοιου είδους θέματα μπορούν να βρουν διέξοδο έκφρασης μέσα σε λίγες συζητήσεις και αν αυτός ήταν ο σκοπός του εργαστηρίου. Πιστεύω πως ο στόχος ήταν η ίδια η συζήτηση. Τα θέματα ήταν πολλά και πολύπλοκα και ήταν εξαιρετικά δύσκολο να αναφερθούμε σε όλα και να τα αναλύσουμε σε βάθος. Είχε βγει ένα πρόγραμμα για κάθε συζήτηση αλλά δεν είμαι σίγουρη αν μπορούσε να υλοποιηθεί αυτό καθ’ αυτό στα πλαίσια μιας ανοιχτής συζήτησης με τόσα άτομα, σε θέματα που είναι τόσο αλληλένδετα.


[1]  πως συνέβη αυτό; Πως το συνδέεις με τη διαδικασία;



Open participation was a challenge for new collaborations, which unfortunately did not occur. Intentions to organize activities in the heart of the city were also not realized. A possible reason could be the limited duration of the meetings [approximately 2 hours every week, 4 times in total], which did not help a newly born, enlarging team to mature and express itself.  Or maybe people were not ready to collaborate in such circumstances.



What is that, which transfers private space into public? Is it enough to simply announce to the city the intention of producing this kind of spaces? Since the transformation wasn’t accomplished and the city stood self- conscious in this workshop, the conversations ended up taking place between familiar faces, fact which lead discussions to obtain one common identity, that of being made by students. But are we only students…?



No issue found an outlet of expression. The difficulty of coordination in real-time discussion could be overcame through the blog exactly because it is impersonal and rather “timeless”. But the lack of communication at the 4 houses (where the basic material and the educational procedure were to come out) prevented the team’s members to pass to the next level, the one of the elaboration and the production, they refused to enter the context of art.




Which could be some possible forms of intervention in art structures? Are we interested in making such an intervention?




8. What is your proposal for a next step for the workshop?



A next step depends on what we are aiming to do. I believe, primarily, that a proposal should occur from one more talk, having everybody who is interested expressing an opinion. Anyway, I can examine some basic directions: if we want this to be opened to the city, to a wider public, conversations should come out of the 4 walls of a house, and happen into public points of meeting (squares, public transportation etc.)[1] If we want to keep on the transformation of the house (privet space) to a public forum, the network should insist on calling participants with the same, direct public calls.[1] If we mainly want to investigate the matter of student housing, we should act at least once at the hall of residence at the university.

[1] Are there other public points of meeting? How can we address the transformation of the notion of the place, today, through digital networks? A place, a locality (i.e. the house) is not local any more, as it is traverse by multiple global networks. With this in mind, how can we plan a "making public"?




[1] of course and virtual space (internet) is a public meeting place. But i have some circumspections... How can we create/use virtual public space when we can't  comprehend its meaning in actual (everyday) life? ok, i understand that it is us who create these conditions. And i also understand the difference between communication and meeting. I believe that we can succesfully create comunicational conditions trhrought digital networks, but i believe that concerning the essence of a meeting, we are risking of loosing reality against maximization (of possible universal participation, against the restrictions of locality etc.) what i want to say is that we are humans, we are not just brains and fingers (to write)or image, and when meeting is concerned, many body reactions take place, many impulses occur (smell, taste etc.) that can't be transfered. I do not decline neither aspect, i just claim that we should first realize actuality and then try to enact it.[1]

[1] See: Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Domain   



I think that the next step should have to do with an attempt to consider some of the unsolved issues.



Ίσως να μην συνεχιστούν οι συζητήσεις σε σπίτια αλλά σε δημόσιους χώρους ή και στις εστίες [όπως ειπώθηκε] που είναι κάτι μεταξύ δημόσιου και ιδιωτικού χώρου. Με την εναλλαγή των χώρων, την καλύτερη ενημέρωση και ίσως τη σταθερή επανάληψη των συζητήσεων να υπάρξει μεγαλύτερη συμμετοχή και άρα περισσότερες σκέψεις και ερεθίσματα. Τα επικοινωνιακά μέσα που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν νομίζω ότι επαρκούν.



For the same workshop? It should attempt to take place in more “open” spaces in the city, but without putting to the side spaces that were for a while transformed on our own initiative. It would be interesting for this workshop to involve more places, where limits between private and public are blurry.



Firstly, if we accept that the workshop didn’t achieve its goals, we should redefine the reasons for which its intentions weren’t expressed. Why the lines between private and public sphere weren’t over passed? Why did we have the need for this conversations and one poster couldn’t convince whoever face it to come and attend them even from curiosity. Maybe we should become more obvious to the city, more intense. Let’s go outside. If we accomplish intervening into public space, we may succeed in transferring the private.



An intimate attempt of concentration, clarification of the aims and more extended duration of the discussions. Something that, I think, in Kassel could be accomplished.



I believe that the conversations should continue on a frequent and permanent base[1]  in order for the intervention to have a time span and to be able to open to more people apart from ourselves. Maybe the establishment of these 4 houses as conversation places could result in a familiarization with these basically private places and could transform them in a kind of “public forum”.



9. What are other questions that you consider important?




 What is education, for who, from whom and why? What do we want from the educational procedure? Why do we want to intervene? What are we expecting to accomplish?



In what other ways could someone introduce to private space [e.g. residence, car, museum etc] elements of public character? Could this be merely interpreted as citizens reacting to the trespassing of vital public space or could it also mean an active claim to a less-controlled life?


One certain question is the matter of the language we are using and how the produced material is communicated.



What is a team, a group? Do the participants have to premise their commons or may the team be created through its contradictions?

When transferring a private space into public, which are the specific characteristics we want to redefine, the ones we want to keep or abort during this process?


Why, nowadays, velocity (speed) and productivity are so important?




How do art structures work today? Are we interested in being a part of these structures, do we want to intervene in them and if yes how do we want to do so?

Is discussion an "art form"? can we talk about it the same way we talk about a "performance" work?








-creation/production of public space within the context we acted/act (educational system in uviversities)

-the house/residence or/and the student house/student residence/student room as a public space/public forum. how and why this "transformation" is made

-hospitality and it's role in the woskhop

-Intervention in education/intervention in art structures. on what conditions and why

-what is a workshop

-did we use art forms to "produce" an educational form?in what way?

-the conversation as an art form, as a means of intervention in art structures. what are it's characteristics?


Σχετικά με το σχεδιασμό της παρουσίασης στο Κασελ νομίζω ότι, όπως είχαμε συζητήσει και στην τελευταία συνάντηση, δεν θα έπρεπε να βρισκόμαστε εμείς μόνοι στο κέντρο της αίθουσας και να διαβάζουμε απο κει τις παρεμβάσεις μας, αλλα να καθόμαστε σε θέσεις αναμεμειγμένοι με αυτούς που θα παρακολουθούν.

Για να βοηθήσουμε τους παρευρισκόμενους να εισαχθούν στον προβληματισμό μας γρηγορότερα, ίσως θα μπορούσαμε θα μοιράσουμε απο την αρχή χαρτιά με κάποια ερωτήματα ή σκέψεις για τα οποία θα μιλήσουμε. Αυτά θα μπορούσαν απλά να θέτουν τους προβληματισμούς για να βοηθήσοουν τους συμμετέχοντες να έχουν μια εικόνα των ζητημάτων δεδομένης της μικρής διάρκειας της παρουσίασης. Η θα μπορούσαν να θέτουν τους προβληματισμούς/σκέψεις μας με τη μορφή σύντομων ερωτήσεων τις οποίες θα απαντάει ο καθένας, μετά το χαρτί θα περνάει στον επόμενο, μετα στον επόμενο κλπ.

Ταυτόχρονα θα μπορούσαμε να δημιουργήσουμε ένα online forum στο οποίο θα είμαστε συνδεδεμένοι εκείνη τη στιγμή και εμείς αλλά και όποιος άλλος θέλει να παρακολουθήσει τη συζήτηση και να συμμετάσχει σε αυτή αλλά δεν βρίσκεται στο χώρο του συνεδρίου. Στο κέντρο της αίθουσας θα μπορούσε να υπάρχει μια οθόνη που θα λειτουργεί σαν "πίνακας ανακοινώσεων" στην οποία θα φαίνεται αυτό το forum ή chat room. Σε αυτό θα γράφονται αυτά που λέμε εμείς την ώρα που μιλάμε- σε μορφή σημειώνσεων ενδεχομένως τις οποίες θα έχουμε φτιαξει απο πριν- , αυτά που θα γράφονται ενδεχομένως απο τους παρευρισκόμενους στα χαρτιά που θα μοιράσουμε (τα χαρτιά αφού περνάνε απο όλους μπορούν να καταλήγουν σε κάποιον απο μας που θα πληκτρολογεί τις απαντήσεις?)και σκέψεις αυτών που παρακολουθούν τη διαδικασία απο ένα άλλο μέρος.





_public space or public conditions?



_ a place where the unexpected is most likely to happen / a place so expected

_physical presence [when/how do we communicate?

at which point do we meet and/or interact?]



Concerning the architecture of the meeting, i believe it can be shaped according to what characteristics we want to assign: if we recognize that money exchange is a procedure that excludes people from it and, therefore, affects its public character, we should decide to manage free access for everyone. This can lead us to the place of the meeting: we can reject a compatible (teaching) room of the university and choose a more "public" space, such as the building’s courtyard/entrance/hall. A place where we can have free access for everybody, but also nearby the place of the conference. I still believe that (mostly because of the time pressure) we won’t be able to concentrate on many “stages” (physical, global, written, told etc - screens, keyboards, speech...) so I think we should emphasize on one thing: physical presence. I believe that a pause can be done from all the internet process, wich can continue afterwards. Furthermore, a camera can be set in order to document the discussion but we can also collect notes that were kept meanwhile, handwritten, as a spontaneous, direct and personal documentation. This can be achieved if we use a paper as a table cover. finallly, the shape of a circle is the most appropriate if we want to question the hierarchal structures.





>Keywords suggested:

Identity of public

borders between private - public space

nets between virtual spaces and physical spaces

public discussion

Identity of a workshop

Learning procedure and motivations. How could city as a public constitution motivate cultural concerns?


>Thoughts for workshop's space arrangement and meening:






- Physical public and private space related to virtual public (and private) space (public domain).

- Virtual environment and the effects on its users (Pre-designed environments).

- Collective expression.


Πρόταση σχεδιασμού


-Σε σχέση με τον τόπο: το workshop θα μπορούσε να διεξάγεται σε 2 σημεία της έκθεσης ταυτόχρονα. Ένα μέσα σε κάποια αίθουσα του συνέδριου όπου θα παρευρίσκονται οι εγγεγραμμένοι και ένα σε δημόσιο χώρο (της έκθεσης) με ελεύθερη πρόσβαση στον καθένα.

-Εγκατάσταση στην αίθουσα του συνεδρίου: κάθε σύνεδρος (εμείς+κοινό) θα έχει μπροστά του χαρτιά, πληκτρολόγιο, ποντίκι και μια οθόνη, από πάνω του θα στέκεται μια webcam όπου θα καταγράφει αυτά που θα σχεδιάζει στο χαρτί ή πιθανές κινήσεις ή εκφράσεις του (η κάμερα θα μπορεί να κινείται).

Κάθε σύνεδρος θα είναι online και μέσω ενός λογισμικού (τύπου msn ή forum) θα μπορεί να διαβάζει και να βλέπει αυτό που μεταδίδουν οι άλλοι.

Η διάταξη των συνέδρων θα είναι κυκλική, είτε σε ενιαίο τραπέζι, είτε όχι.

-Εγκατάσταση σε κοινόχρηστο χώρο της έκθεσης: πάλι έχουμε τη χρήση webcam, υπολογιστή, χαρτιών κλπ.. Ο καθένας θα έχει πρόσβαση στον υπολογιστή, θα μπορεί να διαβάζει το αρχείο, να παρεμβαίνει στη ζωντανή συζήτηση είτε γράφοντας είτε μιλώντας, είτε στέλνοντας κάποιο αρχείο (photo-video), είτε με την μορφή performance μέσω της webcam. Η εγκατάσταση θα παραμείνει εκεί κατά τη διάρκεια της έκθεσης διατηρώντας την δυνατότητα προσθήκης υλικού από τους περαστικούς χρήστες (ποιότητα δημοσίου χώρου)*.

-Το ίδιο θα ισχύει και για τους απομακρυσμένους  «σύνεδρους» μέσω του internet και του λογισμικού.  

Ο φυσικός χώρος θα  επηρεάζεται από τον δημόσιο εικονικό χώρο που έχει δημιουργηθεί και αντιστρόφως.



*η εγκατάσταση θα μπορούσε να υπάρχει εξαρχής στο χώρο της έκθεσης με ένα αρχικό υλικό που θα έχουμε εισάγει εμείς και θα μπορεί να επηρεάζεται κι από άλλους χρήστες. Έτσι όταν το 60 λεπτο workshop αρχίσει θα έχει ήδη συνδιαμορφωθεί με τους υπόλοιπους χρήστες του «χώρου».







Public Space between Art and Education



It belongs to anyone and nobody at the same time- property- ephemeral, according to users needs- atomic energy- initiative- spontaneous- sharing- scenario- process- creativity- interaction- commons- contradictions- roles which are flexible to change.



As for the process during the workshop, we could create a net, using perhaps messenger, and everyone who’s going to be there will be connected. For the instant notes we could use pads in which we may keep notes with electronic pens (so as to keep each one of the participant's the graphic character). So the messages, notes, will be instantly being projected on a screen.

            As for the way we are going to be seated I prefer the circle. And all of us around it, mixed with our guests!



Public Space





it belongs to anyone and nobody at the same time














common good

creativity-interaction-atomic energy-initiative-sharing


roles which are flexible to change









1.  ΑΖ





  • a room or a building in which things are made or repaired using tools or machinery

·         a room or a building where an artist or craftsman produces, teaches or studies art(studio, atelier-french, bottega-italian).

  • a gathering or training session which may be several days in length. It emphasizes problem-solving, hands-on training, and requires the involvement of the participants. It is a structure of informal education, based on voluntary participation and also on the hierarchies of the educational system, that has to produce specific works, some kind of practical demonstration.


The “4 conversations in 4 houses” workshop began at the laboratory for Visual Arts of the University of Patras(->room, building, studio)and opened/extended it’s limits and action to a network of places(students houses)in the city of Patras and also to the Internet.

It functioned as a self-organized process, a meeting structure for different groups of people(->gathering session)the context of which was formed each time by the participants themselves.

There were specific issues(->problems)to be considered every time, but the intention of this workshop was not the transfer of specific knowledge from educators to learners or some kind of student “training”(->training session). The conversations in the 4 houses were held on a base of equal participation exchange of ideas and thoughts of all members(either learners or educators), aiming not to find “solutions” or “answers” to the issues discussed(->problem-solving)or to form a group with a certain collective identity and ideology, but to create a process of discussion and dialogue about issues that concern and affect our lives, open to different individual thoughts and possibilities.

The most important “product” of this workshop(->practical demonstration)was the creation of the meeting and dialogue process and the relations it created(between groups of people and the city, between university and city etc), this recurrent event within the city of Patras.



2. EV

What is this public space created and where is located?

At the begging there was a locality, a common place, theLaboratory for Visual Arts, at the Department of Architecture, University of Patras. People met in this physical space, discussed and commonly choose 4 other localities, this time private, 4 houses.

    The first network was created.

The issue was to create public space between Art and Education and to use discussion as a form of intervention in it.

The main subjects arising are: What is this public space and where is located and what means do we use to discuss?

The network of localities uses a condenser, a blog in the internet. The 4 sources feed this over-locality. It interacts with the virtual [1] public space and tries to provoke reactions into it. Once again it transcends its boundaries by expressing its content in a new locality (like this workshop in Kassel).

This formation is a hybrid consisted of mainly two parts. The constant alternations of physical and virtual forms of both public and private spaces, and the continuous spreading network of localities and internet places.This is the public space created.

Today, networking localities is a way to live. A way to find a place to sleep, to eat, to discuss, to educate, to express your self, to create…

The www and the social networks that consist it (blogs, chats, messenger, myspace, youtube ext) is a public place where everybody meet, a place unexpected.

But how unexpected are these environments? Most of them are pre-designed, giving you small capability to interfere in their structure. But in our case this element gives us an advantage, it creates a bridge of communication of different people, ideas, behaviours and cultures. It’s a new visual, international language created, a new way of expression and communication. There are means to create, to use and read them. Something that in real space is difficult or impossible. In our workshop a blog helps to overcome the gaps of physical discussion. It’s a navigator in our thoughts, actions, and discussions. It’s a seed placed in a chaotic environment waiting for a new locality to take it there and flourish, getting again in the same circle of virtual and physical, public and private spaces…





[1](απόσπασμα από το βιβλίο "Αγριεμένοι Ανάπηροι Επιστρέφουν από Καυτά Κλίματα", Τομ Ρομπινς)


... "από την εποχή που επινοήθηκε το αλφάβητο, αν όχι και παλιότερα, όλες οι τεχνολογίες είχαν την προέλευσή τους στη γλώσσα. Στον κυβερνοχώρο όμως τις πληροφορίες δεν τις βλέπεις ή δεν τις ακούς τόσο όσο τις νιώθεις. Η τεχνολογία μπορεί επιτέλους να ξεπερνάει τη γλώσσα, όχι απλώς να φεύγει από τη φωλιά αλλά και να σκοτώνει τη μάνα της, αν θέλεις. Ξέρεις, δε βλέπουμε πραγματικά σκοτάδι, ή ακόμα και φως, απλώς νιώθουμε νευρολογικά τις επιδράσεις τους πάνω στις γύρω επιφάνειες. Το δυαδικό ψηφιακό σύστημα -ο Αδελφός Ένα και η Αδελφή Μηδέν- που κάνουν δυνατή την ύπαρξη των κομπιούτερ είναι ένα είδος σχέσης φωτος-σκότους εξαρχής..."

-μετάφραση από πέμπτη-



    Public space starts to “exist” when somebody (or more) begins to use it, either according to the designed/defined program, or else ways. Namely, when public conditions  are set forth…

As a result, meaning is given to the space, through every single activity taking place, through the decision of usurpation.

Therefore, we can have various approaches in order to analyze what hosts public circumstances. We can describe public space as a vessel (defined through the 3 dimensions) where its substance is the content: people, users, net of relations between them, interaction…. The wideness of the fortuitous meeting, the possibilities, chain reactions (and interactions), nets and networks, consist the condition of the unexpected.

It is not so important, therefore, whether a place is privet or public, but if we can create any public conditions:

The expected / the unexpected

Personal exposure


How exposed is one in the internet? How much is he/she open to the unexpected?

How spontaneous is a conference? How can we interact?


4. [VP]

 Workshop: How to construct Public Space between Art and Education?



Public Space belongs to anyone and nobody at the same time. Everyone may be its owner or a guest. So the environment, in which the users act, should be created by changeable pieces of common or even conflicting initiatives taken by subjects, according to their will; all of them forming a mosaic of different individualities.

Art’s primary intention is to make a comment on external impulses through the view of the creator. Pieces of art are designated to be exposed to public view in order to provoke reactions. So, by definition, art refers to a subject.

Education is a common good. Everyone should have access to any source of knowledge, through institutional and non-institutional structures. Subjects involved in educational processes exchange data and should be conscious that their roles are likely to reverse at any time.

The common keyword, according to this approach, of these three terms is the notion of interaction among participants. Everyone involved in these procedures should be a transmitter and a receiver at the same time, in an environment where the basic elements are predefined and in which no one is to be excluded.

Taking under consideration the example of “4x4”, we may compare the process of a workshop to a play with specific subjects and scenario, but whose the dialogs are not defined. Those who have the initiative to propose a certain process-scenario invite everyone interested to participate, following certain rules. In the “4x4” case, the place, the time and the scenery were predefined, like in our case here, and everyone who took place was likely to intervene in the process in his/her own means. Since the initiative has been taken in Patra, the workshop- play consisted of persons who live there and all its characteristics were chosen in accordance to this.

In the case of this effort, new elements are added; new persons with different needs in a new scenery. As a result, the perspectives should be redefined; the workshop-play should be transformed. In addition, the means which are offered should be re-examined. In “4x4” private space was to be transformed into public, by physical presence. In this workshop, maybe public space needs to be transferred into a virtual one. But which are the new qualities of this space? Which is the quality of the relationships that evolve among the participants? The answers could be given by all of us…!


5. MB


The “making” of new public _the example of student residence dynamic


The “making” of a new public space is based on the constantly fluid and transforming boundaries of public and private space identity. In fact, is the detection of the blurry distinctions between them. The attempt to redefine the identity of a student [private] residence has been one of the aims of this workshop. Its opening to the public space [city] wasn’t a fortuitous choice to “experiment” with these matters. Student residence implies a transformation dynamic of its privatization. By definition, students’ purpose is to gain knowledge [knowledge=subject with universal addressing, without administrator]. Therefore the place where he/she lives is proper to host an extended breadth of conditions and forms of privatization and public-ation.*

Student residence it’s not only space of creativity and new knowledge [especially for the Greek student who studies mainly at his/her place], but moreover a place inhabited by a person who is in pursuit of his/her social personality. In such an environment could possibly be unfolded new space conditions that will transform even for a specific time period a new space identity.



*This is a general convention and does not take into account special and personal characteristics of students as persons that could possibly change our hypotheses.



Vanda Chalyvopoulou: Comments:


It seems important to me to discuss in depth some of the following points, in view of a final working procedure for the creation of a workshop.



The thematic of this encounter begins with a question: How to construct public space between art and education using as a medium the workshop?



By this initial question, new questions arise:



Is creating such a workshop a necessity (a workshop that would create public space between art and education)? Why? Who for?

The workshop “4X4” has given an answer referring to the particular place and time. A participant says: “The workshop “4X4” dealt with reflections that concerned the education in a moment where in Greece and concretely in the city of Patras this kind of public discussions would not happen”.



Which issues a workshop of this kind would elaborate on? How could we attract the interest of people to public space?  Up to what extend should our task be connected with a specific place?

The workshop “4X4” proposed its own answer to these questions. It dealt with subjects that had to do with a specific place and time, that were urgent and crucial.



Why would we conceive a “workshop” as a medium for the construction of public space between art and education instead of any other kind of medium for the same purpose?

The workshop as a medium for the creation of public space gives many opportunities to the participants, such as:

-Gives them the opportunity to speak publicly, to articulate publicly their thoughts and opinions, to create a public dialogue between people that are physically at the place.

-Introduces people to open, cooperative and relational behaviours and methods.

-To select information and knowledge, and endorse different subjects and pluralism of opinions.

-To act with many different mediums.

-To collaborate with others, alternating theory and action.

-To escape from the “closed” personal situations (the workshop however should be open to the “introvert” personal world of the participants).



●Which characteristics should this workshop have, and how a workshop like this can be created? Which are the prerequisites? What kind of preparation and conditions these workshops require in order to be created?

I imagine the public space-workshop open to the place, time and public.

What happens though when such a workshop opens itself to a public space where there is a vagueness and variability of limits combined with the participants’ mobility and flow?

Should it be anchored to the specific place or would it also function independently? Should it be open (how and why) at the same time, to other kind of places, such as the internet? One of the participants says: “a blog helps to overcome the gaps of physical”. The role of the internet could be very helpful.

Would it be interesting to connect different places? Would the workshop be capable of creating new places, networks or being connected with other networks?








1) In order to be “open” to public space, a workshop should have the kind of structure that would not easily lose its cohesion.



2) One of the participants, commenting on the workshop “4X4” said that it “functioned as a self-organized process”, (“a meeting structure for different groups of people - gathering session, the context of which was formed each time by the participants themselves”).  A series of questions arises: Up to which degree could it be self-organized? In case it could not, should a basic core of participants care for its functionality? How much should these people be involved?



3) How open should the workshop be to the others? How would the newcomers function in the context of the workshop and its rules?



4) How is it going to be designed? Should it be pre-designed” as one of the participants suggests?



I also read in the contributions of the “4X4” project: “a certain process-scenario invite everyone interested to participate”. Who makes and directs the script? Who asks the questions? Do these questions direct the process? Up to which point one could intervene to the predetermined context? All these are issues concerning democracy within the workshop.





Regarding the participants:

Basic questions exploring the role of art and artist, education and educator can possibly emerge. Questions mainly concerning issues of responsibility, engagement and involvement, questions that already have appeared in the dialogue.

The role of art in such a workshop is critical. Among its various potentials, art has the ability to create questions, to dispute, to connect, to relate, to reconcile, to predict, to subverse etc.



As far as the figure of the educator/educator-artist is concerned, there are questions coming up, dealing with two following points: the issue of hierarchies and that of the roles. For example the educator cannot claim for him/herself other role -as that of the friend or parent (Paulo Freires’ idea of educator-student is quite relevant).



Concerning the public and its’ spontaneous participation (a participant in “4X4” says: “new elements are added; new persons with different needs in a new scenery”):

How can a workshop of academic origin overcome its own academic context addressing everyday life’s public, also including people poorly engaged in dialogue practices?



To conclude, some of the most important issues that arise while considering all the former, are those of participation, hierarchy and democracy within the limits of the workshop-medium.  What are the possible ways of participation? Is self-assessment effective in such a process? Should we establish certain criteria and which could they be? They would probably anticipate a student’s remark: “Which is the quality of the relationships that evolve among the participants”. This suggestion, I feel, culminates the problematic on the dynamic within the workshop initiative.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.