Displaying Seoul: Language and Spatial Practice

Space is a social product. As a social object, space configures not only material but also textual and oral products. This thesis discusses the process of both language and space, as social practices materialize into a substantial formal language. The production of language concerns the power relationship within certain social contexts. As a result, the abundant oral and text materials produced around space (planning reports, architectural programming, design competition guidelines, and laws and regulations, et cetera) function as a representation of power or services to certain interests. Under this framework, and through the interpretation of professional language, the application of designs transforms into the forms, functions, and meanings of the space. The spatial practice of power and counter-power could be two conflicting parallel lines. However, they could also intertwine and produce a common language and spatial forms through the fields of interaction and communication. Basing on this theoretical hypothesis, this thesis studies the image construction projects of Seoul after 2000. All of the projects promoted by the city government were claimed to make Seoul more competitive by clearing up disorganized activities and landscapes to cater to the distinctive branding, cultural, historical and ecological city. Under the policy rhetoric of cultural identity, citizen pride, and economic revival, these exhibitionary complexes aim to enhance the readability and visitability of public spaces. But the cultural display in public spaces concerns the different identities of various social groups regarding the significance of places, historical interpretations, and future imagination. In this globalized and democratic era, the mayor of Seoul intended to introduce a new governing strategy that combines entrepreneurial government and institutionalized citizen participation. Nevertheless, the mayor’s desire for power was revealed due to his own political interests and arbitrary practices. The language of power, as a result, infiltrated the citizen groups’ discourse and was presented in texts such as planning policies, project reports, and design competition guidelines. The design practices converted these languages into images and spaces that possess significant meanings. The key is who owns the signification and meanings. The urban stream restoration, urban plazas, and branding architecture framed particular visual substances. Moreover, the political power embedded in these sites also defined the essence of public culture. Nevertheless, power was eventually defeated by its crisis. In moments of historical transformation such as from “citizens as customers""to “citizen as mayor” and from “design mania” to “social design,” citizens got the chance to exercise their language of resistance. The Seoul experience grants us the opportunity to reflect on professional practices in which the interferences throughout the design process bears more significance than the spatial form itself. In other words, if the practice of language and space develops through an open and participatory process while encompassing multiple voices and languages, the practice could, therefore, produce socially shared languages and spatial forms. This process will be the design for the public and a production of alternative social imagining of the city.