Tweet
HYDE PARK IN MASHTOTS PARK
Levon Margaryan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25525.html
Published: 11:51:36 - 21/03/2012
The issue of Mashtots Park is getting more and more dramatic and
comprehensive in the life of Armenia. Comprehensive because besides the
core issue the park has brought up a great number of other issues not
all of which have been answered. Moreover, the park has become part of
everyday life. The recent roundtable of the Police, public discussions,
online discussions, consideration of the park issue in the election
process are evidence that the park is part of the Armenian cosmos.
In the recent discussions related to the park the ethnographer Aghasi
Tadevosyan said the park could become Hyde Park. Tadevosyan did not
mean landscaping or plants. He meant the speaker corner which is a
free rostrum for those people who want to say something, express a
thought, make a statement. It is one of the greatest achievements
of the political traditions because a rostrum has been created where
one can freely express oneself, from a brilliant political speech to
an adventurous statement. This is a peculiar link between the public
and politics.
The situation relating to Mashtots Park has changed now. The legal,
architectural, ecological aspects of the issue retain their importance,
these are the targets of the civil action. However, new meanings
emerge outside or alongside with the action which allow suggesting
a Hyde Park in Mashtots park.
Recently there have been a number of discussions in the park. A lot
of activists - Ara Nedolyan, Marine Petrosyan, Aghasi Tadevosyan,
Edgar Vardanyan, Tigran Khzmalyan, Violet Grigoryan - made speeches
in the park. There were indirect discussions in the park, on the run.
Certainly, in Armenia the audience-stage formality has not been
eliminated, and openness of discussions is not fully ensured yet.
Nevertheless, once you have a text and want to express yourself,
you can go to the park, ask the activists for a microphone and speak.
Later it will be possible to hold presentations of books, exhibitions,
direct discussions in the park. Why the park and not the activists
of the park? Because the park itself is an actor of the process,
with or without activists, with or without boutiques.
Analyzing the French cultural revolutions, Jean Baudrillard noted
that the revolution had success when it expressed its "tongue" in
the street. It is not just a matter of demonstrations, actions but
also public discussions, art performance, graffiti. The street itself
supposes equal relations. Moreover, the street does not suppose stage
and rostrum. In this case, they are only elementary norms regulating
the dialogue. The street becomes a participant of the process.
Note that in the period of political walks North Avenue tended to act
as a similar stage. Then interest in the stage faded away, and the
stage became a place of ready questions and answers with a specific
partisan content.
Mashtots Park has acquired a number of meanings most of which are
outside the main strategy of the action. This area is becoming
an alternative to formal culture. Certainly, live discussions are
something new and there are a number of shortcomings related to the
new language. The phenomenon itself is evidence that Mashtots Park
is Hyde Park or something similar.
The question is whether the park will retain its functions after the
final solution of the problems. In other words, if these boutiques are
removed, and plants are planted there, will it still remain a place
for public discussions? I think this is one of the most important
methodological issues because the most lasting and modernizing
achievement is the public rostrum.
In any case, even if the boutiques are dismantled, and the park loses
its function of a rostrum for public discussions, the experience will
be reported as a best practice for further actions.
The government is being shortsighted. And though it sounds like a
paradox, the park will remain a public area as long as the boutiques
are there and will have the chance to produce new quality texts with
which the government will not be able to compete. This is the new
wave of arts, literary, philosophical meanings born in the park and
the street which the government may not understand. As to the legal
and rational aspect of the issue, the government can control the
situation by way of its levers and resources.
On the other hand, were the government flexible and farsighted enough,
it would realize that the presence of such a civil rostrum would enable
the government to get fresh ideas to include them in its policies. It
would result in the multi-channel communication and dialogue among
the civil society, the street, everyday life and chambers of political
representation, which is so necessary in Armenia.
Levon Margaryan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25525.html
Published: 11:51:36 - 21/03/2012
The issue of Mashtots Park is getting more and more dramatic and
comprehensive in the life of Armenia. Comprehensive because besides the
core issue the park has brought up a great number of other issues not
all of which have been answered. Moreover, the park has become part of
everyday life. The recent roundtable of the Police, public discussions,
online discussions, consideration of the park issue in the election
process are evidence that the park is part of the Armenian cosmos.
In the recent discussions related to the park the ethnographer Aghasi
Tadevosyan said the park could become Hyde Park. Tadevosyan did not
mean landscaping or plants. He meant the speaker corner which is a
free rostrum for those people who want to say something, express a
thought, make a statement. It is one of the greatest achievements
of the political traditions because a rostrum has been created where
one can freely express oneself, from a brilliant political speech to
an adventurous statement. This is a peculiar link between the public
and politics.
The situation relating to Mashtots Park has changed now. The legal,
architectural, ecological aspects of the issue retain their importance,
these are the targets of the civil action. However, new meanings
emerge outside or alongside with the action which allow suggesting
a Hyde Park in Mashtots park.
Recently there have been a number of discussions in the park. A lot
of activists - Ara Nedolyan, Marine Petrosyan, Aghasi Tadevosyan,
Edgar Vardanyan, Tigran Khzmalyan, Violet Grigoryan - made speeches
in the park. There were indirect discussions in the park, on the run.
Certainly, in Armenia the audience-stage formality has not been
eliminated, and openness of discussions is not fully ensured yet.
Nevertheless, once you have a text and want to express yourself,
you can go to the park, ask the activists for a microphone and speak.
Later it will be possible to hold presentations of books, exhibitions,
direct discussions in the park. Why the park and not the activists
of the park? Because the park itself is an actor of the process,
with or without activists, with or without boutiques.
Analyzing the French cultural revolutions, Jean Baudrillard noted
that the revolution had success when it expressed its "tongue" in
the street. It is not just a matter of demonstrations, actions but
also public discussions, art performance, graffiti. The street itself
supposes equal relations. Moreover, the street does not suppose stage
and rostrum. In this case, they are only elementary norms regulating
the dialogue. The street becomes a participant of the process.
Note that in the period of political walks North Avenue tended to act
as a similar stage. Then interest in the stage faded away, and the
stage became a place of ready questions and answers with a specific
partisan content.
Mashtots Park has acquired a number of meanings most of which are
outside the main strategy of the action. This area is becoming
an alternative to formal culture. Certainly, live discussions are
something new and there are a number of shortcomings related to the
new language. The phenomenon itself is evidence that Mashtots Park
is Hyde Park or something similar.
The question is whether the park will retain its functions after the
final solution of the problems. In other words, if these boutiques are
removed, and plants are planted there, will it still remain a place
for public discussions? I think this is one of the most important
methodological issues because the most lasting and modernizing
achievement is the public rostrum.
In any case, even if the boutiques are dismantled, and the park loses
its function of a rostrum for public discussions, the experience will
be reported as a best practice for further actions.
The government is being shortsighted. And though it sounds like a
paradox, the park will remain a public area as long as the boutiques
are there and will have the chance to produce new quality texts with
which the government will not be able to compete. This is the new
wave of arts, literary, philosophical meanings born in the park and
the street which the government may not understand. As to the legal
and rational aspect of the issue, the government can control the
situation by way of its levers and resources.
On the other hand, were the government flexible and farsighted enough,
it would realize that the presence of such a civil rostrum would enable
the government to get fresh ideas to include them in its policies. It
would result in the multi-channel communication and dialogue among
the civil society, the street, everyday life and chambers of political
representation, which is so necessary in Armenia.