Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 143–152 | Cite as

Nice-looking obstacles: parkour as urban practice of deterritorialization

  • Christoph BrunnerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Most academic publications refer to Parkour as a subversive and embodied tactic that challenges hegemonic discourses of discipline and control. Architecture becomes the playful ground where new ways to move take form. These approaches rarely address the material and embodied relations that occur in these practices and remain on the discursive plane of cultural signifiers. A theory of movement between bodies as the founding aspect of Parkour unfolds alternative concepts of body, space, time and movement beyond the discursive. Movement becomes the leitmotif for a re-conceptualization of the relations between subjects and objects and abandons their division. With the example of Parkour, I will challenge anthropocentric approaches toward embodiment and instead foreground open-ended shifting configurations of places and their relation to movement. Parkour re-shapes rigid concepts of places and their human encounter through movement. Through its encounter with obstacles Parkour activates the silent potential for movement located in the relation between bodies and thus reaches beyond material boundaries (e.g., a wall). As a deterritorializing practice, I will use Parkour to re-consider the relations between different bodies such as architectural configurations, subjects and their urban ecologies to develop a relational model for movement to shape our everyday encounters with matter.

Keywords

Parkour Embodiment Place Movement Urban ecologies Affect 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Sha Xin Wei for his encouragement and support for my work. I would also like to thank Erin Manning and Brian Massumi for their generosity and support. Without the generosity of Samir Mesbah, I would not have been able to find the images in the text and gain first hand information about Parkour.

References

  1. Baviton N (2007) From obstacle to opportunity: Parkour, leisure, and the reinterpretation of constraints. Ann Leis Res 10(3/4):391–412Google Scholar
  2. Bergson H (1910) Time and free will: an essay on the immediate data of consciousness. Humanities Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Borden I (2001) Skateboarding, space and the city: architecture and the body. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Daskalaki M, Stara A, Imas M (2008) The ‘Parkour Organisation’: inhabitation of corporate spaces. Culture Organ 14(1):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Certeau M (1984) The practice of everyday life. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. Deleuze G (1988) Bergsonism. Zone Books, Cambridge/MassGoogle Scholar
  7. Deleuze G (1994) Difference and repetition. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Deleuze G (2004) Desert Island and other texts, 1963–1974. Semiotext(e), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Deleuze G (2004b) The logic of sense. Continuum, New York/LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Deleuze G, Guattari F (2004) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Continuum, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Feireiss L (2007) Urban free flow: the individual as an active performer. In: Borries vF, Walz SP, Böttiger M (eds) Space time play: computer games, architecture and urbanism: the next level. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 280–281Google Scholar
  12. Fuggle S (2008) Discourses of subversion: the ethics and aesthetics of capoeira and parkour. Dance Res 26(2):204–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gins M, Arakawa (1997) Reversible destiny. Guggenheim Museum Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gins M, Arakawa (2002) Architectural body. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour B (1987) Science in action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  16. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  17. Laughlin Z (2008) La Matérialité du Parkour. In: Catalogue for the exhibition actions: comment S’approprier la Ville. SUN, Amsterdam, pp 42–46Google Scholar
  18. Leibniz GW (1956) Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. In: Alexander (ed) Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Massumi B (2001) Not determinately nothing. ANC Archit Culture (Seoul) 244:84–87Google Scholar
  20. Massumi B (2002) Parables for the virtual: movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press, Durham/LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Massumi B (2004) Building experience: the architecture of perception. In: Spuybroeck L (ed) NOX: machining architecture. Thames and Hudson, London, pp 322–331Google Scholar
  22. Mister Parkour (2009) Archive. http://www.misterparkour.com/category/articles/. Accessed 20 Feb 2009
  23. Saville SJ (2008) Playing with fear: parkour and the mobility of emotion. Soc Cult Geogr 9(8):891–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simondon G (1980) On the mode of existence of technical objects. Hart J (trans.) University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
  25. Spinoza B (1992) The ethics. Hackett Pub, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department in Arts and MediaZurich University of the ArtsZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations