Michel de Certeau’s concept of “space” and “place” really makes sense to me. As he mentions, a place is about the relationships of coexistence, thus it is an instantaneous configuration of positions. It implies an indication of stability. However, a space exists with vectors of direction, velocities, and time variables, thus it is composed of intersections of different mobile elements. In short, a space has nothing to do with univocity and stability and it is a practiced place.
I can relate this kind of concept to my previous experiences. When I mention “place”, I cannot help but think of a “map” which only figures out a large range of positions inside it. But when it comes to “space”, I think it is more related to a “tour”, which is about our actions and practice. I also think films is more related to “space” in which people live, communicate and walk.
Song Yang, 3035772781
A good referenced summary of how de Certeau defined “space” and “place” . When you are quoting the text, it would be great to properly cite them within quotations ” ” and page numbers. I appreciate your effort in drawing parallels between “place” and “space” with “maps” and “tours” which you illustrated the relationship between the places as “map” and the relationship between human body / movement and places as “tours”. Although you think that films are more related to “spaces” which document “practised places”, I would argue that films embodies both “maps” and “tours” based on the subject filmed / filming angles etc. You may wish to reflect further upon which medium is used to depict the two to support your argument.