Certeau examines the relativity of “place” and “space” in the article. I regard “place” as a artificially defined “space”, that we give a specific “space” a definition, like a name or a feeling, to make it a space. For example, The Peking Road in Canton, which is the central of the city, is always preserved but its name varied from era: in Qing Dynasty, it was named “WingCing”, meaning the long-life of Qing; then Sir Sun Yat-sen renamed it as “WingHon”, meaning the long-life of Han; then the street renamed as “Peking” in Culture Revolution, showing that places are the intentional spaces of human’s. Then “space” is a place in practice, for example, Shek Ou would be an ideal place for “tour”: it is not an everyday setting if we don’t live there, but it would be a place with “event” when we go there, for example, dating or picnics.
—–Shuntian Tan 3035777585
Your examples are well chosen. Hope you have talked about the effect of the map on places to further explain the changing names of Peking Road. Are places really that stable? People with power not only control history, but they also control it by changing the identity of places. I would be curious to know why you picked Shek O to demonstrate the spatial practice of a place. Your explanation is on-point but I am eager to know more about the ‘eventful’ space vs. ‘everyday’ space.