El arte callejero como comparto de lo común - El caso de las expresiones estéticas pictóricas emergentes en el espacio público de Manizales

Abstract

RESUMEN. El arte callejero como comparto de lo común - El caso de las expresiones estéticas pictóricas emergentes en el espacio público de Manizales. El nombre otorgado a nuestra investigación, responde a la comprensión del fenómeno como una acción estética que subvierte la visión tradicional del arte, y propone una comprensión de las expresiones de esta naturaleza, en la medida en que sugieren prácticas y relaciones en la configuración de la vida pública de la urbe actual. Esta investigación tiene como estudio de caso, la ciudad de Manizales, en el marco espacio temporal del año 2012 al 2022. El arte callejero, que utiliza la calle como escenario de manifestación colectiva y el muro como lienzo en lo público, ha sido objeto material común a los intereses planteados, dando cuenta de un conocimiento abierto e interdisciplinar con límites porosos entre las disciplinas. La pregunta de nuestra investigación: ¿De qué manera el arte callejero puede contribuir a simbolizar, resignificar y transformar la producción social del espacio público en la ciudad de Manizales, Colombia, en el escenario de la cotidianidad actual?, nos supone, para clarificar nuestro problema, una relación que se ha establecido como necesaria para su entendimiento, que denota un “QUÉ” dando cabida al arte callejero; del cual visualizamos preguntas por el QUIÉN, el CÓMO y el DÓNDE. En articulación a nuestra pregunta, nuestra apuesta medular es: Comprender las estéticas emergentes, particularmente las pictóricas del arte callejero, a través de sus prácticas en Manizales - Colombia, para poner en valor su sentido simbólico en los imaginarios colectivos en correlato con la producción del espacio público de la ciudad. La relación propuesta desde el QUÉ como el arte callejero, nos arroja el QUIÉN entendido como el colectivo llamado ciudadanos; el CÓMO entendido como la práctica del habitar; y el DÓNDE que se encuentra en la ciudad y se centra en su espacio público. El entrecruzamiento de estas dimensiones, funda la estructura conceptual del trabajo y nos lleva a comprender lo que ha ejercido el fenómeno a profundidad en la ciudad. El colectivo que ‘acciona’ el arte callejero es decir: “LOS CIUDADANOS” son entendidos como sujetos urbanos, éticos, políticos y sociales, La práctica o acción que ejercen los ciudadanos, la llamamos “HABITAR” a la luz de Heidegger, comprendiéndolo como un habitar mundano, cotidiano, performativo y prosaico, y, La ciudad que se circunscribe en “EL ESPACIO PÚBLICO”, lo entendemos como un ‘tercer lugar’, como un ‘entrecuerpo’, referidos por Mesa donde acontecen las prácticas y relaciones entre quien habita y lo material de la ciudad; no el espacio que representa la utopía en la ciudad -como cuerpo inerte y vacío-, el de la geometría, sino, justamente, el de la distopía -cuerpo danzante y vivido-, el de la ´geografía sentimental´.(Mesa) Así mismo, esos muros, los llamamos superficies, lugar donde la expresión estética se hace visible, que contienen lo manifiesto, son entendidas como afectivas’ (Mesa), y no son únicamente un límite, sino un lugar de contacto y, por tanto, no sólo separan, sino que unen, definen y albergan el límite entre el espacio individual y el colectivo, entre lo íntimo y lo expuesto, entre el espacio contenedor y el contenido. A partir de lo anterior, en una relación sistémica, los ciudadanos, accionan otras formas del habitar mundano, mediadas, articuladas y entretejidas, por el arte callejero en la ciudad de Manizales. Para este propósito, entendemos la ciudad no como un receptáculo vacío o una atmósfera inerte para ocupar, sino como un cuerpo vivo, dinámico y performativo, es decir, como un lugar donde, a partir de la experiencia física del encuentro, del ser/estar allí, se vivifica como una experiencia existencial, anteponiendo, en tanto vívidas y simbólicas, las prácticas y relaciones sociales que allí suceden; y, adicionalmente, como un lugar del accionar humano, en la que construimos no sólo una u otra idea de mundo, sino de mundanidad específica. Así mismo, entendemos el arte callejero, no como un producto pictórico estático, sino como una expresión efímera e inconclusa que, a manera de palimpsesto dispone capas superpuestas, que, en un intersticio creado, dotan de significado lo público de la ciudad. La tarea de entender el arte callejero como una expresión estética, ha encontrado su mayor sustento conceptual y teórico en Rancière, que junto con lo observado, analizado y experienciado, lo ubican dentro del régimen estético. El autor se refiere a los tres regímenes del arte, con momentos que coinciden con su historia occidental: El régimen ético, el régimen representativo y el régimen estético. El régimen estético de las artes, cuestiona las diferencias conceptuales del arte que hemos visto hasta ahora, y desliga la estética con maneras de hacer definidas que contengan parámetros, categorías y jerarquías, a la vez que sugiere entenderla como modos de articulación entre las formas de aparecer y las relaciones que sugieren. Propone vincular las simples prácticas, los modos de discurso, las formas de vida alternas y las simples representaciones, a las prácticas estéticas, las cuales no tienen que ver, con una condición extraordinaria, sino, más bien, con experiencias sensibles que se establecen en un mundo común y que constituyen escenografías o dramaturgias como formas de lucha, de emancipación. En el régimen estético las prácticas, tienen múltiples y heterogéneas maneras de aparecer y su valía ya no depende de un producto o resultado final y tangible, sino que puede darse en el proceso mismo de su acontecer, y, puede ser acaecido de un no saber – no impuesto, no académico, no racional –, donde el discurso puede ser análogo a la emoción o sentimiento. Es llamado el régimen de la igualdad en tanto todas las fronteras parecen desparecer, lo cual es una de las señales del fin de lo inteligible sobre lo sensible, de la frontera entre la actividad y la pasividad, pues todo intérprete debe ser, una especie de creador. Igualmente, una de las características más importantes de dicho régimen, es que las expresiones no se pueden disociar de lo político en tanto son practicadas en un mundo común. Adicionalmente, el campo de la estética es un campo “trans- mundano”, pues no se necesita ser un letrado para entenderlo, asunto muy sugerente para nuestro fenómeno, en tanto esta investigación es un intento por reivindicar el habitar mundano que sugiere el arte callejero en Manizales. Se opta por una ‘Investigación sobre las artes’ o “perspectiva interpretativa” como la llama Borgdorff; cuyo propósito es “extraer conclusiones válidas sobre una práctica artística desde una distancia teórica”, es decir, que es claramente diferenciable el investigador y el objeto de investigación: el arte callejero. Nuestra investigación, es de orden cualitativo, centrada en la interpretación y la reflexión, y se ha valido de la perspectiva hermenéutica y fenomenológica e instrumentos de la etnografía, entrevistas, cartografías, fotografías, grupos focales y de enfoques conceptuales, teóricos y epistemológicos, para crear el andamiaje necesario con el propósito de indagar el fenómeno desde una distancia prudente buscando su objetividad. Hemos conjugado tres aproximaciones, que aunque transversales a todos los momentos, tienen que ver en muchos casos, con la comprensión de las tres categorías principales que estructuran la investigación. De las relaciones expuestas entre El quien, el dónde y el cómo, se derivan estas tres categorías que apuntan a: La comprensión del arte callejero como fenómeno, como dispositivo y como comparto de lo común. Así, la primera aproximación metodológica tiene que ver con la resolución y el entendimiento del arte callejero como fenómeno, la segunda con el arte callejero como dispositivo y la tercera con el arte callejero en el comparto de lo común. Comprender nuestra primera categoría: El arte callejero como fenómeno, nos ha exigido, centrar la atención en comprender los inicios del arte callejero desde una mirada global y, posteriormente local, en el contexto de Manizales, ocupándonos en presentar la historicidad de la aparición de la manifestación estética y sus vínculos, con causas políticas, económicas, culturales y sociales, y, posteriormente, asimilar su geografía ocupándonos de analizar sus prácticas y usos. Dicho entendimiento nos implica hacer un recorrido que, acompañado de las herramientas metodológicas e instrumentos investigativos, nos permite adentrarnos en la ciudad. Partimos del supuesto que Manizales había estado adecuada a formas únicas de habitar lo público, y el arte callejero aparece como una apuesta por maneras alternas de habitarlo. Ahora, la comprensión de nuestra segunda categoría, el arte callejero como dispositivo, nos exigió un acercamiento teórico y conceptual del dispositivo a partir de Agamben (2014) y Foucault (2009), quienes nos permitieron entender el fenómeno atado a las lógicas de poder en la ciudad. Es así como el arte callejero establece una red de relaciones para configurar un orden, y lo entendemos como ´formas otras de intervención estética en lo público´, típicamente contemporáneas de habitar la ciudad, de lo cual ha surgido, una poiesis cotidiana alternativa, que produce lugares, en su mayoría heterotópicos. Este capítulo atado metodológicamente a la segunda aproximación al fenómeno, supone que el espacio público de la ciudad de Manizales, había contado hasta la aparición del arte callejero, con dispositivos impuestos por poderes hegemónicos e institucionales; y el arte callejero aparece como dispositivo, en una apuesta por la participación de todos en lo público. Para nuestra tercera categoría, El arte callejero como comparto de lo común, han sido Rancière (2014) y Bourriaud (2008), quienes junto con lo encontrado en el trabajo de campo, nos han permitido análisis, reflexiones, interpretaciones y argumentaciones alrededor del fenómeno, entendiendo éste dentro del comparto de lo común. Esta categoría, se concentra en las prácticas y relaciones que ejerce esta expresión en las calles de Manizales, poniendo especial foco en las pulsiones. Este capítulo se construye a partir de las herramientas e insumos recogidos en las tres aproximaciones vistas. Se parte del supuesto de la falta de acceso que tenía la gente del común a las expresiones estéticas y su muy relativa participación en lo común, y la apuesta del arte callejero por el reparto de lo sensible en lo público como una apuesta democrática. Las relaciones expuestas, producen lógicas imbricadas y entrecruzadas. Podemos decir que, el arte callejero parece no ser indiferente en la ciudad y aparenta configurar desde nuevas formas de habitar, otras realidades que acontecen en lugares comunes, y se validan no por su condición extraordinaria, sino por lo ordinario de la experiencia allí practicada en lo cotidiano. Esta práctica estética, que pareciera emerger y activar de manera dicotómica relaciones en el espacio público de la ciudad, ha establecido pequeñas democracias, nuevas prácticas de civilidad, el reconocimiento del otro, lugares otros o distopías y maneras otras de habitar desde la pluralidad y la diferencia; asuntos que han desencadenado una transformación n solo material, sino también intangible de la ciudad, al alterar lo simbólico y modificar los imaginarios y percepción urbanos de la urbe, brindando la posibilidad de develar apuestas relacionales y de resignificación del espacio público que se manifiestan a partir de sus expresiones.Hemos entendido el arte callejero en la dimensión amplia de la ciudad contemporánea – donde sus acciones sucesivas en la cotidianidad, dan paso a un gran laboratorio de lo social, lo político y lo mundano, presentándose como un tablero simbólico de las transformaciones de la ciudad, de la adopción de la calle como un espacio de discernimiento y compartir colectivo; y contribuye a convertir el espacio público, en el escenario del debate, del discurso, de la argumentación, de la confrontación, asociando el fenómeno con la necesidad de manifestarse abiertamente en lo común, donde confluye el arte como conector de las relaciones cotidianas en lo urbano. Este fenómeno, devela urdimbres que se tejen, lugares y recodos que sugieren otras formas de morar, abriendo una suerte de brecha, una posibilidad otra de entender las maneras como habitamos lo público hoy, que parece acercar a la gente del común a una apropiación natural y espontánea del mismo. El arte callejero en tanto “callejea”, hace lugar en la ciudad, al permitir la entrada a actores que antes no tenían participación, empezando a hacer parte de las lógicas urbanas de Manizales, logrando sus prácticas, una emancipación política y social, que pone en crisis lo cotidiano- público de la ciudad. El arte callejero marca, hace huella, siendo testigo y vocero de las memorias y de las identidades de los sujetos, urdiendo tramas, hasta brotar en sus maneras lo individual y lo colectivo, instalándose como una deriva de esa condición dinámica y cambiante de la ciudad actual. Atribuimos a su elaboración material, un sentido profundo en la construcción de la ciudad y de su habitar que, contrario a la superficie incorruptible, lisa, pulida e impoluta del “muro”, evidencia las grietas y rupturas propias de lo humano, precisando, en los muros intervenidos, el reflejo de la configuración de tejidos afectivos de una parte de un colectivo que, en ocasiones sangra, y que a través de estas expresiones, cuentan la historia de su lugar y sus gentes; convirtiéndose en un recurso estético, gráfico y narrativo de los conflictos, tensiones y rupturas ideológicas, que evidencian las diferencias e indiferencias, las voces y silenciamientos, permitiendo en las superficies intervenidas de la calle, historias, al menos la contemporánea en construcción, situando lo público como escenario de despliegue de lo colectivo. El arte callejero se presenta hoy en la ciudad como un lienzo elástico y flexible, donde se permite otra dimensión de la cultura, que crea lazos y tiene la capacidad de entretejer otros afectos, incluso, los del desafecto, permitiendo establecer imaginarios transformadores y particulares de la producción social del espacio/tiempo urbano, que han transformado la concepción y el entendimiento de lo público, hasta convertirlo en un escenario de alteridad. Podemos afirmar que desde lo local, es partícipe de nuevas y pequeñas democracias; que más que un compartir armonioso, se comparte desde el disenso, es decir, desde el acuerdo que hay en el desacuerdo contra reglas hegemónicas y jerárquicas. El arte callejero parece defender, una búsqueda de acuerdos de lo común, sin embargo, hay que decir, que también se permea de maneras otras de disciplinamiento, ejerciendo sus propios mecanismos de poder, (o contrapoder), que pueden llegar a violentar sectores de la población que, en defensa también de la democracia, tienen derecho a disentir, asunto que sin duda, hace del fenómeno una paradoja. Nos podemos preguntar: ¿Hasta dónde va la libertad propia, de intervenir la ciudad con respecto al otro? y ¿hasta qué punto se transgrede el límite en el espacio público que instala otro poder, supuestamente no deseado, pero posiblemente, también impuesto? Este trabajo de investigación y sus herramientas investigativas, podrían ser es en tanto transferible y transparente, extrapolable y replicable en otros escenarios y geografías; y ya que nuestro propósito no fue analizar el arte callejero desde sus dimensiones semióticas y formales, podría abrirse un camino en este sentido lo cual enriquecería sin duda, el estudio del fenómeno en Manizales. Otro asunto del que valdría la pena profundizar, se trata del “espectador emancipado”, libro de Ranciere, el cual plantea un problema digno de ser analizado desde le arte callejero. Por último, proponemos que esos acuerdos de lo común en la ciudad, partan de la base del respeto por el otro y propendan por prácticas estético/políticas, que desde el comparto en el disenso, expresen la diferencia, alteridad y pluralidad de la condición humana; entretejiendo verdaderamente a los ciudadanos y sus ciudadanías y contribuyendo a una pretendida democracia, afirmando el valor del espacio público, como una construcción colectiva. ABSTRACT. Street art as a share of the common - The case of emerging pictorial aesthetic expressions in the public space of Manizales. The name given to our research responds to the understanding of the phenomenon as an aesthetic action that subverts the traditional vision of art, and proposes an understanding of expressions of this nature, to the extent that they suggest practices and relationships in the configuration of the public life of the current city. This research has as a case study, the city of Manizales, in the time-space framework from 2012 to 2022. Street art, which uses the street as a stage for collective manifestation and the wall as a public canvas, has been a common material object for the interests raised, giving rise to open and interdisciplinary knowledge with porous limits between disciplines. The question of our research: In what way can street art contribute to symbolize, redefine and transform the social production of public space in the city of Manizales, Colombia, in the scenario of current daily life?, we suppose, to clarify our problem, a relationship that has been established as necessary for its understanding, which denotes a “WHAT” making room for street art; of which we visualize questions about WHO, HOW and WHERE. In response to our question, our core commitment is:Understand the emerging aesthetics, particularly the pictorial ones of street art, through their practices in Manizales - Colombia, to value their symbolic meaning in the collective imaginaries in correlation with the production of the city's public space. The relationship proposed from the WHAT as street art, gives us the WHO understood as the collective called citizens; the HOW understood as the practice of living; and WHERE, which is located in the city and focuses on its public space. The interweaving of these dimensions founds the conceptual structure of the work and leads us to understand what the phenomenon has had in depth in the city. The group that 'drives' street art is to say: “CITIZENS” are understood as urban, ethical, political and social subjects. We call the practice or action that citizens exercise “LIVING” in the light of Heidegger, understanding it as a mundane, everyday, performative and prosaic habitation, and, The city that is circumscribed in “THE PUBLIC SPACE”, we understand it as a 'third place', as a 'interbody', referred to by Mesa where the practices and relationships between those take place. inhabits and the material of the city; not the space that represents utopia in the city -as an inert and empty body-, that of geometry, but, precisely, that of dystopia -a dancing and lived body-, that of 'sentimental geography'.(Table) Thus Likewise, those walls, we call them surfaces, places where the aesthetic expression becomes visible, which contain the manifest, are understood as affective' (Mesa), and are not only a limit, but a place of contact and, therefore, not They only separate, but unite, define and house the limit between individual and collective space, between the intimate and the exposed, between the container space and the content. From the above, in a systemic relationship, citizens activate other forms of mundane living, mediated, articulated and interwoven, by street art in the city of ManizalesFor this purpose, we understand the city not as an empty receptacle or an inert atmosphere to occupy, but as a living, dynamic and performative body, that is, as a place where, based on the physical experience of encounter, being/being there, it is vivified as an existential experience, putting first, as vivid and symbolic, the social practices and relationships that occur there; and, additionally, as a place of human action, in which we construct not only one or another idea of ​​the world, but of specific worldliness. Likewise, we understand street art, not as a static pictorial product, but as an ephemeral and unfinished expression that, like a palimpsest, has superimposed layers, which, in a created interstice, give meaning to the public of the city. The task of understanding street art as an aesthetic expression has found its greatest conceptual and theoretical support in Rancière, who, together with what is observed, analyzed and experienced, places it within the aesthetic regime. The author refers to the three regimes of art, with moments that coincide with its Western history: The ethical regime, the representative regime and the aesthetic regime. The aesthetic regime of the arts questions the conceptual differences of art that we have seen so far, and separates aesthetics from defined ways of doing that contain parameters, categories and hierarchies, while suggesting to understand it as modes of articulation between forms of appear and the relationships they suggest. It proposes linking simple practices, modes of discourse, alternative forms of life and simple representations, to aesthetic practices, which do not have to do with an extraordinary condition, but, rather, with sensitive experiences that are established in a common world and that constitute scenography or dramaturgies as forms of struggle, of emancipation. In the aesthetic regime, practices have multiple and heterogeneous ways of appearing and their value no longer depends on a final and tangible product or result, but can occur in the very process of their occurrence, and can be caused by a lack of knowledge. – not imposed, not academic, not rational –, where the discourse can be analogous to the emotion or feeling.t is called the regime of equality insofar as all borders seem to disappear, which is one of the signs of the end of the intelligible over the sensible, of the border between activity and passivity, since every interpreter must be a kind of creator. Likewise, one of the most important characteristics of said regime is that expressions cannot be dissociated from the political as long as they are practiced in a common world. Additionally, the field of aesthetics is a “trans-mundane” field, since you do not need to be a lawyer to understand it, a very suggestive matter for our phenomenon, while this research is an attempt to vindicate the mundane habitation that street art suggests. in Manizales. A 'Research on the arts' or "interpretive perspective" as Borgdorff calls it is chosen; whose purpose is to “draw valid conclusions about an artistic practice from a theoretical distance”, that is, the researcher and the object of research are clearly differentiable: street art. Our research is qualitative, focused on interpretation and reflection, and has used the hermeneutic and phenomenological perspective and instruments of ethnography, interviews, cartographies, photographs, focus groups and conceptual, theoretical and epistemological approaches, to create the necessary scaffolding in order to investigate the phenomenon from a prudent distance seeking its objectivity. We have combined three approaches, which, although transversal to all moments, have to do in many cases with the understanding of the three main categories that structure the research.From the relationships exposed between the who, the where and the how, these three categories are derived that aim at: The understanding of street art as a phenomenon, as a device and as a share of the common. Thus, the first methodological approach has to do with the resolution and understanding of street art as a phenomenon, the second with street art as a device and the third with street art in the sharing of the common. Understanding our first category: Street art as a phenomenon, has required us to focus our attention on understanding the beginnings of street art from a global and, later, local perspective, in the context of Manizales, taking care to present the historicity of the appearance of the aesthetic manifestation and its links, with political, economic, cultural and social causes, and, subsequently, assimilate its geography by analyzing its practices and uses. This understanding involves us taking a journey that, accompanied by methodological tools and investigative instruments, allows us to enter the city. We start from the assumption that Manizales had been adapted to unique ways of inhabiting the public, and street art appears as a commitment to alternative ways of inhabiting it.Now, the understanding of our second category, street art as a device, required a theoretical and conceptual approach to the device based on Agamben (2014) and Foucault (2009), who allowed us to understand the phenomenon tied to the logic of power in the city. This is how street art establishes a network of relationships to configure an order, and we understand it as 'other forms of aesthetic intervention in the public', typically contemporary with inhabiting the city, from which an alternative everyday poiesis has emerged, which produces places, mostly heterotopic. This chapter, methodologically tied to the second approach to the phenomenon, assumes that the public space of the city of Manizales had counted until the appearance of street art, with devices imposed by hegemonic and institutional powers; and street art appears as a device, in a commitment to everyone's participation in the public sphere. For our third category, Street art as I share the common, it has been Rancière (2014) and Bourriaud (2008), who, together with what was found in the field work, have allowed us analysis, reflections, interpretations and arguments around the phenomenon. , understanding this within the share of the common. This category focuses on the practices and relationships that this expression exerts in the streets of Manizales, placing special focus on drives. This chapter is built from the tools and inputs collected in the three approaches seen. It is based on the assumption of the lack of access that ordinary people had to aesthetic expressions and their very relative participation in the common, and the commitment of street art to the distribution of the sensitive in the public as a democratic commitment. The exposed relationships produce intertwined and intertwined logics.We can say that street art does not seem to be indifferent in the city and appears to configure, from new ways of living, other realities that occur in common places, and are validated not by their extraordinary condition, but by the ordinary nature of the experience practiced there in the everyday. This aesthetic practice, which seems to emerge and activate relationships in a dichotomous way in the public space of the city, has established small democracies, new practices of civility, the recognition of the other, other places or dystopias and other ways of living from plurality and difference; issues that have triggered a not only material, but also intangible transformation of the city, by altering the symbolic and modifying the urban imaginaries and perception of the city, offering the possibility of revealing relational bets and resignification of public space that are manifested from of their expressions.We have understood street art in the broad dimension of the contemporary city – where its successive actions in everyday life give way to a great laboratory of the social, the political and the mundane, presenting itself as a symbolic board of the transformations of the city, of the adoption of the street as a space for collective discernment and sharing; and contributes to converting the public space into the scene of debate, discourse, argumentation, and confrontation, associating the phenomenon with the need to manifest openly in the common, where art converges as a connector of everyday relationships in the common. urban. This phenomenon reveals warps that are woven, places and corners that suggest other ways of living, opening a kind of gap, another possibility of understanding the ways in which we inhabit the public today, which seems to bring ordinary people closer to a natural appropriation and spontaneous of it.Street art, as it "walks through the streets", makes a place in the city, by allowing the entry of actors who previously had no participation, beginning to be part of the urban logic of Manizales, achieving its practices, a political and social emancipation, which puts the daily public life of the city is in crisis. Street art marks, makes a mark, being a witness and spokesperson of the memories and identities of the subjects, weaving plots, until the individual and the collective emerge in its ways, establishing itself as a drift of that dynamic and changing condition of the city. current. We attribute to its material elaboration a deep meaning in the construction of the city and its habitation that, contrary to the incorruptible, smooth, polished and immaculate surface of the “wall”, shows the cracks and ruptures typical of humanity, specifying, in the intervened walls, the reflection of the configuration of emotional fabrics of a part of a group that, at times, bleeds, and that through these expressions, tell the story of its place and its people; becoming an aesthetic, graphic and narrative resource of conflicts, tensions and ideological ruptures, which show differences and indifferences, voices and silencing, allowing stories on the intervened surfaces of the street, at least the contemporary one under construction, situating what public as a scenario for the deployment of the collective. Street art is presented today in the city as an elastic and flexible canvas, where another dimension of culture is allowed, which creates ties and has the capacity to interweave other affects, even those of disaffection, allowing the establishment of transformative and particular imaginaries of the social production of urban space/time, which has transformed the conception and understanding of the public, until it becomes a scenario of otherness.We can affirm that from the local level, it is a participant in new and small democracies; that more than a harmonious sharing, it is shared from dissent, that is, from the agreement that exists in the disagreement against hegemonic and hierarchical rules. Street art seems to defend a search for common agreements, however, it must be said that it is also permeated by other forms of discipline, exercising its own mechanisms of power (or counterpower), which can violate sectors of society. the population who, also in defense of democracy, have the right to dissent, an issue that undoubtedly makes the phenomenon a paradox. We can ask ourselves: How far does one's own freedom go, to intervene in the city with respect to the other? And to what extent is the limit transgressed in the public space that installs another power, supposedly unwanted, but possibly also imposed? This research work and its investigative tools could be transferable and transparent, extrapolated and replicable in other settings and geographies; and since our purpose was not to analyze street art from its semiotic and formal dimensions, a path could be opened in this sense which would undoubtedly enrich the study of the phenomenon in Manizales. Another issue that would be worth delving into is the “emancipated spectator”, a book by Ranciere, which raises a problem worth analyzing. from street art.Finally, we propose that these common agreements in the city start from the basis of respect for the other and promote aesthetic/political practices, which from sharing in dissent, express the difference, otherness and plurality of the human condition. ; truly interweaving citizens and their citizenships and contributing to a supposed democracy, affirming the value of public space, as a collective construction.

ABSTRAC: Street art as a share of the common - The case of emerging pictorial aesthetic expressions in the public space of Manizales. The name given to our research responds to the understanding of the phenomenon as an aesthetic action that subverts the traditional vision of art, and proposes an understanding of expressions of this nature, to the extent that they suggest practices and relationships in the configuration of the public life of the current city. This research has as a case study, the city of Manizales, in the time-space framework from 2012 to 2022. Street art, which uses the street as a stage for collective manifestation and the wall as a public canvas, has been a common material object for the interests raised, giving rise to open and interdisciplinary knowledge with porous limits between disciplines. The question of our research: In what way can street art contribute to symbolize, redefine and transform the social production of public space in the city of Manizales, Colombia, in the scenario of current daily life?, we suppose, to clarify our problem, a relationship that has been established as necessary for its understanding, which denotes a “WHAT” making room for street art; of which we visualize questions about WHO, HOW and WHERE. In response to our question, our core commitment is:Understand the emerging aesthetics, particularly the pictorial ones of street art, through their practices in Manizales - Colombia, to value their symbolic meaning in the collective imaginaries in correlation with the production of the city's public space. The relationship proposed from the WHAT as street art, gives us the WHO understood as the collective called citizens; the HOW understood as the practice of living; and WHERE, which is located in the city and focuses on its public space. The interweaving of these dimensions founds the conceptual structure of the work and leads us to understand what the phenomenon has had in depth in the city. The group that 'drives' street art is to say: “CITIZENS” are understood as urban, ethical, political and social subjects. We call the practice or action that citizens exercise “LIVING” in the light of Heidegger, understanding it as a mundane, everyday, performative and prosaic habitation, and, The city that is circumscribed in “THE PUBLIC SPACE”, we understand it as a 'third place', as a 'interbody', referred to by Mesa where the practices and relationships between those take place. inhabits and the material of the city; not the space that represents utopia in the city -as an inert and empty body-, that of geometry, but, precisely, that of dystopia -a dancing and lived body-, that of 'sentimental geography'.(Table) Thus Likewise, those walls, we call them surfaces, places where the aesthetic expression becomes visible, which contain the manifest, are understood as affective' (Mesa), and are not only a limit, but a place of contact and, therefore, not They only separate, but unite, define and house the limit between individual and collective space, between the intimate and the exposed, between the container space and the content. From the above, in a systemic relationship, citizens activate other forms of mundane living, mediated, articulated and interwoven, by street art in the city of ManizalesFor this purpose, we understand the city not as an empty receptacle or an inert atmosphere to occupy, but as a living, dynamic and performative body, that is, as a place where, based on the physical experience of encounter, being/being there, it is vivified as an existential experience, putting first, as vivid and symbolic, the social practices and relationships that occur there; and, additionally, as a place of human action, in which we construct not only one or another idea of ​​the world, but of specific worldliness. Likewise, we understand street art, not as a static pictorial product, but as an ephemeral and unfinished expression that, like a palimpsest, has superimposed layers, which, in a created interstice, give meaning to the public of the city. The task of understanding street art as an aesthetic expression has found its greatest conceptual and theoretical support in Rancière, who, together with what is observed, analyzed and experienced, places it within the aesthetic regime. The author refers to the three regimes of art, with moments that coincide with its Western history: The ethical regime, the representative regime and the aesthetic regime. The aesthetic regime of the arts questions the conceptual differences of art that we have seen so far, and separates aesthetics from defined ways of doing that contain parameters, categories and hierarchies, while suggesting to understand it as modes of articulation between forms of appear and the relationships they suggest. It proposes linking simple practices, modes of discourse, alternative forms of life and simple representations, to aesthetic practices, which do not have to do with an extraordinary condition, but, rather, with sensitive experiences that are established in a common world and that constitute scenography or dramaturgies as forms of struggle, of emancipation. In the aesthetic regime, practices have multiple and heterogeneous ways of appearing and their value no longer depends on a final and tangible product or result, but can occur in the very process of their occurrence, and can be caused by a lack of knowledge. – not imposed, not academic, not rational –, where the discourse can be analogous to the emotion or feeling.t is called the regime of equality insofar as all borders seem to disappear, which is one of the signs of the end of the intelligible over the sensible, of the border between activity and passivity, since every interpreter must be a kind of creator. Likewise, one of the most important characteristics of said regime is that expressions cannot be dissociated from the political as long as they are practiced in a common world. Additionally, the field of aesthetics is a “trans-mundane” field, since you do not need to be a lawyer to understand it, a very suggestive matter for our phenomenon, while this research is an attempt to vindicate the mundane habitation that street art suggests. in Manizales. A 'Research on the arts' or "interpretive perspective" as Borgdorff calls it is chosen; whose purpose is to “draw valid conclusions about an artistic practice from a theoretical distance”, that is, the researcher and the object of research are clearly differentiable: street art. Our research is qualitative, focused on interpretation and reflection, and has used the hermeneutic and phenomenological perspective and instruments of ethnography, interviews, cartographies, photographs, focus groups and conceptual, theoretical and epistemological approaches, to create the necessary scaffolding in order to investigate the phenomenon from a prudent distance seeking its objectivity. We have combined three approaches, which, although transversal to all moments, have to do in many cases with the understanding of the three main categories that structure the research.From the relationships exposed between the who, the where and the how, these three categories are derived that aim at: The understanding of street art as a phenomenon, as a device and as a share of the common. Thus, the first methodological approach has to do with the resolution and understanding of street art as a phenomenon, the second with street art as a device and the third with street art in the sharing of the common. Understanding our first category: Street art as a phenomenon, has required us to focus our attention on understanding the beginnings of street art from a global and, later, local perspective, in the context of Manizales, taking care to present the historicity of the appearance of the aesthetic manifestation and its links, with political, economic, cultural and social causes, and, subsequently, assimilate its geography by analyzing its practices and uses. This understanding involves us taking a journey that, accompanied by methodological tools and investigative instruments, allows us to enter the city. We start from the assumption that Manizales had been adapted to unique ways of inhabiting the public, and street art appears as a commitment to alternative ways of inhabiting it.Now, the understanding of our second category, street art as a device, required a theoretical and conceptual approach to the device based on Agamben (2014) and Foucault (2009), who allowed us to understand the phenomenon tied to the logic of power in the city. This is how street art establishes a network of relationships to configure an order, and we understand it as 'other forms of aesthetic intervention in the public', typically contemporary with inhabiting the city, from which an alternative everyday poiesis has emerged, which produces places, mostly heterotopic. This chapter, methodologically tied to the second approach to the phenomenon, assumes that the public space of the city of Manizales had counted until the appearance of street art, with devices imposed by hegemonic and institutional powers; and street art appears as a device, in a commitment to everyone's participation in the public sphere. For our third category, Street art as I share the common, it has been Rancière (2014) and Bourriaud (2008), who, together with what was found in the field work, have allowed us analysis, reflections, interpretations and arguments around the phenomenon. , understanding this within the share of the common. This category focuses on the practices and relationships that this expression exerts in the streets of Manizales, placing special focus on drives. This chapter is built from the tools and inputs collected in the three approaches seen. It is based on the assumption of the lack of access that ordinary people had to aesthetic expressions and their very relative participation in the common, and the commitment of street art to the distribution of the sensitive in the public as a democratic commitment. The exposed relationships produce intertwined and intertwined logics.We can say that street art does not seem to be indifferent in the city and appears to configure, from new ways of living, other realities that occur in common places, and are validated not by their extraordinary condition, but by the ordinary nature of the experience practiced there in the everyday. This aesthetic practice, which seems to emerge and activate relationships in a dichotomous way in the public space of the city, has established small democracies, new practices of civility, the recognition of the other, other places or dystopias and other ways of living from plurality and difference; issues that have triggered a not only material, but also intangible transformation of the city, by altering the symbolic and modifying the urban imaginaries and perception of the city, offering the possibility of revealing relational bets and resignification of public space that are manifested from of their expressions.We have understood street art in the broad dimension of the contemporary city – where its successive actions in everyday life give way to a great laboratory of the social, the political and the mundane, presenting itself as a symbolic board of the transformations of the city, of the adoption of the street as a space for collective discernment and sharing; and contributes to converting the public space into the scene of debate, discourse, argumentation, and confrontation, associating the phenomenon with the need to manifest openly in the common, where art converges as a connector of everyday relationships in the common. urban. This phenomenon reveals warps that are woven, places and corners that suggest other ways of living, opening a kind of gap, another possibility of understanding the ways in which we inhabit the public today, which seems to bring ordinary people closer to a natural appropriation and spontaneous of it.Street art, as it "walks through the streets", makes a place in the city, by allowing the entry of actors who previously had no participation, beginning to be part of the urban logic of Manizales, achieving its practices, a political and social emancipation, which puts the daily public life of the city is in crisis. Street art marks, makes a mark, being a witness and spokesperson of the memories and identities of the subjects, weaving plots, until the individual and the collective emerge in its ways, establishing itself as a drift of that dynamic and changing condition of the city. current. We attribute to its material elaboration a deep meaning in the construction of the city and its habitation that, contrary to the incorruptible, smooth, polished and immaculate surface of the “wall”, shows the cracks and ruptures typical of humanity, specifying, in the intervened walls, the reflection of the configuration of emotional fabrics of a part of a group that, at times, bleeds, and that through these expressions, tell the story of its place and its people; becoming an aesthetic, graphic and narrative resource of conflicts, tensions and ideological ruptures, which show differences and indifferences, voices and silencing, allowing stories on the intervened surfaces of the street, at least the contemporary one under construction, situating what public as a scenario for the deployment of the collective. Street art is presented today in the city as an elastic and flexible canvas, where another dimension of culture is allowed, which creates ties and has the capacity to interweave other affects, even those of disaffection, allowing the establishment of transformative and particular imaginaries of the social production of urban space/time, which has transformed the conception and understanding of the public, until it becomes a scenario of otherness.We can affirm that from the local level, it is a participant in new and small democracies; that more than a harmonious sharing, it is shared from dissent, that is, from the agreement that exists in the disagreement against hegemonic and hierarchical rules. Street art seems to defend a search for common agreements, however, it must be said that it is also permeated by other forms of discipline, exercising its own mechanisms of power (or counterpower), which can violate sectors of society. the population who, also in defense of democracy, have the right to dissent, an issue that undoubtedly makes the phenomenon a paradox. We can ask ourselves: How far does one's own freedom go, to intervene in the city with respect to the other? And to what extent is the limit transgressed in the public space that installs another power, supposedly unwanted, but possibly also imposed? This research work and its investigative tools could be transferable and transparent, extrapolated and replicable in other settings and geographies; and since our purpose was not to analyze street art from its semiotic and formal dimensions, a path could be opened in this sense which would undoubtedly enrich the study of the phenomenon in Manizales. Another issue that would be worth delving into is the “emancipated spectator”, a book by Ranciere, which raises a problem worth analyzing.From street art.Finally, we propose that these common agreements in the city start from the basis of respect for the other and promote aesthetic/political practices, which from sharing in dissent, express the difference, otherness and plurality of the human condition. ; truly interweaving citizens and their citizenships and contributing to a supposed democracy, affirming the value of public space, as a collective construction.