Third space – a merry-go-round of opportunity

Today, the concept 'third space' crops up quite frequently and in rather diverse contexts. This is not surprising, as the term allows flexible definition and location of theoretical and artistic views. The concept readily lends itself to a number of objectives, which requires the user to be careful and able to define it more precisely. What the varying versions have in common is the perception of the third space as an opportunity, as a process that opens up and broadens horizons.

Behind the concept of third space lurks nothing more or less than a fairly extensive and crucially critical approach to traditional philosophy and the belief in Enlightenment. In other words, the third space is examined from starting points which have recently moved from the marginal to the centre. In the background are ethical and aesthetical issues, critical theory, feminism as well as post-colonialism.

This means a break with sharp contrasts. These basic attitudes of western philosophy include, for instance, the contrast between opposing couples, such as man–woman, human–nature, reason–emotion and subject–object, which is perceived as clear-cut. According to the critical point of view, none of these couples can be divided by an either-or attitude. This, however, does not mean differences are denied, instead, it most of all means the inevitable reciprocity of any pair of definitions. In such a case both leave a mark on the other. It is a question of both-and – how each of the pair influences the other.

And, in such a case, a new door or path opens up on the basis of very diverse needs and objectives. Third space can be approached, for instance, via identity, translation thematic or space. If the starting point is identity, the word 'politics' immediately has to be added to the idea. The themes are related to both forming identity and the politics of representation of identity. That is, themes, which have been quite prominent in the dialogue on contemporary art in the past two decades.

The reason for the significance of identity politics is obvious. Identity as something permanent, simple and obvious is no longer credible. There are more and more people who cannot, with the best will in the world, categorise themselves into one, or even two, pigeon holes, participate in the debate creating public space. A British researcher Paul Gilroy approaches the theme via the concept of double identity. He refers to the migration from Africa to America, which began with the slave trade, and subsequent emigration from the Caribbean islands, in particular to the United States and the British Isles. Gilroy names the phenomenon the Black Atlantic.

The phenomenon is characterised by the fact that identity no longer locates itself or is reducible to only one physical or ethnical background. Double identity is, as the name implies, dialogue and interaction between several simultaneously present elements. An activity, which can be harmonious, but which very often contains conflicts. Nevertheless, in double identity a person’s identity he/she must have both originated and where he/she has ended up – or where he/she is going. What is essential is that the thematic not only makes sense in concrete interaction between cultures, but is also applicable, albeit with differing nuances, to examining any identity creation and forming. That is, an identity which is seen as an ever ongoing process.

The process can also be approached through the role of language and literature, or communication in general. Then it is a question of translating, what it means, how it is possible and what kind of gaps and blind spots it contains. Researcher Homi K. Bhabha, who currently works in the United States, has emphasised these recurring misunderstandings and delays included in interaction across languages and cultures. Indeed, Bhabha wants to see these mistakes and distortions as opportunities giving different views room to grow and evolve. It is a question of cultural multiplicity, which manifests itself as plurality of realities, as a mess, a fast spinning merry-go-round, which must not be restricted by force, but which must be endured. If one stops it, the merry-go-round quickly becomes not so merry.

The third space is, therefore, an area where the content of concepts and statements is hotly debated. In the best cases, it creates opportunities which promote something different, new and previously unidentified. In other words, it offers different alternative ways to perceive who you are, where you are, who you are with and where you want to go.

The third space can also be approached via physical space. One possibility, strongly comparable and referring to the previous examples, is to study geography and untangle presuppositions and charged values associated with it. An American researcher, Edward Soja, strives to transcend thinking about opposites by searching for the third space which is neither physical nor entirely spiritual. It is not only buildings or ideology, but something else, something where these two sides come together – at the same time changing themselves, opening up to new ways, to change.

Here it is advisable to point out that because of its flexibility, the concept 'third space' is somewhat undefined. One should not, however, be deterred by that. On the contrary, it offers the means for searching the necessary perspective and an opportunity for warm irony. Thus, we come close to the concepts which the third space I mentioned does not refer to. It is not – this time – the third ear or the third dimension.

Yet, the third space can be approached in quite a practical way. The idea itself is not an amazing novelty. Already in the 1920s, Paul Klee described the relationship between a viewer and a work of art using the term “the space-in-between”. That is, the space, situation and opportunity, which can open up between two persons, or, for instance, a viewer and an object. It is, most of all, a question of encounter, which possibly creates the third space. An event, which simultaneously belongs to both parties.

The essential point about an encounter is that both parties influence each other. In such a case, as you look at a work of art, it stares back at you. And, if you can enter this interaction, a connection is created between the two parties. A movement that leads to the third space. A relationship has been created. A mark has been made on the wall, something has changed. The work of art has become a part of the viewer.

Encounter and creation of third space are an emphatically individual experience. There are no rules, except that you have try to listen and give others an opportunity for self-expression. Sometimes, the opportunity is created by a surprise, from the fact that the work of art can play and change assumptions and prejudices. Probably the most amusing example physically that I have experienced was a performance by the German Hans Hemmert, which he created a few years ago at the opening of his exhibition in Berlin.

At the door to the gallery everybody was measured, categorically. If you were 192 cm tall, you were given a pair of light-blue polystyrene shoes with 8 cm heels to wear over your own. If you measured 160 cm, Hemmert gave you shoes with 40 cm soles. The idea was that you could only enter the gallery wearing these shoes, two metres tall. There was really nothing to see in the gallery, either on the walls or the floor. The only thing you could do was, for the first time in your life, to look everybody in the eye at the same time. At the same level, in different ways. In a third space conjured up, created for a moment.

Mika Hannula
Researcher

The author’s book Kolmas tila - väärinymmärtäminen eettisenä lähtökohtana (‘Third space – misunderstanding as an ethical starting point’) will be published in the autumn.