FOGO LENTO
transdisciplinary artistic research
Foto de Thiago Liberdade
COMMON SPACE
Collective inventiveness flourishes in the production and utilization of liminal spaces*
Stavros Stavrides
This text brings together several reflections and inquiries concerning Espaço Comum (Common Space), a site-specific artistic creation and programming project promoted by Circolando - Central Elétrica in São Pedro—a locality within the parish of Campanhã, Porto.
We live in a paradoxical era where we are intensely connected to every corner of the globe, yet increasingly distanced from direct contact with the people and places we inhabit. This detachment breeds alienation, weakens neighbourhood ties, and erodes trust. That which we do not know rarely moves us—and that which does not move us, we rarely care for. After nearly 20 years working in a former thermal power station transformed into a rehearsal and residency space—encircled by high walls and situated on a transit axis between motorways and Porto’s city centre—we felt the need to step outside our enclosed space and look towards our surroundings.
São Pedro is a peripheral area grappling with various socio-economic challenges, such as an ageing population, poverty, and social exclusion, and it is currently facing an accelerated process of gentrification. Nevertheless, it retains a robust rural context and a village spirit that particularly interests us for its potential to explore a concept of the city linked to the land and interdependent ecosystems.
Following a period of observation, we decided to establish a space for encounter and sharing, which we named Espaço Comum. We began with the construction and installation of an urban furniture structure in the Largo de São Pedro, aimed at stimulating conviviality among neighbours, passers-by, and occasional visitors. Stavros Stavrides, the Greek architect, theorist, and activist, underscores the potential of producing common spaces through collective practices. These practices, which institute ‘the common’, are simultaneously developed within these very spaces and triggered by both urgent daily needs and the effervescence of community experiences. A common space is one created jointly—liminal, porous, and existing only as long as it is actively produced, cared for, and maintained.
Inspired by the project “Bodies of Knowledge” by the Belgian artist Sarah Vanhee, we tested the creation of a space with a programme devised under the motto of encounter, sharing, and the common good, believing that from this crossing with the ‘other’ arises the possibility of imagining and rehearsing different worlds.
In broad terms, the activities are organised along two main lines. The first, more occasional and larger in scale, focuses on the development of artistic residencies within the territory by invited artists. The second, more regular and smaller in scale, launched with two long-term projects developed by Porto-based artists—Rebecca Moradalizadeh and Tânia Dinis—who examine practices of conviviality, such as exchanging recipes and cooking methods or the manipulation of archives and memories. Within this line, we also organise environmental and ecological awareness actions, such as guided walks, clean-up days for the River Torto, firefly-watching excursions, and talks about water, supported by E.Rio, a locally-based company. To this fabric, we add a partnership with the Campanhã Film Club, featuring film screenings organised not through traditional curation, but based on participants' proposals.
From this structure, the programming proposals are intended to emerge naturally and consequentially. For example, a walk through the vacant lots and vegetable gardens of São Pedro to gather PFPs (provisions from foraging / non-conventional edible plants) was suggested by João, a founder of Quercus and a former resident of São Pedro, after he attended a work-in-progress showing by the Chilean artist Paula Aros, which led us to trek through local fields.
As time passes, new guiding threads have emerged, such as the ‘spectator’s club’. By the end of the first year, local inhabitants demonstrated an interest in our artistic project beyond the Espaço Comum, and we began organising visits to the Central Elétrica and other cultural venues across the city and beyond to attend performances—both our own and those of other artists.
The programming thus seeks to activate a relational field where shared experience sustains the possibility of community among São Pedro residents, artists, audiences familiar with artistic practices, those interested in ecology, and the general public. The common space has overflowed into other sites, such as the headquarters of local associations, and now resides wherever we happen to meet.
What we touch also touches us
The creation of meaningful spaces for encounter depends not merely upon spatial devices or judicious programmatic choices, but above all on the capacity to sustain relationships over time and maintain a flow of interdependence between the various components of the constructed ecosystem. It is within this protracted timeframe—rather than the moment of the event itself—that the project is transmuted into a living process. This continued bond with a place and a community triggers an internal reflection within cultural organisations that permeates every field of artistic endeavour: from programming to production, and from communication to evaluation. Artistic practice thus ceases to operate within a unidirectional logic of delivery—presenting, mediating, offering—to become a porous, multidirectional flow, permeable to the local context: a process of being with, thinking with, and doing with.
If, in the initial phase, we shared what to bring to the table, over time we have progressed to sharing decisions and programming proposals. Trust becomes the fertile ground in which the audience and invited artists recognise themselves as agents of the process, enabling them to envision new steps. This "open-ended" nature, capable of absorbing the desires of the group without dissolving, is increasingly viable as relational proximity grows—proximity understood not as a quest for homogeneity, but as a stimulus for multiplicity, alterity, listening, and attentiveness to the ‘other’.
The pursuit of coherence between the programme and the methods of its production translated into the conscious adoption of principles inspired by permaculture, viewed as an ethical-operative framework. In particular, the notion of agency proved central: acknowledging that every individual involved is a creator and that it is possible to build from what already exists within the territory—human resources, infrastructures, knowledge, rhythms, and ecologies.
This concept counters the extractive logic that structures much of contemporary cultural policy, which is predicated on the rapid creation of projects, the replication of solutions, and the concealment of depth behind visibility. In São Pedro, each new stage of the process begins with an exercise in observation: what resources exist? Who is already active? What relationships can be activated? Rather than seeking an abstract organisational autonomy, a conscious choice was made to produce in relation. The project is composed in dialogue with local associations and communities, utilising existing spaces, contact networks, services, and expertise.
This mode of production also informs communication, which is understood as a constitutive part of the relational process rather than mere dissemination. Physical formats that allow for direct contact with the public are prioritised: the distribution of posters in central locations is, in itself, a moment of encounter; the design employs bold colours and clear language; and invitations to participate are also extended via direct messaging, telephone calls, and the organisation of carpools. The dates and times of activities are coordinated with local associations before being announced, ensuring they do not conflict in a territory where cultural offerings are scarce. Over time, we have come to learn the local rhythms—discerning when it is futile to insist and identifying the moments when participation is at its broadest.
Finally, the deliberate maintenance of a low-cost project is a conscious choice; it confers autonomy from external funding and ensures a contained visibility. A low level of institutionality creates the space to experiment freely, fail, adjust, and try again. It is this room for manoeuvre that allows the process to remain at the core, asserting that, rather than merely producing successful artistic projects, we seek to sustain sound processes: attentive, situated, relational, and ethically committed to the manner in which they are realised.
The dense forms of care*
Maria Puig de la Bellacasa
Despite adopting care, experimentation, expanded time, and proximity as core principles, the project is not without its zones of friction. As a direct consequence of its ethical ambition, questions arise regarding the actual impact of the work developed, the metrics used for its evaluation, the very pertinence of its continuity, and the manner in which decisions are made. The extended timeframe, while allowing for the deepening of relationships and the testing of processes, also carries the risk of crystallising practices and transforming the experimental into mere habit.
The question of relevance and impact is perhaps the most persistent point of tension. The transformations the project seeks to activate are, for the most part, qualitative and relational—subtle shifts in ways of being, of trusting, and of perceiving the ‘other’. Translating this type of displacement into quantifiable indicators immediately reveals the limitations of dominant cultural evaluation models. If one looks solely at the figures, the contrast is stark: a significant investment of time for a regular group of twenty to thirty people, even if festive occasions may draw nearly a hundred. Nonetheless, it is within the smaller group that more consistent behavioural changes become visible. Rosa used to remain indoors and did not greet her neighbours. Now, she is more cheerful and engages in conversation in public spaces. We cannot ascertain how much of this transformation is exclusively due to the project, nor whether it will persist over time, yet it is these types of examples that perhaps constitute the transformative core of the process. The activation of the Common Space depends largely upon our agency. Perhaps the desire to remain is also shot through with the fear that what has been constructed might not withstand our absence. Is the expenditure of time and energy justified given the scale achieved? The question remains, but it perhaps reveals more about the limitations of dominant metrics than about the value of the process.
Another point of contention is the composition of the programme. Although the project invites participation and includes regular moments of collective reflection, the final decision remains the responsibility of the organisation. Institutionality may be reduced, experimental, and permeable, but it is not non-existent. There is no neutrality in the selection of artists, themes, or formats. The programmatic gesture persists, even when preceded by listening and field research. If they ask for Ruizinho Barros, we propose Marante, and both parties are satisfied. It is not a matter of repeating what was already done there, nor of imposing an external vision, but of operating in an intermediate zone where conflict and compromise coexist.
The very idea of permanence opens another field of interrogation. Advocating for a slower, continuous tempo implies resisting the logic of turnover, but also assuming the risk of occupying too much space and time in a territory that does not belong to us. Does continuity respond to a collective need or to our own desire to test a culture of permanence? Perhaps both dimensions coexist, but choosing to remain implies accepting the responsibility that such a choice generates.
Finally, relational responsibility leads to a delicate question: how to keep the group simultaneously cohesive and porous? The intensity of the bonds creates security but can also lead to closure. A collective that is too stable may become impermeable; one that is too open may lose the intimacy that sustains trust. To this is added a practical limitation: an increase in the number of participants compromises the capacity for individual attention and close follow-up. The tension is not merely theoretical; it is organisational and affective. How to welcome new people without undermining those already present? How to prevent the invitation to participate from becoming an artificial integration device? How to maintain the common space in a liminal condition: structured enough to exist, yet open enough to be transformed?
“Whatever errors we commit, they shall not be the same as those of the past”*
Rebecca Solnit
Espaço Comum, therefore, does not present itself as either a model or a solution. Rather, it functions as a situated laboratory where eco-ethical modes of cultural production are rehearsed: programming methods that respect local rhythms and seek symbioses with the territory; work processes that prioritise meaningful encounters; and organisational practices that accept limitations, dependency, conflict, and the possibility of failure. It is perhaps here that its most political dimension is contested: in the assertion that cultural production is also an exercise in relational responsibility, and that no common space can exist without coherence between the values espoused and the manner in which one works. The 'common' is not declared—it is constructed, painstakingly, through our modes of collective action. And it can always be undone.
Ana Carvalhosa
2026
References:
Espaço Comum - A Cidade como Obra Colectiva, Stavros Stavrides, Orfeu Negro (2021)
Hope In The Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, Rebecca Solnit, Canongate (2016)
Comum: pela política e estética da partilha, Pascal Gielen e Denise Pollini
https://medialibrary.uantwerpen.be/files/1781751/005a0a58-025d-4e73-a09c-cb624c4d5705.pdf
Nothing comes without its world: thinking with care, María Puig de la Bellacasa
https://simposioestudosfeministasct.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/puig-de-la-bellacasa-2012-nothing-comes-without-its-world.pdf
Radical Imagination: An Exploration of Social Art Practices, Tina Lenz, https://www.radicalcreativities.com/post/radical-imagination-an-exploration-of-social-art-practices
Bodies of Knowledge, Sarah Vahnee,
To RETURN, please click on the images:
