Detroit," or
Kabul or New York. But what is really going on? A tourist in town might have
a checklist of sites to see and after viewing them feel they have "been there." Have
they? On the face of it I would say absolutely not. And yet, in some way, while
dutifully going down that checklist, one might have an experience, some kind
of unique, personal experience that fixes in their mind the idea that they
know something about a place. What they know is their experience and the relationship
that they developed to their experience in combination with whatever other
knowledge they have about the place. In total, this gives them a belief they
can describe the character of a place. So, in a sense, any experience someone
has in a place begins the process of drawing a picture of what that place signifies
for him or her. And any experience will do. But are they the right kind of
experiences to know the particular character of a place? Who is to tell? This
is the paradox. There is no right answer and I will never arrive at some objective
truth as to what the "true" character of what Groningen is, or of any place
for that matter. I will only have my impressions based on what I saw. What
I see depends on thoughts I have at the time interacting with the reality I
encounter. People and things exist in a particular time and place and I may
notice them-or not. But my experience and the work that results are, by definition,
anecdotal, anyone's are. Now, as I am an outsider not from this place, or this
continent even, life in Groningen is something of a mystery to me, and you
could even say it is exotic to me. On the surface, much is similar to life
in other places, but there are many differences. I chose to look at a relatively
mundane thing: the comings and goings of people in mostly public spaces-I looked
at what they wore and how they interacted as they commuted or shopped-in a
word-what they were doing when they were doing nothing. I chose to work in
– / +