The purpose of this article is to offer a rationale for bringing art and artists into the planning process. Although there appears to exist a nascent interest in planner–artist collaborations in contemporary planning practice and research, accounts of such collaborations in planning literature are generally patchy and often under-theorized. In this article I argue that art and artist-led activities can function as a powerful vehicle of communication in the planning process. The unique potential of planner–artist collaborations is based on the artistic licence that grants the artist a mandate to set the stage for an estrangement of that which is familiar and taken-for-granted, thus shifting frames of references and creating a radical potential for planning in a way that can be very difficult for planners to achieve on their own.
AllmendingerP (2002) Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory1(1): 77–99.
2.
BaumanZ (1973) Culture as Praxis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
BenhabibS (1992) Situating the Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
BhabhaHKRutherfordJ (1990) Third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In: RutherfordJ (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 207–221.
5.
BianchiniFSantacatterinaL (eds) (1997) Culture and Neighbourhoods. vol. 2, A comparative report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
6.
BlochE (1970) ‘Entfremdung, verfremdung’: Alienation, estrangement. The Drama Review: TDR15(1): 120–25.
7.
BourdieuP (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
8.
BrandRGaffikinF (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6(3): 282–313.
9.
BrechtB (1964) Alienation effects in Chinese acting. In: WillettJ (ed.) Brecht on Theatre, New York: Methuen, 91–9.
10.
CampbellHMarshallR (2002) Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory1(2): 163–187.
11.
CarlyonD (2003) The trickster as academic comfort food. The Journal of American Culture25(1–2): 14–18.
12.
CarsG (2001) Charette: tre åkturer med ‘den lilla kärran’. Stockholm: Royal Institute Of Technology, Department of Regional Planning.
13.
Castro NogueiraL (2009) Bubbles, globes, wrappings, and plektopoi: Minimal notes to rethink metaphysics from the standpoint of the social sciences. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(1): 87–104.
14.
CohenJ (1999) Does voluntary association make democracy work? In: SmelserNAlexanderJ (eds) Diversity and its Discontents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
DangSR (2005) A starter menu for planner/artist collaborations. Planning Theory and Practice, 6(1): 123–126.
16.
DebordG (2004) The Society of the Spectacle. London: Rebel Press.
17.
DebordGWolmanGJ (2006) A user’s guide to détournement. In: KnabbK. (ed.) Situationist International Anthology. Berkeley: Bureau of Public Secrets.
18.
DeikmanAJ (1966) Deautomatization and the mystic experience. Psychiatry, 29: 324–38.
19.
DryzekJ (2005) Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory33(2): 218–42.
20.
DugdaleA (1999) Materiality: Juggling sameness and difference. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, 113–35.
21.
EdmundsonM (2000). Playing the fool. New York Times Books, 2April.
22.
EvansG (2001) Cultural Planning: An Urban Renaissance?London: Routledge.
23.
FaludiA (2000) The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4): 299–318.
24.
FaludiA (2006) Evaluating plans: The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective. In: AlexanderE. (ed.) Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects. Aldershot: Ashgate, 119–46.
25.
FloridaRL (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge.
26.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
FungA (2003) Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy11(3): 338–67.
28.
GarbuttR (2010) The Clearing: Heidegger’s Lichtung and the big scrub. Cultural Studies Review16(1): 27–42.
29.
GardinerM (2004) Everyday utopianism: Lefebvre and his critics, Cultural Studies, 18(2): 228–54.
30.
GordonM (2005) …A view from the pavement. Planning Theory and Practice6(1): 119–23.
31.
GramsciA (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916–1935. New York: New York University Press.
32.
GrayC (2004) Joining-up or tagging on? The arts, cultural planning and the view from below. Public Policy and Administration19(2): 38–49.
33.
GrossbergL (1996) History, politics and postmodernism: Stuart Hall and cultural studies. In: MorleyDChenK-S (eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 151–73.
34.
HacheELatourB (2010) Morality or moralism? An exercise in sensitization. Common Knowledge, 16(2): 311–37.
35.
HarveyD (2000) Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University of California Press.
HeideggerM (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row.
38.
HillierJ (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
39.
HillierJ (2003) Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’Planning Theory2(1): 37–59.
40.
HillierJ (2007) Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate.
41.
HinchliffeSKearnesMBDegenMWhatmoreS (2007) Ecologies and economies of action: Sustainability, calculations, and other things. Environment and Planning A, 39(2): 260–82.
KazaN (2006) Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on the justification for participatory urban planning processes. Planning Theory5(3): 255–70.
45.
KristevaJ (1991) Strangers to Ourselves. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
46.
KünstlicherR (2009) The Psychoanalytic Situation as a Play Situation: Exploration of a Multi-Faceted Clinical Situation. Stockholm: Stockholm University Department of Education.
47.
KunzmannKR (2004) Culture, creativity and spatial planning. Town Planning Review75(4): 383–404.
48.
KwonM (2004) One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
LandryC (2000) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
50.
LandryC (2005) Urban Acupuncture. Planning Theory and Practice, 6(1): 117–18.
51.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52.
LatourB (2004) How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body and Society, 10(2/3): 205–29.
53.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LefebvreH (1988) Toward a leftist cultural politics: Occasioned by the centenary of Marx’s death. In: NelsonCGrossbergL (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
57.
LefebvreH (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
58.
MackieG (2006) Does democratic deliberation change minds?Politics, Philosophy and Economics5(3): 279–303.
59.
MaguireT (1998) Giving the Public its Day: How Three Pilots Have Used Different Forms of Charettes to Enliven Community Involvement Efforts. New Brunswick: Institute for Responsible Management.
60.
MarchALowN (2004) Knowing and steering: Mediatization, planning and democracy in Victoria, Australia. Planning Theory3(1): 41–69.
61.
MarkusenAKingD (2003) The Artistic Dividend: The Arts’ Hidden Contributions to Regional Development. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
62.
MilesM (1997) Art, Space, and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. London: Routledge.
63.
MilesM (2004) Urban Avant-Gardes: Art, Architecture and Change. London: Routledge.
64.
MouffeC (2000a) Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
65.
MouffeC (2000b) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
66.
PinderD (2005) Arts of urban exploration. Cultural Geographies, 12(4): 383–411.
67.
PinderD (2008) Urban interventions: Art, politics and pedagogy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(3): 70–6.
68.
PløgerJ (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory,3(1): 71–92.
69.
RendellJ (2006). Art and Architecture: A Place Between. London: IB Tauris.
70.
RobinsonD (2008) Estrangement and the Somatics of Literature: Tolstoy, Shklovsky, Brecht. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
71.
RortyR (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72.
RoyouxJCSloterdijkP (2005) Foreword to the theory of spheres. In: OhanianMRoyouxJC (eds) Cosmograms. New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 223–40.
73.
SandercockL (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
ThriftN (2009) Different atmospheres: Of Sloterdijk, China, and site. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27(1): 119–38.
88.
Van TuinenS (2009): Air conditioning spaceship earth: Peter Sloterdijk’s ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27(1): 105–18.
89.
VygotskijLS (1971) The Psychology of Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90.
WallettWF (1870) The Public Life of W. F. Wallett: The Queen’s Jester. London: 1870.
91.
WatesN (2000) The Community Planning Handbook. London: Earthscan.
92.
WeberS (2008) Benjamin’s – Abilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
93.
YoungG (2008) The culturization of planning. Planning Theory7(1): 71–91.
94.
YoungIM (2001) Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory29(5): 670–90.
