Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T14:27:16.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Giardini Govi is our spot! When parkour meets Genoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2016

Sebastiano Benasso*
Affiliation:
DISFOR, University of Genoa
*

Abstract

This article focuses on the experience of a group of traceurs (people practising parkour) in the urban context of Genoa. It describes a public area of the town – the ‘spot' most frequently used for training – from the specific point of view of the traceurs. Genoa is made up of different and relatively autonomous public spaces with specific and cultural characters, but parkour originates from the attempt to disrupt and reconfigure the city's institutional framework. Genoese traceurs share some of their orientation with other parkour groups in Europe and North America: they are attempting to define new ways of moving and new meanings for urban spaces and to expand the standard definition of a citizen. However, in the urban environment of Genoa, traceurs have to face diverse forms of opposition to their attempts to define their own pathways through the everyday flow of people, and in the disciplinary gaze of other citizens.

L'articolo si concentra sull'esperienza di un gruppo praticanti del parkour e del free running (i traceur) nell'area urbana Genovese. In particolare il testo descrive le modalità di utilizzo di uno spazio pubblico della città – i Giardini Govi, lo spot più frequentemente utilizzato per gli allenamenti – considerando lo specifico punto di vista dei traceur. La contestualizzazione genovese rende particolarmente interessante l'analisi delle visioni e delle motivazioni dei traceur perché se, da un lato, Genova appare come il ‘risultato’ della composizione di diversi e relativamente autonomi spazi pubblici, allo stesso tempo il parkour nasce proprio come pratica attraverso la quale sovvertire il framework ‘ufficiale’ delle città. In termini valoriali, i traceur genovesi appaiono allineati agli orientamenti espressi da altre crew di praticanti europei e nordamericani: nelle loro narrazioni ricorre la volontà di sperimentare nuovi modi di muoversi e nuovi significati da attribuire agli spazi urbani, superando le visioni standardizzate dei ‘cittadini comuni’. Tuttavia, nel contesto genovese i traceur incontrano diverse resistenze, sia in termini di effettive possibilità di definizione di traiettorie alternative rispetto ai flussi di movimento ordinari, sia in termini di sguardo disciplinante dell' ‘uomo della strada’.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Association for the study of Modern Italy 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appadurai, J. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalizations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Benasso, S., Cortellesi, G., and Villa, A.. 2010. “Crossing Sights: Migrant Youth in Two Italian Cities.” Italian Journal of Sociology of Education 1: 75105.Google Scholar
Benasso, S., and Stagi, L.. 2013. “Tracce di corpi urbani.” Lo Squaderno 27: 1115.Google Scholar
Borden, I. 2001. Skateboarding, Space, and the City: Architecture and the Body. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Carlini, G. 2005. “Costruzione e ricostruzione di indentità dei quartieri genovesi.” In Identità Urbane in Trasformazione, edited by Petrillo, A., 105117. Genoa: COEDIT.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, M. A., and Mould, O.. 2013. “Beyond Urban Subcultures: Urban Subversions as Rhizomatic Social Formations.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (1): 118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01198.x.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, M., Stara, A., and Imas, M.. 2008. “The ‘Parkour Organisation’: Inhabitation of Corporate Spaces.” Culture and Organization 14 (1): 4964. doi:10.1080/14759550701659029.Google Scholar
Elias, N., and Dunning, E., eds. 1986. Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kidder, J. L. 2012. “Parkour, the Affective Appropriation of Urban Space, and the Real/Virtual Dialectic.” City & Community 11 (3): 229253. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2012.01406.x.Google Scholar
Lamb, M. D. 2011. “Tracing the Path of Power through the Fluidity of Freedom: The Art of Parkour in Challenging the Relationship of Architecture and the Body and Rethinking the Discursive Limits of the City.” PhD thesis, Bowling Green State University, Communication Studies.Google Scholar
Lemos, A. 2010. “Post-mass Media Functions, Locative Media, and Informational Territories: New Ways of Thinking about Territory, Place, and Mobility in Contemporary Society.” Space and Culture 13 (4): 403420. doi:10.1177/1206331210374144.Google Scholar
Mould, O. 2009. “Parkour, the City, the Event.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (4): 738750. doi:10.1068/d11108.Google Scholar
Queirolo Palmas, L. 2006. Prove di seconde generazioni. Giovani di origine immigrata tra scuole e spazi urbani. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Queirolo Palmas, L., and Torre, A.. 2005. Il fantasma delle bande. Genova e i latinos. Genoa: Fratelli Frilli Editori.Google Scholar
Saville, S. J. 2008. “Playing with Fear: Parkour and the Mobility of Emotion.” Social & Cultural Geography 9 (8): 891914. doi:10.1080/14649360802441440.Google Scholar
Vivoni, F. 2009. “Spots of Spatial Desire: Skateparks, Skateplazas, and Urban Politics.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 33 (2): 130149. doi:10.1177/0193723509332580.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, R., and Muggleton, D.. 2003. “What Is ‘Post-subcultural Studies’ Anyway?” In The Post-subcultures Reader, edited by Weinzierl, R. and Muggleton, D., 323. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Wheaton, B. 2004. Understanding Lifestyle Sports: Consumption, Identity, and Difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar