This week, after a group discussion, I reflected on how the invisible boundaries of public spaces in Edinburgh were formed. These normalizations did not occur suddenly but were hidden within the details of daily space usage. For instance, in core tourist areas such as the Royal Mile and Princes Street, where there are many tourists, local residents tend to avoid these areas and shift their daily leisure activities to other non-tourist core areas. Another example is during the Edinburgh Festival, some public squares in the city center are occupied by performances and tourists, so local residents choose to travel at off-peak times and only return to these public spaces during the off-season. The local residents’ active avoidance has made the stratification of public space usage seem natural. However, its essence is actually a compromise between the equal use of public spaces and the capital value of the tourism economy.

I really like the proposal for embedding AR in the group discussion. I will consider creating some lightweight street view displays where AR superimposed dual street views can be seen by scanning the code. For example, on the left is the current tourist store, and on the right is the local grocery store before the capital transformation. This makes the invisible boundaries visible.

Finally, the part about the declaration in the class and the collective discussion also gave me a lot of thoughts. The exhibition declaration should transform from a slogan into executable principles. Based on the inspiration from the group discussion, I came up with the following points:
1. Reject “sorting of space value”; the value of public spaces should not be defined by the tourism consumption capacity, but by the daily needs of all users.
2. Oppose the implicit discipline of “tourists exclusive during peak season and residents returning during off-season”, the usage rights of public spaces should not have the default rule of “time-based compromise”, and no group should give up the space rights they should equally enjoy for the use needs of others.
3. Do not create opposition, but deconstruct the spatial distribution logic of capital and power collusion: make the “invisible stratification of usage rights” visible, and let all users jointly participate in defining the appearance of public spaces.

This week’s course, through further study of exhibition ethics and the inspiring personal insights of Talbot Rice gallery’s curator, James, on exhibition curation, has led me to have a deeper reflection on my exhibition project. I intend to clarify my third-week exhibition thinking by answering the five questions posed by James in class.

Princes Street, Edinburgh, 2025

1. Why exhibit? After reflecting on the exhibition form I conceived last week, I chose the structural imbalance of equality rights in public spaces in Edinburgh as the exhibition theme. This is not an abstract discussion but a reality confirmed by official policies. The new policy of the city council to increase tourist taxes starting from July 2026 has acknowledged the burden on public spaces caused by tourism growth. The implicit transfer of space usage rights during the Edinburgh Arts Festival also made the invisible boundaries of public spaces real. Inspired by the concept of “rejecting political silence” discussed in class, I hope to use art as a medium to awaken public reflection on the ownership of public space. This is a discussion without a standard answer.
   
2. What makes the exhibition interesting? I set the exhibition route map as an autonomous check-in form, marking a point for each location visited. The interpretation rights are returned to the audience. And using the Edinburgh public transportation network as a connection form, a daily pass for public transportation can cover the entire route, which is both suitable for the relatively complete accessibility of the public transportation system in the local area and makes the exhibition an immersive experience. Taking a ride on the bus itself is also a way to perceive the power of public space.
   
3. Related to which main issues? As Edinburgh is a local manifestation of the universal problem of “global public space equity”, its predicament is not an isolated case but a common contradiction of tourist cities worldwide. I hope to use Edinburgh as an entry point to explore the question of “for whom should public space serve”, rather than limiting the complaint to a single city.
   

4. Who is the target audience? The core target audience I set is local residents who have experienced the changes in space rights. They are the most sensitive to the changes in space rights. Next is foreign tourists, who can discover the neglected boundaries from a stranger’s perspective. At the same time, students, researchers, and the disabled community who are concerned about social justice are also welcome.
   

5. The set criteria and moral red lines? The moral line I set for myself is not to extend to sensitive political issues, not to spectacleize any group, and to reject ethical compromise. In terms of criteria, all exhibition points are adapted to public transportation and accessibility needs; the logic of choosing public exhibition points and the sources of evidence; equal presentation of all audience feedback, and rejection of value judgment. This is also the thinking I gained from the discussion on “dynamic balance of power and inclusiveness” in this week’s class.