Éditorialisation de l'espace

Éditorialisation de l'espace

Editorialization of space

🎙 Chaire de recherche sur les écritures numériques 👥 318 📅 June 1, 2017 ⏱ 119 min 👁 269 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-10-10
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

editorializationspace productionHenri LefebvreCarl Schmittdigital authority

Summary

This video is a final seminar session of the 2016-2017 series on editorialization, focusing on the relationship between editorialization and space. The first speaker, Enrico Agostini-Marchese, introduces his doctoral research on what space means in the digital age, drawing on Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space and Carl Schmitt’s concept of nomos. He critiques Lefebvre’s hierarchical model, which subordinates symbolic and imaginary spaces to dominant spaces, and proposes to rethink this model through the lens of digital editorialization. He identifies four axes—space as milieu, techniques and technologies, authority instances, and symbolic dimensions—and argues that digital spaces, like the sea in Schmitt’s analysis, lack fixed boundaries and require negotiated authority. He illustrates his points with examples such as Google’s PageRank as a nomos of the web and projects like Flickr geolocation and the Twitter literary initiative ‘Drift’. The second speaker, Sylvia Fredriksson, a designer and researcher at Cité du design, discusses the spatial dimensions of digital editorialization from a design perspective. She explores how digital tools reshape urban spaces and power relations, referencing the geographer Yves Lacoste and the critique of traditional geopolitics, and highlights Louise Drul’s collaborative atlas project as an example of bottom-up editorialization. The seminar ends with a discussion on how digital editorialization can be used to re-appropriate urban space and challenge established authorities, emphasizing the importance of active citizen participation.

225 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The lecture offers significant theoretical value by bridging spatial theory (Lefebvre, Schmitt) with the concept of editorialization, providing a nuanced framework to understand digital spaces. The argumentation is coherent and well-structured, systematically comparing classical theories with digital phenomena. However, the presentation is heavily theoretical and sometimes abstract, lacking concrete empirical illustrations beyond a few examples. The second part, though more applied, still relies on conceptual metaphors. Overall, the reasoning is solid and innovative, though the novelty is more in the synthesis of ideas than in entirely new concepts.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The sources cited are classical and authoritative in philosophy and geography (Lefebvre, Schmitt, Beaude, Lacoste), but they are mentioned verbally without direct links, which limits verifiability. The title ‘Editorialization of Space’ matches the content precisely, as the entire lecture revolves around that concept. The discussion is academically rigorous, but the lack of clear references to specific pages or publications weakens the scientific grounding. No external sources beyond the works mentioned are provided, and the video description gives no additional links, so the reproducibility is limited. The title and content align well, with only a minor deviation in the second presentation, which focuses more on design and citizen action but still relates to the core theme.

218 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which directly explores how space is editorialized through digital practices and theoretical frameworks.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The lecture is academically grounded in established theories (Lefebvre, Schmitt) and presents original conceptual reflections, but relies heavily on theoretical frameworks without empirical data, and some sources are only verbally cited without verifiable links.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

  • La production de l'espace (The Production of Space) — Referenced by Enrico as the foundational work of Henri Lefebvre on spatial production and trialectics.
  • Der Nomos der Erde (The Nomos of the Earth) — Mentioned as the key text by Carl Schmitt defining spatial order and the concept of nomos.
  • Internet, changer l'espace, changer la société — Cited by both speakers (attributed to Boris Beaude) as a reference on how the internet transforms spatial practices.
  • Les structures spatiales de l'éditorialisation (article in Sens public) — Enrico's own article, mentioned in the description as a precursor to his PhD work.

Concurring Sources

  • Edward Soja's 'Thirdspace' — Soja's trialectics of spatiality extends Lefebvre's ideas and aligns with the lecture's attempt to move beyond binary spatial models.

Dissenting Sources

  • Critiques of the 'end of geography' narrative — Some scholars argue that digital spaces still reproduce physical power structures, contrary to the lecture's emphasis on fluidity and negotiation.

Contribution & Novelties

The lecture’s original contribution lies in explicitly linking geographical and legal theories of space (Lefebvre, Schmitt) with the digital concept of editorialization, proposing that digital spaces are produced through negotiated authority rather than fixed territoriality. It offers a reinterpretation of power in the digital age, using the metaphor of the sea to explain the fluid and contested nature of online spaces. The inclusion of concrete examples (Flickr, Twitter) helps ground the theory, though the theoretical novelty is more in the synthesis than in entirely new concepts.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Henri Lefebvre — His work on space production is central to the talk and provides a basis for understanding spatial dialectics.
  • Carl Schmitt — The concept of nomos and its geopolitical implications are key to the discussion of digital authority.
  • Geolocation — The technical basis for projects like Flickr geolocation and its role in spatial editorialization.

147 words

Radar Profile

The profile shows high information quantity (8) and moderate technical level (7), indicating a dense theoretical presentation. The quality and reliability (7) reflect strong academic grounding but limited empirical verification. This suggests a lecture suited for advanced audiences comfortable with abstract concepts.

Reliability 7/10