Love-Making: mapping a sensation or belonging?

New York, NY, USA

By Melissa Bosley
art, culture

Love-making: mapping a sensation or belonging ? is a collaborative project mapping sites of love in New York City.

Love-making: mapping a sensation or belonging ? is a collaborative mapping project started with input from close family, friends and D.U.E ‘24 cohort; mapping places, spaces or sites in New York City that they associate with the word love. As an ongoing project, the context and purpose will evolve as my thesis research question develops and narrows. I believe this to be a story about the exploration and a process of love-making, with those who contributed. I will be working with bell hooks’ definition of love as I analysis responses to the following prompts:

“Share a place in New York City that you love”
“Share a place in the Bronx that you love and share a place in the Bronx that breaks your heart”

No fixed definition of love was shared, the above questions are both straightforward and ambiguous purposely. With no shared definition of love, everyone worked with their own.

sites of love:
This project is a combination of two different data responses, D.U.E had more freedom in their responses, while I restricted my family and friends to the Bronx and asked them to also share a place in the Bronx “that break’s their heart.” To share their sites of love, people provided a series of photos, a photo or text. To quickly map responses I used the online mapping website Felt , sharing it directly with my D.U.E cohort due to accessibility.

a bronx love story:
Family and friends were limited to sharing a place or space in the Bronx they loved and place or space that “break’s their heart.” Since my thesis research will be focused in the Bronx and entangled with the concept of love as a transformative tool for change, I wanted to engage with those who have a similar connection to the Bronx. The use of the words love and “heart” were used to invoke a different response other than the usualresponses when discussing the Bronx. All participants have lived in the Bronx and have strong negative but truthful opinions about the borough. I wanted to force them to think about the Bronx and love as compatible, but also wanted to acknowledge their truths. Unsurprising, sharing sites of love in The Bronx was difficult. They easily defined and shared what “break’s their heart” while struggling to name a place or space they love. Each response demonstrates the fluidity of love. Oddly for two participants, their sites of love also functioned as sites that “ break their heart”, they describe the potential of what could be.

other boroughs:
Most D.U.E sites of love were located in Manhattan and Brooklyn, sharing a range of diverse of places. There was some commonality with parks and green spaces, but what differs is the use or love for these particular places. Through conversation and pictures it’s clear parks and green spaces are loved for different reasons, each having their own particular connection. From public art engagements to leisure, these sites of love are loved for different reasons. Although D.U.E did not struggle with sharing their sites of love, they did question how do you define love and if these places of love are places where you feel loved or you give love ?

making a physical map:
Creating a physical map felt appropriate considering the focus of this project. I knew early on I wanted to deconstruct the city, creating a base map printing it out and cutting out each borough. Making a physical map allowed me to connect with this project since I was having difficulty being creative in the mapping application QGIS. Although I was having difficulty using the program, I did a similar process in QGIS, separating each borough, isolating data by borough and adding sites of love.

analysis : love-making
This project’s unfocused purpose is clear, love is such an abstract concept that I’m left with more questions than answers. What was confirmed is the importance of defining love. How would this mapping project change if everyone was working with a shared definition of love ? Using hooks definition of love, which she describes as an action, a way of life. How different would people response?

With so much ambiguity I believe sites of love are temporal, as well as the definition of love. Something is occurring at these sites, a connection is building but not necessarily positive. These sites of love are a snapshot, but this highlights the importance of having a shared definition. What does it mean to love selectively in a shared world ? The sites of love identified are shared spaces, not all are public shared spaces, but still shared.

The following question came up too often:
“what is the difference between feeling loved and loving something ? Those are two different questions and as the perceived “love” expert I was expected to have an answer, which I didn’t but it allowed me to understanding the fluidity and ambiguity of how people typically define love. It means something different at different times and places. It seems like love should be easy according to responses, something that should just be there. What can love do for me ?