Czech (Post)Socialist DIY-Material Culture as Vernacular Art: Inscribed Narratives and Their Urban Materialisation

Czech (Pos )Socialis DIY-Ma e ial Cul u e as Ve nacula A : Insc ibed Na a i es and Thei U ban Ma e ialisa ion1 Te eza Hodúlo á2 The aim o his pape is o e hink he na a i es su ounding Czech (pos )socialis Do-I -You sel ma e ial cul u e (DIY) and o explo e how i has become amedium o symbolic exp ession in u ban and u al spaces a e he (pos )socialis ans o ma ion. Employing heo e ical amewo ks o ma- e ial cul u e (Mille , 1998; Senne , 2008), his pape a gues ha Czech (pos )socialis DIY ma e ial cul u e should be concep ualised as “ e nacula a ”, an a which ha bou s and igge s memo ies o he (socialis ) pas as well as e lec s wide con empo a y social ela ionships, he exchange o ma e ials and ideas and he poli ical-economic milieu. A e ac s as e nacula a ep esen social, cul u al and poli ical dis/con inui ies in u ban and u al spaces b ough abou by he (pos )social- is ans o ma ion, which can also ac as symbolic mani es a ions in he sense o he Le eb e’s so- cial p oduc ion o space and ime (Le eb e, 1991). Based on my esea ch, e nacula a made by handy/wo/men is amul i-laye ed concep , which mani es s ime, space, c ea i e and a ec i e di- mensions. Simul aneously, i is amic o-spa ial p ac ice d i en by au ho i y and au onomy ha e- shapes u ban/ u al spaces. Keywo ds a e ac ; Czech DIY cul u e; ma e ial cul u e; e nacula a INTRODUCTION The publicly isible pa o he Czech DIY-wo ld consis s o di e se sel -buil a - e ac s anging om houses, ga den houses, g eenhouses, smokehouses and bi d- houses o all so s o deco a ions and small gadge s. Handmade a e ac s can be seen du ing almos any walk in he Czech coun yside as well as in ci ies. Such mani es a- ions a e conside ed o be ana u al pa o he Czech u al and u ban space, making hem ameaning ul objec o c i ical an h opological inqui y. DIY as a e nacula a de eloped in Czechoslo akia mainly be o e 1989, a ime which was cha ac e ized by an uns able economic si ua ion, alack o consume goods and se ices and an unsa is ac o y quali y o a ailable commodi ies. As such, Czech DIY cul u e is mainly associa ed wi h he socialis e a. Howe e , he p es- en Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e is no me ely a emnan o he pas . Sel -c ea ed 1 Ten o ex znikl jako ýs up p ojek u Ku ils í ajeho ýznam p o českou ná odní akul u ní iden i u: současný s a , socio-kul u ní ahis o icko-poli ické sou islos i, ypologie a yuži í po en- ciálu p o mís ní oz oj (NAKI II DG18P02OVV022). 2 Ins i u e o Sociology o he Czech Academy o Sciences; con ac : [email p o ec ed] OPEN ACCESS 38 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 a e ac s a e s ill p esen ac oss he Czech u al and u ban space and handy/wo/men3 s ill con inue o epai o modi y hem, as well as c ea e new a e ac s. This esona es wi h he wo k o Kuzne so and Paulos as hey claim ha “al hough mode n socie ies oppose he p inciple o sel - eliance wi h mass p oduc ion and consume economy (…), people all o e he wo ld con inue o c ea e and modi y objec s wi h hei own hands” (2010, p. 1). Besides i s ma e ial o m, Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e includes di- e se p ocesses o hinking, c ea ing, making and sel -help; i gene a es an in ima e and conscious connec ion be ween hand and head. Thus, handmade a e ac s need o be esea ched as no only ha bou ing and igge ing memo ies o he (socialis ) pas bu also as e lec ions o he wide poli ical-economic milieu, including con empo- a y social ela ionships and he exchange o ma e ials, skills and ideas. The s udy a hand is based on e hnog aphic esea ch (in e iews and obse a- ions, see he empi ical sec ion o de ails) conduc ed in he no h-wes e n Bohemia egion in he Czech Republic, namely in he ci y o Cheb and i s su oundings. While ca ying ou he e hnog aphic ieldwo k o his pape , i was necessa y o de ine wha cons i u es sel -made a e ac s and he e o e Iiden i ied he e m “ e nacula a ” as ause ul concep o be applied o he local con ex . Ia gue ha “ e nacu- la a ” is a e m sui able o concep ualising Czech (pos )socialis 4 DIY-ma e ial cul u e because i allows us o g asp he mul iple ways in which i can be s udied. Based on he e hnog aphic da a, he concep o e nacula a implici ly includes an a ec i e dimension ( eelings and expe iences) and e lec s he ime-space o Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e. “Ve nacula ” e e s o empo ali y, his o y and cul u al speci- ici y, while “a ” e e s o c ea i i y: ins inc and skills cap u ed in space as well as o iginali y and imp o isa ion. Ve nacula a can also exp ess opposi ion o au- ho i y h ough i s challenging o he hegemonic alues o ma ke , capi al, design, p o essionalism and social expec a ions. Mo eo e , e nacula a gi es a angible o m o a ious subjec i e ideas. On aconcep ual le el, a en ion o e nacula a can help illumina e he ways in which di e en social, cul u al and his o ical p o- cesses a e mani es ed. Ade ailed de elopmen o he concep o e nacula a in an h opological deba es abou Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e can p o ide ap o ound unde s anding o he in e linkages be ween c ea i i y (skills and imp o isa ions) and a ec i e-pe sonal na a i es, as well as social ela ionships, exchanges o ma- e ials and ideas and he poli ical-economic milieu. To analyse Czech (pos )socialis DIY-ma e ial cul u e as e nacula a , Icombine wo heo e ical pe spec i es. The i s is he heo e ical amewo k o ma e ial cul- u e (Mille , 1998; Senne , 2008), which mo es away om a ocus on he aes he ics o a e ac s o e eal hei signi icance o unde s anding impo an social, his o ical and poli ical ela ionships. As Mille sugges s, he gene ali y o ma e iali y mus be 3 Since my aim is o d aw a en ion o he implici connec ion o men al aspec s wi h he physical and o dis up he socially ancho ed idea o ahandyman as being exclusi ely masculine, Iuse he e m handy/wo/men o e e o he people engaging in he p oduc- ion o sel -c ea ed a e ac s. 4 The s udy e e s o he pe iod du ing and a e socialism; hus, Iuse he e m (pos )- socialism. OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 39 accomplished by ano he s a egy ha explo es he speci ici y o ma e ial domains and he way o m i sel is employed o become he ab ic o cul u al wo lds (Mille , 1998, p. 6). The o he heo e ical pe spec i e Iemployed is Le eb e’s social p oduc- ion o space (Le eb e, 1991), which sees ma e ial cul u e as a ool o explo ing he powe ela ions ha ep esen social, cul u al and poli ical dis/con inui ies in u ban and u al spaces. F om his pe spec i e, Ia emp o show how he b oade his o ical, social and poli ical con ex o Czech (pos )socialis space can be iewed in connec ion wi h Czech e nacula a as o ms h ough which ce ain alue sys ems ha e been ans o med o e many decades. This pape p oceeds as ollows: Fi s , Ide ine he ield o ma e ial cul u e and DIY cul u e (Mille , 1998; Senne , 2008; Wells, 2007) and connec i wi h Le eb e’s (1991) heo e ical pe spec i e o he p oduc ion o space; second, I ame he issue wi hin he Czech his o ical con ex and demons a e on he basis o he e hnog aphic da a how e nacula a can be s udied by looking a he case o wo ga dens in he Czech no h-wes e n egion while dis inguishing e nacula a om c a and a ; inally, Iexplain why he e m e nacula a should be used o he concep ualisa ion o (pos )socialis Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK F om he homes we li e in o he p ac ical gadge s we use, ma e ial hings and objec s su ound us in ou e e yday li e. Wells add esses his by asking, “Gi en he cen ali y o he human subjec o he his o y o he social sciences, why ocus on objec s and a e ac s?” (2007, p. 137). In ac , objec s and a e ac s play an in ima e ole in ou li e and ha is why hey ha e ecen ly become one o he angua d elemen s in con em- po a y an h opology. In his sec ion, Icombine he app oaches o “ma e ial cul u e” and “DIY cul u e” and a emp o desc ibe hei common h ead and di e ences on he basis o ca ego ies o ma e ial hings-a e ac s and human subjec -handy/wo/ men. I hen mo e o in e connec DIY-ma e ial cul u e wi h Le eb e’s (1991) pe - spec i e on he p oduc ion o space. Acco ding o Ingold (2013), he e a e wo aces o ma e iali y. The i s one has a aw ma e ial cha ac e and encompasses he physical and isible se ing o an a e- ac . The o he ace shows ma e iali y o be he ul ilmen o cul u e and his o y; i is he “socially si ua ed agency o human beings who, in app op ia ing his physicali y o hei pu poses, a e alleged o p ojec upon i bo h design and meaning in he con- e sion o na u ally gi en aw ma e ial in o he inished o ms o a e ac ” (Ingold, 2013, p. 27). Mille (1983) ocuses on ma e ial cul u e u n om a cheology o ma e- ial cul u e in he con empo a y Wes . He pe cei es con empo a y ma e ial cul u e as asocial an h opology o consump ion. Acco ding o him, ma e ial cul u e is an in eg a i e ield, explo ing aco e ela ionship be ween objec s and people ac oss dis- ciplines (Mille , 1983, p. 7). E e y hing has some meaning and “e e y hing ma e s” (Mille 1998). Cla ke (2008) sugges s ha ma e ial cul u e is “in eg al o he con- s uc ion and nego ia ion o social wo lds and iden i ies” (2008, p. 73). A he same ime, ma e ial cul u e is s udied o unde s and he ela ionship be ween people, OPEN ACCESS 40 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 hei buil en i onmen , a e ac s and p ac ices (Hicks, Beaud y, 2010). I explo es he cul u al and pe sonal meaning ha objec s acqui e wi hin ace ain con ex . The meaning o an objec is no expe ienced linguis ically and ye i needs amedium o communica ion o exp ess i ; in sho , he s o y has o be ansla ed. The place o na a i e is undamen al o he de elopmen o iden i y and o si ua ing ou sel es in ela ionship o o he s (Hinchman, Hinchman 1997, p. 16). To unde s and he na - a i e, we need o ocus on bo h ma e ial a e ac s and human subjec s. A e ac s, acco ding o Mille , a e a“means which we gi e o m o, and come o an unde s and- ing o , ou sel es, o he s, o ac ions such as he na ion o he mode n” (Mille , 2007, p. 167). He a gues ha ma e ial cul u e does no dis inguish sys ema ically be ween ana u al wo ld and an a e ac ual one, no is i de ined in ela ion o i s a i iciali y o in en ionali y: “The mic o-elemen o conscious decision be ween pe cei ed possi- bili ies can be a ibu ed o in en ionali y, bu he al e na i es om which we choose, and he s a egies which in o m ou as e in objec s, a e usually de i ed om la ge o ces” (Mille , 2007: 168). Ma e ial cul u e migh be seen as embodying all objec s o agi en space, hei se - ing, hei in e ac ion wi h people (Le eb e, 1991; de Ce eau, 1998) and “ he an age poin s om which bodies see objec s and a e seen by objec s” (Wells, 2007, p. 137). Bodies o , in o he wo ds, human subjec s as Homo abe s, make s o c a e s a e hose who make a e ac s and con ibu e o p oducing some o hei meaning. A end (1998) in oduces Homo abe —man as make —as he image o men and women do- ing an e e yday so o wo k o c ea ion ha akes place on alocal, e e yday scale. Acco ding o he , Homo abe can include e e y handmade p ocess o amake o c a e , ye he e ms a e no en i ely in e changeable and exac (A end , 1998). In- gold (2016) pu s emphasis on he p ocess o c ea ing and i s ime dimension when he desc ibes amake as one “Who s ands a he h eshold, easing he pe sons and ma e- ials in his o he cha ge ac oss om one phase o li e and g ow h o he nex ” (2016, p. 4). On he o he hand, ac a sman ep esen s he special human condi ion o being engaged wi h h ee dimensions o skill, commi men and judgemen (Senne , 2008, p. 20). Acco ding o his de ini ion, amake is cha ac e ised by he p ac ices, he p o- cess o c ea ing and ins inc , while ac a sman cap u es he p esence o adi ion, skills and ce ain ules which can be ega ded as ha ing aspeci ic ype o au ho i y. A ejec ion o au ho i y and apassi e way o li e, an ac i e app oach o he wo ld and conscious o unconscious au onomy is p esen in he logic o Do-I -You sel (DIY) cul u e5. DIY is unde s ood as one’s own p oduc ion o hings o one’s own use in ee ime. DIY is also based on he abili y o epu pose and/o euse ma e ials and ools. I is any c ea ion, modi ica ion o epai o objec s wi hou he aid o paid p o ession- als (Kuzne so , Paulos 2010) and comme cial mo i es. DIY is abou “Using any hing you can ge you hands on o shape you own cul u al en i y: you own e sion o wha e e you hink is missing in mains eam cul u e” (Spence , 2008, p. 11). In his 5 The e m “DIY” eme ged in No h Ame ica a he end o he Second Wo ld Wa o desc ibe hobbies conduc ed in one’s ee ime and as an al e na i e expansion on he collabo a i e economy, based on he sha ing o skills, ools and spaces. In he 1970s, DIY in No h Ame - ica and Wes e n Eu ope g adually gained social and poli ical s a us (Reid, 2014). OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 41 sense, DIY is ela ed o ac i e and al e na i e mo emen s (sel -exp ession, li es yle, ac i ism, p o es ). Do-I -You sel is, in he mos gene al sense, an e o o c ea e and/o ans o m hings and handle hem acco ding o he handy/wo/men’s own ideas. In addi ion, DIY is also a eac ion. I esponds o handy/wo/men’s own desi es and in e nal needs, which in i sel can be a eac ion o he ex e nal space (Mille , 2007). The e is a ange o mic o-spa ial u ban p ac ices ha a e eshaping u ban spaces (I eson, 2013) and DIY is one o hem. Leadbea e (2003) desc ibes DIY as a ib an pa o democ a ic cul u e, he cul u e o ama eu ism (2003, p. 24); u he mo e, Mille desc ibes i as e e yday se ings, whe e he na u e o he expe iences o e ed by ama eu ac i i- ies p o ides possibili ies o “posi i e social ep oduc ion” (1987, p. 17). Acco ding o Wells (2007), he e a e wo ways ha DIY cul u es a e o med— i can be de e mined h ough ex e nal o ces (e.g., ia he go e nmen o he ma ke ) o i can be gene - a ed om below by in e nal needs o desi es. Acco ding o Wells (2007), Le eb e’s heo y o he p oduc ion o space can be seen as ause ul amewo k o hinking abou ma e ial cul u e and isual a e ac s ac oss u ban and u al space. Acco ding o Le eb e (1991), space, as a undamen al complex o ou li ed expe i- ence, is he con empla ion o social, physical and men al spaces, which a e cons an ly being shaped by bo h social and ma e ial p ac ices. E e y expe ience is acomplex comp ised o h ee in e ela ed aspec s: spa ial p ac ice, ep esen a ion o space and spaces o ep esen a ion (Le eb e, 1991, p. 38). The i s — spa ial p ac ice — ep e- sen s aspa ial se o cha ac e is ics o each social o ma ion, places o e e yday social ac i i ies o mo ing, labou ing, playing, elaxing o basically “doing some hing”. I assumes he use o he body and senso y o gans. Acco ding o Le eb e, in capi al- ism, spa ial p ac ice connec s he ou ine o e e yday li e wi h ways, ne wo ks, wo k and p i a e li e. Spa ial p ac ice is ne e de e mined by he p e ailing sys em ( eli- gious, poli ical, e c.), ye h ough i s exis ence and ac ion, di e en g oups become agmen ed. Second, he ep esen a ion o space, is he dominan space cons uc ed ou o signs, codes, symbols, codi ica ions and is concei ed by enginee s, a chi ec s and u ban planne s (Le eb e, 1991). Rep esen a ion is an abs ac o m o logic and knowledge, and “ he ideological con en o codes, heo ies, and he concep ual depic- ions o space” (Shields, 1999, p. 163). Al hough i is abs ac , i has ap ac ical impac on special p ac ices and (ma e ial) space p oduc ion. The las in e ela ed complex, ep esen a ional space, is aspace o subjec i e li ed expe ience h ough i s associ- a ed images and symbols, and hence i is he space o inhabi an s, use s o insc ib- e s (e.g. a is s). Rep esen a ional spaces a e usually desc ibed as al e na i e spaces li ed by hose who p oduced he space in hei al e na i e way. Fo Le eb e (1987, p. 30), space is a“social and poli ical p oduc ”, which has been shaped and modi ied by poli ical elemen s. Tha is why space can be ead as amedium o s uggle. Today, mo e han e e , space is domina ed by he capi alis s uc u e: so- cial space is dis ibu ed acco ding o class and he poli ical economy o space is based on he idea o sca ci y (Ma ins, 1982). In gi ing dominance o space, Le eb e has educed he impo ance o ime: “Wi h he ad en o mode ni y, ime has anished om social space” (Le e b e, 1991, 95). As Unwin (2000) ou lines as one o he c i ics o Le eb e’s a gumen s conce ning he p oduc ion o space and ime, space mus be OPEN ACCESS 42 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 concep ualised mu ually wi h ime and any sus ained analysis o socie y o cul u e should inco po a e an unde s anding in e ms o space- ime (2000, p. 22). Apa om he poli ical dimension, he dimension o ime pu s an emphasis on his o ical and na u al elemen s and on he p ocess and p ac ice o c ea ing. Likewise Kinkaid (2019) a emp s o e ise Le eb e’s ision o di e en ial embodimen as apoli ical and spa- ial p ac ice. F om his poin o iew, Le eb e’s heo y should be a icula e om he pe spec i e o di e en kinds o bodies “ma ked by ace, gende , sexuali y, disabili y, and o he o ms o social di e ence—encoun e space di e en ly, embodying and enac ing i s up u es and con adic ions he ole” (Kinkaid, 2019, p. 168). I space is ap oduc o he human body, i also akes in o conside a ion he ele ance o how, o example, gende is pe o med in he con ex o he p oduc ion o space. Thus, he concep o he p oduc ion o space can be used as a amewo k h ough which space can be g asped in ela ion o all— h ough, pe sonal, social and poli ical-economic s uc u es (au ho i y/au onomy)— and h ough which i can ep esen dis/con inu- i ies in u ban and u al spaces o e ime. In spi e o he many de ini ions and in e es le els, he impo ance o s udying e nacula a lies p ima ily in he abili y o link he physical cha ac e is ic o he hings — ma e ial a e ac s— wi h hei c ea o s— handy/wo/men. Whe eas ma e- ial cul u e (Mille 1998; Sene 2008) embodies pe sonal, social and cul u al aspec s, DIY cul u e (Wells, 2007) ocuses on he ma e ialisa ion o an idea as mani es a ion (Le eb e, 1991), he p ocess o c ea ing skills and p ac ices wi h a ocus on he di- mension o ime. VERNACULAR (ART) IN ANTHROPOLOGY Al hough he concep o “ e nacula ” has been s udied in di e en ields, he e m is no uni e sally known o accep ed in he social sciences (Vellinga, 2011). The ca ego y o e nacula is o en assigned o he “ olk” ealm— o olk adi ions, olk cul u e o homogenei y o people in con as o mode n e e yday li e (Re il, 2010). An h o- pological s udies e e o he dis inc ion be ween “ adi ional and mode n”, be ween “local and global”, “na ional and in e na ional”, “handmade and indus ial” o “au- hen ic and mass p oduced” (Vellinga, 2011; Oli e , 1997). Mos o he an h opologi- cal s udies o he e nacula ocus on building adi ions, on e nacula a chi ec u e in u al a eas like a mhouses o gene ally on “a chi ec u e wi hou a chi ec s” (Ru- do sky, 1977). The in e es in e nacula a chi ec u e in he sense o “a chi ec u e o people” eme ged du ing he second hal o he 20 h cen u y (Vellinga, 2011), whe e s udies ocused mainly on he cul u al embodimen o he a chi ec u e o “o he s”, on design, he building p ocess, he use o local ma e ials and adi ional echnolo- gies. Ve nacula a chi ec u e is de ined as “ he au hen ic p oduc o aspeci ic place and people, ha is p oduced by non-expe o dina y people h ough sha ed knowl- edge passed down o e ime” (B own, Maudlin, 2012, p. 340). Besides a chi ec u e, e nacula e e s o he en i e ange o ma e ial cul u e and no only o p e-indus- ial, colonial and u al exp essions, bu o all sel -buil ypes ha a e no pa o mains eam cul u e. Acco ding o Oli e (2006), he g ea di e si y o he e nacu- OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 43 la adi ion e lec s he a ie y o cul u es wi hin he b oad spec um o people and places, he speci ici y o which depends on hei local en i onmen s. The essen ial ea u e o all in e p e a ions is ha e nacula e e s o he au hen ici y o he ob- jec as asign o i s make , o he social con ex o hings “buil by hand” (May, 2010) and o he hings “made by people” (Oli e , 1997). Talking abou a om he an h opological pe spec i e, ama eu , au hen ic and non-commodi ied a “buil by hand” and “made by people” is ep esen ed by he “ olk-a ” pa adigm. Folk a is p imi i e o nai e, a he han popula , and is asymbol o adi ional and collec i e cul u e, which ep esen s an e o o iden i y he sel - augh (Russel, 2011). Folk a is shaped by adi ional me hods pe pe u- a ed om gene a ion o gene a ion. Folk a is s c ea e mos ly wi hin he bounds o he habi ual pa e n, and hey ha e as ong sense o he pas (Salzmann, 1999, p. 297). Ano he ela ed ield, whe e adi ion is used o signi y he his o ical and unchanging basis o hei s a us and cus oms, adi ional p ac ices a e assumed o ha e g ea e alidi y han non- adi ional p ac ices, is “hand-c a ”, (Ja man, 2004, p.134). Hand-c a s, as embodimen s o his adi ion, a e hings which should be s able, which should p ese e ce ain ules o simila i ies ac oss space and ime. The di e ence be ween olk a is and c a s(wo)man is, ha c a s(wo)man is e- qui ed o ha e ce ain skills and use p ecise echniques, because making is ap o- ession o hem. Somewhe e be ween “ olk a ” and “c a ” he e is he ield o “ou side a ” o “ e nacula a ”. F om he an h opological pe spec i e, ou side a claims apa icula social posi ion o people, who a e isola ed om he main- s eam wo ld, who do no conside hemsel es as a is s, who lack bo h o mal a - is ic skills and adesi e o mains eam ecogni ion (Wojcik, 2008, p. 179). De i ed om he La in “ e naculus” (na i e), e nacula exp ess some hing ha is “home bo n” and di e en om he exp ession ha a e associa ed wi h aposi ion o powe and dominan ins i u ion. Ve nacula designa es ac ual language “in use”, e e yday o ms such a , a chi ec u e, ood, music, cos umes which a e na i e o apa icula place o people (Wojcik, 2008, p. 180). EMPIRICAL SECTION This sec ion deals wi h he empi ical pa o he esea ch.6 Based on he in e iews wi h handy/wo/men, i shows how we can concep ualise Czech (pos )socialis DIY/ ma e ial cul u e as e nacula a . I i s b ie ly desc ibe he his o ical con ex o Czech (pos )socialis space and ime and place i wi hin he con ex o ma e ial and 6 The esea ch was placed in wo socio-economically di e se egions— an economically s ong egion on he one hand, he capi al ci y o P ague, and he ela i ely poo e No h- wes e n egion, an a ea wi h mul iple s uc u al handicaps. This pape is based on da a collec ed in No hwes e n egion, mainly in he ci y Cheb and i s su ounding. Me and my colleagues used acombina ion o quali a i e esea ch me hods, namely in e iews and obse a ion. Ini ially, we ocused on examining, iden i ying and classi ying he ma e- ial mani es a ions o DIY cul u e, especially hose isible om he s ee ’s public spaces. OPEN ACCESS 44 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 DIY cul u e. Nex , we in oduce he scheme o e nacula a and i s dimensions and how i can be dis inguished om c a and a . Czechoslo akia be o e 1989 was cha ac e ised by an uns able economic si ua- ion, alack o consume goods and se ices and an unsa is ac o y quali y o a ail- able commodi ies. The mode n home unde s a e socialism was mo e and mo e ied o and dependen on s a e and municipal ne wo ks. Acco ding o Reid (2014, p. 90), he “lack o he eedom o pa icipa e in he design o u ban li ing en i onmen is seen as a undamen al obs acle o es ablishing a ela ion be ween sel -iden i y and place, whe e place is de ined as asi e o meaning ul iden i y and immedia e agency: ha is, o make onesel “a home” in mode ni y”. Al hough one migh assume ha he socialis economy o sca ci y would ha e led o adampening o c ea i i y and subjec i isa ion, i was p ecisely ape iod o un ouchabili y ha c ea ed a ema kable wa e o imp o isa ion and ingenui y in he sea ch o al e na i e solu ions. Acco d- ing o Reid, “ he cul u al p ac ices associa ed wi h sho ages can be and a e— un- expec edly di e se” (Reid, 2014, p. 93). Being apassi e ecipien could be o e come h ough he ac o c ea i i y (Mille , 1987). Local imp o isa ion as an adap a ion o s a e-con olled consump ion and p oduc ion became he cul u e o e e yday li e. Such imp o isa ion ook on many o ms, and one o hem was ma e ialised in he o m o e nacula a . Ve nacula a as ama e ialisa ion o local imp o isa ion e- lec ed he ela ion be ween he s a e and he indi iduals, be ween p oduc ion and consump ion, be ween au ho i y and au onomy. I blu s and b eaks down he bina y opposi ion o p oduc ion and consump ion, wo k and leisu e, expe and ama eu (Reid, 2014, p. 99). In his con ex , homes and ga dens became e i o ies o he ex- p ession o imp o isa ion on social and poli ical se ings. The lack o goods and ma e- ials cha ac e is ic o his ime, p omp ed ap oli e a ion o c ea i i y, sel -help and DIY ac i i ies ac oss Czech u ban and u al spaces and c ea ed he new mic o-spa ial u ban p ac ices ha eshaped bo h u ban and u al spaces in o spaces o au ho i y and au onomy. Houses, ga ages, g eenhouses and p ac ical gadge s buil in his way, as well as deco a ions made om ecycled ma e ials, became an indi isible pa o he Czech (pos )socialis space. In p ac ice, his mean walking a ound and looking closely a a eas such as ga dens, windows, and ex e io s. An emphasis was placed on publicly accessible buildings in is- ible a eas (window deco a ions, ou doo deco a ions, p i a e and communi y ga dens, ga den se lemen s, sel -buil buildings like houses, co ages, e c.) and objec s which seemed o be sel -buil . Du ing 2018–2019 we conduc ed dozens o in e iews wi h handy(wo)mans, collec ing and analysing s o ies abou he ela ionship be ween hem and a e ac s abou he mo i a ions, inspi a ions and p ac ices o he c ea ion. We also conduc ed a chi al esea ch in o de o gain an unde s anding o he his o ical con ex , ocusing especially on magazines. Fo he pu pose o his a icle, I ocus on wo di e en na a i es behind a e ac s. These na a i es con ain opics ha ha e eme ged ac oss subsequen in e iews, he e o e, hey se e as app op ia e example o (pos )socialis Czech e nacula a . OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 45 COFFEE UNDER THE EIFFEL TOWER IN NORTHERN BOHEMIA I ’s asunny Sunday as Iwalk a ound aco age se lemen in No he n Bohemia. I ’s no my i s ime he e, so Iknow exac ly whe e I’m headed. My goal is o inally ca ch up wi h aco age owne whose co age a i s sigh looks di e en han he o he s: he dominan ma e ial in his ga den is ac ually glass. The glass planes and old win- dows o all possible shapes and sizes o m in hei a ious clus e s and combina ions dis inc a e ac s. The on pa o he house is glass, as is he ga den shed and he i e g eenhouses o a ious shapes and sizes. Iapp oach he house om he s ee in on — he ga e is open, al hough he e is no one o be seen in he ga den. Aneigh- bou who is wa e ing his ga den ad ises me o go a ound o he back. Iwalk a ound a ew co ages and app oach he house om he back. The e I inally come ac oss an olde woman, whe e else han in he g eenhouse, who Iadd ess. Immedia ely she akes o he ga dening glo es and in i es me o e . She o e s me co ee and asea in he wooden pe gola made om a ious small in e wined la hs. Isi down and ha e alook a ound. In ha momen Iam s ill unawa e ha Iam si ing unde he Ei el Towe . Awhi e wooden house wi h glass elemen s owe s dominan ly o e he ga den like aca hed al. Ilook all a ound and see e e y hing om adi e en pe spec i e han he one a o ded om ou side behind he ence. Apa om he small and o he e en smalle glass a e ac s, Ican also see wooden o em poles, abi dhouse, lowe po s, deco a ions, awooden shack, abeau i ully a ended ga den plo and bushes immed in he shape o abea and abi d— all o which a e comple ely handmade and p o- duced wi h lo e and DIY ca e. Husband and wi e si down nex o me in he pe gola. Thei alk o DIY is also abou he s o y o hei li es. Thei na a i e e lec s he limi s and obs acles embo- died in he ad e se pe iod o (pos )socialis Czechoslo akia, alack o ma e ials and se ices, alack o building expe ience, bu also en husiasm o he cause— adesi e o o e come obs acles and ind al e na i es. Thei s o y comp ises se e al dimensi- ons o DIY cul u e. (Pos )socialis Czechoslo akia e lec s dimensions o ime and space ha a e s i ed up by DIY cul u e. On he one hand, ex e nal ci cums ances de ine he dimension o au ho i y in he o m o li le o no building expe ience and an igno ance o he p ocess and alack o money, ma e ial and limi ed se ices; on he o he hand, he dimension o pe sonal dis inc ness and aconscious need o indepen- dence is exp essed by he zeal o you h, he desi e o y and he abili y o imp o ise and ind solu ions, me hods and al e na i es by means o sel -help. No hing was a ailable back hen. We we e young and in lo e and wan ed o build aco - age, aplace whe e we could be oge he . Howe e , we we en’ skilled in any way and didn’ know how o wo k wi h he ew ma e ials which we had. The Doubek’s did no ha e any p e ious building expe ience and ye hey buil e - e y hing on hei own wi hou p o essional help. M s. Doubek was a eache and M . Doubek’s p o ession conce ned echnical designs. They ound building ma e ials whe e e possible and g adually s a ed s o ing hem, which o cou se had an in lu- ence on he amoun o ime ha i ook hem o build hei co age; hey anspo ed OPEN ACCESS 52 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 CREATI E AND AFFECTI E DImENSION Ve nacula a is based on he abili y o euse o epu pose ma e ials, ools and skills. This c ea i e dimension, which also emb aces DIY logic (Reid, 2014), is a eac ion o mani es a ion and u he mo e also ali es yle. I can p o ide ap ac ical, local and ac- cessible means o ci cum en ing he powe o capi alis s uc u es by c ea ing sub- s an i e al e na i es h ough means o cul u al p oduc ion, unde mining exchange- alue and eplacing i wi h a alue based on social ela ionships (Shukai is, 2007). The c ea i e dimension also ela es o imp o isa ion. I is he sudden eme gence o some hing ou o no hing, which e okes emo ions, ace ain ype o admi a ion and, abo e all, asense o sel -sa is ac ion. Fo handy/wo/men, imp o isa ion ules ou any kind o dependence. Tha is why e nacula a e y o en includes some elemen s o joy o ahobby. F om he in e iews ha we e ca ied ou , he c ea i e dimension was p esen in he abili y o imp o ise, which is illus a ed by bo h he abili y o build ag een- house wi hou p o essional know-how om ama e ial ha was ubiqui ous, albei no in ended o building pu poses, as well as acqui ing he ma e ial hanks o ac- quain ances’ con ibu ions. In he second case, c ea i i y was embodied in he idea o p o iding old, disca ded windows wi h anew pu pose by building ag eenhouse wi h hem o by ealising ape sonal d eam o ha ing co ee unde he Ei el Towe “in one’s own place and in one’s own way”. Th ough he a e ac s, we can unde s and he pa icula con ex o space and ime bu also ou sel es, jus like he pe gola in he Doubek’s ga den mani es s he pe sonal s o y o an un ealised d eam. Ve nacula a is always adynamic p ocess and he e- sul ing p oduc will always be in luenced by he handy/wo/man’s pe sonali y. Unlike handic a s, e nacula a is no jus a e lec ion o knowledge and mas e ed ech- nology, bu abo e all is a e lec ion o he handy/wo/man hemsel es. I is ep esen ed by an a ec i e dimension ha is based on he pe sonal signs, emo ions, eelings o he handy/wo/man which, in u n, a e (consciously o unconsciously) insc ibed on he a e ac s. This is why he inal p oduc will ne e be he same e en i he same echnique, ma e ials and skills a e used. Ve nacula a is ep esen an idea, he p o- cess o making based on pe sonal exp ession. AUTHORITY AND AUTONOmY Ve nacula a as he p oduc o Czech DIY cul u e gene ally ep esen s e e yday li e and he social, cul u al and poli ical se ing o he pas and p esen . Thus, e - nacula a can be seen as a eac ion o u ban and u al dis/con inui ies, inequali ies o sho ages b ough abou by he (pos )socialis ans o ma ion. I ac s, as well, as a aw symbolic exp ession and in his way can be seen as an in o mal mode o spa ial p oduc ion as discussed by Le eb e (1991). A imes, he c ea ion o objec s can be s imula ed by he in luence o au ho i y in socie y. I e eals he close ela ionship be ween space and poli ical powe , ep esen ed by di e en o ms o au ho i y and he disag eemen s agains hem. Disag eemen s can be exp essed h ough au onomy and opposi ion (some imes ine ec i e) o au ho i y by challenging he hegemonic OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 53 alues o he ma ke , capi al, design, p o essionalism o expec a ions. Ins ead, e - nacula a gi es angible o m o a ious unique and subjec i e ideas, which is why i is ne e eplicable. In bo h in e iews wi h in o man s, au ho i y was p esen in he sense o “we didn’ ha e any hing else”, “we didn’ ha e achoice” and “we had o lea n e e y hing on ou own”. Fu he mo e, e nacula a p oduces adialogue be ween conc e e p ac ices and hinking. As is he case o c a smen, “ his dialogue e ol es in o sus aining habi s, and hese habi s es ablish a hy hm be ween p oblem sol ing and p oblem inding” (Senne , 2008, p. 9), ye unlike hem, his dialogue ep esen s au onomy o handy/wo/men. Au onomy s ands in con as o he ules and au ho i y as handy/wo/men seek o elimina e he p inciple o eliance on p o essionals, com- panies and co po a ions which p o ide se ices in exchange o money. Handy/ wo/men ma e ialise an idea a he han simply buying he hings ha hey wan . They do i o hemsel es. Fo some, c ea ing is an escape om he o dina y wo ld, om i s e e yday du ies. Awo kshop as awo k space is common o handy/wo/ men as well as o c a s/wo/men, ye hese same places a e imbued wi h di e en meanings. His o ically, o c a s/wo/men, he wo kshop was ap oduc i e space in which people deal ace- o- ace wi h issues o au ho i y (Senne , 2008:55). An app en iceship was based on inequali ies in skill and expe ience, whe e asupe io ained and se he s anda ds o no ices. Today, beyond he wo kshop, c a s/wo/ men pa icipa e in he ma ke , wi h agoal o unds and p o i s in mind— which can be seen as a o m o au ho i y as well. Fo he c a s/wo/man, au ho i y e- sides as well in he demands placed upon he quali y o his/he skills. The e is no oom o inaccu acies and impe ec ions. C a e e s o a adi ion, which means adhe ence o ap ocess, o a echnique passed on om gene a ion o gene a ion. C a s/wo/men a e p o essionals. Handy/wo/men, on he o he hand, delibe a ely o no wo k au onomously in opposi ion o au ho i y— i is sel -su icien wo k conduc ed wi hou in e e ence om ano he pe son, which indeed has i s own seduc i e powe (Senne , 2008, p. 70). Alack o skills and expe ience a e no ahin- d ance o handy/wo/man, as hey a e ana u al and necessa y pa o e nacula a . Inaccu acies a e p esen no only in he p ocess and impe ec knowledge and echniques, bu also in he isualisa ion o he end-p oduc . Handy/wo/men do no c ea e o p o i , no do hey sell hei p oduc s, and he e o e hey a e ee om ma ke au ho i y. The handy/wo/man is a ached o he au ho i y o he s a e and he ma ke in olun a ily, especially when s/he c ea es due o alack o ma e ials o in p o es . Howe e , i is again c ea ion agains au ho i y a he han adhe ing o i . Being ahandy/wo/men may be away o li e, abasic human impulse, desi e o c ea e some hing. Handy/wo/men’s au onomy is also e lec ed in imp o isa ion, which is cha ac e ised by he c ea i e dimensions o e nacula a . Ve nacula exp ession is excluded om conside a ions o “a ”. Unlike handy/ wo/men, a is s ha e p o essional skills, c ea ing is ap o ession o hem. Handy/ wo/men, on he o he hand, lack p o essional aining, do no ha e any mo i es o making a and a e emo ed om he public’s expec a ions o wha a should be. In alking abou a , handy/wo/men di e om he ield o “sel - augh a ”, “ olk” o “ou side a ”. In he ield o a , handy/wo/men a e he closes o he concep o OPEN ACCESS 54 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 “ou side a is s”, who do no conside hemsel es as a is s, who a e isola ed om he mains eam a wo ld and who lack bo h o mal a is ic skills and adesi e o mains eam ecogni ion (Wojcik, 2008, p. 179). E en i he e a e many simila aspec s be ween a is s and handy/wo/man— e.g., c ea ing wi h one’s own hands o p inci- pals o sel -exp ession, o iginali y and au hen ici y— he main di e ence be ween hem lies in he pu pose o c ea ing. A “made by a is s” is c ea ed because i should be seen; i pu s mo e o an emphasis on exhibi ing, p esen ing and discussing and in e ac ing wi h a ecipien . None heless, e nacula a “made by handy/wo/men” is c ea ed o pe sonal need and use, ega dless o whe he a e ac s a e p esen ed in isible spaces like ga dens o windows— hey a e s ill an insc ibed pa o handy/ wo/men’s pe sonal spaces (e.g., homes). In summa y, Czech (pos )socialis e nacula a made by handy/wo/men, inco - po a es ou dimensions: 1) ime dimension ( empo ali y, his o y, memo y); 2) space dimension (en i onmen s, his o ical and cul u al speci ici y); 3) c ea i e dimension (skills, o iginali y, imp o isa ion); and 4) a ec i e dimension (social o pe sonal eel- ings, expe iences, mani es a ions). Fu he mo e, e nacula a can be pe cei ed as one o a ious mic o-spa ial p ac ices, which powe ed by au ho i y o au onomy, is eshaping u ban/ u al spaces. These aspec s a e no mu ually exclusi e and coexis wi h each o he in many di e en con ex s. Al hough e nacula a is amul i-laye ed concep , i has ce ain speci ic cha ac- e is ics: 1. Ve nacula a is made by handy/wo/men who ha e nei he p o essional skills no o mal a is ic aining. I is no ac a , no is i a . 2. Ve nacula a is made in handy/wo/men’s ee ime o se e hei own needs o pleasu e. 3. Al hough some imes e nacula a can ha e a unc ion as an i em o exchange, i is ne e p oduced p ima ily o p o i . I is ne e expedien ly manu ac u ed as acommodi y. Figu e 4:Ve nacula a and i s dimensions. OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 55 4. Ve nacula a mani es s he ime, space, c ea i e and a ec i e dimensions de- sc ibed abo e. 5. Ve nacula a inco po a es spaces o au onomy o au ho i y (in en ionally o un- in en ionally). CONCLUSION In his a icle Ia gued ha “ e nacula a ” is a e m sui able o concep ualising Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e. I inco po a es he mul iple ways in which di e en social, cul u al and his o ical p ocesses can be s udied. By u he de eloping he concep o e nacula a in an h opological deba es on Czech DIY cul u e, we can p o ide adeepe unde s anding o he in e linkages o c ea i i y, skills and imp o- isa ions as well as social ela ionships, exchange o ma e ials and ideas and he po- li ical-economic milieu. Acco ding o his app oach, Czech (pos )socialis e nacu- la a made by handy/wo/men e lec s he ma e ial cul u e, while i includes bo h he ex e nal, aw o m and he in e nal, insc ibed pe sonal ace o an a e ac (In- gold, 2013). A he same ime, i gene a es an in ima e and conscious connec ion be- ween hand and head (Senne , 2008) and places an emphasis on he p ac ice-c e- a i e dimension and pe sonal eelings-a ec i e dimension. Simul aneously, Czech (pos )socialis e nacula a mani es s a eac ion o au ho i y which esul s in au- onomy, and hus i ep esen s he logic o DIY cul u e (Wells, 2007). By ep esen - ing he li ed expe ience composed o social, physical and men al aspec s and modi- ied by poli ical-economic elemen s, e nacula a can also be seen as amic o-spa ial u ban p ac ice which p oduces space and ime (Le eb e, 1991). I inco po a es ou mu ual dimensions powe ed by au ho i y o au onomy: 1) ime dimension ( empo- ali y, his o y, memo y); 2) space dimension (en i onmen s, his o ical and cul u al speci ici y); 3) c ea i e dimension (skills, o iginali y, imp o isa ion); and 4) a ec i e dimension (social o pe sonal eelings, expe iences, mani es a ions). The e o e, “ e - nacula a ” is a e m sui able o concep ualising (pos )socialis Czech DIY-ma e ial cul u e, as i allows us o g asp he mul iple ways in which i can be s udied while no losing awa eness o he o he s. Acknowledgemen s Iwould like o wa mly hank Pe Gibas and Blanka Nyklo á o hei ca e ul eading o ea lie d a s and o hei e y use ul commen s. REFERENCES A end , H. 1958. The Human Condi ion. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Bou dieu, P.1977. Ou line o aTheo y o P ac ice. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. B own, R., Maudlin, D. 2012. “Concep s o e nacula a chi ec u e”. Pp.340–368 in The SAGE handbook o a chi ec u e heo y. Sage. OPEN ACCESS 56 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2020 Cla k, A. 2008. “P essing he lesh: a ension in he s udy o he embodied, embedded mind”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Resea ch 76 (1): 37–59. Cox, R.2016. “Ma e ials, skills and gende iden i ies: men, women and home imp o emen p ac ices in New Zealand”. Gende , Place & Cul u e 23 (4): 572–588. De Ce eau, M., Mayol P.1998. The P ac ice o E e yday Li e: Li ing and cooking. Volume 2. Minneapolis: Uo Minneso a P ess. Elden, S.2007. “The e is apoli ics o space because space is poli ical: Hen i Le eb e and he p oduc ion o space”. Radical philosophy e iew 10 (2): 101–116. Gelbe , S.M. 1997. “Do-I -You sel : Cons uc ing, Repai ing and Main aining Domes ic Masculini y”. Ame ican Qua e ly 49 (1): 66–112. Hallam, E., Ingold, T. 2016. Making and g owing: An h opological s udies o o ganisms and a e ac s. London: Rou ledge. Hech , A. 2001. “Home swee home: Tangible memo ies o an up oo ed childhood”. Pp.123–48 in D.Mille (ed.) Home Possessions. Ox o d: Be g. Hicks, D., Beaud y, M.C. 2010. The Ox o d handbook o ma e ial cul u e s udies. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Hinchman, L.P., Hinchman, S.1997. Memo y, iden i y, communi y: The idea o na a i e in he human sciences. Suny P ess. Ingold, T. 2013. Making: An h opology, a chaeology, a and a chi ec u e. London: Rou ledge. I eson, K. 2013. “Ci ies wi hin he ci y: Do‐i ‐ you sel u banism and he igh o he ci y”. In e na ional jou nal o u ban and egional esea ch 37 (3): 941–956. Ja man, J. 2004. “Wha is occupa ion? In e disciplina y pe spec i es on de ining and classi ying human ac i i y”. Pp.47–61. in Ch is iansen, C. and Townsend, E. (eds.) In oduc ion o occupa ion: The a and science o li ing. Uppe Saddle Ri e , NJ: P en ice Hall. Kinkaid, E. 2020. “Re-encoun e ing Le eb e: Towa d ac i ical phenomenology o social space”. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y and Space. 38 (1): 167–186. Kuzne so , S., Paulos, E. 2010. “Rise o he expe ama eu : DIY p ojec s, communi ies, and cul u es”. P oceedings o he 6 h No dic con e ence on human-compu e in e ac ion: ex ending bounda ies. Leadbea e , C., Mille , P.2004. The P o-Am Re olu ion. London: Demos. Le eb e, H., 1991. The p oduc ion o space. Vol.142. Blackwell: Ox o d. Ma ins, M.R., 1982. “The Theo y o Social Space in he Wo k o Hen i Le eb e”. Pp.160–185 in J.F.Hende son, P.Williams (eds.). U ban Poli ical Economy and Social Theo y: C i ical Essays in U ban S udies. De aul jou nal. Mille , D. 1983. “Things ain’ wha hey used o be“. Royal An h opological Ins i u e News 59:5–7. Mille , D. 1987. Ma e ial cul u e and mass consump ion. Blackwell: Ox o d. Mille , D. 1998. “Why some hings ma e “. Pp.3–21 in D.Mille (ed.) Ma e ial Cul u es: why some hings ma e . Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Mille , D. 2007. “A e ac s and he meaning o hings”. Pp.166–168 in Knell, S. (ed). Museums in he ma e ial wo ld. New Yo k: Rou ledge. Mille , D. 1994. Mode ni y, an e hnog aphic app oach: Dualism and mass consump ion in T inidad. Ox o d: Be g. Oli e , P.1997. “Aes he ic”. Pp. 3 in Encyclopedia o Ve nacula A chi ec u e o he Wo ld. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Reid, S., E. 2014. “Makeshi Mode ni y. DIY, C a and he Vi uous Homemake in New So ie Housing o he 1960s”. In e na ional Jou nal o His o y, Cul u e and Mode ni y 2(2): 87–124. Rudo sky, B. 1977. The P odigious Builde s: No es Towa d aNa u al His o y o A chi ec u e wi h Special Rega d o hose Species ha a e T adi ionally Neglec ed o Down igh Igno ed. London: Seeke and Wa bu g. Russell, Ch. 2001. Sel - augh a : he cul u e and aes he ics o Ame ican e nacula a . Jackson: Uni . P ess o Mississippi. Salzmann, Z. 1999. “Jak se an opolog dí á na ý a ná umění”. Český lid 86 (4):293–301. OPEN ACCESS TEREzA HODúLO á 57 Senne , R.2008. The c a sman. Yale Uni e si y P ess. Shields, R.1999. Le eb e, lo e and s uggle: spa ial dialec ics. London: Rou ledge. Shukai is, S.2007. “A ec i e composi ion and aes he ics: on dissol ing he audience and acili a ing he mob”. Jou nal o Aes he ics and P o es 5: 39–42. Spence , A. 2008. DIY: The ise o lo- i cul u e. London: Ma ion Boya s Publishe s. Unwin, T. 2000. “Awas e o space? Towa ds ac i ique o he social p oduc ion o space….”. T ansac ions o he Ins i u e o B i ish Geog aphe s 25(1): 11–29. Vellinga, M. 2011. “The End o he Ve nacula : An h opology and he A chi ec u e o he O he ”. E no oo 23 (1): 171–192. Wa kins, C.2005. “Rep esen a ions o Space, Spa ial P ac ices and Spaces o Rep esen a ion: An Applica ion o Le eb e’s Spa ial T iad”. Cul u e and O ganiza ion 11 (3): 209–220. Wells, K. 2007. “The ma e ial and isual cul u es o ci ies”. Space and cul u e 10 (2):136–144. Wojcik, D. 2008. “Ou side A , Ve nacula T adi ions, T auma, and C ea i i y”. Wes e n Folklo e 67(2): 179–198. OPEN ACCESS