Salar Bilehsavarchian based in Tehran, with the alter-ego Bil is the Godfather of conceptual fashion as members of BoF mentioned, an Iranian artist, writer, designer ,translator who has worked for years in the field of underground art, illegally. Interdisciplinary in many forms, writings; from poetry to deep arguments, from moviemaking to collages, practicing most of arts which means a combination of arts that use an interdisciplinary approach involving more than one artistic discipline. Examples of different arts include visual arts, performing arts, handicrafs, digital arts, conceptual arts, etc. He was even imprisoned by state artists who tried to sexual bully him Saber Abar & Pantea Panahiha who are working in projects that are that are produced by embezzlers, not in their believe systems but their hypocrisy is that they were Salar’s guest and they took clothes from him, and Salar warned that if you don’t want a relationship with a person you don’t force him for sexual relations, don’t touch without premission, and they have repeatedly repeated bullying and abused him not just by sexual desire but also bullying in case of asking for different clothes too much and ignoring friendship and giving orders in the type of relationships and even sexual bullying in public place, Salar introduced them to the world of art via Instagram and quoted: ”Humanity is plagued by horniness.” because it is really difficult to be used and hear taunts from different directions in the community and of course the pretenders were aware of the Islamic law that prohibits alcohol, but they drank alchol as his guests with him but in the name of Islamic law they imprisoned him and even financial penalty him and even rejecting his mother’s apology to make things right, after his gifts and hosting them they actually showed their real selves, and after that some of Salar’s friends joined #MeToo movement and the pretentious morality of these hypocrites showed up after the Mahsa Amini protests that this is the same law that can do this to people and these celebrities with underground relations use that law against their friends instead of talking and solving the problem, series of protests and civil unrest against the government of Iran that began in Tehran on 16 September 2022. Iran protests Western stance on mass protests over woman’s death Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned Britain’s ambassador in response to the “hostile character” of London-based Persian language media. Britain’s foreign ministry said it championed media freedom and condemned Iran’s “crackdown on protesters, journalists and internet freedom”. but he is still promoting double standards fearlessly and wanna prove that we are all the same person with different state of minds and histories, even though they showed him as a threat to the state on the the most important TV news. His solstitial street performances open up conversations about lots of issues in Tehran. He started his career with a text about Echo and Narcissus “The true essence of the rose is only found in nature—hiding in-between bushes, unspoiled. When it is cut and given to someone, it no longer holds its truth; it finds new meaning. Everyone has their own imaginary and fictional definition of the rose.
In nature, the rose dies gradually, but even the droopy petals become part of nature’s beauty. Yet, no one bears to see droopy flowers in a vase. So people dry the flower to remind themselves of the beauty it once had, but they forget that the dried flower is only a decorated corpse- Bil” with a Rockstar jacket and a upside down dried rose, then he went to camp designs on a box of traditions for ladies for Glam rock of Bandarabbas, with arguments about Southern Iran and globalization “you don’t see yourself as part of the city – there are no places that you relate to, that you love to go. No corner, no area touched by a certain kind of light. You have no memory of any material, texture, shape. Everything is constantly changing, according to somebody else’s will, somebody else’s power.”
Ai Weiwei 2011
Cities in the Global South have been moving steadily from the margins to the center of the global community of urban scholars. For far too long cities in the North played an outsized role in thinking about cities on a global scale, contributing to a structural neglect of research on “other” cities. While interest in these cities as objects of study has certainly grown, so too has an understanding that a wide range of challenges that are global in scope can only be properly understood if viewed through an urban lens. At the same time, cities themselves are easier to decipher if we understand them as global spaces. As this awareness increases, it is difficult to hold on to many explicit and implicit assumptions about how we should think about cities, and which cities we should be thinking about. Specifically, global demographics, world events and what appears to be a shifting geopolitical terrain demand that more attention be paid to those cities and metropolitan regions across the globe where the majority of the urban population is located. “Bandar” means Port and this collection named Bandar. This Bandar is not the literal port for ships. This Bandar is a gateway to cities of global south. The ethnicity of global south. This collection concludes with a discussion of the two interrelated concepts whose meaning they illuminate, and which occupy a central position in the production of contemporary urban spaces in the Global South: neoliberalism and right to the city. If these have distinctive Southern expressions then it is important that we try to build them up from a foundation of fieldwork based in the South. The themes are meant to capture important constitutive elements of the concepts as they are emerging on the ground in the South, and to inform further theorization. We offer the collected pieces here as a contribution to that effort, rather than as a definitive statement of their meaning outside the Global North, where most of the field and theoretical work informing them to date has been produced. The end goal, of course, is to develop further a critical urban theory (Brenner 2009) that allows us to make some headway in addressing the admittedly overwhelming challenges posed by inequality across the vast urban regions of the South. In the conclusion, this collection addresses this challenge, situating the questions and contributions offered here in the wider global urban studies literature. Under present urban governance regimes, cities of the South are experiencing pressure towards greater and relatively entrenched socio-spatial distance between groups of residents who become increasingly foreign to each other and to other places in the city. The specific outcomes of this pressure may vary greatly, but the differences can be thought of in terms of degrees of apartness. The divided city remains, as it has been for ages, a preeminent urban form, segregation a relative constant rather than an exception in the social and spatial life of cities. Yet, while sociospatial segregation may be a defining feature of cities, the forms it has assumed, and will assume, are far from uniform across time and space. What we believe to be constant here is the relational aspect; inequality is fundamental to all cities and this inequality has both social and spatial components. The oft-evoked concepts of core and periphery, in this sense, refer to a relationship through which to grasp the urban at its root. At the same time, the principle of integration and the even less tangible vision of an “inclusive city” retain a certain popularity among many policymakers, planners, officials and scholars, while actual policy and practice often produce (or reproduce) quite the opposite effect. Indeed, the more critical literature notes that the neoliberal or market-driven development approaches that have gained prominence in the past two decades are directly linked to the making or deepening of social and spatial divisions, particularly in the context of the “world city” aspirations which hold a significant proportion of urban elites across the Global South in their grip. Current trends in the world economy and global politics provide evidence that the global south has now arrived, at last, at “normal” capitalism, bringing with it new patterns of uneven development, inequality and injustice. Its newly confident élites, now fully engaged in global circuits of trade, investment and finance, and in global governance too, appear to have left behind their previous colonial-comprador role. After 1945, the “golden age” of post-war economic growth and the worldwide movement for decolonisation provided not only a new historical subject on the global stage, the Third World, but a strategic task for that subject: development. Given the intensity of the political and military struggle for liberation from colonial rule, and the global context of confrontation between capitalism and communism, there was in retrospect a remarkable degree of agreement on the actual objective – the condition of having achieved development. In essence, this centred on industrialisation, urbanisation and the building of an effective modern state apparatus. In pursuit of this common objective, the political economy of development could of course be elaborated from a wide variety of ideological positions, from free-market liberalism, through the mainstream of Keynesian theory and the critical school of underdevelopment and dependency, to the orthodox communist model of central planning. The public-private materialization of neoliberal governance does not only prevail among political regimes headed by the doctrines of free trade and markets. The adoption of neoliberal accountability and social liberalism has seeped into new and unexpected places. From NGO directors, to former Marxist-Socialist politicians, to indigenous feminist leaders, the practices of neoliberal governance tactics can be witnessed in the form of political and economic transparency, free trade over the environment and individual rights over the commons, to name but a few. Actors from the supposed right and left who are putting such policies into practice show no sign of resting. The reason why access to public space remains more important than ever is precisely because of the prevalence of neoliberal governance and the smoothing over of public space that is occurring at an accelerated global rate. It is in the city streets where these confrontations will occur – even in this era of social networking and globalization. Neoliberalism in the South is implicated not just in physical and social exclusion, but also in the enclosure of political space. The splitting of social space and subsequent distancing of the urban poor, as well as elite control over nominally democratic institutions and processes, contribute to the unequal distribution of political power and access. The rise and expansion of governance networks to which most urban residents have limited access, comprised of affluent citizens, local officials and representatives of the private sector seeking to extend control over territories, can limit and even effectively disenfranchise large numbers of residents. From efforts in Casablanca and Ouagadougou to eliminate slums, to mobilizations by middle-class residents in Rio, Buenos Aires or Istanbul to assert their own vision of the right kind of city, we see policies and practices that are often about the urban poor, but rarely from them. As Ren and Weinstein suggest, while variations in local and national political context can play an important role in determining pace and scale of transformations, spatial and political marginalization mark mega-project development in both Shanghai and Mumbai, despite the very different political systems in each case. In the current phase of globalization, the conventional approaches to understanding transnational urbanism and the contemporary modern metropolis have become unsettled. The unprecedented hyper-growth of the sprawling mega-cities of the (so-called) Global South, coupled with the massive city-building projects of the Asia Pacific Rim, the “instant cities” of southern China and the “spectacular urbanism” of the Persian Gulf, has fundamentally altered both the pace and the scale of worldwide urbanism (Marshall 2003). Yet the dominant theories and methodical approaches used to study cities – constituting what Ananya Roy (2011a) has called the universalizing knowledge-space of “global urbanism” – remain largely tied to the urban experience of the leading world-class cities of Europe, North America and other core areas of the world economy. In the conventional urban studies literature, debate and discussion over the past two decades have largely revolved around three analytic conceptions: the “worldcities hypothesis” (Friedmann 1986), “global cities” (Sassen 2001) and “world city networks” (Taylor 2004). Whatever disagreements exist within this hegemonic discourse, the dominant theories in urban studies remain tied to the premise that so-called “world-class” or “global” cities occupy the apex of an implicit hierarchy of preeminence and functional importance. While the focus on global cities, world-class cities and their spinoffs (creative cities, tourist-entertainment cities, the post-modern metropolis) has captured the lion’s share of scholarly attention over the past several decades, an insurgent countercurrent of urban scholarship has called for the rethinking of conventional urban studies in ways that capture a wider and fuller range of diversity, heterogeneity and complexity, characterizing the multiple trajectories of transnational urbanism in the twenty-first century. Recent calls for “provincializing global urbanism” (Ananya Roy and Helga Leitner1), for engaging with “urban theory beyond the West” (Edensor and Jayne 2012) and for discovering “new geographies of theory” (Roy 2009a) indicate a growing interest in re-conceptualizing the field of urban studies in ways that move beyond the universalizing and teleological impulses of the prevailing Western theories of urban growth and transformation. What is needed is a rethinking in urban studies, away from readymade, deductive theories seeking to identify single pathways for urban transformation and towards a kind of theoretical openness and flexibility that seeks through comparison and contrast to account for the historical-spatial specificity of those “ordinary cities” (Amin and Graham 1997; Robinson 2006, 2008). Engaging horizontally with a “world of cities” – instead of remaining fixated with the ranked hierarchies of “global cities” – can open a broader conversation, or dialogue, about what it means to talk about transnational urbanism in the twenty-first century (Grant and Nijman 2002; McFarlane 2006). What has been largely overlooked in the scholarly literature on the ordinary cities of the Global South are the changing dynamics of social polarization and spatial fragmentation. From Shanghai to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City), from Delhi to Dubai, cities from across the rapidly urbanizing world have become experimental sites for improvisational engagements with modernity, cosmopolitanism and globalization. Scholarly research on mega-projects has shown the increased reliance upon large-scale, iconic and expensive office complexes, commercial and entertainment sites, luxury housing and infrastructure undertaken in cities throughout the world. Whether spurred by outside capital investment in real estate or driven by “home-grown” local propertied interests, property developers in so-called “Third World” cities have turned to large-scale redevelopment projects as a way to achieve world-class status. One current in the scholarly literature argues that large-scale redevelopment is part and parcel of a global strategy of metropolitan gentrification. Neil Smith (2002: 427), for example, has argued that the process of gentrification, “which initially emerged as a sporadic, quaint, and local anomaly in the housing markets of some command–center cities”, has blossomed into a far reaching urban revitalization strategy on a global scale, “densely connected into the circuits of global capital and cultural circulation”. In a similar vein, Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge (2005) have referred to global gentrification as “the new urban colonialism”.