Territory is not a given. It is built, disputed, imagined. Beyond institutional cartographies or administrative boundaries, territory emerges from practice, from the ways in which we inhabit it, from what we project onto it, from the memories it carries and the presences it hosts. More than a surface or a perimeter, territory is a dynamic process, shaped by power relations and disputes over visibility. In this sense, to reflect on the (re)territorialisation of place is to acknowledge that places are not neutral spaces, but landscapes in ongoing symbolic, affective and political negotiation.

In the current context, territorialisation refers to the process through which a territory acquires meaning, structure and value as a result of social, political and economic dynamics. It involves the organisation of space, the definition of its uses and the attribution of meaning by different actors. When we speak of (re)territorialisation, we speak of a transformative process: one that repositions narratives, addresses asymmetries and reconfigures forms of belonging, particularly when seeking to counter logics of exclusion, invisibilisation or homogenisation. This process becomes especially relevant in contexts of social desertification, touristification, industrial change or population displacement, where the sense of place becomes fragile. To (re)territorialise is to restore agency to communities and to recognise diverse ways of inhabiting and interpreting territory.

It is within this sphere that artistic creation in public space assumes a strategic role. By intervening in the everyday, art can make the unnoticed visible, bring value to what is undervalued, and open room for new readings and appropriations of place. It is important to underline that such intervention does not end with the aesthetic experience, since it can generate concrete outcomes, including increased civic participation, strengthened social cohesion, the reactivation of abandoned spaces, local economic circulation and the consolidation of collective identities. More than physically occupying space, the aim is to create conditions for that space to become culturally meaningful to those who inhabit it. Within this process, the symbolic value of territories becomes central, that is, the capacity of a place to represent something beyond its utilitarian function or geographical location. These are the meanings attributed by communities, the narratives constructed around specific spaces, the gestures, memories and stories that accumulate there. (Re)territorialisation therefore involves a movement of identification, the recognition, on the part of individuals, that a place belongs to them in some way, whether through lived experience, affection or shared values. Such values can be observed, monitored and even measured through participatory methodologies, affective cartographies, interviews, focus groups or systems of continuous cultural observation.

Art, when embedded in this context, can operate as a catalyst for identity formation. Projects rooted in life stories, local references, intangible heritage or direct community participation reinforce the emotional and symbolic connection between people and place. They can activate feelings of belonging and strengthen collective identities, particularly in territories where these bonds have been weakened. These dynamics may be accompanied by qualitative metrics (levels of participation, diversity of involvement, the intensity of collaboration networks) and quantitative metrics (number of participants, continuity of groups, reactivation of spaces, frequency of cultural uses following the project). Projects involving performative walks, artistic residencies with community immersion, site-specific creations in post-industrial areas or activities in low-density territories are concrete examples of how art can contribute to such transformation. In these cases, place ceases to be merely a backdrop and becomes a protagonist, with its specificities, tensions, fragilities and strengths. The quality of these processes is not measured by media scale, but by their capacity to generate continuity, shared responsibility and appropriation after the artists’ departure.

However, this work involves structural challenges. The precariousness of funding models, the discontinuity of public policies and the difficulty of articulation between cultural agents, policymakers and local communities limit the reach and sustainability of these processes. (Re)territorialisation demands time, commitment and an integrated strategic vision that recognises the value of culture in territorial development. Without continuity, territory does not transform, it merely complies with agendas shaped by individual preferences, often disconnected from the realities and dynamics of the territories themselves.

When we speak of geographies in dispute, what is ultimately at stake is the possibility of constructing meaningful places, places that are lived, recognised and shared. Places where every gesture and every presence matter. Artistic creation in public space plays an irreplaceable role here, not merely as an instrument of expression or enjoyment, but as a device for transformation, capable of reconfiguring relationships, activating dormant memories and revealing forms of belonging that persist even when unnamed. Valuing territory means recognising that identity, economy, politics and culture are not separate dimensions, but layers that intertwine in the concrete experience of living together. It means recognising that places are not defined solely by maps or infrastructures, but by what is felt, remembered, cared for and projected within them. Valuing territory also means valuing the people who inhabit it, their silent knowledge, their affections, their stories and their values. It means acknowledging that every community holds a living archive, woven over time, and that its activation requires listening, presence and continuity. When art enters this movement, it does not arrive to occupy space, but to open space: to create conditions for encounter, recognition and shared imagination. And it is precisely in this shared capacity to imagine what a place might become that the true transformative potential of territory is revealed.

Photo: © Klara Kulikova

Bruno Costa

Bruno Costa holds a PhD in Cultural Studies from the University of Aveiro and a Master’s degree in Management for Creative Industries from the Portuguese Catholic University (UCP). His research has focused on the construction of European identity, with particular emphasis on the internationalisation of artistic projects and European cultural cooperation. He is a guest lecturer at UCP, teaching the course Partnerships, Networks and Internationalisation in Creative Industries, and serves on the steering committees of both the Circostrada Network and IN-SITU - the European platform for artistic creation in public space. As co-director of Bússola, his professional career has centred on strategy, planning, financing, and management within the cultural and creative sectors.

Daniel Vilar

Daniel Vilar is a PhD candidate in Political Science, holds a Master’s degree in Communication Sciences from the University of Porto, and a Bachelor’s degree in Marketing Management from IPAM. He is a cultural and marketing manager with a focus on cultural policy, the creative economy, and the development of creative territories. As co-director of Bússola and Outdoor Arts Portugal, he has developed projects that connect cultural policy, creativity, and communication, promoting territorial development models through placemaking as a methodology for sustainable growth. He regularly participates in conferences on cultural strategy and the development of creative territories. His work operates at the intersection of culture, politics, and planning, designing policies and programmes that use culture as a driver of social, economic, and territorial transformation.