CoHabit: Cooperative Networks and Ecologies
01.22.05An artistic inquiry into sustainable systems and interactive, architectural collaborations.
In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we disassembled a depression-era fruit barn in upstate New York - transporting the materials to Manhattan - to mill small building blocks for gallery goers to utilize as miniature collaborative structures. This is the third installment in the series "eco-works" begun in 2003.
CoHabit Gallery Installation
-->Click Here For 'CoHabit' Installation PopUp<--
What kind of practices will motivate environmental concern, and how will this concern then reduce instances of environmental salience in American society? What events can urge one to adopt an ecological/environmental worldview, and then to act according to this worldview? How is physical space manipulated to fulfill the needs of human endeavors and also to ensure the ability of the land to regenerate itself and also allow the regeneration of other species that rely on that land for habitation? How do we cohabit this space? How is art involved in this conversation?
For questions resulting from urban sprawl, emptying city centers and urban decay, we produced the collaborative interactive show, “Cohabit”. We seek to bring this show to Rochester venues to encourage in gallery-viewers a sense of community action, development & planning, and to overcome the pursuits of a modernist art program that glorifies the aesthetic object and reduces the role of the community to mere spectator.
Following the sale of one artist’s childhood land in a Rochester suburb to a development company (who plans to build a track of high-cost houses), “Cohabit” developed in response to a great personal loss, and the need to explore how artists and the community can work as creative groups to question and experiment within the boundaries of urban planning, ecological worldviews, and interactivity.
The project left conception and began in full with the collaborative tear-down of the artist’s barn in the “sold” portion of backyard, the structure called “shed” by the family, having a rich past as “Fruit Processing Area” of past inhabitants, and then as “Workshop” of the artist’s deceased father.
The teardown was performed by the artist and his partner and wife, and by several friends who traveled from New York City to take part in the action. It was thoroughly documented with video, and this video was then edited, and became a portion of the exhibit as it was displayed on two small lcd monitors.
The wood from the barn was brought to a studio in Manhattan where it was transformed from planks into over a thousand wood blocks of various size and shape. These blocks were used in the gallery as building blocks for the creation of any structure that gallery visitors could create with them. During the course of the exhibit these structures were formed and reformed by a variety of participants of all ages.
A hundred fruit baskets taken from the barn and filled with dirt from the artist’s rooftop garden and planted with hard red spring wheat (that had sprouted and grown to over 3 inches by the show’s opening night) joined the blocks as objects ready to be manipulated by the audience. The audience also watered these baskets using squirt bottles provided in one corner of the installation.
The blocks and baskets were juxtaposed around mounds of growing wheat meant to act as natural landscapes we all must develop within. Some participants “built” on top of these growing mounds while others placed their structures alongside of them. These were also watered daily by the artists and assistants.
On the wall were the words “Close” and “remote” spelled in large aluminum letters found on a construction job site.
Built into the space was a 152”x 125” screen “wall” where edited video of rural, urban and untouched environments were projected onto. The video was collected from a number of sources and participants, and was truly global as footage was coming from rural and urban New York, Barbados, France, and other locations. The video was meant to act as stimuli or “location” for one to begin thinking from.
It was interesting to note that, despite the artist statement on the wall, it was necessary to paint instructions on the gallery floor to “please move these objects”. Once written the artists were amazed by what was created by those who visited the show.
We’re our questions answered? Did we come closer to understanding how creative efforts might shape the development of a landscape? Did our viewers enjoy taking part in a collaborative and creative endeavor that was meant to act as stimuli for questioning development patterns? How can this show be managed to encourage the dialogue sought?
The show encouraged the artists to delve deeper into urban (and suburban) development, and to find other venues to exhibit this show within. It was widely enjoyed by those who visited the space, and its collaborative nature included show installers, cleanup crew, video artists, shed deconstructors, reviewers and audience who wandered upon a shared experience in building and creating a shared space.
Art that is meant to be touched- then destroyed and rebuilt again.
No trackback:
Trackback link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url