http://megrimm.net/projects.php mark edward grimm en meg156@columbia.edu Copyright 2008 Pivot Pivot - 1.40.4: 'Dreadwind' Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:28:38 -0600 60 http://megrimm.net/entry/31/excavate_cohabit_20/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/31/excavate_cohabit_20/projects#comm An demonstrative inquiry of possibilities in autonomy and collaboration.

In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we excavated dirt to the bedrock in an art park in upstate New York - to use the dirt for 1 month in an electronic, interactive installation - returning it to where it came from in an altered, rejuvinated state. This is the forth installment in the series "eco-works" begun in 2003.Project | Installation
Stone Quarry Hill Art Park in Cazenovia, NY. see http://www.stonequarryhillartpark.org/



-->Click Here For 'Excavate: CoHabit 2.0' Installation PopUp<--


Introduction
In an upstate New York Art park we excavated a 6' width x 20' length 3' depth plot to the natural bedrock and used the extracted soil for an interactive electronic gallery installation. The Stone Quarry Hill Art Park is a 107 acre non-profit art park in Cazanovia, NY (20 miles south east of Syracuse NY) and was established on an old stone quarry. The excavation was performed on the side of the hill adjacent to the gallery and surrounding buildings. The soil was installed in the gallery one month after excavation. Wheat was grown on the soil and electronics were installed to monitor environmental conditions and create a forum for user interaction.

This artwork and performance is a demonstration of possibilities in creating educational art works that are temporary, interactive and variously change over a given period of time. We are interested in the interactions of social organizations (bodies), ecological systems and electronics medias. We are concerned with how these various elements meet in order to create a specific (in terms of time and place) situations for observation, discussion and analysis. We see art work less as an aesthetic object (although this can be used to draw an viewer or participant in) and more as a micro-model that draws attention to the interactions of the everyday.

Gallery Description

Placement
The soil was placed in a long semi-organic shape randomly across the length of the gallery. A path was consciously formed through the soil mounds for participants to traverse. Objectively, the overall aesthetic was reminiscent of a mountainous region with a valley snaking through its center area.

Wheat was sowed on the present soil and thoroughly watered. Stepping stones were carefully placed to create a path or 'stroll' area.

Three separate speaker cabinets were placed surrounding the soil. One cabinet, a Mesa-Boogie 4 x 12” speaker cabinet, was placed behind the placed soil facing the gallery entrance. Two other speakers, custom built boxes with one 8”mid-range and one tweeter each, were placed next to each other on the left side of the installation if facing from the entrance. One custom speaker faced the back of the gallery and the other faced the front.


-->Click Here For 'Excavate' Quicktime Video PopUp<--

Speakers were powered by an amplifier on the floor in a custom made aluminum rack that measured 20” width x 30” length x 20”depth. Present in the rack was the amplifier, a G4 Macintosh computer, an Electrotap Teabox, a PAIA Fatman analog synthesizer, and a Digidesign DIGI 002 computer audio interface. The rack equipment was powered by a red/white-striped extension cord that was snaked and coiled around the various electronic components. The speaker wire was snaked around the extension cord and in the back and through, in some case, the soil deposits.

Sensors
There are three environment monitoring sensors that were installed in the gallery in conjunction with the soil: a light sensor, a temperature sensor, and a soil moisture sensor.

The light sensor measures the light that is omitted in the gallery. The gallery has several skylights so any change in outside light (such as sun, clouds, evening, nighttime conditions) change the readings of the light sensor. This sensor is very sensitive to changes and is also affected by participants that approach the sensor and cast a shadow.

The temperature sensor is much more subtle. It senses the temperature of the gallery interior. Its is also affected by temperate changes such as the fluctuations that occur during the day as well as the drop in temperature at night time. The heat of the sun through the gallery skylights also affects the temperature sensor readings.

The moisture sensor has an average sensitivity. It is affected by the amount of moisture that is present in the soil. The moisture sensor is installed under a particular mound of soil that will give an unbiased reading summarizing the moisture present in the entire installation. It is installed at a vertical angle to give readings that analyze moisture present close to the bottom of the soil mound as well as near the top.

The installation must be watered to keep the vital signs intact. A lack of care will result in a deficiency of wheat growth, an aesthetic dysfunction and an affected audio signal generated from the moisture data.

Sounds
Each sensor produces a distinct audio 'tone' based on the sensory data that the computer receives.. For example the light sensor produces a deep tone and the moisture sensor produces a midrange tone. All sensory data must be within a particular vital range in order to produce a 'harmonic' sound when all tones are mixed. For example if the soil is not watered properly the tones will subtly change, and a less than desirable tone will be produced

We also put installed trigger buttons under the stepping stones that when stepped on would randomly 'shuffle' the resulting audio. The trigger buttons or pads were custom made to fit under the stone blocks. The pads use strips of metal separated by foam. The metal strips are encased in plastic to increase their water moisture resistance. When a stone is stepped on the strips of metal touch each other sending an 'on/off' signal to the computer for processing. The wires are embedded under the soils and are only seen as they emerge from the installation near to the electronic rack equipment.

In order for the sensors and trigger buttons to work they must be converted from an analog signal to a digital signal that the computer can read. For this conversion we used a Electrotap Teabox (analog to digital converter) to make this transition. Once the sensor data has been converted to a digital signal it can be used in conjunction with programs in the computer and other external equipment.

We used the program MAX/MSP (cycling74.com) to process the digital data that the computer was receiving into audio and midi signals. MAX/MSP is a graphical programing language and interface that can be programed to manipulate and output data and audio signals.

The MIDI information that MAX/MSP output was sent from the MIDI outputs of the DIGI002 and to a custom built and modified PAIA Fatman Analog synthesizer. The synthesizer has many various knobs that allowed us to change and manipulate the produced sounds. LFO and Oscillation synchronization were some of the many synthesizer options that we used to produce some of the effects and sounds that were present. Critically, we were very interested in using analog synthesis because we are intrigued by the warm, physical sounds that analog systems produce compared with digital computer audio. The down side is that analog synthesis can tend to produce low volume 'hiss' type noises that generated from the physical electronics (picking up radio frequencies from the electronics is one example).

Computer sounds were also synthesized internally using FM (frequency modulation) synthesis within the program MAX/MSP. These sounds were output via the DIGI002 1/4” audio output jacks. The benefits of computer audio are that one has the freedom to program any type of sounds that one might wish to produce within the computer. The downside is that computer audio lacks the analog aesthetic of the equipment that is used, it lacks physicality as in the manipulation of tangible 'buttons' and 'knobs' (computer audio in this case is virtual manipulate through a monitor interface), and it lacks that 'warmness' in sound produced by the physical circuitry in the audio synthesis (think of a record vs. a Compact Disk - might be a good example).

The two audio signals (one from the synthesizer and one from the computer) were mixed and amplified. We did this not only to get the most desirable effects by using the best of both worlds (analog and digital technologies) but also to have the freedom in the sounds that were produced. It was very interesting for use to draw connections between computer technologies and 'the physical' by juxtaposing the analog and the digital in this fashion.

The resulting audio was then sent to the three separate speakers at a medium to low volume as to be not to distracting but enough to give the gallery environment a somewhat ambient 'atmosphere'. The ambiance created by the sensors and electronics is harmonic and has a multi-dimensional feel to it. This is a result of the mixing of the various audio components.

Participants were encouraged to walk on the stepping stones in the installation to produce various 'random' mixes of audio generated from the temperature, light and moisture sensory data. When a stone is stepped on the trigger under the stone sends an 'on' signal to the computer. It then uses a randomization object/script to quickly 'shuffle' the tonal sounds generated from the computer and the MIDI output. Because of the randomization in the program, each time a stone is stepped on the audio that is generated is slightly and sometimes even drastically different from the previously stepped stone. The audio tempo instantly quickens pace and various peculiarities result. After participants end there excursions, the sounds slowly, sometimes very slowly, return to ambiance or 'normal' conditions.

Some of the ambient sounds are a reaction to the present environment. There are faint 'insect' type sounds that exist: slight buzzings, cricket sounds, frog croakings. These 'chirping' sounds are produced by the Fatman and are a reaction to the outside environments. At times during the day and in the evening it is very difficult to distinguish between between the outside environment of the art park (the gallery is close to fields and ponds so there are plenty of cricket sounds, frogs and birds) and the internal gallery sounds produced by the installation.

With these organic, emerging and evolving sounds based on the data of the gallery environment, the environment of the gallery and that of the outside Art Park tend to merge.

Excavation Description
In order for the gallery installation and interactions to be demonstrated, we needed access to the materials that we would utilize. The main material that was used was soil. To achieve this we dug a long trench ( 6' width x 20' length 3' depth ) on the side of the art park hill. This in turn exposed the natural bedrock that lay underneath. This was done in a similar way that any 'excavated' area might take place: such as in an archaeological dig, a geological exposure, or even the beginning a a building foundation.

Soil, in this instance, was shoveled and removed by hand. It was then transported to a temporary area on the upper portion of the exposed hill about 100 feet from the gallery entrance where it rested and settled for one month prior to gallery installation. While in storage, top soil sod removed from the excavated area wilted and died.

The excavated area was then roped off with yellow 'cautionary' rope tied through eye-hooks to four 4”x 4” posts embedded in each of the four corners of the excavated area.

The bedrock that was exposed was sedimentary rock that was produced from the massive compression of glaciers compacting the existing soil in the many thousands of years ago in the Finger Lakes area. The geological formations of this area are a result of the existence of glaciers and the glacier movements over this topographic history.

The bedrock itself is a soft and flaky rock material. It is easily broken and dislodges from the side of the hill by hand with little effort. It is a deep gray with hints of reds. Its surface is dull and often has dried soils in its grooves and crevasses. This is caused by water runoff from rains creating water that often accumulated in the excavated areas lower basin where the bottom soil and the bedrock meet forming a vertical edge.

After installation the soil will be returned to the excavated area in a new, changed and revitalized state. The wheat that was grown will be tilled back into to the soil to in oder to compost. Once the soil is returned new wheat will be grown to mark where the excavation had taken place.

Philosophy and Concepts
This installation is a part of some broader investigations that we have been creating and performing over the past five years that all deal with various social, ecological and technological interactions.

Initially, while we were discussing its conception, we were interested in juxtaposing two separate concepts: Labor and Environments/Ecologies (though as the project commenced other concepts and ideas began to emerge). Labor, as a form of energy transference from one material to another, sparked our interest though concepts of thermo-dynamics (cybernetics) and investigations into sustainable practices and the creation of micro-systems (keeping energy produced and consumed geographically and locally as tight as possible). We have been investigating ecologies, as dynamic systems, for several years and throughout several various projects. With 'ecology' and thinking 'ecologically' we are interesting in the interrelationships between various related and seemingly unrelated forces and how different available entities interact with each other.

We have found that through the creation of various art-works, we can investigate and come to understand many complex phenomena that interests us. Our studies of academic texts in diverse disciplines and fields help to inform us of the concepts that we want to investigate. For example, texts in the area of critical theory such as those by Herbert Marcuse and Walter Benjamin of the Frankfurt school, assist in keeping critical awareness of the actions we are performing and the venue in which we are performing them (capital rural America in this instance). French post-structural texts such as though of Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guittarri allow us to see the interconnections, complicated material and historical networks of the many elements we prefer to involve. Deep-Ecology texts, for example, such as those of Arnie Neess, inform us of the critical ecological circumstances and concepts that we engage with.

It is from these vantage points that we like to begin with something simple that is grounded, as 'The Situationists' might say, in the simplicity of the everyday. For this information we started with a material we felt comfortable with and that we have used in many other projects, a material that aids in the reproduction of life itself, soil.

As a material, soil - in any one particular area of the globe, has its own unique vital energy associated with it. It is a diverse material that contains energy and retains its locality and history. It is an archive of past interactions. Who has previously tilled the soil? Has it become contaminated by industrial contaminates? How did it get to where it now rests (glacial moments, human transportation)? What kids of energy or minerals exist in the given soil and what would they be best suited to grow and/or destroy (if we are talking about contaminated soils for example)?

Soil also has the ability to have metamorphosis – it can be present in various material states. The bedrock that was revealed is compacted soils – a sedimentary rock. Earth has indefinite variations of soils. Diamonds are made from the super compression of organics: the homogenization of a particular earth material – in this case coal. Certain soils are rich in minerals and diverse in content. Other soils are one-dimensional such as in desert sand. The materials in which we live and interact with locally and geographical affect the societies that we build, the cities that emerge etc. We often neglect these understandings when we are creating various theories, philosophies and ideas. The geographies and topologies of various areas have been lacking in educational theory and pedagogy as well as a discourse of art creation.

As far as the idea of beginning with such a simple material as 'soil' is concerned: this is an interesting place to begin our philosophical and artistic constructions because once we establish the many different paths and connections that can be made with such a seemingly simple material then the ensuing discourse becomes open to connections – the inevitability of conceptual emergence becomes undeniable. What direction should we take? What areas do we highlight? Do we draw on aesthetic merit first (as an artwork, performance etc) and allow philosophical connections to the literature to be made 'post' installation as in this present writing? What is the educational implications? What can we learn from the creation of these types of projects at what concepts are present in these projects that can be taught to others.

To us, an artwork itself is always a temporary phenomena. Even painting, as static as it is (in terms of hanging indefinably on a wall in the case of a museum), has a temporarily to it. The 'Mona Lisa' for example, despite all its glass and technology can not deny the materiality of the materials that it was created with: canvas and oil paint are materials that are always changing. It is at this beginning that we wish to highlight our given material properties and create an understanding of the temporary nature of visual artworks by condensing the performance time to coincide with the average human life-span. This is a time period where growth and change can be easily observed and appreciated without loosing the attention span of a given media saturated area (give the area is America – a population that has a different sense of time than many other sociological entities because of increased 'speed').

Our artworks then, tend to be performed over a one-month period: enough time to observe the changes that take place and enough time to make connections with historical events that take place during that time period. For our ORG project for example, we brewed beer and allowed it to ferment and age for one month. The creation and bottling of the beer and the eventual opening and drinking of the beer were both historical events that took place in the time-line and life-span of the materials that were in the beers conception.

It is these specific 'events' and the space and changes that take place in between that we consider the actual 'artwork'. The visual aesthetics that the gallery goer views and witnesses is secondary. Its is only a manipulation, a gimmick, a visual trick of pop-culture to hopefully draw a participant into a deeper forum for conversation.

In a way there is something to be ashamed about this conscious trickery. It seems that only the educationally privileged have this ability for visual propaganda creation. The cleverness in the image is one that separates the 'artist' from the viewer, a relationship that we as artists have never been comfortable with. Digital imagery has only added to this confusion because the image now has the power to construct the reality itself. We now can not distinguish between something that might have happened and has been documented and something that has completely been constructed in the computer. A blind synthesis, a total simulacrum.

We demonstrate this in our 'Excavate' exhibition by combining and mixing both the analog and digital technologies. It becomes almost impossible to distinguish between the two – what is doing what? What sounds are being made by what instrument? Adding to the confusion is the similarities between the internal OR constructed environment of the gallery and the 'natural' or outside environment. The 'chirping' sounds could very well be crickets outside... OR synthesizers inside! A complete manipulation of the participant. A creation of confusion and disorientation that empowers the installations creators – which in this case is us!

It is odd and often paradoxical how 'artists' have this ability to experiment with new technologies that eventually become appropriated by others to empower themselves with the language of the visual. Does this mean there is some artistic involvement in the creating of war simulation video games used to train troops in the machinery and acts of warfare? It seems as though any 'artistic' action that is legit in terms of its creation by an 'artist' can have the adverse side effect of re-appropriation of the powerful to be inserted into the discourse for hierarchical control over particular unsuspecting bodies of populations.

Even critical research and philosophical creations can have the opposite affects of their original intentions. For example, the IDF (Isreali Defense Force) has been using the philosophies of Deleuze to understand the decentralization and non-linear dynamic of its present enemies.

But what really stands out for us (and what differentiates between what we think of when we hear 'art' or 'artist' and what an 'artist' might DO or how an 'artwork' evolves) is the difference between what “IS” and how various things (materials, social bodies, etc) have relationships to each other. We once took a very incredible course with the Deleuzian thinker Manuel Delanda in the architecture department at Columbia University. Never have we heard more interesting things that were directly related to our work and the concepts that we were interested in. In his course he talked about how we have a tendency to want to always describe what something 'IS'. When we do this we are trying to get at the 'essence' of something. What IS this glass? What IS this car? What IS god? What IS art? When we ask what something IS we philosophically pull away from materialism and toward the realm of ideology. What something IS to one group of people or individual can be completely different from what another group of people or an individual might think that same thing IS. Trying to get at an 'essence' of something is trying to describe what something IS and therefore falls to the path of ideology. Ideologies can be dangerous when they conflict OR groups or individuals can not agree on what something IS. The dominant ideology (whoever has the most allocated resources be it technological, intellectual, population) will tend to oppress those that do not agree with what IS or what IS NOT.

It is from this rational that we have become interested less in what something IS (What IS art? IS it art?) and more interested in the complex relationships BETWEEN things (art, culture, technology). It is in these relationships that there is an opportunity open for interesting analysis, ideas and connections to form. We prefer, as in Deleuze, the use of the word AND - as in art AND culture, technology AND ecologies, culture AND social bodies.

In terms of our art projects then we are much less concerned whether it IS or IS NOT this or that as it resides in the gallery. It is much more appropriate to understand what we do in turns of beginning AND end, interactions AND social bodies, electronic data AND soil ecologies, labor AND energy.

To this point the 'artwork' becomes less than the existence of the 'image' for us - the manipulated environment, the cleverness of the 'creators' - but much more the various processes and ecologies that take place within a given period of time (the energy produced and consumed, the social involvement, the direct actions).

With this I would like to say that we still have a very hard time thinking strictly with relationships and not trying to get at what something IS. Trying to understand the essence of something is one of the foundations of western thought. The tendency is not easily broken and we very often (embarrassingly) fall back on IS concepts. As artists we have been institutionally educated to try to understand what art IS and very often try!! When writing we often use punctuation marks around the word 'art' to understand it in terms of what history has told us it is – although we often agree that there is no difference between a masterpiece at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and a simple random stone on the edge of a lake. OR that art has no materiality to it but instead is action based as in 'micro-production' or the movement of bodies (social, geographical etc).

The most we can do is talk about the things that we thought about as the project was being conceived, as it was being performed and after the installation has come to an end. This can take a number of different directions and just like our concept of 'artwork' is a lengthy process that contains no beginnings or ends but only critical events that emerge and disappear in semi-random, inter-connected osculations.

Connected Observations
There are ecologies of growth as in the wheat growing and social ecologies where people interact with the installation - both the ecological system (growing wheat) and the electronic computer system. The energy that was present in the wheat seed and in the extracted soil was a vital energy that maintained the sprouting and the growing of the sowed wheat seed. It gave life and with the help of water and sun energy, maintained life. It changed and evolved over time.

What was particularly interesting was the edges where the dirt and the concrete met – where two systems collided OR were juxtaposed against each other. This 'edge effect' was created the result of two seemingly opposing systems touching. One was the sterility of the gallery environment (concrete, white walls) and the other a fabricated ecosystem. The edge, as the product of this collision, became a dry area where water moisture could not be retained in the soil and wheat could not spout nor grow. In some areas where the soils were a little deeper the wheat did sprout but quickly wilted and dried.

Are ideas and thoughts not similar? Where two seemingly opposing concepts meet is there not sometimes an adverse 'edge effect' that is created. Where any two ecological systems come in contact with each other there is going to be a noticeable edge to where those two systems meet.

Many times we are much more interested in these two large forces rather than what is created by their contact. An edge of moisture-less and unfertile soil is much less interesting that these large events that create that condition by there interactions. Understanding the 'gallery' as a venue OR a pile of dirt for participant interaction and wheat growing is what becomes immediately apparent when one first enters the given venue. BUT we want to make a point that no matter how simple and insignificant the 'edge effect' that is created by these interactions is, there is much more to look deeper into than just and unwanted or undesirable consequence of this engagement.

We bring this to our readers attention because this edge is something that is very often over-looked not only in art systems but in other discourses and disciplines – especially institutional disciplinary structures. There is always an edge to even the most subtlety different subjective and/or objective thoughts and ideas. There is always going to be a personal subjectivity involved in created discourse. This is a call for instead of trying to understand the differences between various methods as in terms of what those methods ARE or what the discourse under speculation IS to instead look at the effect that is generated at the 'edge' of those two various subjectivities, discourses, pedagogies, theories etc. We believe that it is inn this 'effect' that we can begin to understand the AND: soil AND gallery, soil AND pedagogy, gallery AND pedagogy, soil AND critical analysis.

In terms of the given gallery project (Excavate) this 'edge-effect' may be very subtle and on the surface really just not that interesting for analysis YET the edge has many complexities that have yet to be understood. The edge symbolizes the relationships that emerge though varying ecologies of discourse. The sociologist Randel Collins makes reference to these edge effects in his book “A global Theory of Intellectual Networks”. He is interested in much less the theories of individuals them selfs than the theories that arise and emerge from the dynamics of intellectual group interactions. The critical theories of the Frankfurt School, for example, could not have emerged without the environmental and ecological conditions that gave rise to there theories. The histories of thoughts that they relied upon (Hegal, Marx), the political conditions that were emerging at the time of their most influential writings, even the geographies (Germany, Columbia University) and urban dynamics were influential in the creations of their thoughts. Media also (especially in the twentieth century) became an important attribute because of the 'speed' inn which information could travel and accessed AND also the type of media information available contributed to these theoretical emergences!

To return to our present installation, we are really interested in the conditions that give rise to ideas, ecologies etc – the 'edges' of discourse AND not the discourse itself (although this must be thought of in reference to the edges and have obvious various importance). We say this because 'edge' analysis has been lacking comparatively to the tendency to define what something either IS or IS NOT. The 'edge' as junction therefore must be emphasized.

We have found that there is a triangulation between the social or human, the ecological and the electronic. This installation, to us, demonstrates via a micro-system (although very simply) the relations we have with the everyday. In this case we DO see the everyday as an 'edge' that exists between various events. Events that can easily be pinpointed as significant: though observation, through history etc. But these events, just as in the everyday, have edges of time (both) long and short that seldom get recognized in the wake of 'the significant'.

The everyday contains the revolution within. Simple actions, when cumulative within populations can have very significant results. It seems insignificant when an individual chooses to consume a product (cultural product, physical product such as food) rather than become the creator of a product even at the micro level (growing backyard tomatoes). Yet accumulative results can have extremely far reaching results even at the most simplest and basic of actions.

Art 'events' fall to the same fate. When the cleverness of the image prevails and a gap becomes apparent between the image creator and the image consumers then the creative spirit inherent in all community based or social organizations become reliant upon the 'expert' of image manipulation: the image 'firm' who has the resources for creating the 'professional' image that we all must accept as something to be consumed. It is in this fate that some feel that such professional results could never be achieved in a DIY (do-it-yourself) manner so the only alternative is to consume what someone else has created.

It is a falsity for the theoretician, the art historian, educator etc. to to place such emphasis on these significant events because that empowers the event and the event creator over that of the everyday life of groups or individuals. Why place such emphasis on the 'event' of the Whitney Biennial and image manipulators OR experts involved (the clever folk that create novelty and deception) and miss the simple actions of the everyday that have far more reaching significance as an artistic discourse.

What do the actions of digging the ground have to do with the creation of a revolution of the everyday? Can there be an art discourse surrounding the actions of tilling the soil? Can there be an artistic discourse on the simplicity of revitalization of an expended resource (such as the composting of kitchen scraps)?

There is not much glory in thinking about such things because actions such as this do not seem to be very 'special' for anyone to do. What we are asking is the question: Why does an artistic discourse miss the circumstances of the daily routine? An can a recognition of such an art discourse have much farther reacting consequences?

We admit, we like to see art in books! Art books! We like to see clever depictions via installation, painting, video and imagery. We enjoy going to galleries and see what 'art' is out there. The Biennials are fun!!! They are social and they are interesting! What we are trying to emphasis though is the edges that take place between these events, the processes that give rise to them. The simple actions that the everyday produce that can have far reaching results, revolutionary results! In our installation what are the differences between removing the soil by hand and having the soil removed by machine?

The energy expended by the labor of the human hand is a product of what that individual consumed over the past few days: and even farther reaching in what had been consumed in a life span. Where was this energy (food and drink) produced? How was it produced? Was it a local production, regional, national, global? It is interesting to trace the relationships of the human body to that of what they ingest. Throughout a lifetime this can grow to be very complicated (in terms of an urban dweller) who may consume products that contains materials accumulated over the span of the globe)! OR very simple such as always having a local food OR energy source such as many Amish populations, nomadic or tribal peoples, or organic farmers – to give some examples.

Do the way we consume food as an energy source contain hidden meanings and associations? Are there everyday actions that can be altered that create new networks of interactive and food consumption that can have from small to large scale ramifications?

If the soil was removed by machine then we can also trace the energy consumed in both a complicated and/or simple way depending on the machinery and the fuel that was used. The machinery itself has a history – lines of flight, a mechanic phylum that we can trace to its eventual emergence as a technology and as a machine for local soil removal. The fuel used has a different historical significance such as that of gasoline that must be extracted from the earth and refined for use OR that of vegetable oil (for use in diesel engines) that can be created and used from and on the land that it was generated.

Machines and machine parts often come from various resources and factories around the world and are gathered together in one location for assembly. The resources and the materials that are used for the creation of the parts also come from various areas in geologically rich areas where minerals and ores are extracted and refined. There is also a rich history to these machines that start with the most simplest parts and pieces (such as the wheel or the screw): make their way toward each other as time progresses (with the help of human assembles and inventors) to emerge in various technological forms.

Fuel is a stored energy that these machines must rely upon just as the organic machinery of our bodies use. the stored energy in food products. Fuel, as mentioned above, can be derived from oil extracted from far under the earth, from the sun, from oils that are 'grown' (such as vegetable oil), radioactive substances etc. A fuel is a stored energy. Any material that has energy has the possibility of being utilized as a fuel. Many technologies have not yet emerged that would allow any material that has energy to be used for such.

It is through these tracings that we find the educational and critical significance of the event that took place: in this instance it is the installation and the excavation. It is not enough to try to understand the installation as it IS but instead we find it much more interesting to discover the pedagogy behind the actions that took place and all the various aspects and histories of the materials and social bodies that were involved. An art pedagogy that lies at the edges of interactions between significant events.

Therefore, with the relationships to the 'labor' involved, we are interested in the energy produced and consumed by the various elements and the many histories involved in these energy productions and consumptions.

As far as the installation goes, at least in our research and investigations, conceptually we were interested in keeping the micro-system we produced as tight as possible; as self-sustaining and autonomous as possible to maximize our understandings by minimizing the complexities of the materials involved. For example, most of the soil excavation as well as the gallery placement was done by hand so we know that energy for the most part came from the food we consumed (and during this installation much of the food was from our backyard garden). Using local soil that has a rich geographical history (moved and deposited by glaciers). Using wheat seed from a local seed supplyer and using water from the art park well.

It is in these actions (as simple as they may seem) and conscious use of local media that we find is critically significant. It is artistic action on the 'edge' of gallery proposal and resulting installation that we find most interesting as a work of at and research. An artistic action that contains far more implications for critical awareness and pedagogy than the single 'static' image that is created and promoted (such as the still image of the installation itself that exists on the web).

As far as the computer technologies are concerned that were used to create an 'interactive experience' for the participants I have a few questions and implications to ourself as a result of engaging with these technological. Is such technological use nothing but a gimmick? Is there a critical significance to using interactive computer technologies other than to gain a participants attention? Do we want participants to feel comfortable in our self-contained, manipulated world? Do we want them to be happy? Did we add electronics to our installation just to show how clever we were in the creation and manipulation of computer technologies? Can we use these computer technologies in future exhibitions more critically and more educationally?

To quickly answer these questions that i have no intention of going into great detail on we will begin with this: there always must be a starting point at learning something new. This, we are fully aware of. We have been investigating ecologies of growth and the manipulation of organic materials in many installations and art projects for several years now. We feel that we have a grip on the concepts and conceptual nature of there uses and the significance that we aren't interested in their use.

That said, this is our first experimentations with participants and our installed materials (the soil moisture sensor) interacting with computer technologies. In a way, ill admit, we utilized interactive computer technologies just to actually see if we COULD do it! Whether there is the same interesting and critical connections that can be made such as we have philosophically done in our other installations – only time can tell. BUT I can safely say that we are very interested in continuing our experiments, so to create more critically aware pedagogical works in the future is more that likely.

Such works may use real time data to monitor changing and evolving environmental changes that could include the monitoring of environmental 'toxins' or monitoring the local growing conditions. Data could be used in remote locations to bring about community awareness and pedagogy of impending environmental disasters or the value and significance of actions of the everyday.

Alternative Description
Outside, on the hill of the art park, we will excavate 2, 5’x20’ rectangles of topsoil, exposing the bedrock (to expose the “stone hill”). The soil will be transferred into the exhibition space of the old ceramics studio where it will be placed on the floor (over heavy plastic sheeting). The soil will have a pathway wandering throughout it (reminiscent of Japanese Stroll Gardens). The pathway will consist of hypertufa stepping-stones fitted with sensors to register the weight of gallery visitors who stroll the path. Each stepping-stone will be approximately 3 inches tall and 12 inches wide. When a sensing stone registers the weight of a participant, a low tone will sound in the adjacent gallery, emitted from a Leslie speaker placed in the room. On both sides of the pathway, planted in the soil, will be a crop of rye and vetch. These two crops are planted together as green manures in sustainable agriculture, and rely on each other for fullest benefit to the soil. Gallery visitors will have the option of watering the vegetation, which will also be monitored by sensors reading the water content of the soil. Dry soil will emit a constant audio tone, wetter soil a different tone, saturated soil yet another tone. The tone will be combined with the tones of the sensing-stones resulting in an immersive audio environment.

In addition to the audio signals sent from gallery 2, gallery 1 (the white space) will be equipped with “documentation” of the excavation process (photos and videos). The documentation will be exhibited on long “kiosks” about waist high. Part of the white space may be partitioned off to exhibit a wall-sized video installation. Also included may be a photo exhibit on the walls (shot by Michelle Grimm), creating another layer of information.

Aims of Show: To instill in gallery viewers, volunteer participants and artists a sense of collaboration with each other and the art park. They would leave the exhibit with an understanding of how community actions are constructed, and how they can be combined with expressive and artistic pursuits.
To involve gallery viewers in an action-based artwork, that differs from their previous traditional “pure aesthetic”, passive, observational relationships with physical artworks.
To give audiences a chance to become involved in the caretaking of plants, while experiencing a warm, human-centered technological environment.
To explore solutions to environmental salience by introducing action-based experiences to willing participants. ]]> 31@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:39:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/30/cohabit_cooperative_networks_a/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/30/cohabit_cooperative_networks_a/projects#comm An 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. ]]> 30@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:38:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/29/org_reaping_the_white_walls/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/29/org_reaping_the_white_walls/projects#comm An art and biology show. Macy Gallery at Columbia University.

In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we baked bread and brewed beer for gallery opening participants to eat and drink. This is the second installment in the series "eco-works" begun in 2003.ORG Gallery Installation


-->Click Here For 'ORG' Installation PopUp<--


The Org exhibit in Macy Gallery at Columbia University dealt with many of the same issues present in the rooftop garden: notions of sustainability, of the visualization then actualization of a local food movement, of food patterns as resistance to the massification of homogenized American food culture. Also, we wanted to share our experience of the Sky Garden with a broader audience, to inspire them to seek out innovative ways to raise food and eat, no matter where one lives.

To become informed about contemporary food issues, we undertook a cross-disciplinary research study into practices inherent in the industrial food complex- which included genetically modified organisms, factory farming techniques and consequences, the protests surrounding the WTO and farm subsidy and trade politics of the United States and other peripheral issues. We also spent a good deal of time on the dialectics of these systems-practices that existed in defiance to the above systems of production. By spending a week on an organic farm, joining in a Community Supported Agriculture venture, shopping and eating from the farmer’s markets, and researching the growing local food movement, we began to see that by taking part in direct action or critical enactments in micro-political arenas, an alternative future could be charted regardless of mass ideologies.

The Org exhibit and the subjective nature of art itself gave us an opportunity to present our findings in dynamic ways. When dealing with the creation of artworks, statements and ideas are presented non-linguistic patterns that translate into first-hand experiences had by the viewer/participant. We questioned how we might best give our audience a firsthand experience of alternative and dialectical food systems.

Of course, we had to eat.

By focusing on the local, we began researching the histories of the staple foods beer and bread- or wheat beer and sourdough bread- and how the organism of yeast produces flavors unique to each locality. Yeast became our natural spokes-organism, with wheat closely following it, and we set out to produce our own batches of wheat beer and wheat-sourdough bread to be the focus of the exhibit, which were served at the opening.

We also wanted to share our knowledge of the rooftop garden as an extremely viable way to raise food, so the exhibit included a large number of photos in a wall-based installation. To pass on the ephemeral experience of watching a garden grow, we brought the now dormant soil into the gallery and planted it with the seed of hard red spring wheat. ]]> 29@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:37:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/28/virtual_realestate_squatting_d/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/28/virtual_realestate_squatting_d/projects#comm Full Screen net.art websites devoted to a single Squatted Domain Name

I experimented with creating various websites that acted as single 'channels' of information (imagery, video, animation) in full screen mode that emulated a television 'portal' in a web browser. All information had various instances of 'looping' that created an indefinite 'web' instance. Sites were 'found objects' - domains that were registered yet had no content so therefore had the potential of a virtual 'squat".Squatting with Full Screen net.art Websites



-->Click Here For 'Net Art' Photos PopUp<--


Description
Current sites may or may not be present in the same form as this project initially began. Several domains were randomly registered by others via 'bulk register'. Sites sat content-less for several months. Sites were mapped to our Gentoo servers. Content played upon the given site title.

I effect sites were NOT squatted in the sense of a building that might be squatted upon without the actual owners permission. This project DID have domain owner permission to utilize the given web domains BUT it was also understood that these web domains were available temporarily and could be taken back and 're-confiscated' at anytime.

Many sites were located and mapped (25-30 in all). Below is an example of some of the more successful experiments.

Slimeballs
http://slimeballs.org/
Site was replaced with high-quality photos of 'politicians'. Photos were all full size. All photos extended past the browser window so that scrolling was nessesary. Any mouse click within the windows would randomly load another 'slimeball' image.

HappyHouseWife
http://happyhousewife.org/
Random animated lines scrolled horizontally. Pop-cultural pallette meets the psycedelic - mothers little helper.

Nine-One-One
http://nine-one-one.org/
Footage of the fall of the World Trade Center continuously looped. World Trade Center Television. On the web and full screen though the browser window.

InTheAir
http://intheair.net/
George Bush giving the middle finger to the camera on a continuous loop.

TrashBag
http://trashbag.net/
An animation of the US flag waving on a contiuous loop, full-screen in a browser window. ]]> 28@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:36:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/27/guerrilla_servers_gentoo_linux/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/27/guerrilla_servers_gentoo_linux/projects#comm Streaming Content from the Institution Guerrilla Style on Custom Gentoo Linux Servers

In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we built, maintained and ran our own servers without institutional authorization from the Columbia University network.Guerrilla Servers: Gentoo Linux Server Project



-->Click Here For 'Guerrilla Servers' Photo PopUp<--


The 'Gentoo Linux Server Project' was the result of a need for group and collaborative autonomy within the confines of the Academic Institutional superstructure. It became apparent to us that in order for expressive networking and server based experimentation to occur 'on the fly' we needed to bypass the bureaucratic 'Information Technology' machine that controlled a vast amount of the technological ecologies and networks through its own forced institutional protocol. Any experimentation with projects, code or networks had to be approved from the 'top-down' for purposes of 'security'.

The hierarchy in this scenario was difficult to penetrate. In order to accomplish even some of the most simplest of tasks, one had to navigate the hierarchy for project legitimacy and eventual approval/disapproval. This task could sometimes take months as emails would be exchanged and opinions on the legitimacy of the project could be expressed. Often question would arise: Why do you want to do that? Why don't you do it this way? Everyone wanted input, yet no one actually wanted to dedicate resources: labor time, expertise, hardware etc.

The artist does not work under this formula. They create and express. They help to evolve an idea and create new forms. They go from their gut to create something fresh. They experiment, they change code and hardware around - they make do with what they have.

We were not interested in the latest, fastest computer. We wanted to take what was old and figure out how to make it new again. The discarded computer as found object. The 'out of date' system as restored experimentation. the 'no budget' solution.

Why spend on the cutting edge (the newest technology) when we don't yet even understand the possibilities of 'old' technologies. Does 'free' systems such as the discarded remains of old g3's in place of expensive g5's allow for more unhindered creativity to occur? Is this an educational model for technology and technological systems? Use what we have - not what we don't have - make something new.

Below is a legitimizing statement of our 'Gentoo Linux Servers'. This was written in case we were 'caught' in the act of running illegal hidden guerrilla servers off of the institutional network. We were below the radar - but for how long? Just incase this statement was on hand......

The Gentoo Linux servers (Macintosh g3's) are running several academic
research projects for faculty, students and staff.

One of these servers exclusively runs "mailman", an open-source community listserv. One of these lists is "CSTC", an Academic Cultural Studies list that is used for communication of events such as the "Citizen Project: Bodies in Motion" hosted by Kelvin Sealey and other events, areas, subjects and discussions of interest to the over community participants including students and faculty. This list is coordinated by Professor John Broughton as well as moderated and maintained by Doctoral students Mark Grimm and Cyrille Adam.

This server, titled "papaya", runs several other lists and projects including a class list for "Intro to Art", a class taught by Kean University Adjunct Professor Mark Grimm. This list doubles as a research project component in a larger study of network pedagogy and communication in the college classroom.

Another list is the "socialmediagorup" list run for an experimental arts collective of the same name. This list discusses art, technology, politics and social theory and places them all under a "new media" lens. Participants include artist/media theorist/Professor John Broughton, artist/activist/educator/student Frank Shifreen, artist/student/Adjunct Professor Hugo Ortega, artist/student/AdjunctProfessor Jacob Roesch, artist/graphic designer Kelly Cheatle, artist/computer programmer/student/educator Daniel Rubin, artist/activist/Adjunct Professor Mark Grimm, artist/activist/educator Amy Cheatle among others.

In addition, this system also contains several other lists utilized for various discussions and research pertaining to education, theory and media run by students and faculty alike.

Our second Linux server, "watermelon", delivers web content via the apache web-server. This system contains many research projects including several electronic academic journals, personal student web pages, and spaces for web development and experimentation.

"SubjectMatters" is an online journal on media, culture and technology conceived and edited by Professor John Broughton. It is rapidly being developed by several of his students and plans to go "live" by mid winter.

In addition to this we also host several students research projects in the visual arts such as Frank Shifreen's "thedigitalmuseum.com" which documents the course of Franks artistic progress through organizing, curating and his own personal art shows. It will be used in his dissertation as an example of democratic "electronic" space, and the ability to use images as a global mechanism for activism, art and change. Several projects such as the "Anti-war Poster Show" held in Macy Gallery of last year, and "Anti-War Posters At the World Social Forum" in Mumbia, India that had an attendance of several hundred thousand is completely documented and hosted on him
site.

Another site that is in development is for a large upcoming (spring 2005) conference conducted and organized by student Cyrille Adams. This site will house video, audio and accompanying documentation from this conference that will be attended by keynote speaker and prominent critical theorist Douglas Kellner as well as New York University Professor and scholar Stanley Aronowitz. An interactive forum that is currently under development and written in PHP will also accompany the site for conversation and participation.

We also run several student pages on this server that contain artist portfolios, teacher portfolios, resumes and curriculum vitale's.

Our third g3 Gentoo Linux server has been designated as completely experimental hosting many different artist projects, group projects, open-source development projects, and other media such as audio and video. This server has been used primarily as the "sandbox" for our community development team of artists, theorists, and programmers.
We feel that its eventual use will evolve as projects and team deployment become more and more complicated as time goes on. This server is necessary for experimental purposes that proceeds final publishing.


Watermelon - This server was home to several artist websites and pportfolio as well as this site 'socialmediagroup.org':

• frank shifreen
• jacob roesch
• mark edward grimm
• amy catherine cheatle
• brett virmalo
• socialmediagroup.org
• socialmediagroup.com
• subjectmatters.org

Papaya - this server ran several of our mailinglists including our own mailing list for 'socialmediagroup' and the Teachers College 'Cultural Studies' group mailing list.

• Papaya Mailing Lists

Rhubarb - this server ran many experimental projects including net.art, wiki's, forums and experimental media. Many of these site may be inactive do to a constant rotation of experimental ideas.

• artoftheinsane.net
• artzglobal.net
• artopolis.org
• inthewires.com
• intheair.net
• nine-one-one.org
• hatedell.org
• sqwump.com
• sporble.com
• dionysic.com
• imapic.com
• inthepod.com
• artlaboratory.net
• slimeballs.org
• panarts.net
• iamthat.com
• smurb.com
• thedigitalmuseum.org
• thedigitalmuseum.net
• thedigitalmuseum.com
• mythus.net
• pixelocity.org
• inthevoid.org
• chitwit.com
• sexpixels.net
• voided.net
• imuri.com
• niceplacetovisit.net
• nohoarts.com
• bleepbleep.com
• trashbag.net
• autobiographical.net
• gottohavethat.com
• hereincyberspace.com
• shamansdream.com
• weartheweb.com ]]> 27@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:35:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/26/rooftop_guerrilla_gardening_sk/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/26/rooftop_guerrilla_gardening_sk/projects#comm A Guerrilla Gardening Research Experiment in the Manhattan Urban Terrain.

In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we grew a garden on the roof of an 11 story building in upper Manhattan without authorization. This is the first installment in the series "eco-works" begun in 2003.Rooftop Guerrilla Gardening: SkyGarden


-->Click Here For 'Guerrilla Gardening' Photos PopUp<--


It is estimated that in the year 2015, 55 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas. In some regions, such as Europe, North America and Latin America, over three-quarters of the population is already urban . As cities have developed, they have pushed agricultural land further and further from their boundaries. Agricultural systems are increasingly owned by open-loop agribusiness corporations who are focused more on the bottom line than on planetary or individual health, and rely on the use of fossil fuels, chemical “solutions” to land driven infertile through overproduction, genetically engineered crops, and undocumented and unprotected migrant laborers. Small-scale farms are diminishing leaving communities struggling to develop local economies, and those who remain on the land often need to work off the farm to keep the farm alive.

In response to growing urban populations, should urban centers involve themselves in issues of food production? Cities such as New York rely on importing fresh food from neighboring farms. Yet these cities have shown incredible yield results and social benefits from urban gardening initiatives. Additionally, following September 11, 2001 when New Yorkers found themselves isolated from the rest of the country as bridges and tunnels were closed to in and out-going traffic, is there more of a reason for cities to increase their self-sufficiency and food security?

We began answering these questions by experimenting with methods of urban gardening via architecture, crossing the boundaries of the built environment with growing material as we gardened seventy feet above the ground on a roof of Columbia University. Sky gardens, or greenroofs, have become more and more frequent in cities across the world as local governments, developers and individuals become educated to their ecological benefits. Greenroofs, as part of sustainable building projects, have been gaining support in urban areas such as New York, Toronto and Chicago, and greenroof organizations show initiatives are planned for hundreds of others (see greenroofs.com).

Roofs built to hold soil and plantings are noted to have the ability to filter and clean rain water runoff, to act as sinks for carbon dioxide, reduce summer temperatures elevated through the urban heat shield, and reduce energy costs for building inhabitants by decreasing the building temperature in summer and increasing it in winter (Empey, 2001 available online at http://www.cityfarmer.org).

Sky gardens have begun to focus on the possibilities of raising crops on the roof to feed citizens; nowhere has farming on rooftops been more successful than in Cuba, where creative self-sufficiency has proven valuable for survival.

We formulated the question: Can city-dwellers to take matters of food production into their own hands, even without a claim to land? How would we, as artists and educators approach the issue and merge two seemingly opposing landscapes into the human endeavor of producing food?

As both winter and our theoretical research drew to a close, we began enacting our own urban gardening initiative. Carting hundreds of pounds of soil up onto the roof, as guerilla gardeners , we installed a composting system and collected the fruit and vegetable scraps of friends to begin creating our own on-location soil. We rigged an irrigation system by attaching a chain of garden hoses to a near-by faucet, and found a group of like-minded individuals prepared to assist in tending to the plantings and running recon hose missions. We built beds to hold the soil, and planted vegetables and flowers.

After a few weeks passed and the plants began to fill out their beds, we began getting compliments from other roof-users, namely the union workers of the university. Within a few months we were harvesting leafy greens and carrots, and visiting the garden more and more for enjoyment and personal reasons.

Before we knew it, our first growing season was coming to a close, and it was time to put the garden to bed. We deemed the garden so successful we planned an even greater crop for year two.

During the second year of the rooftop garden, we were still gardening without the approval or permission of the university, yet we now had a following of staff, professors, and fellow students who frequented the space. The uses of the garden were expanding beyond that of food production, as we came to find that a nearby on-campus photography studio was utilizing the garden for aesthetic purposes. As the photo instructor informed us, more than half the class had submitted photos of the garden for their critique.

We expanded during this year by importing trees into the garden and experimenting with hydroponics systems to great success. As year two drew to a close and we were about to put the garden to bed, a random fire broke out near the garden. When NYFD found out we had installed a rooftop garden in a public area without consideration of the roof’s load capacity, they demanded us to remove it immediately or be subject to steep fines, and the experiment came to its end.

Though we felt the experiment had its successes, we note that more efficient watering systems needed to be developed and we also would recommend finding a lighter-weight soil. We kept containers to easily-carried sizes that could be dismantled and stored indoors during winter so snow load did not increase the weight on the rooftop. Had we consulted an engineer, we might have been able to come to a definite load capacity, and left the containers up year-round.

We had documented the project and decided to use this documentation in an art exhibit within the university gallery. The garden was thus reborn in a way within an artist’s space, its properties exhibited in the ordinary aesthetic language of still photography, video, installation and sculpture, and in the unordinary language of home-brewed beer and sourdough bread. ]]> 26@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:25:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/25/nyc_antiwar_protests_art__acti/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/25/nyc_antiwar_protests_art__acti/projects#comm Ongoing Project Documenting Anti-War/Activistic Actions and Interactions in NYC since 09.11.01

In collaboration with 'socialmediagroup', we documented immediate political events after the collapse of the World Trade Center and leading up to the Iraq war.NYC Anti-War Protests: Art & Actions


-->Click Here For 'NYC Anti-War Protests' Video Installation PopUp<--


Recently, with the continuing availability of powerful technologies, the American masses have had the undeniable opportunity to become participant observers, documenters and distributors of their own human thoughts and experiences, and also 'information warriors' in global battles against vast state and corporate infrastructures. With inexpensive still and moving cameras in hand, and digital culture and technology within the intellectual grasp, these 'real-time' warriors are witness to overly prevalent forces known to 'limit the potential of the people' (Chomsky 2002). They have been given the opportunity to use the same tools (digital camera, laptop, Wi-Fi) that the mainstream media now use in 'embedded' situations as well as the power of information distribution. In the hands of global citizens, new and available technologies present the opportunity to tell personal and shared narratives to initiate the promotion of social and political justice through visual means (Stephen 2003).

By 'going-native' and becoming participants within some of these dynamic formations, we personally witnessed that some sub-cultural resistant groups and collectives (from traditionally organized to anarchistic self-organized) have 'flipped the script' or folded over the medium of digitized information in direct opposition to the ideologies of their corporate manufacturers (who solely rely on the mechanism of the culture-industries to remain progressively stable), while concurrently seeking what Hakim Bey would call, 'Temporary Autonomous Zones' (1985).

As this has been defined, "the TAZ is like an uprising that does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/else when, before the State can crush it." (Bey 1985: 99). Among these sub-particle, micro-political structural systems is a strengthening alternative media and the wide distribution methods of shared ideas and experiences that the mainstream press has the inability to embrace in full . Such emergent systems of recording, editing (or non-editing), and distribution combined with grassroots and mainstream screenings of independent documentaries, internet-streaming, art exhibitions and experimental television have become a contemporary form of tactical hegemonic disturbance. This disruption has become a method of resistance against state, corporate and institutionalized power structures.

Demonstrative interruptions in opposition to the state and corporate infrastructures is not unlike Nathan Martin's idea of critical deviant practice, where, "...the deviant member should be supported in an attempt to establish a reciprocal system or network or action that addresses the fault they observe" (Martin 2004). Support for such practice is generated in the micro-networks of individuals and group actions, acting simultaneously in critical collaborative practice. This practice is identified in the growing use and 'shared' nature of the digital video activist as was personally witnessed during the Republican Convention demonstrators of 2004.

Nevertheless, we often must begin a march without knowing when or where it will actually terminate.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1986: 128)

Like Martin Luther King Jr., we began this study without knowing where it might lead. We had inclinations into the purposes and uses of digital technology within the social spheres through our own experiences with the medium, and some theoretical readings shaping a field of study into resistance and technology. Our study of the digital activistic culture surrounding the protest movements of 2003-2004, including the globally massive Stop the Invasion of Iraq campaign, and its local cousin, the Say No to the RNC campaign, grew from our personal interest in video activism and our professional interests in the artistic production of video media as a pedagogical tool for public education. In the desire to locate our identities in alternative systems that are occupied outside of the conventional American status quo and hierarchy of power systems, we saw an opportunity to study a subject (video activism) that we felt was frequently overlooked within institutional environments. This was informed by our understanding that there are certain things that are not proper to say and are not proper to think in the "uniformity of ideology in the intellectual culture" (Chomsky 2002: 112).

In direct participatory action and as contributing observers we engaged in a form of 'critical action research', where research is undertaken by those personally involved in certain social situations, in order to better understand these circumstances and their own "social or educational practices" (Morrow 1994: 319; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: 5). As participant-observers, our collection of ethnographic footage ultimately became a methodological tool for an interdisciplinary analysis of certain events and structures that we locate within various cross-disciplinary texts and theories. These consist of studies in network and media theory (including radical alternative media studies), Critical Theory as research method and social theory, the widening field of Cultural Studies, and Deluezian notions of ryhzomatic, self-organizing networks.

We used Critical Theory, as even 70 years after the development of the Frankfurt School it "retains its ability to disrupt and challenge the status quo" (Kincheloe and McLaren year? :260) Critical Theory is involved in struggles for social change, and seeks the unification of theory and practice (Kellner, Critical theory and the crisis of social theory, :8). We too sought to unite digital media and social network theory with video practice, and analyze their strengths for social justice issues. For instance, we explored techno-theory claims that investigate the perimeters of new technological boundaries, to gauge their usefulness for individual liberation, plurality of message, and democratic participation. Often these parameters involve the "misuse" of new technologies (Dery 1996). Radical videotaping and publication, especially of footage where police officers used great force to dominate peaceful protestors, becomes an activity that expands the boundaries of socially-transformative technological practices.

Critical Theory is also concerned with instances of domination, as "complex notion[s] based on a concern with the ways social relations also mediate power relations to create various forms of alienation and inhibit the realization of human possibilities" (Morrow 1994:10). As our experiences with this protest movement increased over time, we began to understand that though the protests were strong in number (over 250,000 people marching in NYC streets) they were not strong enough to persuade the government to dismiss their war plans- or even to persuade NYC's mayor not to endorse the Republican Agenda. We were also concerned with the lack of news coverage of these protests, feeling that here was an instance of the media inhibiting the realization of the protest's message(s) by refusing to acknowledge it/them. We sought to use the self-publication possibilities inherent in digital technologies to tell the story of those who were actively engaged in the democratic process, and resisting the mandate of war and conceptualizations of power.

Though both optimistic and pessimistic schools of thought exist in relation to the democratic uses of technology for social and individual liberation, we chose to employ the discourses of critical theory and technology as a non-objective process that is utilized by individuals for good or harm.

From a critical theorist perspective, the non-objectivity of technology has been well examined in many texts over the past 70 years, most notably by the Frankfurt School when it "rejects the neutrality of technology" (Morrow 1994: 282). They have argued that "technology is not a thing in the ordinary sense of the term, but an "ambivalent" process of the development suspended between two possibilities (our emphasis)" (Feenberg 1991: 14). With this in mind, our investigation into the opportunities or detriments of digital video processes in its relation to the social and political sphere began with our own working knowledge of such processes, and resulted in our understanding of the transformative effect that certain technological processes can promote.

Over the course of several months, our 'action-based research' study involved the consistent videotaping of police and demonstrator activities at several key activist events. Our primary technological tools (info-weapons) were the Panasonic DVX100A digital video camera, the Canon GL-1 digital video camera, an external omni-directional microphone, and a body tripod. Collected throughout these demonstrations was over 15 hours of video footage; this included video interviews of a number of demonstrators, as well as more organized speeches, marches, acts of civil disobedience, surprise autonomous/deviant acts, debates by civilians in the street, and other statements of highly-organized to self-organized resistance to the convergence of national right-wing ideologies in the urban center of New York City.

We found that by embedding ourselves within various movements, we had the opportunity to personally observe that members of the NY Police Force were either unable or unwilling to speak for the camera (although the police in turn had plenty of cameras for themselves ). We also worked spontaneously with the Independent Media, Lawyers Guilds, individuals involved in direct forms of action, and even the mainstream media (ABC). We had the opportunity to screen some of the footage at art shows in three cities, and distributed DVDs of material to those who had an interest in watching it.

Two real-life events sparked our initial interest in studying the uses of digital video in the culture of resistance "as a form of memory against effacement", or to defend culture against authorities in search of domination (Said 2003: 159). One of these occurrences was the witnessing and documenting of what (was perceived to be) police brutality and possible racial profiling. The second was another example of police brutality, and the subsequent sharing of the footage gathered. We provided the taped event to the Independent media to distribute, and also gave copies to Legal Aid and the Legal Observers, (two groups of volunteer legal services aiding demonstrators and bystanders caught up in sweeping arrests)
We found that the physical and digital convergence of a network of camera people, editors, writers, lawyers, bike messengers, demonstrators, chefs, farmers, and other professionals was an interdisciplinary group of energized individuals who used their strengths to create zones of autonomy where the normal rules of living are replaced with community action. Their collaborative efforts were for a common goal, and not based on financial rewards.

Media theorist Geert Lovink, who considers himself to be a radical media pragmatist, calls for the opening of a dialogue among "media activists, journalists, those who work in fashion, pop culture, visual arts, theatre, and architecture" so that an active Info-war can begin, and begin successfully (2002, 315). We found his vision to be somewhat narrow to those expected to participate, as our post-analysis of collected materials (including images, image sequences, text and sound) opens wide the notion of whom is to collaborate in combating or resisting dominant discourse in social practices.

In these protests, where slogan's such as Martin Luther King's "Injustice anywhere is Injustice everywhere" abound, we found many small organizations had come together under a larger umbrella movement of the War Protest, or those who came to protest the American agenda under the Bush administration. Some of the groups who were represented included, the Communist Voice Organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Women's Global Strike, American's Coming Together, Swing the State.ORG, United for Peace and Justice, War Resister's League, Critical Mass, Another World is Possible, various artist collectives, Families Against Bush, and the list goes on and on.

In this paper we have argued that video as a disruptive medium has the potential to create new ways of viewing and changing societal norms. As Chomsky has described, institutions inherently will not allow a mechanism to exist that will eventually lead to their own self-destruction (Wintonick, Archbar & Miquet ?). Therefore, video and the electronic image as documentary mediums must exist in non-institutionalized, independent form either working completely outside and against the institutionalized norm, or as a micro-political act of internal dissent from within: small enough to lay low under the radar, but large enough to make an eventual impact.

This model of radical video practice reconceptualizes the entire historical framework of communicative models of video technologies in the understanding that radical video does more than just promote an 'alternative' message prescribed by the same classical steps of communication discourse. As Dahlgren (1997) observes the conventional steps involved with video production and distribution: 1) in the sender of the message and the circumstances of its production methods; 2) the from and the content of the message that is distributed; 3) and the processes and impact of the receptions and consumption of that message. In contrast, radical video as a medium is more that just an alteration of the 'message' but instead the alternative message is accompanied by new networks of organizational practice that redefine the distribution, production and the audience of the medium itself.

An alternative message in this form of autonomous (working outside institutionalized structures) materializes in the social practice where the audience actually become the 'involved' over the merely informed. The educator teaches how to create knowledge over merely how to consume it. The distribution of information is technologically decentralized over information centralization; it comes from groups, collaborative and individuals rather than large institutionalized structures such as the mass-media. The audience becomes not merely the 'public' of consumers, but become the multiple points where the social production and distribution begins. This extreme democratic organizational structuring produces a multiplicity of meta-narratives and personal stories. It opens up hidden atrocities and doesn't 'edit' for a focused audience. It doesn't discriminate against information that is perceived as 'unimportant' or 'invalided'. It is radical in its organizational design and it is new very powerful medium. ]]> 25@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:23:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/24/army_men_symbolic_plastic/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/24/army_men_symbolic_plastic/projects#comm Operation United States Freedom

214 plastic 'Army Men' were deployed in and around Manhattan in New York City. They were placed in buildings, in public and private areas, and on 'the streets". This was done the same day as the "2003 invasion of Iraq" when 214,000 United States service men and women were deployed in Iraq.Operation United States Freedom



-->Click Here For 'Army Men' Installation PopUp<--


Description
Plastic 'Army Men' were purchased from a local 'dollar store' in Manhattan. On May, 19th 2003, the day that the United States coalition forces invaded the country of Iraq, 214 plastic army soldiers were placed in and around the Manhattan area. Some soldiers were placed 'on the streets' such as on top of public mailboxes, street corners and curbs. Others were placed in areas of higher educations such as in and around Columbia University and New York University. Many were placed inside university buildings as well as public buildings. Some were placed in public parks.

This was a symbolic gesture made to draw attention to a military invasion. In reaction to the invasion it was necessary to reinforce the publics perspective the is so often dominated by the spectacle of the media. Physical symbols of military power such as the placing of 'army men', even as simplistic as it seems, is a gesture of creating unavoidable situational instances where even the site of such symbols can provoke individual and group reflections.

One of the ideas was, how would it feel to the average Manhattan urbanite if New York City was invaded and under an occupied force? Can an individual artist create a symbolic action that might reflect this perspective? Can an individual artist draw attention away from the 'media machine' with physical situational objects?

Through the use of temporary artistic instances at basic levels, new conversations and dialogues are possible. ]]> 24@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:22:00 -0600 http://megrimm.net/entry/13/analog_pixels_situational_expe/projects http://megrimm.net/entry/13/analog_pixels_situational_expe/projects#comm Experiments in creating physical pixels for use in installations, interactivity and situations.

These experiments in painted surfaces and LCD photos were begun at the end of my masters work at Rochester Institute of Technology. I was interested in creating flat painted surfaces that were devoid of brush strokes and photographs that were devoid of objects for use in gallery installations and creating public situations.Painted Boxes


-->Click Here For Painted Boxes Gallery PopUp<--


8" x 8" x 2" boxes were constructed from luan and poplar. Backing frames were nailed and glued using a butt joint. Luan was attached to the top and tacked on with finishing nails that were counter-sunk. Wood putty filled the holes and the surfaces were sanded.

Tape was then attached tot he 'edges' of the surfaces. the tape in conjunction with the surfaces created a flat pan. Acrylic Enamel paint (car paint) was then 'poured' into this 'pan'. The paint came off the surface from between 1/4" and 1/2" depending on the color used and the thickness of the paint. Paintings were left to dry for several weeks.

Once the paint was dry, the tape was removed and a table saw was used to create a flush edge between the surface and the backing frame. Surfaces were then 'waxed' such as a car would be waxed and the edges of the backing frames were painted neutral grey.

These paintings became analog pixels. Surfaces that simulated digital pixels in the physical environment. These 'painted boxes' were used in installations, interactivity and performances through out New York City in the spring of 2001.


LCD Photos

-->Click Here For LCD and Painted Boxes Installation PopUp<--

A color was chosen at random on the computer. The color was used as a 'solid' desktop color. All desktop icons were removed or hidden. A photograph using a film camera was taken of each displayed desktop color from the LCD screen. This was repeated 100 times each with a different color.

The film was processed and each photograph was printed. Printed photographs were cut to 8" x 6" and mounted behind glass backed with masonite. Backing 'clips' gave the mounted photos a dimension of 8" x 6" x 2".

These photographs were used as rectangular 'pixels' in installations and interactive works in New York City in the summer of 2001.


Painted Canvases

-->Click Here For Public Installation PopUp<--

Canvas squares were treated in the same fashion as the painted boxes. Squares were larger measuring 24"x24". Squares were constructed with muslin on stretcher bars and gallery tucked and staples in the back. Acrylic paint was applied with a cloth. Metallic acrylics were used. Layers were applied, dried and lightly sanded resulting in an even smooth surface. Paintings were sealed with a acrylic gloss medium.

Where complete canvas squares were placed in the outside environment for 1 hour. All interactions with persons coming in contact with the paintings were recorded 'voyeur' style with a hidden DV camera.

Canvases were placed in and around the Manhattan area. This was performed several dozen times in places such as Manhattan Square Park, Columbia University and Riverside Park. All temporary installations were recorded. In addition to the painted canvases, painted boxes and LCD photos were also utilized.

These performances became a conversation between social bodies (those that interacted with the objects whether by touching them or avoiding them) and manufactured objects that represented the digital 'pixel'. The 'pixel' became material (as opposed to virtual) and entered the physical environment.

With these works I was interested in how electronic and physical environments can merge - how boundaries and borders between different mediums can dissolve. I was also interested in the time and history of objects and temporary spaces - how one can create situational improvisations within the everyday. These situational creations can be subtle and to me it is in the subtleties and new creations and existences can synthesize.

I was very interested in the alteration of everyday routines and how social oscillations can temporarily be adjusted. As a jazz band may improvise off of each other, so too can artists and social, public streams create dialogue even at the simplest levels.


Analog Digital Mergers

-->Click Here for LCD and Painted Boxes Installation PopUp<--

Photographs were taken of specific 'living' environments - the interior of a Manhattan apartment. Photographs were juxtaposed with digital scans of the 'painted boxes'. Photographs were mounted on 6"x4" foam core surfaces. 24 photos in all were created and displayed.

Particular attention was paid to a single material present in the photograph - a strip of wood boarding, a single bathroom tile etc. This material was then 'replaced' with a 'analog pixel' that was digitized.

Again I was interested in the merging of two environments - the virtual and the 'real'. How can these environments be manipulated? How can the materials be manipulated? How can one make simple changes to environments that have larger implications - both materialistically and theoretically?

These were some of the questions I was addressing in this series of projects.

]]> 13@http://megrimm.net/pivot/ projects Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:22:00 -0600