visionary aesthetics, post industrial ecologies and practical art

8/16/2019 Visionary Aesthetics, Post Industrial Ecologies and Practical Art

1/15


2/15

2

resistance and revolutionary intent carried out in the gallery is not only valid but an essential political act. I have argued that this is a naïve construct; which privileges political intent withoutattention to realpolitik or responsibility for impact. In essence my interest is defined by ideas ofcreative self determination that are essentially linked to responsibility for some overt sense of thecollective good; and real potential for creativity and change.

An alternative to the artworld is the life world as enacted within the public realm, a space whichis defined by both discourse and design where we vie for access, use and control of spatial,conceptual and material commons. It is a transient or phantom space (after Deutsche 1996)approached from various points on the theoretical continuum defined by conflict and agonisticstruggle (Mouffe and Laclau) at one end or through ideas of conviviality and consensus at theother (Habermas and his critics Benhabib, Fraser, etc.). The contemporary public realm operateswith a tension between dominant voices that speak for themselves, representative voices thatspeak for others, and surrogate voices that speak for people, places and things that have no voice.Emancipative contribution demands the opportunity to give voice, and a platform from which tospeak. This is a facultative understanding of the opportunity to speak as well as the conviction tosay what must be heard. Wherever possible things (such as land, plants, animals, water coursesand minerals) have all been subsumed as possessions; as a result things such as nature whichhave public benefit (or are considered to have intrinsic common good) which can be constrainedor destroyed by private interest can also benefit from emancipatory models 1 (Merchant, 1983;Midgley 1983; Plumwood 1993). The project of freedom is not about autonomous individualityand self-expression; it is about a moral responsibility for an ever-expanding sense of ecology andrelated social ideas of freedom. The question I am asking, is how might artists and designerscontribute to this dialogue?

All struggles against oppression in the modern world begin by redefining what had previously been considered ‘private’, non-public and non-political issues as matters of public concern, asissues of justice, as sites of power which need discursive legitimation.

(Benhabib, 1992a, p 100)

Arguing for the need to transcend the aesthetic mode (Gablik, 1992, p. 151); Gablik sought tomove aesthetics beyond the focus on galleries and museums and back into the world with moraland ethical intent. In the arts, aesthetics are widely understood to be a subject response to thesensual, somatic and intellectual 2 experience of objects, installations or performances that resultin a transformative experience. I would argue that the dominant aesthetic is all too oftenintentionally ambiguous and primarily validated by the consistencies that emerge when we scan

1 Grant Kester describes the evolution of enlightenment identity as being produced through acts of possession. In other words, wecan own things; we can even purchase (own) the labour of others. It is interesting to note that Kester claims “Paradigmatically‘nature’ is the name assigned to that category of objects [things] that resist man’s will.” (Kester, 2005a, p. 27) These are the thingsthat we can not tame and possess the increasingly constrained idea of ‘wild’ nature, which at this point is limited to dynamicnatural phenomenon or protected and inaccessible ecosystems; or unnamed or unclaimed DNA typologies and mineral commons.2 The question of aesthetics and intellectual experience is more widely debated outside the arts. Areas such as environmentalaesthetics continue the debate in terms of cognitive and non-cognitive forces aligned around areas of analytic, rational discursiveand phenomenological philosophy.


3/15

3

across like-minded institutional interests. Equivocation, contingency and ambiguity are allessential elements, or strategies of dominant aesthetic value. These strategies assume a resistant

post-modern posture and at the same time leave the status quo relatively unchallenged. More productively, I turn to Eaton (2001), Carlson (2000) and others who characterize aestheticdiscourse in terms of dominant formalist questions of what, versus process analysis of why and

how. It isn’t until we consider why and how that we begin to engage the full ethical dimension ofarts practices and in turn a more active transformative potential of aesthetic knowledge. Theemergence of this dialectic raises specific questions about the tension between dominant artworldaesthetics which focus upon critical dislocation, disruption and the ultimate ambiguity of final

product and this emergent area, which focuses upon rational discourse through criticalengagement and non-ambiguous result. I will present various ideas from both an art and anenvironmental approach to aesthetic philosophy. Nicolas Bourriaud (2002) and Grant Kester(2004) have made contributions to these questions vis a vis the artworld; addressing ideas aboutthe artist’s role in creative discourse and its impact upon subjectivity and aesthetic knowledge.Claire Bishop (2004, 2006) offers critical response to these authors; primarily questioning theauthenticity of ethics as a component of aesthetic value. But it is Grant Kester’s analysis of theemergent area of dialogic aesthetics in “Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication inModern Art (2004) provides us with the most fully developed argument for an alternativeaesthetic that extends focus from material output to the actual process of human inter-relationship(art-based, subject-subject relationship.) He ascribes value through attention to the inter-subjective ethics and empathy that lead to transformative experience. This valuation manages toretain a sense of plurality through a rigorous an non-didactic approach to his subject. The inter-relational aesthetic composed of human subject to subject relationship is a radical shift in whatwe understand as a traditional subject-object oriented discipline.

Working from positions of environmental aesthetics: Alan Carlson (2000) claims that scienceinforms the senses and is the only path to informed aesthetic truth and its rightful application in

policy. Arnold Berleant (1992) is a phenomenologist, who understands aesthetics as an essentialact of engagement, informed by scientific truth but not limited by it. Authors such as MarciaMuelder Eaton (2001) and Emily Brady (2003) further refine these views of cognitive (scientific)and non-cognitive (imaginative) approaches to aesthetics. I am particularly drawn to the potentialrevealed in the phenomenological environmental aesthetics of Berleant (1992). He has devised anaesthetic based upon interaction between the human subject and its environment. In this case, hisaesthetic takes into account the idea that the separation of the subject and the object ofcontemplation are no longer relevant. The subject, the thinking agent, the mind or ego can not beseparated from the body or the environment that sustains that body. Nature and humanity arelinked through the life force, but we are also linked through object-object inter-relationship. Thisis an argument that is mirrored by Marcuse (1972) and Bookchin (1982) who argue that it isthrough the emancipation of nature that we will emancipate ourselves. Marcuse has said, “Things[nature] have their ‘inherent measure’: this measure is in them, it is the potential enclosed in them; only man can free it and in doing so, free his own human potential” (Marcuse, 1972, p261). It is only when the human mind recognizes its fundamental somatic commonality with theecology of living things that the senses integrate with the sciences and finally recognize the moralimpetus of the life we hold in common. By acting through empathic inter-relationship there is the

potential to radically redefine the project of freedom and what we understand as moral and ethicalacts. Where the enlightenment focus was upon legitimating subject-status through possession of

property; we may discover real limits that challenge that concept of possession through


4/15

4

exploration of our own shared object-status. As an object amongst objects, we share theconditions of climate change and the impacts of industrialism on our health and wellbeing. Thisevolution of real experience and thinking has the potential to initiate a reconsideration of rightfulideas like possession and dominion over nature and other living things, as well as initiate adiscourse about radical new forms of scientifically and somatically informed aesthetic awareness

and creative actions that will help shape the futureIndustrial age humanity has lost its relationship to nature. Nature has faded into the background,its primary value is utilitarian as both raw material and a sink for waste. We are seeing significantlosses to landscape typologies from wetlands to forest cover and have found we can exceed thecapacity of air, water, soil to process our waste. Indeed the climate changes in response to ourexcess. What is the role the arts can play in response to these losses and impacts? Artists with aknowledge and passion for new cultural concepts have always been on the forefront ofmetaphorical, symbolic knowledge. Artists understand the impact and value of systems with aclear symbolic, or metaphorical interface. Perception can be enabled or constrained by interfaceand human values follow perception, framed within concept models. Like the contemporaryaesthetic philosophers, artists have to slip some of the bonds of history and think carefully abouthow to define interdisciplinary practice and what it means to act upon these ideas within culture.In a culture dominated by science, which expands and defends what is known, based upon afoundation of tested and proven knowledge; the arts have to develop new critical and strategictools to act upon contemporary society. We need to create a supportive interdisciplinarycommunity of creative individuals that are committed to, and take responsibility for, positiveshifts in the ‘culture of nature.’ We also have to be responsible for the knowledge and impact ofour work across disciplines. In the interdisciplinary model, we find new reasons to think aboutthe efficacy and impact of the artist. At the same time we must consider how we make thesearguments in the context of our core discipline and its predisposition to retain a dynamicapproach to foundation knowledge. The cultural value of art lies in its ability to question thecanon, rules, principles and standards that confine dominant cultural thinking within otherdisciplines. The unorthodox approach to knowledge in the arts often opens unexpected doors. Itcan shine daylight upon options, issues and solutions that would not be considered or pursuedthrough more tradition-bound disciplines, conventional social programs or political and economicinstitutions. This idea is common in the area of practice, but most clearly stated byWochenKlausur in their response to the question; “Is there something like an artistic quality inactivism?” (WochenKlausur, 2006, FAQ). This is not an issue of comparative values, but ratherone of complementary and coexisting values.

Berleant, Carlson, Bourriaud and Kester all draw their ideas through an examination of practice,which is then analysed from a historical perspective and theorized. Their outcome has the

potential to allow the rest of us to train our mind, then our eyes and our body to react to the worldin a new way. What was once a study in generalized truth and beauty has changed into theories ofexpanded perception which reveal an evolution of value.


5/15

5

Image One: 3 Rivers 2 nd Nature [3r2n.1.jpg]

Theory Into PracticeFrom 1997-2000 I worked with fellow artists Reiko Goto, Bob Bingham, and John Stephen anattorney, on a project we called “Nine Mile Run” after the stream which was destined for a sewer

pipe when we arrived. This was a deep dialogue with multiple communities, occurring over threeyears. All of us worked onsite in the Nine Mile Run Valley and in intellectual, experiential andcreative dialogue with four or more distinct place-based communities interested in the remnantstream valley and its park and open space opportunities. From 2000-2006 I worked with ReikoGoto, Noel Hefele and a team of scientists and planners on 3 Rivers 2 nd Nature. On this projectwe were working at a different scale along over 90 miles of river and riverbank on three mainrivers. The challenge was to uncover and then sustain a fellowship of geographically dispersedriver advocates; this was by its nature to be a series of relatively shallow dialogues. Both projectsalso conducted dialogues at the level of planning which spanned citizens and decision makers.The 3 Rivers 2 nd Nature project conducted public dialogue and addressed policy through the

publication of independent white papers on water quality and land use zoning. The experience ofworking on this has made it clear to me that public realm action and advocacy can not beachieved through an idealistic (or simplistic) approach to discursive relationships, nor can it beaccomplished without fundamental attention to the struggle for power, as well as the potential forrational discussion. As a result work that embraces the intent of agency, or emancipation must beinformed by discourse and agonistic theory, post structural theory and the politics of power anddiversity. This work cannot be accomplished through rigid assignation of any of these intellectual

positions. This is the fundamental crux between theory and practice. The realm of ideas is anideal world. The realm of the everyday is a world of unexpected and consistent complication. Todo this work well, I have found it was important to embrace the real potential for failure, andmake a commitment to learn from those failures. Our interest in this work (and our potentialcontribution) was always to move public discourse from divergent and inchoate forms towards asense of clarity and focal intent. This is tied to a sense of responsibility, which is both the ethicalstrength and the point of critical weakness in the work when it is examined as art. To address thiscritical issue we began a series of programmes we called the “Monongahela Conferences”,intended to initiate a dialogue about this work and its intent, analysis and evaluation, which

culminated in an exhibition. The “Groundworks” exhibition and 2005 Monongahela conference“Shifting the Paradigm” were the final steps in the 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project.

In the sections that follow I will present some of this work, contextualized within an overview ofkey exhibitions -- that reflect an aesthetic framework relevant to the questions raised earlierregarding the how and why of art. Starting with the ‘how’ question: Grant Kester provides uswith three inter-relational points: that include the speech acts and process of the dialogue, thequality of the intersubjective exchange, and indications of empathic insight (Kester, 2004, pp.


6/15

6

107-115). An approach to the question of ‘why’ can be formulated following practitioners suchas Lacy (1995, p. 181) and Ukeles in (Gablik, 1991, p. 69); asking if there is evidence of originalthinking and unique language (visual, verbal, written text, symbol, narrative or metaphor) in thedialogic exchange that attends the work? Working from philosophers Eaton (2001) and more

broadly from Berleant (1992); we might ask does the work contribute to the emancipation of

people places and things? Does it have the potential to expand creativity and freedom (in thecontext in which it is developed) beyond the act of primary authorship?

The Fragile Ecologies ExhibitionIn contrast to earlier artists who mediated a balance between people and nature through paintingand sculpture, contemporary artists actually restore or re-create natural ecosystems.

(Barbara Matilsky, 1992, p 4)

In 1992 Barbara Matilsky developed a keystone exhibition in this area. With bold curatorialintent and a catalogue titled “Fragile Ecologies: Contemporary Artists' Interpretations andSolutions” she intended to illustrate the range of approaches artists had developed to restore andrecreate natural systems. I would argue that this curatorial effort and the artists work were at thecusp of new ideas in environmental responsibility and ecological restoration. 3 I also do not thinkthe full scope and impact of the environmental issues these artists were facing was entirely clearat that time. Unfortunately the larger land and waste projects dissipated (Holt, Ukeles) and themajor river restoration project (Harrisons) languished for different reasons. The large scaleundersea habitat project diminished in subsequent analysis (Beaumont). To be fair most (if notall) were operating within artworld budgets and support systems better suited to the developmentof public artefacts. So it should come as no surprise to discover that Holt’s project wasundermined by the complications of an unstable and poorly capped landfill (New JerseyMeadowlands Commission, 2004). Eukeles project 4 was undermined by changes toenvironmental regulation and a loss of NEA funding during the culture wars over the NationalEndowment for the Arts (Ukeles, 1995, 2002). The Harrison’s project on the Sava River inYugoslavia was undermined by the changing politics of Eastern Europe during the collapse of theSoviet Union and the ensuing conflict in the area that was Yugoslavia. 5 The success of BettyBeaumont’s “Ocean Landmark” project was complicated by conditions after completion. The

project is all but inaccessible as it is underwater; even for those that access it underwater, it seems

3 Matilsky made an assumption that was right at that time, but it was only true for a limited time. It is important to remember thatthe Society for Ecological Restoration was first founded in 1987. Right through the 1990’s restoration was being mandated instate and federal projects although there were neither standards defining what the term meant nor were there rigorous methods todefine ecological success. With increasing federal support emerged a more demanding engineering/science approach whichultimately displaced the artists once recognized for driving these kind of projects.4 Later work on the Fresh Kills Landfill seems to also have fallen to the need for greater interdisciplinary expertise mandated bythe engineering based regulation of landfill closures. The Landscape Architect James Corner’s firm “Field Operations” won thecontract for the design of the site and despite claims to changes in her contract in 2002, Ukeles name has not been connected tothe project since (Cabinet, 2002).5 In a conversation with Helen and Newton Harrison on 24 April, 2007 in Manchester, UK, they described the impact of the workonce the politics settled down in the region. A young planner that had worked with them, continued with the ideas they hadinitiated. At this point in time the Sava River is the focus of a number of national and international programmes to restore itsecological function and water quality, which was the intention of the Harrison’s work.


7/15

7

to have lost its material integrity. 6 Shifts in politics, policy and regulation have had a detrimentalimpact on each of these projects. It is a matter of fact that changes to environmental regulationduring the early 1990’s changed both the intent and method of land reclamation affecting thewaste-site projects. In counterpoint a lack of regulation; the continuation of a laissez faire attitudeto ocean habitat construction undermined the undersea sculpture. Despite these facts, the work,

the exhibition and the catalogue have had an important impact. The “ Fragile Ecologies”catalogue is an excellent overview of history, theory and practice at that time. All of the workdiscussed was exemplary experimental public work; yet the critical response to the projects wasdisappointing. It primarily focused upon the exhibition as if it were a series of paintings, or

photographs. The noted critic Patricia Phillips claimed that the “…ideas are challenging--evenabundant--but the images are eviscerated” (Phillips, 1993). The critical focus upon the imagerywas also reflected in Michael Kimmelman’s (1992) review in the New York Times. This briefand specific history gives us a sense of the challenges artists face when attempting to make workthat competes with, or makes a material impact upon urban places and ecosystems. The criticalresponse to the exhibition also reveals the struggle to validate this work for what it is in terms of

process and intent, rather than as a series of artefacts or images. Visual evidence can not be thesole focal point of critical engagement with transformative practice. The work is simply toocomplex in authorship, process and outcome to be represented in singular images; we mustanalyze and evaluate the work on the basis of why and how the work was done, as well as whatwas produced.

The “Groundworks” ExhibitionThis is an exhibition about the environment, but it is also an exhibition that explores the

boundaries of new art practices. …They embody a relationship to nature not as something to bemastered, transformed, or turned to our advantage, but as an interlocutor and agent speaking to usin a language we are not always equipped to understand.

(Kester, 2005b)

Image Two – Grant Kester speaks at “Paradigms on the Move:‘Groundworks’, Monongahela Conference. [kester Pano4.jpg]

6 Various diving websites identify this as: the “Fire Island Artificial Reef located approximately 2.0 nautical miles South of FireIsland Lighthouse. Size: 744 acres; 3,000 yards by 1,200 yards. Depth: 62-73 feet. Listing the material a s: 1,500 tires, 10 barges,2 boat hulls, 2 drydocks, 16 armored vehicles, coal waste blocks (experimental), rock, concrete rubble, and cesspool rings.” (LongIsland Diving, 2007)


8/15

8

The 2005 “Groundworks” exhibition 7 was curated by Grant Kester. It provided an overview ofartists that have made it their intention to affect the form and function of urban places andecosystems. Comparing “Groundworks” to “Fragile Ecologies” there are a number of notabledifferences not the least of which is the move away from US artists alone to a more internationalreview of work with some attempt to understand the differences in social, political and

environmental context. In general, we can say that the artwork in “Fragile Ecologies” addressedecological problems, the material output primarily referencing individual bodies of work insculpture, installation or site work. The artists in “Groundworks” address a broader range ofsocial and environmental issues. The work references conceptual art and radical planning

practices in process and product. Collaboration in these projects is integral to the intent andoutcome of the work; the authorship is often shared rather than singular. Knowing many of these

practitioners across the two exhibitions I would argue that the level of artistic, social andecological sophistication is similar; although the progress and new challenges of the subsequent12 years is also clear.

The question of artist’s impact on policy and development is implicit in the work of many of theartists involved in the “Groundworks” exhibition. Ala Plastica of Argentina, the Harrison’s ofCalifornia and WochenKlausur of Austria are amongst the most internationally significant artiststhat sustain an interest in planning scale projects. Ala Plastica have focused upon the recovery of

public space from 15 or 20 years of military control in Argentina. The Harrisons have conducted planning scale ecological studies in the US, England and Europe. Wochenklausur have focusedon issues of social equity throughout Europe. Other important artists to reference include IchiIkeda of Japan, who integrates engineering and art in his work on the Monosegawa River inTokyo, Japan. Suzanne Lacy working with Susan Steinman and Yutaka Kobayashi to support acoal-mining community as they ‘rediscover’ its river in Elkhorn City, Kentucky. Navjot Altaffocuses upon discourse, design and interaction between and across communities of peopleseparated by social and economic differences in India. Part of the intention of the “Groundworks”exhibition was to initiate a network of practitioners, that would meet in Western Pennsylvaniaintegrated with these national and international experts to increase and enable local capacity tonurture and sustain this kind of creative work in Allegheny County. I will focus on an overviewof the ’on the ground in Pennsylvania’ projects in the paragraphs that follow.

The resident artist teams in South-western Pennsylvania 8 had been asked to work within their best methods and means of practice to create ‘art, design and action plans’ that were relevant tospecific public places. 9 They initiated work in McKeesport, Braddock and the Hays Woods,

7 The “Groundworks” exhibition was initiated and organized by the author, working with his colleagues on the 3 Rivers 2 nd Nature project and Jenny Strayer, Director of the Miller Gallery, Carnegie Mellon University.8 With funding from the Warhol Foundation.9 The ‘letter of agreement’ with Carnegie Mellon University made the following specific requests.The Role of Artists: We believe that there are social-ecological and political situations where an artist's unorthodox approach can

open doors and minds. The artists' chosen for this program have shown capabilities in working with complex social, ecologicaland political issues in the past. Research and Production relies upon a mix of process, research and product that is dependantupon the specific context and opportunity. Attached is a specific example of the artists' recent work, which serves a guideline forthe type of research that will be conducted during the period, covered by this agreement.


9/15

9

geographic areas along the Monongahela River in Allegheny County Pennsylvania. The projectshad a relatively minimal scope of funding for travel, work in residence and preparation for the“Groundworks” exhibition. As a result the creative outputs were reasonably intended as socialand environmental provocation. Despite these limitations there was a considerable amount ofinternationally recognized creative talent working with consensual and transformative intent

within the historic Braddock Library with the support of City Council and the Mayor at that time.Helen and Newton Harrison developed a project called “Fecal Matters” addressing open space,stormwater management and sewage release into the Monongahela River. They were linked withThree Rivers Wet Weather who where initially interested in supporting their innovative approachto storm water and microbial pre-treatment of wet weather sewage. Landscape architects WalterHood and Alma Dusolier developed a proposal for a series of experimental, temporary andinformal linear parks along the river and the abandoned railway right-of-way; areas held as avacant wasteland in support of a twenty year old (future) plan for a six lane highway. Despiteattempts to link these internationally recognized designers with various local and regional

planning or foundation interests, nothing seemed to stick. Working from local perspectiveGround Zero Action Network members Jonathan Kline and Christine Brill developed a projectthat would ‘act out’ the highway footprint and promote a radical planning discourse about thehighway and its impact. Walter and Alma, John and Christine all developed a workingrelationship with the future mayor John Fetterman .10 who has developed his own website‘braddocc’, which provides a sense of the Mayor’s interests and his understanding of the tensionsthat exists, his unique vision and firm belief in the potential for creative change. In 2007, theGround Zero Action Network continues to support the Braddock Mayor’s efforts, and a criticalrelationship with the highway plans. Methods include the organization of a ‘FLUX’ event, a largespectacle; a party where artists, musicians and performers from Pittsburgh’s diverse culturalcommunities come together. This programme is intended to support Fetterman’s mission of

publicizing Braddock as a place for urban pioneers and artists. Braddock is a particularlychallenging community to work within. Economically disadvantaged, Braddock suffers from a

planned six-lane highway which threatens the main street; constraining both public and privateinterest in investment. The town is defined by a hospital at one end and the Upper MonongahelaVallley’s last steel mill at the other. Private homes and dilapidated second hand stores occupy themiddle ground–if there ever was a place that demanded responsible interaction and distributedoutcome it is Braddock PA.

What: The MonConf residencies will introduce restorative art and ecological design practitioners into post-industrial river towns.We have engaged you to work within these communities to reveal restorative metaphors that [have the potential to] result in bold

public-space art, design and action plans. All work wi ll be developed in dialogue with citizens and decisions makers in westernPennsylvania. We understand that your product will reflect but not repeat your current body of work.Where: Your participation in the MonConf Project will place you in an ongoing relationship within the area of Homestead, PAwhere you will work with non-profit institutions, citizens and planners. Weekdays you will work out of a facility in Homesteadwith other artists and designers. Once or twice a week the entire group will gather to discuss progress, process and programdevelopment.How: We will prepare specific information packets for about each artist and arrange tours and discussions with citizens, scientists,activists and planners in the targeted communities. Each work group will be supported by the material and human resources of theMonConf Project10 The new Mayor is an amazing personality. He is Harvard trained, youth oriented, wilful and driven to succeed. He continues tomake waves in Braddock. See: http://www.15104.cc/ andhttp://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A28774


10/15

10

Another project residency focused upon developing a trail plan for the City of McKeesport byartists Jackie Brookner, Stephanie Flom and Ann Rosenthal. This project was established withthe support of Hanah Hardy, President of the Steel Valley Trails Council. The artists workedwithin a city building with support from the Mayor and his planning staff. The project seemed to

have all the right attention and support, including a local foundation head who attended meetingsand was reportedly enthusiastic about the artists’ work. However the planned site of the trailremained complicated by the fact that the essential piece of the trail was on land controlled by theRegional Industrial Development Corporation, an NGO that promotes the re-use of industrial

properties. This proved to be an intolerable situation for those considering further investment inthe project. Ann Rosenthal reports that life has recently returned to the project with the attentionof Peggy Pings of the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National ParkService 11. In spring 2007 a news article focused upon an announcement by the McKeesport Cityredevelopment officer concerning property deals that have resolved the blockage to theMcKeesport trail hub (the focal point of Brookner, Flom and Rosenthal’s work). The articleclaims a bicycle trail that will link the Youghiogheny River Valley to Pittsburgh will be complete

by November 2008. The exact relationship with the project artists remains unclear at this time(Vertullo, 2007).

The ‘Hays Woods project’ was developed by Tom and Connie Merriman; working closely withHeather Sage of Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, and Peter Wray of the Sierra Club ofAllegheny County. The project has evolved into a coalition with a range of community andactivists groups. 12 Another project; by A. Laurie Palmer resulted in a sculpture that explored theidea of a forest as the ‘lungs of the city.’ The Merriman’s chose to work within a context ofdisappointing political actions 13 the project seeks to preserve the 600 acre urban forest. As Iunderstand it, the State of Pennsylvania has denied the permit for strip mining in December 2006(Roddy, 2006). As of spring 2007, the developer has now lost an appeal to that decision. The land

preservation group has reportedly expanded to include powerful friends who are reportedly tryingto find a way to buy the site and deed the property in perpetuity to an NGO Land Trust that willmanage the land as open space and forest. In this last case, the artists are part of a coalition thathave begun to advocate for the emancipation of a 600 acre forest from a developer's intent. Theydid not want to create an authored work of art. But rather to utilize images, metaphor andnarrative to help clarify the value and meaning of the last significant tract of forested land in theCity of Pittsburgh. In the hope that this land can be transformed: from its proposed utility aslumber and coal for industrial extraction leading to its use as a site for development — to somesemblance of intrinsic value. Many believe that this forested land should be put aside for what it

11 Pings has been a region wide champion of arts led waterfront and trail regeneration.12 [http://www.savehayswoods.org][http://www.pennfuture.org/content.aspx?SectionID=137&MenuID=][http://www.alleghenysc.org/article.html?itemid=200702081541230.536917]13 Political actions include a December 2005 change to the local zoning code by the City of Pittsburgh to remove a parks and openspace zoning and enable a ‘special development zone’ on the site. And a series of disappointing federal regulatory responses tothe plan to destroy streams and wetlands under a plan to strip mine coal at the site.


11/15

11

is; and for what it means when a post-industrial community decides to make a radical investmentin its last open space available for future generations.

Image 3 Tom and Connie Merriman, the Hays Wood Project [Merriman 2, 21.jpg]

Other Exhibitions

Heike Strelow curated ‘Natural Realities’ (Strelow, 1999) at the Ludwig Forum in Aachen,Germany, this exhibit was an international overview that expanded the concept of ecological-artand its range of effort to include the human body as a site of ‘natural’ inquiry. The accompanyingexhibition catalogue provides cogent arguments for the three areas of the exhibition: the unity ofman and nature, artists as natural and cultural scientists, and nature in a social context. Anotherexhibition that addressed instrumental intent within ecological art occurred at the ContemporaryArts Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. Sue Spaid and Amy Lipton (Spaid, Lipton, 2002) co-curated‘Ecovention: Current Art to Transform Ecologies.’ The accompanying catalogue explores theartist’s role in publicizing issues, re-valuing brownfields, acting upon biodiversity and dealingwith urban infrastructure, reclamation and environmental justice. Emerging at the same time as“Groundworks” was ‘ Beyond Green: Toward a Sustainable Art,’ curated by Stephanie Smith.

Providing a natural comparison, it provides another view of similar (and in some casesoverlapping work that had a slightly different set of choices informing the curatorial decisionsabout the artists involved.) In Smith’s curatorial project she references Kester’s works ondialogical aesthetics and Bourriaud’s idea of relational aesthetics but the curatorial focus is uponthe artist’s relationship to design and critical practice (Smith, 2005, p.16). The result is anexhibition that has a primary relationship to material products that elucidate socially critical

positions. Kester’s curatorial approach is primarily embedded in an awareness of dialogue. “ Theaudience’s engagement is no longer defined primarily through distanced visual contemplation,actualized by reading or de-coding an image or object, but through haptic experience actualized

by immersion and participation in the process ” (Kester, 2005a, p.20). As a result Kester’sexhibition intends to focus upon the record of creative social practices and critically informed

dialogue; resulting in an exhibition that embraces documentation and challenges ideas oforiginality and authored objects. It is interesting to note that both exhibitions featuredinternational artists who had never exhibited in the U.S. as well as some of the best of the firstand second generation of American practitioners. If we return to Matilsky’s project, importantmainstream critics grappling with “Fragile Ecologies” mostly worried about the quality of theimages. In contrast the critics that engaged “Groundworks” – focused upon the challengesinherent to the process of the work itself, and how it might be understood by a gallery audience(Thomas, 2005a, and 2005b) (Robinson, 2005). In a critical review of “Beyond Green” in Frieze


12/15

12

Magazine: Julia Bryan-Wilson dutifully frames that work in the language and concept ofsustainable design while describing a mix of “art, activism and engineering.” that results in workthat exists at the “intersection of utility and lyricism” (2006, issue 99, p. 89). In each of thesereviews, the process questions of how and why, take precedent over what is presented. Thecritical discourse has shifted and diversified a bit; Thomas, Robinson and Bryan-Wilson are not

as yet dominant voices in critical circles. The sobering counterpoint however, is that the authority(and exclusivity) of the dominant institutions and publications would appear somewhat less opento this work today, than they were back in 1992 14.

Everyday ImpactIn each of the “Groundworks” projects the teams were chosen for their interests; for theirattention to collective creativity through speech acts, and the inspiring qualities of their inter-subjective exchange. Each team had members that excelled at empathetic insight; and originalthinking. The 3R2N research support team did its best to instigate and enable the relationshipswhich would allow the visiting artists to succeed through inter-relational practices and multi-authored processes. We have had some small successes; but also disappointment in the process,the pace of the outcome and the critical response to the work. I think it is the quality of the inter-subjective exchange and original thought which makes a creative project ‘sticky’ and likely totake on a social life of its own. However like any opportunity it has to arrive at a time when

people have the room in their lives to listen to new ideas and some resources available to them tocommit to the process. The Monongahela River Valley has been resource-short for decades; dayto day realities take precedence over dreams.

Which brings me to the question; Can artists initiate verifiable social change? The answer to thisquestion of verification is simply yes and no. The means of verification can be defined in termsof intention, sustained social and political interaction with parties interested in the project andanalysis of impact after the fact. The artists statement of intent is recognized as an essentialmethod for process based practice by Lacy (1995, p. 34). When working with collaborativeintent, it is essential to clarify the common ground and the edges where differences (andexpertise) provide alternative value. A statement of intent then becomes the focal point for anyensuing critical methodology. In process based work, a statement of intent is essential to gage thecause and affect, the value and validation of the work after the fact; this also means that the artcritic is no longer an autonomous authority operating in objective response after the fact. Theartist initiates the dialogue as an essential element of the work itself. If attended to withimagination and responsibility the statement of intent has important consequences for thedevelopment of the work and its subsequent critical analysis.

14 This statement can be rebutted. While the planning side of art and ecology remains primarily outside of the arts mainstream.Those that remain tied to material production, people like Mark Dion, who works with natural museums as a point of reference;Alexis Rockman, who has an incredible command of painting and a critical view of our changing relationship to nature; Nils

Norman, who integrates ecology into critical /utopian work (through illustrative n arratives) on cit ies all have a significant artworld profiles and critical recognition. The Royal Society for the Arts in London has taken a primary role in establishing art and ecology – in both Europe and the Middle East; with a significant range of work presented in conferences; while most of the commissionedwork remains largely lyrical and somewhat didactic by intent.


13/15

13

In the case of the “Groundworks” projects described previously I remain in touch with the artists,and am part of a larger network that continues to reflect an interest in Western Pennsylvania. I get

personal notes, news articles and letters from friends and colleagues who continue the work weshared an interest in. I can work my way through that record and pull out the bits that reflect

creative contribution. At the same time this work is fundamentally collaborative and ultimatelyunsuccessful if authorship and ownership of the ideas were constrained to an individual or projectteam. The goal of social change demands dialogue and creative collaboration and agency on anumber of levels; in turn that interaction demands critical analysis. Without multiple points ofinterest informed by critical and creative advocacy there is no potential for social change. Artistscan have some impact when we act as singular agents, but the process of change demands manyhands, hearts and minds if it is to be both affective and sustained.

Ultimately it is impossible to verify social change without a social science methodology andanalysis. The reality of the work is that most of what passes for efficacy and impact is couched inhearsay and assumption. Complicating this further is the simple reality that the artworld has littleinterest in anything deemed instrumental or verifiable. In the artworld an outrageous claim issimply part of the radical de-centring content of the work. Artists must learn to validatethemselves, and maintain a reasonable critical position as this work does not attract the dominantcritical interests that support mainstream art practices. Indeed the response to “Groundworks” and“Beyond Green” suggest that the artworld that dominates at a national level is less open to theseideas in 2005 than they were in 1992 when “Fragile Ecologies” was exhibited. Artists can workas cultural agents, engaged with these issues, and have social and political effect if they choose todo so. Over a five year period, the 3 Rivers 2 nd Nature project team focused upon the revelationand defence of post-industrial nature. Our process was built upon interdisciplinary site tours,reports, studies and dialogue with artists and designers. We understood the import of a residentculture of creative change and sought to enable it through national and international dialogue.This process was driven by an understanding that creative ideas and metaphors inform perceptionwhich provides us with new frameworks to assess and analyze experience – it is in this way thatartists can help initiate a shift in values.

Through Kester, Lacy and Ukeles we can ascertain a five point method to engage this workcritically through: 1. speech acts and process of the dialogue; 2. the quality of the inter-subjectiveexchange; 3. indications of empathic insight; 4. is there evidence of original thinking; and 5.intent to contribute to the emancipation of people, place, things. We also have to ask our selves,does this work subvert the dominant consciousness, and elicit a sense of creative socialconnectivity and capability amongst its collaborators, participants or viewers? The context framesthe intersubjective exchange where indications of empathy and originality become points ofcritical validation. The artwork is both method and context for the dialogue that has the potentialto change us as at the same time to forge new bonds of social and ecological connectivity.

Practical Art: The intrinsic properties of socially and environmentally engaged art practices thatintend to contribute to the emancipation of people, places and things; in effect transferring thefreedoms and creative potential of art practice to others. The nascent valuation of this work is

based upon ideas that the community of practitioners, theorists, collaborators and participants(communities of interest) deem worthy of attention. The focus is on creativity and change.


14/15

14

BibliographyAlthusser, L. (1971) Lenin and Philosophy . (B. Brewster, trans.) London: N L B.Benhabib, S. (1992a) Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, in the Liberal Tradition and Jurgen Habermas. inCalhoun, C. (eds.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Berleant, A. (1992) The Aesthetics of Environment . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Bishop, C. (2004) Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. October , Boston, MA: MIT Press, 110(1).

Bishop, C. (2006) The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Artforum International , February, pp.179-183.Bookchin, M. (1982) The Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.Bourriaud, N. (2002) Relational Aesthetics, . (S., Woods , F., trans..) France: Les presses du réel. (Original work

published in French 1998)Brady, E. (2003) Aesthetics of the Natural Environment . Tusdaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Bryan-Wilson, J (2006) Beyond Green, Museum of Arts and Design, New York. London: Frieze,Issue 99, p.89.Carlson, A. (2000) Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Na ture, Art and Archi tecture. London:Routledge.Deutsche, R. (1996) Evictions: Art and Spatia l Politics . Boston, MA: MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.Eaton, M.M. (2001) Merit: Aesthetic and Ethical . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gablik, S. (1984) Has Modernism Failed? , New York: Thames and Hudson.Gablik, S. (1992) The Reenchantment of Art . New York: Thames and Hudson.Kester, G. (2004) Conversation Pieces, Community and Communication in Modern Art . Berkeley, Los Angeles, andLondon: University of California Press.Kester, G. (ed.) (2005a) Groundworks: Environmental Collaboration in Contemporary Art. Pittsburgh, PA: theRegina Gouger Miller Gallery, Carnegie Mellon University.Kester, G (2005b) Groundworks Curators Statement. [online].Pittsburgh, PA [cited 29 October 2007]http://3r2n.cfa.cmu.edu/groundworks/letter/curator.htmKimmelman, M. (1992) Fragile Ecologies: Queens Museum of Art . Art in Review. New York Times. 27 November1992.Lacy, S. (1995) Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art . Seattle, WA: Bay Press.Marcuse, H. (1972) Nature and Revolution. Counterrevolu tion and Revo lt. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp. 59-78.Matilsky, B. (1992) Fragile Eco logies: Contemporary Artis ts Interpretations and Solutions . New York: RizzoliInternational Publications.Merchant, C. (1983) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper andRow.

Midgley, M. (1983) Animals and Why They Matter. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, Parks Group, Landfill Reclamation.http://www.meadowlands.state.nj.us/eco_tourism/parks/Landfill_Reclamation.cfm [accessed 3 Sept, 2007].Phillips, P. (1993) Fragile Ecologies. Artforum , March, 1993: New York.Plumwood, V. (1993) Femnism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, p.198.Robinson, C. (2005) Paradigms on the Move: The Groundworks Monongahela Conference [online]. CommunityArts Network Reading Room [cited 18 June 2006]..Roddy, D. M. (2006) Racetrack hopefuls weighing options after sta te denies strip-mining permit. Pittsburgh PostGazette, 22 December 2006.Smith, S. (2005) Beyond Green: Toward a Sustainable Art . Chicago, IL: Smart Museum.Spaid, S. and Lipton, A. (2002) Ecovention: Current Art to Transform Ecologies . The Cincinnati Art Center,Ecoartspace, and the Greenmuseum.org.

Strelow, H. (1999) Natural Reality: Artistic Positions Between Nature and Culture. Daco Verlag (Stuttgart): LudwigForum for Internationale Kunst.Thomas, M. (2005) Eco-artis ts' project challenges audience , Wednesday, November 30, 2005, Pittsburgh, PA:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.Thomas, M. (2005) CMU'S 'Groundworks' is a complex show with local and international reach ,Wednesday, Thursday, November 24, 2005, Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.Ukeles, M.L. (1995) The Art of Maintaining Public Life: An Interview with

Mierle Laderman Ukeles. On The Ground, 1, no 4, 1-4Vertullo, J. (2007) McKeesport trail enthusiasts committed to closing the gaps. McKeesport (PA): The Daily News,27 April 2007.


15/15

15

Wochenklausur, (no date) FAQ: Frequently asked Questions ; What do WochenKlausur's projects have to do withart? [online]. Vienna, Austria [cited 18 June 2006]. .

visionary aesthetics, post industrial ecologies and practical art

Documents