Category

Of Love and Concrete

Museums, Technology, and Money on the Table

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 2 Comments

Digital technology is all the rage in art galleries and museums, or at least the thought that we should all be using it. But placing an iPad next to a priceless object with the exact contextual information that could be conveyed on a plaque is not an effective use of technology. It is merely the same old idea in a new medium. Worse than that, it lacks the appreciation of what the new medium can do. When used the right way, technology does truly present an opportunity to bring an old institution like a museum into the 21st century and provide greater access to human understanding.

I am pleased to say that I have not seen the offending iPad example in person. However, in conversations with people in social change fields, including museums, I have certainly cringed at the presentation of “innovative” ideas for technology deployment that even my grandmother would consider dated. Yes, it is a step further to use a screen to convey rich media (video, pictures) but this still leaves so much unsaid and undone. These are supercomputers not analog televisions. Computers, phones, notebooks and more could open up numerous opportunities for an institution like a museum.

Those opportunities converge on three key concepts: unexpected relationships, human relationships, and money.

In very simple terms, computers collect data and return data. That data can be stored, manipulated and analysed in a variety of ways between input and output. An institution has the opportunity to program a computer to prompt a certain response from an audience and provide feedback. For instance, an application on an electronic tablet next to an object could lead a user through a series of questions. Based on the response to the questions, the computer could provide more information that is targeted to that audience member and therefore more relevant and engaging.  Or the application could make recommendations on other objects or exhibits in the museum that might be of interest. The computer could expand horizons of the audience member by making connections they would not otherwise have made.

Along with algorithms to create opportunities for personal discovery, technology could heighten connections to other humans. Assuming data is collected, there is an opportunity for it to be stored and communicated. I think a quirk in being human is our fixation to know where we stand in relation to others. We enjoy knowing what other people think, and if nothing else we love knowing how we compare. We enjoy reading comments on blog posts (hint hint) because they give us new perspectives and may convince us we are not crazy after all. Learning what other people are experiencing in relation to objects could be a powerful enhancement of human understanding and learning.

Finally I think museums are missing a significant revenue opportunity. Technology provides easy access to information from your audience. Input into a computer can tell you a lot about the person putting the data into the device. Completely anonymous answers to questions that heighten the experience an individual has on a cultural field trip could be valuable. The data collected could expose what the audience is thinking and what they value. If you know what someone holds dear, you likely have the opportunity for a financial exchange.

Technology is a powerful tool when it is deployed to it fullest potential. It could help museums fulfill their mission and put some money in the bank.

IMAGE CREDIT. [Freemake.com].

Art: Sharing the Soul of Another

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 4 Comments

I did not expect Bill Drayton, the “father” of Social Entrepreneurship, to describe empathy as the product he most wants to deliver in the twilight of his career. Reducing poverty certainly. Decreasing recidivism sure. Changing campaign finance, maybe. But to hear the squishy idea of empathy be the focus of an enterprising change maker, was surprising.

As I reflect, the disruption of my perspective was the sort that drives meaningful change. It was probably like the experience of hearing the Gatesian/Jobsian vision for home computing in the 1970’s. It feels wrong yet it is just jarring and crazy enough to be right. With a focus on empathy, Drayton is looking at the root of many of the serious problems in a social setting. Empathy is a powerful component of justice. And three years ago I had not heard anyone reference it with regard to societal change.

Empathy, according to Merriam Webster, is the the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions. It is not a solution to the problem being experienced by another or even a projection of one’s own concepts of how someone feels. It is connecting to another person as a human. The pursuit of justice begins with understanding another’s condition.

So what does art have to do with empathy?

And what can the promotion of art do to foster empathy?

Art is a natural place to explore the philosophy of another human. Art is the expression of self, it is a window into the rich experiences of being. Art translates feelings into tactile, visceral material that is shared through sight, sound, touch, taste and all of our senses. Art is the perfect tool to share the highs, the lows and everything in between that encapsulate life. For periods of time, art allows us to live life beyond our own body and with the mind of someone else. Art gives us the soul of another. Art gives us empathy.

Institutions and individuals that work to make art accessible have a profound opportunity to use the power of art. To harness that power, barriers between the person who expresses and the audience must be removed or sharing will not be possible. The primary barriers to accessing the other is context. The intermediaries must translate the contextual differences of our genetics, and our environment. They must be sensitive to the origin of a work, knowledgeable of the present circumstances, and able to provoke thought about the future. As the conduit, the promoter can not project themselves onto the concept or the audience. They must only be open and working to open up the relationship between creator and the person who experiences in all ways. This may include removing physical barriers, financial barriers, cultural barriers, educational barriers and anything else MAN has put in front of fellow man to prevent the sharing of life. Promoters of art must see the opportunity they have to expose ALL human experiences.

IMAGE CREDIT. [RSA Shorts].

Look Out TED, The Art Museum Is Coming For You

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 4 Comments

A significant part of any business plan is to identify the target market and the players who will compete for that target market. In the art world, and particularly the art museum world, the conversation about competition is challenging.

Art institutions are typically organized as non-profits and often focus on development for revenue – development being defined as developing relationships with people who already value the product being delivered. In a development-focused institution the competition is of course other museums and cultural institutions. This myopic view hinders growth (i.e. pursuit of greater accessibility to the institution and thus mission) AND it leaves a lot of money on the table. It would be like google only considering Yahoo and other search engines as its competition.

The alternative to development driving revenue is marketing. Marketing is certainly retaining people who value your product, but more importantly it is expanding market share by enticing people who do not already demand your product to start desiring your offerings. Really good marketing is about finding people who share a company’s values but do not necessarily see how the product delivers on those values. In marketing, who a company considers competition moves beyond vendors peddling similar product. Marketing is why Google builds its strategy with Apple on its mind.

SO, WHO IS THE COMPETITION FOR ART INSTITUTIONS?

A business needs to clearly know its product to know its competition. Let’s start with some basic questions. What is an art museum composed of? In condensed form, museums are: buildings, objects, curators and programming. What does an art museum do? A museum thoughtfully designs exhibitions that combine objects and knowledge to engage ones intellect. What is the product of a museum?  A museum creates platforms for delivering beautiful and provocative content. Museums are a medium for the exchange of ideas.

Museums sound a lot like many other institutions. Competition for market share still includes other museums and cultural organizations like schools and libraries. But it also includes just about any other medium of sharing information. The market opportunity of museum includes people interested in publications, podcasts, lightning talks, TED Talks, even the local watering hole. There are many “places”, well beyond what I have listed, where people find opportunity to engage in philosophical experiments.

Once the competition or market prospects have been identified, business typically wants to determine where the greatest opportunity exists. Market opportunity is calculated by two things: the size of the market, monetary value and/or delivery on mission, that could be gained; and the ease with which the market could be redirected. In this case I think one of the best organizations for museums to look at as competition is TED Talks and other sources of infotainment that society is enamored with right now.

With an identified opportunity, good businesses knows how to utilize their assets to pursue those gains. Museums have a wealth of assets to enhance their own idea sharing platform and distinguish themselves from anyone. Who else sits on billions of dollars of art and other valuable pieces of history. If I were TED I would be looking over my shoulder.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. [Wikimedia Commons].

Behind the Curtain

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

This month, I started working for the man, umm, woman. I took a job as the administrative manager for Doreen Bolger, the Director of the Baltimore Museum of Art. It has been eleven and a half years since I have worked for someone else. The change is drastic. Art museums are those stodgy institutions we mean to visit but never do, right? Not like the vibrant and insurgent work I was involved in at the Baltimore Love Project.

But perhaps what I’m doing isn’t so different after all. Here’s why…

The Product: Experience driven by meaningful context

Art was certainly discussed my first week at the museum. There were the obvious considerations, such as what we should do about restrictions placed on the collection by a generous patron … and what do we do with this work that was “given” to us? … and how do we inform the staff that some decisions administrative decisions may challenge installation set-ups? But more than anything, the conversation revolved around making the best possible experience for our guests. Context is crucial for making the work matter to them. Something as seemingly insignificant as the flooring in a gallery can radically alter the viewer’s experience, just as the location of a mural can radically alter space and our relationship to it.

The Decision Influencers: The Curators

The “artists” at a museum are the curators.  The museum is going through prolific renovations that will significantly enhance the visitor experience. The renovation also drastically changes the curators’ opportunities, or forces them to give new thought to their work. A concern experienced frequently in my first week were the compromises required of our curators as a result of the changes. Rather than “resolving” the situations with the architect, the contractor, and the director, the curators were included in the decision making process. The curators voices are heard. Needless to say, impossible constraints and limited budget frequently won, but the curator was part of the decision, despite how much easier, and potentially less costly, it would have been to make the decision in their absence. The creativity of an artist, whether on the street or in the museum, needs to be represented at the decision making table.

The Perks: An hour with a world class scholar on Matisse.

The highlight of my week was a guided tour of the current exhibition on Matisse, Matisse’s Marguerite: Model Daughter. For one hour prior to opening to the public, the staff was invited to the Cone Wing for a guided tour by Jay Fisher. This astonishing installation features works by Matisse with his own daughter Marguerite as his model. The finer points conveyed to me by one of the world’s leading authorities on the artist’s life and work on enhanced my own experience at the museum.

It’s exactly the awe and appreciation I felt for these priceless wonders that I want to instill in others. Art museums are not places that art works go to die; they should be a place where art becomes meaningful to every aspect of our lives.

 

Art and the Share Economy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

In a recent post I explored the “share economy.” The ease of sharing information is important in this “new” model but the sharing of experiences is at the heart of its power and future success. And so art is ripe with opportunity to reap value from the share economy.

Art, after all, is about experience. The performance at the theater, the show at the bar, and the installation in the gallery are about emotion, connection and our gut and brain being stimulated. We understand them as “experience”. They are not about owning. However, visual art work can also be more than something that matches our sofa. The value of art as an object is heightened when we see it as something to be experienced and an experience to share. It is a tangible asset that could be circulated with the emergence of the share economy. Within the life cycle of a work of art and the art itself there is opportunity for sharing!

Here are three of the assets I see available for sharing in the arts community!

The expected shared asset: Space

The Copy Cat building in Baltimore’s station north neighborhood is a classic re-purposed industrial building with fantastical spaces. The white walled gallery of Maryland Art Place can seem sterile but it is strikingly intimate. The Baltimore Museum of Art is a trove of architectural wonder. Art is created, displayed, sold and resides in beautiful spaces. These spaces are for a variety of reasons beyond the reach of some of the general population who could do amazing things in them. What would happen if information were made available about the space and others were given the opportunity to use the space for distinctive events. Dine by candle light next to the recent installation of an up and coming Baltimore artist. Stay at the Copy Cat bed n’ breakfast. Host a power lunch in the sculptor garden. Through the exchange, the “host” comes out a winner with greater exposure (and revenue), the guest comes out a winner with memorable experience. The challenge is finding the right price.

The expected asset (that requires a marketplace): Works

Most artist are holding onto a large supply of work in their studio. For a variety of reasons the work just resides in storage. What would happen if artists created a structure for people to experience their work without the risk of owning it? What would happen if artists shared their work, in a similar fashion to how someone shares their bedroom on AirBnb? I think new patrons would emerge and unrealized revenue sources might sustain more of our creative class.

Museums have expansive archives of work that collect dust more than capture the imagination of the population. Space constraints, expectations of supporters, and lack of “majority” interest in the work keeps the artifacts in mothballs. What if the works were digitized and made accessible? What if reproductions were prominently posted in public places? What if the work were physically shared with individuals/institutions that could assume the risk? What if a market place emerged to share works that has captured imagination for centuries? I think new information would emerge about the history of mankind. I also think “ownership” of the institution would expand in size and financial value. Much of this is already happening with large art institutions; I think it needs to happen on a broader scale.

The under utilized and unexpected assets: Minds

A very important transition for me from engineer to art promoter was relationships with artists. What sparked my keen interest in the class of people was intelligent conversation. Artists, curators, historians and theorists know information about humanity in the same way scientists, mathematicians, and engineers know information about the physical world. What would happen if we sought to share these minds? What could we experience if we paid for these unexpected relationships to enter into conversations about commerce, social change and the future? There are a number of time banks emerging, but artist time seems to be missing. If artists, curators, art historians and art theorists could share their knowledge more frequently I think unexpected outcomes that exceed expectations would be more common.

The assets of our artists and art institutions are ripe with potential to add value to the people who currently posses them AND the people who could share them. As marketplaces emerge for these creative assets to be shared, I think society might experience some new and powerful outcomes.

The Secret Garden and The Share Economy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

Last night my wife Jenn and I had dinner with complete strangers in our home.

The dinner was organized with the help of Peers. Late in the summer of 2013, Peers emerged to promote the share economy. This “new” economy seeks to explore the bounds beyond zero sum and suggests that win-win can be achieved in many of life’s pursuits, particularly when information is shared and is readily accessible. I think the share economy can be applied with amazing success to art, but some context would be helpful for understanding how.

From my own experience:

In the last 18 months the spare bedroom in our home has provided a night’s rest or a month-long home for over 70 guests. Jenn and I have hosted people from across the globe traveling to Baltimore for everything from an O’s game and weddings to workshops on the latest surgical procedures and health food conferences. In the process, AirBnb, a website market-place of private bedrooms, apartments, beds and spare sofa space has generated substantial revenue for us. Just as important, AirBnb has introduced us to a spectrum of new friends.

AirBnb claims to be a part of the share economy. The value of my home is “shared” through a novel website that allows me to post information about my spare bedroom. This system may just be a reinvention of economics 101 but with the help of the internet. We have a product (supply), our bedroom. You have a desire (demand) for a bedroom. We have a dollar amount (price) for which we are willing to let a complete stranger stay in our bedroom. You have a dollar amount (price) you are willing to pay to use a bedroom in this location in a complete stranger’s house. We believe our price point is sufficient to cover our time to keep our house tidy, prepare the room for your stay and make arrangements for your arrival. You feel that the price point is fair and MUCH less than what you would pay to stay in the hotel three blocks away. We both come away feeling like winners, and we have experienced how economics “should” work. Besides the ease with which information can be shared with the internet, what is difference between the share economy and the “regular” economy?

Last night’s dinner is a big part of what is different. The share economy is about reaping value beyond dollars and cents. It is about seeing the value in human relationships, new perspectives, and new ideas. It is about experience. Hence Peers’ notion of share a meal, share an idea; don’t just satiate yourself. The share economy is about sharing life as opposed to just doing life.

Our home is not a commodity to us. It is not something we are selling or leasing and expecting just a transaction to be created. Certainly our house is an object that serves a function, but it is more than that. It is an intimate personal space that provides respite and joy for us. In the share economy we have the opportunity to provide to others those same values (intimacy, peace and enjoyment), but only if we see the relationship as more than a transaction. In other words, the party on the other side is not just dollars and cents, or even worse our nemesis to be screwed for our advantage. They are a human being. They are a guest. They are potential friends. To my understanding, AirBnb is really only for people who understand it as such.

I think art has amazing potential in the share economy. Art is an object with financial value, but as I have stated in many places in this blog, art is much more. Art is an experience. It is therefore ripe with opportunity to be shared. But what might that look like?

Stay tuned for the next installment…

IMAGE CREDIT. [Scott Burkholder].

Redesigning Education

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 2 Comments

For the past four weeks, I have been working for the Baltimore Design School. I’m convinced that design changes humanity and that our pedagogy will transform our students’ lives. Design makes finding a place to stay along the super highway of information easier. It makes us look good. It makes us feel good. Design influences human experience. But how do you teach design to 12-year-olds so that it sets them on the trajectory to success? Recently four thoughts have resonated as I contemplate what design is all about…

Design is about details. Steve Ziger is one of the co-founders of the Baltimore Design School. He is also the principal architect of Ziger/Snead, the firm that designed the new $27 million dollar building that is shaping a future of Baltimore city filled with designers. He is excited about many MANY aspects of the physical building but there are some bits of information that he is giddy to share with just about anyone who enters.

“Did you notice the buttons?”

A number of the sinks — yes, bathroom wash basins — in the building were generously contributed by a local concrete firm. Embedded into a number of those sinks are buttons. Clothing buttons to be precise. Those buttons were salvaged from the building. Prior to its 30 years of abandonment, the building was the home to the Lebow Coat Factory. Those buttons are a nod to the rich history of the space. They are a minute detail that captures much more than physical space.

Design is about collaboration. Fans of “Mad Men” can probably tell you who the driving force of creativity is for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Don is the man. Similarly many non-architects could name a few of the 20th century’s most famous visionaries of 3-D art. The genius of the individual has been on display through much of history. Things have changed. Ideas and information are accessible to far more than the guy with a 150 IQ. In 2013, and likely beyond, it is teams and collaborative efforts that will create masterpieces time after time. Good design is design that has many perspectives to shape it. The design school building abounds with spaces for designers, staff, and community to gather and discuss.

Design is about the audience. Paul Jacob III spent the better part of the early 2000’s leading RTKL. The respected  firm has imagined and created breathtaking buildings that span the globe. In a conversation about design, Jacob said that “one of the happiest moments for an architect is taking a client into a building and them seeing that it is theirs. It is their story, their message and their vision.” Good design is about the audience and more importantly, audience ownership. Much like art, engagement and expression moving beyond the creator is extremely important. The common areas of the Baltimore design school are gallery spaces. Many of the walls of the hallways, cafeteria and gathering areas are “tackable” surfaces. What is created in the classrooms is not truly complete until it has been shared with others.

Design is about unexpected relationships. John Maeda is the president of the  Rhode Island School of design. RISD is among the greatest institutions of artistic education in the world. In a 2012 TED talk, John cited the ability to make connections where no one else can as the essence of what good design is all about. It is the surprising placement of two distant colors next to each other. It is the introduction of two polarizing personalities that creates a global enterprise. It is the connection between a state senator and the president of an art institution that created Baltimore Design School. It is the use of a hundred-year-old building to educate the future change-makers of Baltimore city.

IMAGE CREDIT. [www.baltimoredesignschool.com].

The Audience Is Not The Enemy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | One Comment

The Baltimore Love Project worked for several months to gain permission to paint our iconic image on the side of Rite Aid. We first stopped by the store to find someone who could give us permission. As expected the clerk directed us to the manager. The manager offered words of support but had limited resources, and knowledge, to ink a deal. We proceeded up the ladder. We called corporate! It took a few calls to find the right department, but eventually we reached a sympathetic ear in marketing. Even with an advocate inside, it took several more months to have our one page contract converted into a signed sixteen page document. I am not certain, but I may have lost the naming rights to my first child.

After a three month journey through an organized institution we were ready to paint. We made one more phone call to the district’s city councilwoman. At the time we were not certain if a mural required a permit from the city. It does not. We also wanted to let her know of this great thing we were doing in her neighborhood.

She promptly told us to stop everything. She informed us that “this neighborhood has a process for murals.” Nebulous would be a compliment to the structure of the process that we walked into. We weaved our way through a myriad of community meetings, main street meetings, conversations with stakeholders, and email chains. After two months we did not know if we needed a permit (the permitting office feared making the correct legal decision based on political repercussions) or if the store up the street would call the cops on us. We pushed the councilwoman to act. She said “let’s put it to a vote”. Flyers were placed around the neighborhood and emails were sent to community lists. After a defined voting period the tally was in. 100 percent of the voters wanted the love mural in their neighborhood. 95 percent wanted the mural in the location we had worked to get permission. The councilwomen allowed us to paint, and we learned a valuable lesson.

The community does not have to be a liability. The community can be an asset.

The experience drastically changed our perceptions of engagement. If a work of art truly is about response, not just self expression, invite the audience to the entire work of art. Process is a significant part of the art. Process is also a point in which context can be experienced and understood by others. Context is how the audience gains access to a work of art. Context and process can be shared with the audience before the work exists. In so doing, the artists increases the opportunity to reach the desired goal of completing the work, which is now a shared experience with the audience, AND the artist can ask “what do you think” much earlier in the conversation. The audience can be a valuable resource to the two main objectives of the artist: creation and exploration.

Love wall number 6 at 3133 Greenmount Avenue was a turning point for our project. It gave us confidence about our ability to execute. We signed a contract with a multinational corporation. It gave us confidence as artists. We had a powerful idea that was accessible even before it was completed. And ultimately it improved our practice as artists to express ourselves AND explore new philosophies with others.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. [Sean Schedit].

Subject over Object

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 2 Comments

MoMA PS1 is a satellite institution of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in Long Island City. PS1’s mission is to “display the most experimental art in the world”.

Many things about it are boundary pushing. It does not glisten near the “plastic” likes of Time Square. It unassumingly melds into the grimy street environment of Queens. It does not posses its work. It merely provides a space for work to be experienced. The work is not obvious like the sensory overload of a room adorned by Mattisse, Picasso and Degas. It is deeper with subtle nuance and lasting impression. The artistry is not about the perfect brush stroke, impeccable implementation of color theory, or hours of technical craftsmanship. The artistry is about the concept and the process of creation. PS1 is a place to experience the spectrum of values that art has to offer. PS1 moves art from mere object to dense subject.

The current exhibit Expo1 at PS1 includes several installations that push subject over object.

Art is paradoxical:

Upon entering the re-purposed school building that houses PS1, one instantly notices the sound of water. It is not a trickle of water, and it is not a torrent of water. It is the recognizable sound of a stream of water falling into a pool. It is unexpected, yet oddly rhythmic and extremely compelling. In short order one passes by the source. Meg Webster in her work, “Pool,” has turned an interior room into a pond oasis! The mini-ecosytem is complete with three feet of water koi, rock, moss and vegetation. It is the outside world brought inside. The paradox is aesthetically pleasing. More importantly, the paradox gives us new perspective. The man-made natural setting in the man-made architectural setting forces us to see nature. It unabashedly shows how beautiful nature is, and compels us to take note on our next stroll through the woods. “Art” — as we commonly understand it — does not alone own beauty.

MEG WEBSTER. POOL. 1998/2013. INSTALLATION VIEW OF EXPO 1: NEW YORK AT MOMA PS1. PHOTO: MATTHEW SEPTIMUS.

MEG WEBSTER. POOL. 1998/2013. INSTALLATION VIEW OF EXPO 1: NEW YORK AT MOMA PS1. PHOTO: MATTHEW SEPTIMUS. http://www.MoMA PS1.org

Art is process:

There is no space that art cannot be experienced. The boiler room in the basement of PS1 houses several works of art. Part of Saul Melman’s work, “Central Governor,”  is immediate upon entry. He has enshrined parts of the behemoth boiler with gold! It screams for the attention it deserves. Soot turned to masterpiece. Nearby in a small alcove is a piece even more compelling. A one-foot-square shape colored by crayon. It is so simple it is overlooked. Sol Lewitt conceived Crayola Square. Yes the object is extremely trite. Anyone with a kindergarten education could complete it assuming they passed the test to color within the lines. But the object is not the focal point. If one read the statement near the work they would find discrete detailed instructions for the creation of the work. The art is the implementation of the strict instructions for the square. The art IS the process.

Saul Melman. Central Governor. 2010. Photo by Eva Qin. Courtesy the artist. http://www.MoMA PS1.org

Saul Melman. Central Governor. 2010. Photo by Eva Qin. Courtesy the artist. http://www.MoMA PS1.org

Sol LeWitt. Crayola Square. 1999. Photo by Matthew Septimus. Courtesy P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center. http://www.MoMA PS1.org

Sol LeWitt. Crayola Square. 1999. Photo by Matthew Septimus. Courtesy P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center. http://www.MoMA PS1.org

Art is simple:

The top floor of the warehouse is the administrative area of the institution. It is easy to just forgo the trip up the final flights of stairs to see the few works displayed there. It would be just as easy to pass by the imperfection in the bricks about 10 feet off the floor. This is a refurbished warehouse after all and shabby chic is part of the experience. However, if one stops and explores the small crater in the wall, one will see the light. Alan Saret’s work “The Hole at PS1 Fifth Solar Chthonoic Wall Temple” is merely a hole through the east facing exterior wall of the institution. The beautiful beam of light that shines through is like a delicate laser. It feels like the divine peeking at you, smiling, and telling you that all is right in this moment. And it is. A hole in a wall letting the abundance of the sky be felt is art and it is simple.

PS1 is not a typical museum filled with objects of awe and wonder. PS1 is much more. It is filled with beautiful things, repugnant things, unexpected things, and simple things. But the things are not the end. The end is what the things bring out in you. The end is your new perspective on life and new revelations about the world in which you live that life. The end is not the object, but the subject.

 

The Spectrum of Art

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

Agnes Denes is one of the featured artists in the current exhibit Expo1 taking place at PS1 through September 2nd. Denes is an environmental artist. Her canvas is literally the world around us. The work on display at PS1 was documentation (photos) of a piece she created in 1982; Wheatfield – A confrontation: Battery Park Landfill, Downtown Manhattan. It is a powerful work of art! It is a work that calls for change as it exemplifies beauty, calls for hope, and explores the human condition.

Wheat1

From an aesthetic standpoint, the photographs probably do not do the piece justice, but what they show is nothing short of breathtaking. Remember the context is 1982. The Battery is not a lush green environment; it is barren. Also recall that 9/11 is unimaginable. A wispy rural wheat field, two acres of wheat growing in a near desolate environment. Golden rods of grain flitting in front of skyscrapers. The image that resonates for me is the amber grain waving in front of the Twin Towers, “America the Beautiful” to a T. The aesthetics of the piece left a tingling sensation in the body.

Wheat7

Webster defines hope as “desire with expectation of obtainment.” When Denes was inspired to do her work, the Battery was a desolate canvas. Two hundred truckloads of dirt were trucked in for the installation. She toiled with the soil for months to ensure that the plain was fertile. In the end, a bountiful crop displayed the amazing opportunity. An empty landscape can be so much more than blight. The opportunities with creativity and hard-work cannot be contained.

Wheat9

Two acres is not a lot of grain in the grand scheme of things. It does not feed many people, and it does not generate a lot of revenue, particularly considering the resources invested into the production. But Wheatfields explores something far more meaningful. According to Denes,

Planting and harvesting a field of wheat on land worth $4.5 billion created a powerful paradox. Wheatfield was a symbol, a universal concept; it represented food, energy, commerce, world trade, and economics. It referred to mismanagement, waste, world hunger and ecological concerns. It called attention to our misplaced priorities.

The field was more than just the beautiful landscape it created. It was even more than just the fruits of someone’s labor. It was a statement to one of the most powerful streets on the planet.

Things have changed in the 30 years since the field. Battery Park is a lush tourist destination containing many new symbols of hope. The Towers have fallen. Some things have not changed, hunger still exists and Wall Street excess still persists. I think there is room for many more installations to make bold proclamations like Denes’ two acres of wheat. There is still room to show us beautiful things in everyday surroundings. There is still a place to show opportunity. There is still a place to show us what really matters in life.

IMAGE CREDIT. [Agnes Denes, “Wheatfield — A Confrontation” (1982), two acres of wheat planted and harvested in Battery Park landfill, Manhattan, New York (© Agnes Denes, via theecologist.org)].