One of the most important books in the development of the understanding of art and public life is Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics by Rosalyn Deutsche. Quite a while ago now she made real connections between space - art - politics and brought this into real terms of experience and power in civic life.
Once we established the river and bridge as the site for the studio, I began to consider these issues as they pertain to some basic spatial facts. The river spatially separates the city. Crossing it requires power. These physical forms establish a charged context into which human experience and value get embedded. These forms and this embedding is of interest to us as artists. This is what we deal with.
An excerpt of the book on Google Book
In Image Studio we read some of David Summer’s book “Real Spaces” in which he makes the case that all visual arts are spatial in nature.
In the studio we’ll work to deal with space in various ways. This begins by giving it some other-than-normal attention.
Alabama Street Civic studio member Ryan Ditmer obtained this picture from his Dad who took it at one of the WLAV Raft Races. 
Follow this link http://look.gvsu.edu/vigall/main.php?g2_itemId=17 to see the whole set of images. The raft race was a very big deal for the years it went on. It was crazy with public forms of imagination and craziness. I’m not sure of the whole story, but the Race was eventually cancelled because folks got hurt - maybe even a death.
During the Civic Studio at the Centralstation in 2006 we were located near the Grand River in a zone that was under great speculation for development. One of the studio’s long-time supporters has been Chris Gray, who was Graphic Designer for the City of GR. During the project he wrote with links to this image of the Rivergrand area - a panoramic picture.
Here is his email:
Hi Paul - Here is a link to a web site that contains a 360 degrees image of downtown GR in 1915 (low rez file attached). I am guessing that this shot was taken from the site that is now Marriott/Plaza Towers at Fulton/Monroe. The bridge at left is Fulton Street and the street at the right with the horses is also Fulton Street (notice that the roof in the foreground lower left is the same roof in the foreground at lower right). This view would show the entire Rivergrand area. I copied the low resolution JPG that comes up but am having trouble extracting the 12MB file (6” x 72”) which is offered (I’ll keep trying). Thought you might find this helpful and/or interesting. Chris Christopher Gray Once you get to this site, Click on Cityscapes, then click on Grand Rapids http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/panoramic_photo/
The civic studio on Alabama street made a projection screen from a roll of tyvek housewrap. It was flat white and served well in the huge warehouse space. We still have i, but it has dupont logos on one side. The Gillette Bridge site with the two containers create a configuration that can be used to attach other structures to the containers. One option is a huge sun shade between the two. This will create a nice large piece of shade in the courtyard space between the containers. The same structure - if installed vertically - could make a projection screen. Depending on the opacity of the tyvec it might work as either front or rear projection.
I found this on the instructables site: http://www.instructables.com/id/Tyvek-Projector-Screen/
I found this source for the tyvec. They’re sending samples to my house. http://www.materialconcepts.com/tyvek-blog/2009/02/tyvek-projector-screen-tyvek-projection.html
I think this material is the most likely candidate: http://www.materialconcepts.com/products/tyvek/uv-soft There are instructions for how to sew this, which we would need to do. Maybe attach some ropes and possible embed some battens to keep the screen flat.
It comes in a 120″ by 10 yard piece for $119. http://www.materialconcepts.com/store/index.php?crn=207
Michael and I looked at some Shipping Containers today. They come in 20 and 40 foot lengths. They are 8 feet wide and 8 feet tall. Doors on one end. We discussed the idea of getting 2 20 footers and configuring them with a patio (outdoor room between them. The bridge is windy and this kind of configuration would provide options for blocking the wind. The opening could be used for rear projection - so it might make sense to direct one opening outward.
The 20 footers are $80/mo. Delivery is $85/hr. service fee. There are tons of permissions and details that would have to be worked out. We also might want to not clutter the bridge with all of these structures.
This rougher unit is for sale instead of for rent. I think they’re asking $1,800.
Here is the little 10 footer.
These are very secure/ lockable, and water tight - no leaks. They could be hot and a bit cold when the temp changes, though they are not large so could possibly be heated up with a space heater. It might make sense to spend 2 mos. on the Bridge then move to another spot to finish the studio.
As of a few days ago, I’d pretty much decided that direct involvement with artprize was not a good idea. It complicated the pedagogical structure of Civic - putting too much burden on projecting what the project should be ahead of time- before all are substantively involved. It seemed better to be neutral and not involved. I also have serious concerns about the ways in which the project is not serious or considerate about how important context is to meaning in culture. It seems rushed - and there is no incentivizing meaning beyond the pop of it. It also throws many art worlds together in the same pot and does not recognize the need to incentivize substantive and thoughtful consideration and dialogue about what things mean and what we need. The structure also seems to call for spectacle. While it sounds like fun - it also sounds confusing. I’m not sure what it might do to “reset the relationship between art and the public”. Who is the public it targets? What is the art it is calling for?
I also have concerns about the ways in which whatever happens takes place on one person’s turf and the cultural value accrues to their account. Good or bad - shaking things up in this way in the realm of culture creates cultural cred that will all in the end convert to the prime supporter. In a day when culture is commerce and people are brands - this savvy move can be purposed to personal celebrity or converted to commercial ends. It is a potential cooption of the city, artists, institutions, and culture to those ends. This is precisely why cultural institutions are set up the way that they are - so that they can not be exploited for such ends at such a scale. Yes - it is good to donate and be philanthropic, but there is a long tradition of donors and boards not medeling in the substance of the operation. A board is duty bound to represent the public to the institution. They are to have the publics interests in mind. Here there is no board and in the quasi-commercial-philanthropic structure who looks out for the public? If it is an entertainment model then the public will be amused, but not necessarily enlightened.
The problem is that while all of this is important the status quo is not necessarily serving us well. Support for culture is static and dwindling and while there are dramatic innovations in commerce and entertainment - the support and excitement for innovation in culture is very limited in scope and only delivered to a narrow few already converted fans. There is a great need for innovation not just in the forms of culture, but in how they are presented and consumed. Again context is key here. Civic Studio has been historically focussed on these issues. So is the Visual Studies curriculum. Both are dedicated to “resetting the relationship between art and the public”.
If these things were easy they would already be solved. While the structure of Artprize vulgarizes (makes them seem simpler than they are) these issues, the issues will remain. It is possible that they might gain some form and structure through being embodied in evidently good and bad examples. We also run the risk of the surfacy pop nature of an hyper-hyped event taking over. The shiny glossy fun might make substantive critical consideration or reflection seem passe. Distinction might become just a matter of personal taste. There will need to be reflection and discussion.
How then to be positioned for these discussions is important. Participation gives some authority to discursive position. But if one does not win the money - or capture the public vote, then all critical complaint can be dismissed as sour grapes. Non-participation is no easier. Non-participation might be seen to demonstrate a lack of imagination of how to engage this context with appropriate skill. If participation can serve to demonstrate models of art that deal with the messy complexities then it might be seen as essential to the dialogue. It might have to be somewhat spectacular though.
Also, culture changes in fits and starts and can be hugely influenced by unexpected things. It is not a steady progression of step by step increments. Artprize will likely be messy. Is there more learning and potential in the mess or outside of the mess? Artprize aims to disrupt the status quo. It might just reset to another one.
With the prospect of Gillette Bridge as a project site I’ll need to figure out how to proceed. Submitting as a project does not lock us into participation. At this point it leaves options open. I’m very interested in your feedback on this.
This is all still speculative ’til a real proposal goes forward, but here are some options and information. The rivers edge behind city services is all lined with a big fence. On the other side are some steep but some manageable access points to the river. Next to the RR bridge there is a gate and down by the river a concrete platform like a patio. It would make a great project site. It is across from Punk Island. The whole services area is fenced in and locked at 5:30. We could propose being back along the river, but we’d loose access when the gate closes. It also could not be used as a public access area. The lots swarm with city vehicles at busy times. There are no spaces available in any buildings. A remote trailer could work, but it would be isolated and not public.
I asked about any other spaces. There is a parking lot that is not used much inside the clover leaf of the adjacent exit from 131.
It has an entrance from Market Street. This site would be highly visible, accessible whenever we wanted, and close to the river. Access to the river can be obtained by walking along the outside of the cloverleaf down to the edge of the river under the 131 bridge.
http://www.mhpbooks.com/book.php?id=166
Check out this book and website from the exhibit Experimental Geography. This is one among several approaches to using studio methods to create/discover new ways of experiencing and creating knowledge about our worlds.
Project by: Nato Thompson and Independent Curators International
http://www.ici-exhibitions.org/exhibitions/experimental/experimental.htm
It turns out that one of the few sites with direct access to the river is GV property.
There is a rock bank along the river by the GV eberhaard center just north of Fulton. It looks like there is a (low water) path under the Fulton Bridge that leads to a plot of land just south of the River that feels quite natural. GV has a parking lot south of Fulton on the River. The parking lot extends under a wide span of 131. providing a large covered area. I happen to know that this was the site of an extensive archeological dig which was required before GV could develop the site. All along the river are important native american historical sites. This might be a possible spot for a project worksite using a trailer.
Recent Comments