Cooking with Leif Hedendal

I talked to multiple people who said the meals at Open Engagement were one of their favorite events at the conference.  For starters, I heard some say that they had a chance to discuss panels or discussions or whatever they pleased.  Others said these discussions framed with food yielded better or more open-ended conversations.  These sentiments reinforce Leif Hedendal’s regular practice of cooking dinners for artists to come, eat and talk.  When these happen at his home in the Bay area - they’re called Dinner + Discussion.  At Open Engagement, Leif’s dinner took place at the Pacific Northwest College of Art.  Staying true to form, Leif prepared a delicious meal, people came together, ate with vigor and shared conversations.

I met Leif earlier in the day, at the kitchen where he was preparing dinner with the help of volunteers.  He made a point to show us the herbs and micro-greens, harvested that morning, from the Sellwood Garden Club in Portland.  As he pulled out different varieties of Oregano or Lemon Balm, it was clear that Leif loves the ingredients themselves.  Everything in the meal was based on a locally grown vegetable or fruit.  There is a simplicity to Leif’s culinary practice.  He lets ingredients be tasted without too much preparation.  This seems to reflect his appreciation for the ingredients themselves.  I’m glad - I was able to see Leif’s process of creating a menu based on available ingredients because it informed my experience later that evening when I sat down to eat and eat. 

Menu:

• radishes w/ butter
• farro w/ roasted asparagus & turnips
• nettles w/ morels
• red lentil soup
• the world’s largest loaf of bread
• micro greens w/ herbs
• strawberries w/ rhubard compote, hazelnuts, lemon balm, snap peas & whip cream                                                                                                                                                                               

Text Readings Regarding Inclusion to the Canon. (Jill Baker) Lewton Thomas Jones

Thierry deDuve identifies Duchamps ideas as a shift from -HERE IS ART To THIS IS ART. Okawui Enwezor writes-” Which is the tension between modernist art and contemporary art-between the artificially fabricated and the technologically generated.” (Pg 226-The Production of Social Space as Art work).

Cameron Cortiere writes-“Public art is art outside of museums and galleries and must fit one of the following categories-1.In a place accessible or visible to the public, in the public. 2. concerned with or affecting the community or individuals:public interest. 3. Maintained for or used by the community or individuals:public interest. 4.Maintained for or used by the community or individuals:public place. 5. Paid for by the public:publicly funded. (Pg.15, Coming in from the Cold A Public Art History).

Harriet Senie (text) evaluating public art asks 3 crucial questions-1. Is it good work, according to it’s type; art urban design, or community project? 2. Does it improve or energize its site in some way-by providing an aesthetic experience or searching (or both) or by prompting conversation (Jill Baker) and perhaps social awareness. (Jill Baker) 3. Is there evidence or relevant or appropriate public engagement or use? (Jill Baker)

The Social Space and Collaboration as place, art making, sponsorship, dialogue, creativity and exposure. Uniting location based art making of all media, styles and approaches. (Nicole Lavelle)

Dan Graham writes- (Claire Bishop Art Forum pg 17)-“All artists are alike.They dream of doing something that’s more social, more collaborative and more real than art.” Yoko Ono wrote in her book Grapefruit-“Have less sense and you will make more sense.” “Feel the space rather than fill the space.” Oscar Wilde wrote-“All great art is useless.” Useless- if the spectator takes nothing from it. The aesthetic experience is what is useful I would contend. A walk in your own town can then be a artful experience conceptually. (Jill Baker)

DAVID HORVITZ

Mathew Rana and Rick Butler’s Branch in the Social Practice Family Tree

By Robin Corbo 5/26

Rana’s intention is truly in the vein of social practice. He wrote in the essay

Names for What We Do:Thoughts on Encounter and Art he  wrote: To be in dialogue with others is to find meaning in one’s experience. This way of meeting envisions speech as a recognition that the world is comprised of subjects rather than objects. Furthermore, it is a recognition that that these subjects are co-creative, equally capable of making meaning…. when we speak, we open ourselves to a common experience and indeed, we change our way of speaking.To speak is to negotiate meanings with each other. In this way, criticality through discourse becomes praxis (informed action) and a means toward self-determination. Yet, this discourse cannot happen without horizontality, the recognition that you are talking with someone rather than to (or at) them. In other words, it cannot happen without reciprocity and the recognition of mutuality. One does not speak with, without first extending one’s subjectivity outward, making oneself available to the interlocutor with whom we take up discourse. It is in this way that praxis can be thought of as human potential, a process of opening, of transformation and self actualization and mutual reinforcement.

The way that Rana puts these ideas into art was by creating an autobiographical comic book of the life and times of Ernest “Rick” Patrick Butler. Through different conversations and the many ups and downs of their collaborative relationship, the result book proved to be a power force in both of their lives.

As a biographer, or a collaborative autobiographer, Rana was faced with the challenge of chronicling the story of a person’s life. However, through the project he became an active part of Rick’s life. The publicity from the book has been one of the driving forces for Rick to work towards transitioning away from street life.

In linking Rana’s process to other artists who working under the umbrella of Social Practice I think of the relationship between Harrell Fletcher and Michael Patters-Carver.

Fletcher found Carver, a homeless political artist in Portland, selling his drawings outside. Fletcher guided him into the art world, making Carver’s work accessible to the larger art market.

In Fletcher’s case, it was Carver’s wish to have his work seen by the world at large. Fletcher used his resources to make that happen. Butler’s wish was for his story to understood and remembered. Rana used his ability as an artist and a writer to bring Butler’s personal narrative to a larger audience.

Rana’s and possibly Butler’s larger vision for future work is to create a program that is both  an artist residency program as well as transitional housing.

This brings to mind the work created through Project Row House in Houston.

Project Row Houses was founded in 1993 as a result of discussions among African-American artists who wanted to establish a positive, creative presence in their own Third Ward community. Their work was founded on the principle that art and the community that creates it can revitalize even the most depressed of inner-city neighborhoods, for the mutual good of existing and future residents changes lives. Thus, the mission of Project Row Houses is to transform community through the celebration of art and African-American history and culture.

Their mission includes:

• Art and creativity should be viewed as an integral part of life, exemplified in African traditions wherein art is interwoven into the very fabric of life through rituals and ceremony activities.
• Quality education is defined through impartation of knowledge and wisdom - including understanding that is passed from generation to generation.
• Strong neighborhoods have social safety nets, woven by community to support community and to raise social responsibility
• 
• 
• Good and relevant architecture; meaning housing that should not only be well
•  designed, but also make sense to preserve a community’s historic character.

Another artist who has tied his social practice with collaboration with the homeless is John Malpede. John Malpede is a director, actor, activist, and writer. In 1985, Malpede founded and continues to direct the Los Angeles Poverty Department (LAPD), the first performance group in the nation comprised primarily of homeless and formerly homeless people. LAPD’s mission is to create performances that connect lived experience to the social forces that shape the lives and communities of people living in poverty.

In closing I could see the collaboration of Rana and Butler moving towards the ideals of New Genre Art. Suzanne Lacy wrote in Time and Place; New Genre Public Art a Decade Later, “The thirty year trajectory of new genre public art-with its challenges to governmental and corporate motivations; its presentation of the larger historical frame of power relations; its deep commitment to the enfranchisement of all; its naive belief in the ability of the public agenda to right itself with enough information; its practice of bringing voiceless into the public sphere with dignity, community organizing, and political critique; its ethical questions; and its hybridity of thought, media and approaches-is one that mimics a trajectory of civic life, with its discourses, institutions, and public policies.

We, Her, Us with M.A.Brookes, Anna Martine Whitehead, Wafaa Yasin, and Roxy Farhat

This parallel session took place in the Art Building, room 260 on Saturday. When I arrived and introduced myself to the artists, I first noticed that only two of them where there and then upon speaking with M.A. Brookes and Anna Martine learned that the panel was no longer a panel but a performance…then I noticed the very small turn out of people…and the disarray of the room they had to work in…and it seemed to me that the artists were going to sort of wing it…and I was concerned. Soon enough both artists were clad in black and white attire that was skin tight, and began moving down a crowded hall ways wrapping each other, their surroundings, and other people in a long strand of plastic wrap. All of the people they came in proximity with were attendees of the conference and were waiting in a huge line for a much more popular panel. Their performance seemed only to mildly inconvenience the crowd as they slowly tried to get around Whitehead and Brookes to get good seats for their panel. No one watched or interacted with this happening at all, even as some were forced to hop over Brookes, or unravel themselves from the plastic. Again I was pretty concerned.

The artist pair slowly moved back into room 260, a group of about six people following them. At this point my concern and discomfort was dispelled. The two women began to ask the small group questions, one after another while answering no questions themselves. This act caused the group to speak with one another freely, and dismantled the typical dynamic that occurs in a lot of “art talks”. The conversation meandered over topics of interest to the group, and touched here and there upon the ideas of femininity, location, otherness, and building identity in relation to them. I felt like this was one of the few planned and orchestrated conversations I’ve been apart of that allowed for a comfortable and more level exchange between artist and audience. I feel silly even identifying the dynamic as “artist” and “audience” when it was more like ten people sitting around, having a discussion that was valuable to those involved.

After a little while I noticed that Roxy Farhat and Wafaa Yasin were both represented by video and projection works, but the objects and other physical traits of the room becamse suggestions and accessories of and to the conversation. Instead of simply existing as a projection on a wall, or video on a screen, the presence of the conversation transformed Farhat and Yasin’s work into contributions to the present activity of exchange.

All in all, it was good to have this experience because it challenged my perception of performance, and a different kind of dialogue people can have in order to examine the artist-audience roles. Whitehead and Brookes, by asking questions, allowed for the alteration and questioning of the meaning and casting of those roles.

Shotgun Review: The Role of the Art Institution in Community Engagement

Panel members included:

Nato Thompson (Moderator)
Jeff Nye (Dunlop Gallery)
Tina Olsen and Stephanie Parish (Portland Art Museum)
Danielle Abrams and Students (University of Michigan)
Elizabeth Cline (The Hammer Museum)

At the beginning of the panel, Nato Thompson set the tone, “Capitalism wants you to do things for free and die.” He encouraged audience members to make heard their anti-institutional thinking and their suspicion of formalized pieces of power. “We can get things done here. We can build things to make things better.”

During the panel, each speaker had a substantial amount of time to tell their story, followed by a brief q+a. Each speaker or group illuminated both the dilemmas and innovations their art institutions have undergone while trying to engage with their community.

Danielle Abrams leads a course at University of Michigan called Why Does Everyone In Ann Arbor Want to Make Work in Detroit? During the panel, her 4 students talked about how they engaged with Detroit. They made it clear that they didn’t go to Detroit to “fix it”. Rather they went they to get to know the community: its history, its people, and movements, “The city will teach you what you need to know.” They applauded University of Michigan, which is located 1-hour drive from Detroit in Ann Arbor, for setting up the Detroit Center. However, they rightfully criticized the University for making the center akin to a gated community: you can only enter the center by swiping a University of Michigan ID Card, which makes the center inaccessible to Detroiters. Historically, they touched on projects of Detroit artists: Tyree Guyton’s Heidelberg Project, Scott Hocking’s Urban Decay photograph series; and facts about Detroit: Detroit’s incinerator is the largest in the world, unemployment in Detroit is 30% to 50% vs. the national average of 9.7%. They also talked about contemporary organizations: the Powerhouse Project which is encouraging dedicated people to move back to Detroit, the Matrix Theater Company, and Earthworks which is an urban farm supplying local food to “food deserts” areas lacking a grocery store. One of the students lived and volunteered at Earthworks and made it clear that he was there to learn, “Who am I as a member of a powerhouse research institute or as an individual without that?” Abrams defended the fact that the students did not produce art projects as part of the class; their coursework resulted in research and community engagement. She said the University is unclear of how to deal with this as a result of an art class.

Elizabeth Cline of the Public Engagement Department at the Hammer Museum talked about how her institution supports social practice. The museum has just started a social practice artist in residency program, which has featured artists like Edgar Arcenaux of the Watts House Project. The Hammer welcome social practice artists in residence to point out the downfalls of the institution and propose creative solutions. Process is made transparent as problem solving occurs in public. This residency works well with The Hammer’s goal to amplify the museum as a civic space and shift expectations of what happens at a museum. The Hammer has held events featuring the tabla and mycology; currently, they are considering a clothing optional night. In addition, an artist council oversees the activities of the museum and its relationship to the larger community, the councilors are endearingly nicknamed the innies and outies. I look forward to seeing how The Hammer’s open-minded and invested approach to social practice develops, it seems like they are off to a good start and may set the tone for how institutions nationally deal with social practice artists.

Jeff Nye, Assistant Curator of the Dunlop Art Gallery in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, touched on some of the unique circumstances of the gallery and innovations they’ve made to bring more social practice into the gallery. The gallery is in the same building as the public library and shares a large glass wall. When Nye arrived, he helped replace the security guards that patrolled the gallery with interested community members, now called “gallery facilitators.” He also helped reorganize and museum make the museum more cohesive by having curators and educators schedule together. Similar to the city, the gallery is a space of pragmatic socialism contrasted with conservatism. When Nye first started introducing social practice into the gallery, the audience was unclear about which shows were interactive and which were not. Currently, Nye is pondering the value of short-term verses long-term relationships with community involvement.

Tina Olsen and Stephanie Parish of the Portland Art Museum discussed and showed a video of “Shine A Light”, a evening of social practice art interventions in the museum, orchestrated by Portland State University’s Art and Social Practice students and instructors, Jen Delos Reyes and Harrell Fletcher. Shine A Light, similar to their view of Portland’s art scene, is homespun and done on the cheap. To them, the purpose of the event was to rethink what a museum can do and what it means to experience a museum. They saw the event as emancipating visitors by giving them participatory roles in the museum, animating objects beyond text panels, empowering docents as social practice artists, exploring art history while exploring art context, and questioning “What is an exhibition? What is a performance?”

Although the intention of the discussion was in the right place, I’m not sure how much was substantially accomplished. This may have to do with the fact the panel was at the Portland Art Museum versus a community space and did not have anyone on the panel from outside the institution critique it (an “outie”, if you will). At the same time, I also feel like the audience could have done a better job seizing the moment to ask the panelists some challenging questions about the institutionalization of social practice and community engagement.

The same day as the panel, an activist group in London called Liberate Tate released oiled slicked, dead birds and fish tied to helium balloons into the Tate’s high ceilings. This was protest of the Tate’s acceptance of funding from British Petroleum (the oil company responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) and the museum’s refusal of letting exhibiting artists at the Tate speak out against BP. I wonder what kind of questions those artists would have posed to this panel.

Bruce Conkle’s place in the social practice Cannon-Chloé Womack

Makin’ Up Money

Review by Stefan Ransom

Maiko and Chris began the session with a game that they had designed to get everyone acclimated to a basic system that with participation would describe a model of currency flow and trade.  Sparing the description of rules, everyone seemed to enjoy the activity and warm up to the idea of micro/macro currency movement.

The session then moved into a panel discussion with local documentary filmmaker Alan Rosenblith, who recently completed a documentary titled

Which can be found at themoneyfix.org and is free to watch.   Alan discussed the idea of currency generally being perceived in an economic sense as dollars rather than a more expansive and perhaps appropriate notion of currency as a relative medium of value and exchange.  Two founding members of the River Hours, Gorge Local Community Currency Cooperative, were also part of the panel.  

They came as representatives of a movement towards supplementing “River Hours” (a printed local currency) within a small regional economy.  In the discourse, they explained the nature of that particular alternative currency and the rigors that have ensued in that undertaking. 

For better or worse, that became the focus of question and answer driven largely by the curiosity of the audience; all of which became involved in a large conversation centered around the merits and drawbacks of alternative currency structures.  One of the more poignant discussion points (for me) was the idea that when an individual, family, or society has less money it might mean that they are less willing to spend their monetary currency on anything more than necessity.  That poses an interesting question for art and art practitioners, be it more traditional art or more socially engaged art.  In the case of social art, by whatever appropriate name, Nils Norman in the final discussion panel said something about having more work opportunity during times of financial recession than otherwise.

More information about River Hours:

http://www.riverhours.org/

Shotgun Review-Floating Forests by Chloé Womack

Monday, May 17th Bruce Conkle gave his presentation on “Floating Forests” during the Open Engagement parallel sessions. Conkle covered the history of large oil tankers, lead the group through slides that accentuated the enormous size of these ships, and their resulting decline for practical/ economic reasons. These massive ships used to carry oil from ocean to ocean are now one by one being torn apart and scrapped for  steel via a process called “Ship Breaking”.  

“Ship Breaking” is a hazardous, inhumane process that predominantly takes place in India and Pakistan. Conkle’s discussion was aimed at brainstorming ways to utilize retired oil tankers as agricultural sites that could migrate with climate change. 

Conkle left the floor open for the attendees to theorize how to make a project like Floating Forests work.  It became a dialogue about sustainability, practicality, and logistics. How would you protect the Floating Forests from ocean weather? How would one get fresh water to irrigate the crops and orchards? Can an oil tanker be powered by the wind? 

Conkle acknowledged that he knew little about how an artist would go about a project the size of Floating Forests and inspired all in attendance to interpret the concept themselves and run with it. 

If It Ain’t Broke- Their Place in Social Practice Canon

By Josh Mong
   
Sara Black and John Preus consistently use two basic hallmarks of social practice in their work as If It Ain’t Broke.   These are the dialogical process and the collaborative process.  Not only do these elements manifest simply between Black and Preus as artists, but also with their audience/participants in the execution or creation of their work.  The pair engages in a discussion with the owners of “broken things”, over the thing, the condition of brokenness, the meaning of the thing, the possibility of repair, creative solutions, abandonment, and the general meaning of the process.  The confluence of these ideas as well as the final execution of the plan blurs between the dialogical and the collaborative.

The work also shows influence of Derrida’s Deconstructivism, often quite literally as well as philosophically.  The spirit of Situationists public engagement is also evident, although to knowledge the pair usually operate in a specific space, often associated with performance or gallery.  If It Ain’t Broke often times, though not in their recent Open Engagement manifestation, contains a raw earthy aesthetic by the reliance of old reclaimed lumber and materials.  In this sense they are reminiscent of some of Joseph Beuys’ object based work.  In their explorations of brokenness they also give a nod to Mierle Laderman Ukeles pioneering work with notions of sanitation and refuse.