crossposted from seedingthecity.org

I like to approach projects from an “outside the box” (boy, thats an overused term) point of view. When I mentioned the “Seeding the City” to a friend who works with green roofs, he questioned the value of planting such a small plot of greenery - how is that going to have any real affect on the Urban Heat Island Effect?

May answer, “Each individual module may have a negligible affect, but what would hundreds of modules spread across the city do to both our environment, our awareness and our social fabric?”

When you consider the potential of the project, creating potentially enough greenery on rooftops to recreate a Central Park in the sky? Now it gets interesting.

I have also been considering how to raise money for the project outside of the “normal” channels (i.e. grants). A couple of things have come up recently which I am investigating:

• ThePoint.com is a tipping point model for fundraising and social action. Get enough people to commit to something, and then it can happen. I posted the project on there with enough funds to launch the project, its a pretty high price, so we will see how close I get, but it does allow many people to be involved at a small level - it is a further exploration of microfinancing.
• Another idea is to exchange money for experience or special commodities from the project, this is based on the model of artistshare.com. The funding is given up front and then the funders are invited to participate in interesting ways throughout the project.
• Finally, my own thought of allowing people to “sponsor” grm’s throughout the city. Pay $50 and you would sponsor a grm in your choice of one of the neighborhoods. This wouldn’t be on your own roof, but would include your sponsorship information on the signage and website.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on any of this? Are there ways you would want to participate financially? Would you give a small amount for nothing in return or prefer a larger amount and a unique experience or commodity (if so what would that experience or commodity be?) or would you prefer to know that your funds are directed at a specific piece of action?

Another blog I read just turned me on to RAF-Reduce Art Flights, a project launched at the Venice Biennial. The project aimed to highlight and promote the reduction of travel in the art world. With all the art fairs there’s been an increase in not just in travel, but an exponential increase in shipping of artwork.

This project hits close to home, especially given a couple of recent experiences. As I would hope, as my career grows, I have more opportunities to travel with/because of my work. On the other hand, I don’t want to create a negative environmental impact with the work. And airline flights (if you didn’t already know) have HUGE carbon emissions. So how to keep the career growing, spread the work and minimize the impact?

Recently I was invited to the Wexner Center to present my work as part of the Art & Environment program. It was a one afternoon engagement. I explained the quandary to the director, and asked if there was a way to broaden my (positive) impact while there, could she work with the school or other organizations to fill up a week? She was happy to oblige. I spent a week working with a local group of extraordinary high school students (more on that later), spent the afternoon at the Wexner, and met with local artists. Believe me the week was packed full.

(I was also reminded - again - of our desperate need for better rail. The only train was a 12 hour trip arriving at 3.30am in a city two hours away, the bus left at 4am. I was totally up for taking on the long trip and early arrival, but as anyone who has ridden any distance knows, the freight trains are given priority and passenger trains are notoriously late. If I missed the 4am bus I would have been awkwardly stranded).

So in the case of Wexner it opened up lots more opportunities for me to meet with and work with people.

The other instance was that I was invited to participate in the EcoAesthetics exhibition at < > TAG platform in The Hague. They were interested in bringing in an artists who would get out into the public space and create interventions or activate public participation. Well, thats me for sure! Unfortunately I *really* couldn’t justify a flight to The Hague for a weekend project*. So instead I suggested that I create a project that could occur in the public realm, but which they could produce, organize and promote all themselves. I would provide the creative idea, the structure and the electronic files, everything else was (mostly) up to them. From that was born the “Insert ____ Here” project which will launch in The Hague this weekend, Brooklyn next weekend and then Miami and the Bronx soon after. I would love to see it happen in neighborhoods around the world, so certainly contact me, or watch the project site (totally in progress- just a theme place holder for the moment) for more information.

In light of this, I have been talking with Michael Mandiberg and Tiffany Holmes (of ecoviz.org) about creating a group of artists who are interested in participating in and promoting an electronic panel. We could be in our homes, in front of a web cam participating in a panel anywhere in the world. If Andy Revkin can do it, so can we.

*It’s not that I don’t want to go to these places - I definitely do, I love travel and I love meeting people around the world, but I am trying to be conscientious about my travel footprint - reducing the flights and if I do fly, packing the time full of opportunities.

Images (from top to bottom): Michael Mandiberg’s Real Cost plugin for Mozilla Firefox, Eve S. Mosher’s “Insert ____ Here” project

So I was thinking today about the whole congestion pricing debate going on in New York (yes I am for it, in conjunction with citywide market rate parking and transportation improvements) and about the politicians who are opposed. Frequently the argument is that it would hurt their low and middle income constituents, which is a statement studies don’t support (http://www.transalt.org/newsroom/releases/115, http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=52).

And then I imagined talking to one of the politicians (I’ll pick Anthony Weiner, because he’s reasonable. So reasonable that he has been the closest to making me second guess congestion pricing), and asking, “Do you really believe that? I mean, have you actually taken the time to go around and talk to them?” and I thought about talking to Letitia James (my rep) and being able to say that I could name the people on my block who support it. And those I know who might be opposed, well I could just talk to them and maybe change their minds.And thinking about that reminded me of “the power of one” - the ability of just one person to make a difference. The idea that if we each go out and have conversations with our neighbors, if we engage one-to-one then we really can make a difference. The “power of one” is a really powerful tool that is so often overlooked by political and environmental campaigns. Sure a big rally can motivate a lot of people - but aren’t the people showing up already the motivated ones?

I hope to keep working with my artistic practice, on realizing the power of one. One investigating and expanding our own particular powers to make a difference.

Image courtesy http://www.sethwhite.org/ through whom I plan to live vicariously for a little while….

Don’t get me wrong, there are some really smart and clever artists working out in the world, and I really like a lot of what I see.

But last night I went to see the Agnes Denes lecture at the Drawing Center and found out just how complicated her work is. She was “making the invisible visible” by using math, symbolism and structure to investigate human relationships. That all sounds really simple until you hear her explain it. I think about the other big things that artists were investigating in previous generations, and it all seems to be heavy on the the thought and, well, conceptual end. I’m not saying that climate change, or human emotions or other topics aren’t big, we just don’t seem to present them in the same manner.

I was thinking that maybe this is because those artists who came before us, already broke it down. They erased the barriers between art and math, science, philosophy, psychology, etc., so that basically we don’t have to go to the trouble of adding all the language on top of the work. We move fluidly between lots of different circles of study because the bridges between them already exist. So what is the new frontier, what hasn’t been done?

I’m most interested in creating interactions between web 2.0 and artistic practices. How can they inform one another and use one another. I know there are lots of other artists out there doing this, I’m certainly not claiming pioneership (in fact I am probably a little behind the times), but I do think it holds the most interesting exploration opportunities.

Just think what Agnes Denes (and her little man pyramids) could do with social networking.

Good quotes:
“thoughts are like crystals, one builds off of the other”
“art as an incubator of disiciplines”

I also really was touched at how she referred to the works as “my” wheat field and “my” forest. And hearing her talk about the beauty of the wheatfield was so moving.

Apologies for the more rambling and incoherent nature of this post (more than usual) - I have the “I feel woozy and incoherent” head cold going around.

com·mod·i·ty : \kə-mä-də-tē\
Function: noun | Inflected Form(s): plural - com·mod·i·ties | Etymology: Middle English commoditee, from Anglo-French commoditee, from Latin commoditat-, commoditas, from commodus | Date: 15th century
1: an economic good: as a: a product of agriculture or mining b: an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures> c: a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>
2 a: something useful or valued commodity patience>; also: thing, entity b: convenience, advantage 3: obsolete: quantity, lot 4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price
5: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

I was recently asked to explain how I am able to create (fund and find audience for) the kind of work that I do. This question was from someone who a) is professionally interested in managing creative careers and making money (sustainable art) and b) who is steeped in more traditional models within the visual arts world, but has some knowledge in new methods of distribution and funding in the literary, film and music industries. So let’s break this down.
First, the kind of work that I do: I create (in addition to a more traditional studio based practice) temporary, performative based public artworks. Some have sculptural aspects and all have a community building and/or eco-visualization aspect. Most of these projects do not produce a single representative object which can be bought or sold. I am currently using the term “non-object based work.” I use this to describe my work and the work of some friends of mine. Some other examples are, Lise Brenner, a choreographer whose most recent projects include a choreographic charting of native flora in Brooklyn which resulted in directions which could be applied to a performance as the final product (not an actual performance) and a historical investigation of a neighborhood through sound work and tours. Aaron Landsman is a performer who created a sound work that was a tour of a day in the life of a neighborhood and a performance which is produced in individual’s apartments. Stephanie Skaff whose recent project was a street performance in which she set up a street vendor cart in Lower Manhattan to share stories from street vendors around NYC (it was the culmination of months of going out and meeting and speaking to many many vendors around the city). None of these artists’ works result in specific objects which can be bought or sold and neither of them have set up situations which are subject to ticketing for a traditional performance.

Now it should be noted that we are not in a unique situation. There are numerous historical precedence to all that we are doing: Richard Long’s Walks, William Pope L.’s performance/crawls, numerous earthworks (Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, Michael Heizer’s Double Negative, Walter de Maria’s Lightening Field, the list goes on), a variety of conceptual artworks and even some dadaist non-object based work. So it’s not like we don’t have a point of reference.

Second, who is this for: The work that I and many of my contemporaries working in a “non-object based” way is done in such a way as to engage a larger audience than one might find in a traditional gallery or performance space. In a sense, we are preaching way beyond the choir. Whether it is someone passing by on the street in Canarsie as I draw the chalk line with whom I engage in a conversation about climate change or a stockbroker who never thought twice about his daily stop at the coffee cart until he met with Stephanie. So the projects are all really broad based and interested in participating in a wider social discussion.

Third, what is the current funding? Currently, most of these projects are funded through foundations and municipal or state funds. In my case, almost 50% of my project time is taken up through grant applications and writing. I am sure it is similar in other cases as well. This funding is really wonderful as it comes as a project based monetary amount, with no strings attached and - here’s a nice thing you may not know - most (if not all) funders require that you include in your budget an artists fee. They want to know that they, in supporting the project, are supporting the artist. If you have been a lucky (is that the right word? its quite a lot of work for it to be luck) recipient of a grant, then you that you will be required to do periodic reporting on how the money is being spent and what is happening with the project. Other than that, don’t expect a whole lot of interaction (unless you get a Creative Capital grant). The granting agency doesn’t interfere with the work, nor do they, though, provide much formal support. Some might profile your project in their outreach, some might provide feedback, but mostly it is up to the recipient to make the project succeed or fail.

A portion of the funding may also come from private donations - frequently made up of “friends and family grants” and - euphemism - “self-funding.” These sources may ebb and flow based on project frequency and/or outside competition for money. While it is frequently true that if you ask someone for a donation they will give it, it is also true that it is hard to repeatedly hit up the same people without any reward.
And as much as I like to believe in the abundance of funds available to artists, grants are definitely limited. And with some recent changes in the world of major funders, the money available is shrinking. So we are looking for new ways to create sustainable careers.

The commodity model: This model implies a specific object of value which can be traded in exchange for money. The traditional gallery/dance/performance system is based on trade. You give me money, I give you an object or a specified moment of time which is valued based on the opinions of others. This model is heavily dependent on a) an object or ticketed performance b) the perceived value of your creation (perceived by people other than the artist). For those of us working outside of the traditional object based practice, we can produce sale-able items (for example I have the beacons, documentary photos and maps, Stephanie has CD’s of her conversations with street vendors - although I think she gave those away for free), but the goal of the practice is not the object - therefore the value of the object is often diminished.

A new funding model: I don’t have an answer for this yet. It is what all this thinking is leading up to. However there are a lot of new models out there for other practices and funds:

• artistshare.com - this new model allows music fans to directly participate in the creation of new music/cd’s. a patron can donate to the musician and in return receive anything from a glimpse inside the recording process, to attending a recording session to being an executive producer on the album
• artist pension trust - using artworks as investment, this trust accumulates works of many artists and distributes revenue from art sales to all artists
• self-publishing/distribution for literature, films & music - more sites are popping up making it easier to manage your own career in these media, including lulu.com, withoutabox, cdbaby…

So I am thinking about how to create a new paradigm for supporting the arts - is it modeled as a mix between artistshare, artist pension trust and creative capital grantmaking? If you have specific thoughts, or want to join in the larger conversation (I am putting together a group of interested individuals to have a larger discussion), then leave a comment.

images from top to bottom:
yves klein, “jumping into the void”
aaron landsman, image from “Gatz” performance by Elevator Repair Service
lise brenner, matrix from “The City from a Plant’s Perspective: Mapping NYC as Native Flora”
michael heizer, “double negative”
richard long, “a line made by walking”
eve s. mosher, “HighWaterLine”
stephanie skaff, “Make Me One with Everything”

Would you consider yourself an artist or an activist?

I get asked this question all the time, and I cringe every time I hear it. Why do I have to label myself as either? Which one means you will take me seriously, respect me and my work and maybe consider what I have to say? Both have their negative connotations. Both have their positive connotations.

I thought I had kind of figured it out, but I don’t think I have.

I was asked this question at the HighWaterLine wrap party and here is a paraphrase of an answer that I gave.
“I would have to consider myself an artist. I approached this project from an artistic point of view, I considered the aesthetics as equally as important as the message. I also come from an artistic background. I’m not really an activist, I attended my first ever rally of any kind this year, and that’s mostly because I knew the people organizing it.
“I was recently on a panel that specifically discussed the role of arts in environmental issues and the challenges in visualizing the difficult information put forth (it’s the Eyebeam Eco-Visualization Challenge). We were talking about art and its power to inform and incite. One of the panelists, Michael Mandiberg asked the question ‘Why can’t art do something?’ Historically at the same time that Duchamp was removing the function from items in order to create art, Russian contemporaries were using their art to foment revolution. So why can’t art do something?”

Even this answer left me feeling uneasy. It wasn’t helped by my friend Ellen Driscoll coming up to “put a fly in the ointment” to say, why do you have to chose between art and activism? Why can they not coexist. I think she and I may need to sit down and hash some of this out in further conversations, because I do agree with her. I think my above answer was the easy way out.

I am equally as influenced by Wangari Maathai as Agnes Denes. Majora Carter instills in me the same inspiration as Joseph Beuys. Shirin Ebadi, Magdalena Abakonwicz, Jane Jacobs and Ernesto Neto. My circle of friends includes artists and activists. And some, who are both. How do we, both the artists and the activists bridge the gap.

Ellen and I joked about coining new phrases such as “action artist” or “active artist” - as in not dead? I asked.

What is wrong in the art world with being an activist? Would I not be taken seriously as an artist? Is there something wrong with being an artist in the activist world? Are you not given due respect for ideas?

I promise you, more to come on this.