So the point of the project was to find a handful of people who were interested in installing small green roof modules (little trays of green roof that were less than 2′x4′). These people were then to reach out to their friends/neighbors to interest them in putting modules on their roofs too. The goals were to create a network of people in a region who were all interested in urban environmental issues and spark a wave of green roof building – more on all that here.

So it started slowly with a few people interested – I kind of thought there would be loads of people who wanted a free green roof! Then I started to get interest from institutions, and although this wasn’t the intended audience, it seemed like a good idea anyway. So when we went to install the first modules the comments were along the lines of “that’s it?” “that’s so easy!” — and I realized (after my great experience with the planting program with Covenant House) that there was some other potential here. So I brought up the idea of doing a planting program with the residents of this particular institution. If they cover the costs (at just over $1,000) we could do run a half day workshop and by the end of that they would have a larger green roof – about 2,000 square feet worth!

I have since planted at a pre-school, an environmental organization and another school, all of whom are interested in doing planting workshops in the spring! So that is 4 more green roofs than NYC had before I started the project.

So, while I may not (yet) be getting the broad reach that I had hoped for, I am getting to install some larger scale green roofs with some great people. And the green roof education reaches a broad base of people who will one day build their own networks…

Platform2: Failure Support Group

Arctic Listening Post

Kite flown at Blue Hill Residency

for more information: http://www.janemarsching.com/

All photos courtesy of Jane Marsching.

Lacy’s explicit focus is on the ‘community’ aspect of public art, as well as its ability to address ‘real’ social issues. She considers public art a ‘highly competitive alternative gallery system’.¹ She also eschews artists who have successful careers in the art world who periodically make public art works, or thematise the idea of public communication in their work. For Lacy, the most successful public art projects are ones where the artist works as a kind of agent, or facilitator, and is connected to or connects themselves in a genuine way to a real constituency rather than an abstract ‘public’.

and later,

For Kwon, all of the transgressive and subversive gestures which were the domain of the avant-garde in the early part of the twentieth century have become mere glosses, patinas of radicality that cover what is essentially conservative work, fully-assimilated into political agendas but rarely truly effective as community projects or as artistic ones. For her the stakes are high; the debate on public art comes down to ‘the future of democracy’, in other words whether we live in a progressive society that both looks after its citizens properly and leaves room for protest. If art becomes a salve, it absolves those in power from making structural changes that condition social inequality.

…

In each of these, Kwon probes the idea of ‘community’ – how it’s identified by the artist, whether it exists in advance of the project or is created through it, how it’s formalised, and who ends up representing it. Her discussion raises a key question that’s shared by arts professionals and community groups but not always artists: how the quality or success of public art is evaluated.

…

Kester has no illusions about the limitations of dialogical art practices, or of activist ones for that matter. He writes, ‘Not all conflicts can be resolved by free and open exchange because not all conflicts are the result of a failure among a given set of interlocutors to fully ‘understand’ or empathize with each other’.³ He works hard not to idealise the artists he cites as doing exemplary work (WochenKlausur, Helen and Newton Harrison, Stephen Willats, Suzanne Lacy, Littoral, among the best known) and, perhaps better than Kwon does, holds a magnifying glass up to a range of their projects. Kester’s conclusion is to the point: the best activist and dialogical art has left little trace in the critical literature almost as a result of the fact that the distance between the artist and audience was negligible – this is the goal, but it also indicates how marginalised this kind of practice remains within the art world and critical discourse, not to mention bureaucracies. The best work slips under the radar.

Green’s discussion of the texts is a discourse on the value of different types of public works and how we got from there to here (how plop art and community art intersect and have transformed over time). But I am currently interested in the specific aspect “If art becomes a salve, it absolves those in power from making structural changes that condition social inequality.”

I had a long conversation with two friends of mine not long ago about the role of artists in political and social agendas (one works in this realm and the other is more traditional) and as well the impact of private funding filling the gap left by the lack of federal funding for the arts and how all of this, overall impacts the culture of our country. (I also had an interesting conversation yesterday with another friend about how a lack of government funding when there is no private funding model, can affect contemporary art).

Here’s the gist of the conversation: President Bush (the elder) in his 1998 inaugural speech called for limiting government spending and asking everyone else to take up the slack:

“I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.”

—George H. W. Bush, 1988

There’s even an organization called Points of Light.

Anyway, what became the real takeaway in the new Bush administration (is he neo-bush?) is not just limiting funding (because yeh, I do think we all should be involved in our communities – in fact I think community service should be an option for funding your college education) but completely removing the funding and leaving it to the private sector to, well, do pretty much everything. So when arts funding for individuals dried up, private foundations stepped in, when the arts funding for organizations started moving towards funding conservative and traditional groups, private foundations started funding the emerging and cutting edge groups.

And, as government support and funding for social projects is redirected elsewhere around the world – non-profits and, yes, even artists, are stepping in to fill the role of what was previously a government responsibility.

Is this right or wrong? I honestly don’t have an answer for that. They whole reason I got started down the path of creating works in public was the very frustration I felt over no one else (i.e. gov’t) taking the reins and providing information to people.

Do I think artists are potentially more effective than government or even organizations working in the sector – yes, I definitely do. Artists can think more creatively, inspire action and provide an entry into the complex issues by way of art itself. Artists can move more quickly, think more strategically and take on bigger risks.

However, there does need to be some sort of support system in place for this kind of work. Is it right for me to do the work of the OEM without their support? Is it right for Amber to green the mission in SF without the city governements support? Is it right for Andrea Polli to develop extensive plans for wind turbines on the Queensbridge w/out support from National Grid (ne ConEDd)? Sure, a lot of the agencies are happy to take advantage of the project once it has started (I hear Bloomberg is interested in Polli’s project) but where is the support for creative thinking right up front?

If there were better support for these kind of projects – would they get boring and complacent? Or would they get better? (Bigger dreams?)

I am working on a plan for “MY NYC” a plan for a utopian version of NYC (yes more trees & a park on park avenue – yes wind turbines on the bridges – yes a monorail looping the city!) do you think I could get funding from PlaNYC for developing it?

Probably not. But I think I will do it anyway.

Images from top to bottom: Queensbridge Wind Project by Andrea Polli, Mission Greenbelt by Amber Hasselbring, Urban Visions drawing by Steve Lambert, HighWaterLine by me

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?

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

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.

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”

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.