first ideas for Pittsburgh

We sent the following email to Renee, Lea and Lena.

Hello Renee, Lea and Lena,

We have been thinking about strategies on how to proceed in developing a project for you and we wanted to start where we had left off at our last meeting.

In the second part of the email, we paraphrase some of our preliminary ideas so you can get a sense of what we are thinking of. But, none of those ideas are final, we even believe that they are the most obvious ones and we have to go further and get behind these initial ideas. But maybe there is something in them to keep the discussion going.

To reiterate what we think is important for a successful project we created this list. It is meant as a first guideline so you can see our approach and interest:

– For all our past land projects, we worked with the surrounding community as “neighbors”.

– Investing our money into a piece of land was a straight forward approach that legitimized our presence.

-Our commitment to own a piece of land “there”, created a certain equality with people who lived around. We were in the same boat.

– For Pittsburgh the land owning approach could avoid placing the project in a (maybe) familiar category like parks, city or renewal initiatives or studies, which could result in habitual responses.

– Our intention is not to fulfill an obvious need, but rather construct something that needs to be understood, seen, felt or executed in order for it to exist.

– A project is successful if it comes into existence because all participants believe in it.

– Usually there is no audience, everyone participates.

– There might not be something physical.

– It might take time.

– The project could take the form of a series of smaller events or a slow progression towards a bigger event.

– An event can have many forms, but the least likely form is a spectacle for an audience.

– We don’t provide a social service and don’t operate out of mercy.

– Active participation is important, the project is not for someone (community), but with someone.

– Our projects operate on the basis of give and take. All involved parties are equal in this respect and all parties have their unique qualifications, but we are not attempting artistic equality.

– We might start by giving an idea, but only continue, if this idea grows through the input of others. Otherwise it’s the wrong idea and we have to come up with something new.

And here are some of our initial ideas:

– operate a grocery store in either Larimer or Garfield

– turn Larimer into a large scale Golf course covering the entire neighborhood. Individual holes are created and maintained by individual custodians.

– initiate a dude ranch with horses and cows using the meadows between the houses to graze (Larimer)

– establish a specialized barter system for the local economy, set up trading places (Larimer or Garfield)

– We fix your house, in exchange for housing a public “institution” for an agreed amount of time (e.g. Dedicate one room as a gallery and keep it open to visitors) (Larimer or Garfield). Something along the lines of Cesaro Corneo’s project “Puno Museum of Contemporary Art.”

– create a large scale environment of a functioning, possibly romanticized village structure, similar to the set of Lars van Trier’s “Dogville” (in Larimer). All basic public services (post office, grocery shop, school, etc.) exist only as minimalist scenery, possibly as white painted outlines, which have big labels on them. For example, the outlines of the post office are marked on the actual lot by white charcoal lines. “Over the door” is a wooden sign with the label “post office”.

The “set up” could be activated through a period of role playing games. Members from the community become “the postal clerk”, the school teacher, the shop owner…. they will interact with the stranger who comes to town. The bare staging serves acknowledges the artificiality of the setup, while at the same time focuses on storytelling.

Apart from these “concrete” ideas, we are also interested in other gestures and effects which might affect the area. One of which was the streetlight situation. How does light affect a space, what about an artificial sun or moon which lights bright above Larimer….

In order to “play out” some of these scenarios and to think of their feasibility, we would be interested to know how many of the houses/properties are occupied by their owners, if there are clusters where most owners live. Are many lots owned by the same people/investors/slumlords or are most places owned by individuals (besides the ones owned by the city and URA)? What is the ratio owner/renter and what is the ratio vacant to inhabited property.

So many questions and such a long email, but we are excited about it and look forward to hearing from you. We really enjoyed being in Pittsburgh and appreciated your hospitality and openness!

All the best

Franzy & Hajoe