Possible next steps

Since we are making our working process public, the back and forth between ideas and revelations might seem confusing for an “outsider”, but it demonstrates our dialog with the site, the conditions and our ideas. (- And as stated earlier, this process usually happens in the privacy of our studio, now our studio practice is made transparent through this blog.)

Currently there are three (or even four) parties involved in the creation of this artwork.

• The artists

• The commissioning institutions (URA and Arts Council)

• The (or a) community of Larimer (not involved yet)

Is this list sequential? We have been thinking about this a lot and we were wondering if it is possible to mix it up more, reorder it into artists, community, institution.

By examining this process we also questioned the discussed warm-up project “movie screening”. Even if we, as for example discussed in the phone conversation, would do an outdoor  movie screening as a warm up project – even if people in Larimer could create their own playlists, etc., were they ever involved into this process from the beginning? Did they ever have the opportunity to choose not from the list of movies but from the list of original ideas? Would it make sense to have them choose? At this point none of our ideas seem acceptable to us, but we see them as necessary steps towards a clarification of what we can achieve in Larimer. We still think that a smaller “warm-up” is important for a successful larger project, but having spent more thoughts to it we need to revise it more. Community involvement is a term which is heavily used and takes on many forms. Most often the form of meetings and paper clippings. Our idea is a bit different and we framed our approach on a different page since it is fundamental to our practice and it is essential that we all agree on the same strategy.

What are ways to start before a specific named project and what could be ways to finance this approach?

Option A:) The artists get an R&D funding from the commissioning institution. They find cheap real estate and buy some land (as private people) in Larimer. They go to Pittsburgh a couple of times over the next year to “hang out” on their property and explore the neighborhood as neighbors. The artists oblige, that by the end of the next year the people of Larimer and eteam in collaboration will propose an idea (or a couple of them) to the commissioning institution.

Option B:) Eteam finances this first phase themselves. At the end of next year (2010) they, in collaboration with some people from the community, will approach the commissioning institution with the request for funding a proposal. They will include a honorarium for the proposal phase into their budget for the project.

Would either one approach make a difference? This project and the way to get there is an experiment, that hopefully will work not only as a project in itself, but may as a strategic model for future artist commissions. At least that’s our interest as well… to find a way of how we can not only collaborate with land and a community, but with a community and a commissioning institution.

Maybe it’s too much to assume one could satisfy the needs of three or four parties (that all consist of sub-parties) with one project. May be that is impossible. May be we need to appear differently. Here is an example:

Option C:) Could the URA train and hire us for a certain amount of time as workers so we can go to Larimer and for example, cut the grass on their lots and do the required maintenance work?  This way, things would be a clear and simple work relationship. We are paid by the URA to be in Larimer and do some work. It would be a straight forward start and an alternative, plausible reason for being in Larimer to our initial idea of owning land there. We would approach the land as hired workers (what we are in this case anyway). Also, we would not be fixed to one location, but could move around, we would not be a neighbor, but a neighborhood worker.

Here are some lists,  juxtaposing what we think each team has to offer (besides the qualifications each individual team member has) :

Pittsburgh (P-team)

• Various data (census, ownership, etc)
• Permits
• Equipment
• Network
• $$
• Connections/PR
• Contact information

eteam:

• Streetwork/legwork
• Personal/individual
• Neighbors
• Relationships
• Belief
• Artistic interest