The work of Oslo-based artists Ingrid Book & Carina Heden constitutes a space in which social practices usually considered in terms of their separate institutional affiliations - art museums, urbanism, cultivation, gardening and landscape traditions, and finance - are offered as components of a larger discursive network.

Ingrid Book and Carina Hedén have shared a collective artistic practice for more than a decade. Their project Military Landscapes has been commissioned by the Bergen Kunsthall to be part of the annual Bergen Festival exhibition in 2008. Their solo show was entitled Stories for Empty Shop Windows and was shown at the Salzburger Kunstverein (Austria, 2007). The artist duo presented News from the Field/Ocampo as the official Norwegian Representation at the 26th Bienal de Sao Paulo, the same year they participated at the 3rd Berlin Biennial for Contemporary Art (Berlin, 2004.) In 2003, the artist duo presented Temporary Utopias, a large scale exhibition at the National Museum of Contemporary Art in Oslo, Norway. Hong Kong Press is the publishing entity of Book and Héden.

For the 26th Bienal di Sao Paulo Book & Heden edited a newspaper News from the Field / Noticias do Campo, printed in a high print run of 52,000 copies for free distribution, as an integral part of their installation “The Field / O Campo” constituting a meeting place between farming in cities today and the collective memory, the archive. This show brought together a multitude of voices by sociologists, biologists, architects, writers, NGOs and artists addressing issues of urban agriculture and the politics of land ownership, outlined in categories such as “World”, “Regional Brazil”, “Society”, “Science”, “Business”, “Cartoons”, “Sport”.

News from the Field / Noticias do Campo includes texts by Ina Blom, Ingrid Book & Carina Heden, Tjeerd Deelstra / Herbert Girardet, ETC group, Boris Groys, Helge Hiram Jensen, David Loffler, Hettie Pisters, Matteo Poli, Charlotte Pruth, Michael Wilkens ea.

The Field / O Campo, a multilayered installation, involved different media as well as a trans-disciplinary approach introducing artistic practice as a method of knowledge production matching the complexity of the questions raised. The artists here are making a shift from the museum as the former archive to urban agriculture as one form of a potential future archive.

Image Caption: Quilombos nr. 16, News from the field, Copyright Book & Heden, 2004

Tomorrow night (11/17), Lucy Orta, Nicholas Makris, and Armin Linke will join us at “This Is Tomorrow.” The evening will focus on fashion, filmmaking, and scientific research associated with remote habitats including Antarctica, deep oceans, and the ice layers of Jupiter’s Moon Europa. Lucy Orta is an artist, fashion designer, and Professor for Art, Fashion and the Environment at the London College of Fashion; Paris, France. Nicholas Makris is a Professor of Mechanical and Ocean Engineering and the Director of the Laboratory for Undersea Remote Sensing at MIT. Armin Linke is a filmmaker and Guest Professor for Photography at the HFG Karlsruhe, Germany; Milan (Italy). Image: Lucy + Jorge Orta | Antarctic Village - No Borders, 2007, courtesy Galleria Continua, San Gimignano - Beijing. Photo: JJ Crance.

Questions prepared by Robert Mastro and Lee Dykxhoorn

hab•i•tat (hāb’ĭ-tāt’) n.
1. The area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs: a marine habitat.
2. The place where a person or thing is most likely to be found.
3. A structure that affords a controlled environment for living in extremely inhospitable locations, such as an underwater research laboratory.
The word ‘habitat’ as it is traditionally defined, seems to be a notion that is tied directly to the stability of specific microclimates and ecosystems. The word ‘remote’ has an immediate connotation with the phenomenon of distance from an assumed center.

These two words combined seem to suggest (in terms of conventional connotation and denotation) a more narrow and anthropocentric view of global ecology. Though certain habitats might seem, in one sense, to be very ‘remote’ and/or ‘specific’, they may also be considered as closely linked and interdependent.

How can we better understand the nature of ‘remote habitats’ in a larger and organic context? How can we translate this understanding to better serve these ‘remote habitats’ in the construction of our own?

Questions for Lucy Orta:

Given your interests in the role of art in facing the critical issues of society
(in particular in reference to the Dome Architectures project), do you see art
as having a lead role in defining solutions for action, or rather as a guiding
force to help inspire and lead others along an intellectual platform for
action? Do you see yourself in a theoretical or practical engagement with the
issues of today?

Lukas Feireiss
Lukas Feireiss presented a number of architectural projects that crossed disciplinary boundaries and spoke to the issue of mobile architecture or aspects of architecture that are impermanent or ephemeral. His talk was peppered with references to popular cartoons, music, film and literature — indicating his perspective as a writer and curator, not rather than that of an architect. The architectural projects he discussed were rooted in the notion of space craft, a phrase that indicates both a building grounded in solid craftsmanship as well as a more utopian vision of space as all that is new and unknown (the “final frontier”) — a place where gravity may be conquered.

Looking at the architects influenced by this period of excitement and possibility of space travel, Feireiss examines the inflatable spaces of the Archigram Group (also known for Plug-In City and Walking City). During the 60’s, many architects were liberated from the history and ideology of architectural tradition, exploring unconventional materials and creating projects that acted within the realm of conceptual art as opposed to architectural proposal. Archigram’s inflatable space was an impractical structure that played off of the “perennial deam of architecture: to float away on a cloud, to lose gravity.” An inflatable space itself was an impractical, terrible idea — but as Feireiss argues: so what — at times a bad idea is better than a good idea. This is a dramatic statement that hits at the heart of criticisms of utopian projects. The architect should be free to play — to intelligently play — and imagine spaces that resonate with our unspoken needs. Sometimes it is not about finding solutions, but identifying problems and paradoxes within the current conventions of thinking (in this case, architecture).

Abdoumaliq Simone
Abdoumaliq Simone framed his talk around a “particular kind of ghost story” focused on the infrastructure and doubleness of black residency throughout the world: a group that is massively displaced and highly mobile in one sense, but ultimately is never able to go anywhere. Abdoumaliq Simone describes three African cities in which people act as the infrastructure, articulating and directing each other towards different locations, resources, and people that are vital for daily survival. While Lukas Feireiss focused on [playful] physical structures that organize a space, Adoumaliq Simone examines the navigational systems within the urban city. The structure of these communities is one in which an individual is completely implicated in the lives of people they may or may not know — where the personal connections and stories are essential in creating the circuitries and connections necessary to sustain a group of people.

Questions prepared by Robert Mastro and Lee Dykxhoorn

hab•i•tat (hāb’ĭ-tāt’) n.
1. The area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs: a marine habitat.
2. The place where a person or thing is most likely to be found.
3. A structure that affords a controlled environment for living in extremely inhospitable locations, such as an underwater research laboratory.
The word ‘habitat’ as it is traditionally defined, seems to be a notion that is tied directly to the stability of specific microclimates and ecosystems. The word ‘remote’ has an immediate connotation with the phenomenon of distance from an assumed center.

These two words combined seem to suggest (in terms of conventional connotation and denotation) a more narrow and anthropocentric view of global ecology. Though certain habitats might seem, in one sense, to be very ‘remote’ and/or ‘specific’, they may also be considered as closely linked and interdependent.

How can we better understand the nature of ‘remote habitats’ in a larger and organic context? How can we translate this understanding to better serve these ‘remote habitats’ in the construction of our own?

Question for Lucy Orta:

Given your interests in art’s role in facing the critical issues of society
(in particular in reference to the Dome Architectures project), do you see art
as having a lead role in defining solutions for action, or rather as a guiding
force to help inspire and lead others along an intellectual platform for
action? Do you see yourself in a theoretical or practical engagement with the
issues of today?

Regina Bittner
Regina talked mainly about urban development and the shrinking city in the context of case studies. What is it that shrinkage means, for the people, etc? How are politicians coping? How can we understand this development? She talked of a town on the German/Polish border, and how they dealt with the issue of a shrinking city. Mentioning the strong lack of confidence in the city; and a growing disillusionment with the local, especially as unemployment steadily rises. In such places there is a strong relationship to the past, and a certain psychological construct of living in a shadow of possibly greater times. When the income of a city begins to become dependent on tourism, there is a binding to this past that leaves out a future and further compounds this disillusionment. Combined with the decline of industrialization, the imbalance of global forces, the conflicting patterns of relocation, and the overall lack of control in the larger system, people feel an absence of possibilities. One of the most striking ways in which this feeling comes home is in the loss of the young, who move to other cities. When they leave, upon seeing no value in the current place, it leaves those who stay feeling abandoned in a place without a future. To quote a section “children are the future, but as the children leave it feels like there is no future here.” There is a longing for stability and normality, while at the same time strong defensive feelings. A feeling of being misunderstood and threatened by the “other”. Cities like this feel like they are searching for their own future, but lacking a vision.
On the other side, she discussed some interesting projects that people have done in coordination with the initiatives for those that stay. How one can develop something with the resources that are there. For example, the artist/entrepreneur with an abandoned brewery, who created a space for entrepreneurship and engagement. Opportunities create in some sense utopias, or at the very least a vision of possibility. Re-urbanism, what city, whose city? Challenges us to think of urbanism in a different way.

Stefano Boeri
Stefano talked about the magazines Domus and Abitare, and maintaining an architectural magazine. The points he laid out where as follows.

1. Represent reality by replacing it, literature as the narrative form of architecture.
2. Analyze the lives of buildings when the architects have gone, through direct experiences (especially with the people that inhabit these famous place through cleaning etc.)
3. Deconstruct Images
4. Architecture and daily life. The way in which buildings take part in events and crime reporting as the city’s unconscious.
5. The challenge of advertising. 3 rules. 1. co-existence is necessary 2. Oversee ambiguities that arise. 3. Reduce confusion to a minimum.
6. Inform and tell stores. Giving more levels of reading.
7. The correction and harsh critique of projects as a technically important form of architectural criticism.
8. Magazine as a horizontal media platform, tv, website etc.
9. A magazine linked to events and as a promoter of events.
10. A magazine which creates a social and political processes.
And finally he spoke about Sustainable Dystopias

Of the points he spoke about, the ones I found most interesting were four, ten, and sustainable dystopias. The idea of understanding an architectural space through the daily life of its inhabitants is an interesting participatory creation of a different image of an architectural work. That we would construct a view of a space not by its plans, but by its inhabitation. Similarly point ten talked about the forum of creating social and political processes, and I think the role of the architectural magazine plays a part in the dialog utopian or dystopian, of our perceived goals and visions which we seek to construct around us. The magazine and other horizontal media platforms are useful for thinking about and dialoging with the utopian ideas, events, goals, and their realization. They are a forum for the creation of social and political processes. And finally on the issue of sustainable dystopia. Sustainability has clearly been the largest utopia oriented movement of late. This section was the most directly relevant portion of his talk to this lecture series’ themes. Regarding sustainability, he talked of recent manifests for architects to imagine the construction of buildings as growing forms, that produce energy, centered around this goal of sustainability. I enjoyed that he pointed out that in a general technocratic society, such as one in which such buildings exist. There is a strong risk of a removal of freedom with the removal of space for unpredictable behavior. Later, he discussed the movements of re-agriculturalization of the cities, and finally the allowing of nature to co-exist and inhabit our cities. In the end he called to question a vision of a city that can host the diversity of animals/nature without abandoning our anthropocentric point of view. However, with all of these discussions and visions he is quick to point out that the distopia/utopia difference is extremely thin.

Bartolomeo Pietromarchi
Bartolomeo’s talk focused mainly on the cultural vision of the future. He began by discussing the famous “this is tomorrow” exhibition from which this series was greatly influenced. His talk mostly focused on the relationship between our cultural vision of technological utopian dreams and the actual existence. How do architects and artists deal with the technological innovation? His talk juxtaposed the movements of the 50’s and 60’s with those going on today. What is the most compelling element of the man machine relationship, there is the potential of technological advancement, with the realization that machines are simply extensions of human nature. His talk also focused on the work of J.G. Ballard, and the effects of technologically advanced surroundings on the human psyche. Later it moved into an example of work with abandoned nuclear power plants in Italy, exploring our collective obsession with nuclear power and the fear of the apocalypse. Taking note of the emotional tone around the technological advances. Often with the utopian vision one is impressed with the technological achievement but fails to see the social and environmental impact of said technological innovation. There is a disconnect between the vision of the future, and our presumed domination of the environment; we must subsequently place ourselves in the present along a future path. He ended with a project called “Slave City”, which explored again this current utopian dream of sustainability. This project, however dealt with a more satirical vision of what that ultimate sustainable city could be, used as a critical reflection on one of our current utopian goals.

Peter Marcuse is noted for having championed a leftist political ideology throughout his career as a professor of urban planning, even as many academics abandoned Marxism. It was none the less surprising however, when Peter began the lecture by boldly proclaiming that America was entering a Utopian Age, a Utopia of Goldman Sachs and Hank Paulson. While Marcuse’s message of corporate excess was provocative, his reasoning on the subject was shaky at best. He spoke of the treasury being “privatized”, but in reality, it was banks that were seized by the state. In the wake of the financial upheavals of the last few months, arguments against the free market are increasingly irrelevant, because the free market has been replaced by state intervention on an unprecedented scale. How ironic, that it is the very state involvement that the left desires which is causing the critical elements which Marcuse himself decries. “It is the small firms that will be eaten by the large ones” he worries. He is right, of course, as the beneficiaries of the corporate bailout used the money not to make loans, but to buy up their competitors. It is the reality of the evils of government under the guise of public service which time and again disprove the eloquent proclamations of the Left.

Once he steps away from the political propaganda, I appreciate his philosophical perspectives. He makes the point that one person’s utopia is another’s dystopia. In our class on Participatory Networks, we talked about the grandiose vision of urban perfection as outlined by le Corbusier, and how it was ultimately an oppressive subversion of human freedom and the individual. Marcuse seemed cautious of utopias, perhaps because of his family’s history dealing with Nazi Germany. Had he focused exclusively on the evils of utopia, rather than ranting about the ills of corporations, (which was an underhanded endorsement of his own utopia) I might have given his argument more credibility.

Pia Maria Ahlback, on the other hand, spoke lucidly, though hoarsely, about the concept of heterotopias and utopias. She posed the question, in the context of a newly purchased handbag, can anything be a utopia? or What are the limits of Utopia? Like Marcuse, she is suspicious of the giant corporation, but she approaches her example of Monsanto by grounding it in a literary context of Thomas Moore and Foucault which is cautiously critical rather than hyperbolically damning. She argues that dystopias and heterotopias may reveal a suppressed utopia which is an inversion of the hegemonic powers which define utopia. Her perspective opens the possibility for good to emerge from a wide variety of places and spaces. What I find so appealing about her argument is the way in which it implies that the more dystopic things appear to be, the more opportunities for diversity and change emerge. She seems to encourage a vision of diversity; a quality notably lacking in the black and white dichotomy of Peter Marcuse. One person’s perfect is another person’s prison; in heterotopias, at least there is space among the chaos for change.