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?