Blue Wall unplugged
Questions for the solarium complex:
want do we want for public space? Do people really want a shared space, or in the end would people prefer to have their own share? In the orange work we tried to test the idea of a public ownership of public space by enabling behaviors that are more commonly associated with a space owned individually—such as, reclining, putting your feet up, or sleeping — crossing the two behavior parameters in order to reveal a site and the vectors of spatial pressure.
But what were the interests or priorities of the using public—in this case the Elgsletta area residents? We see that the Solarium was used by residents with a generally weak ability to make a space claim for themselves (homeless persons, street people, etc.) who saw it as a fortunate passive space to be claimed, and when possible closed off. Though the structure was initially clean, open and safe, it did not generally attract the mixed use of the jogger or the mother pushing the pram. It is as though the space was seen as exceptional, not fitting into pre-established spatial patterns and so attracted an exceptional population that has little ability to control a private space of home or apartment—public space as a collective remainder for those without private space. What would happen if this understanding were to be formalized in law?
The project’s result perhaps puts into question the default leftist protest against the privatization of public space—that it a resource to be shared, because perhaps in reality, we are not so interested in making the social negotiations that sharing entails. One could point to the particularities of the site, with its mark of the other (Somali hash dealers, junkies) to account for this reaction, but I think the site just put the question into stronger relief—the dynamic might be replicated, albeit more softly at other sites.
Is this a question of the cultural conditioning associated with capitalism or does it reach back to something more natural, as Adam Smith proposed with his “tragedy of the commons” theory?
As far as the structure needing to be taken down, I think it is a very good result for the project, breaking through the circumscribed envelope that often encompasses the artworld, and pushing a situation until it became problematic.
Deconstruction Day 1
Anders and I started deconstructing at Elgsletta to a grand audience that after a short warm-up became a great help. The homeless was happy to have the orange webbing as it would be perfect to put branches to make a hut in the woods. Again I had to fight for Atle’s right to the lounge, but the picknick-table will be taken away tomorrow if the Salvation Army is kind enough to drive it for the guys.
Dreams of huge trolleys or cranes to take the house it self away or small houses just like this one (but with a proper door and window) was a subject throughout the two hours plus it took us to take the walls down. Hinges and screws were taken care of by the helpers so they could construct something of their own.
Anders and the moose
Three happy campers
Getting good help
Orangework sure knows how to construct - those bolts were hard to crack..
“Keep clean - put your garbage in bags or similar”
To be continued…
Orangework will be taken down
Yesterday we received a phonecall from the municipalities of Oslo asking us to remove the Orangework structure by the moose. The structure has been inhabited by at least one homeless person living there now for about a week, and since he keeps the structure closed - thereby making it purely private - it has to be taken down.
This will happen today, wednesday, and anybody interested in the materials are welcome to show up around 1730 (the sofa has allready been booked).
Interview with Atle Barcley on electronic art in Oslo, Urban Interface Oslo and all the rest
On the occassion of UIO Regine made an interview with Atle Barcley. Read at ‘We make money not art’ here: