Zero1 Symposium and Art Festival: Or my unsophisticated point of view

Really late!

Friday's symposium that we attended as a class was a mixed bag.

My least favorite talk of the whole day was the Climate Clock group presentations. Maybe it was just me, but it was a bit uninteresting and a lot of it just went over my head. They didn't explain themselves thoroughly and used a ton of jargon as if they were only amongst other architects, engineers, scientist. In my opinion that wasn't even the worst part! The worst part was their lack of passion. You would think they would being selling you this wonderful idea that they invested a whole lot of their time and creative abilities masterminding, but all I got was a group of monotone presenters that seemed as bored as some of the audience.
The symposium really started to get me interested and excited for the rest of Zero1 during the presentations of “Particle Falls” and “Floating World”. To actually hear the artist talk about their work and explain the concepts behind the instillations was great.
Jade Chang's talk was by far the highlight of the symposium. After hearing some people discuss their projects, it was awesome to have someone to urge us to get out there and create something of our own. I loved the idea of making playful art that is thought provoking and inspiring. The examples given were fun and ingenious.

I unfortunately( or fortunately according to Shannon's description) had to skip out on the last speaker in order to get home , do some homework, and get ready for Absolute Zero. If you missed that event I'll have to describe how incredibly amazing it was.

The interactive art made me feel like a small child. I was giddy from the amount and variety of things to do and see. One of the best times I've had at a festival and most everything was free. An unexpected delight was the street food court comprised of cooks from all over the bay. Vegan ceviche and al pastor tostadas?! Vegan or not, everything was delicious.

Here's some of Absolute Zero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUBOU0lhQt0&feature=player_embedded

Zero 1 Symposium - Friday Ghostly Reflections...

Overall, I enjoyed the opportunity to attend the Symposium and get insight into the various works that embodied the overall theme of Zero1 this year, "Build Your Own World". I will admit that the first half of the day left me entirely disheartened, but more from the bureaucratic standpoint than the artistic. Artistically I was inspired and in absolute awe. The concept of building a piece of art that translates scientific data into a substantial and approachable data concept AND would convey those concepts clearly for 100 years is a daunting and admirable task. I really searched my mind and my creativity both during the symposium and after to wrap my brain about how *I* would have done that.

It should come as no surprise to anybody reading this that I study stuff. All kinds of stuff. One of the things that I am really facinated about is how old things go on to become old. I used to live in a 1909 Craftsman House and always wondered if the builders really thought about what it would be like as it aged. I suspect they didn't really put much thought into how it would survive and focused more on how it should be. In regards to the basement foundation, modern convience additions, long term material availablity and some other issues, I wish they had put a little more thought into what the future might entail but I think they did okay. One of my favorite buildings in San Jose is the Old Church of Christ Science on the north side of St. James Park. Beautiful Neo-Classical architecture example from the 1890's, massive collums and a central dome. City engineer says at this point all that is holding it up is the termites holding hands.

The builders of that, like the builders of my old house, probably didn't think about what 100 years in the future would look like. I suspect that they would be quite surprised to find their Neo-Classical church covered up in plywood and surrounded by a cyclone fence. When I asked, if wholly by the slim chance, Diridon should end up not being a destination in 100 years, instead of getting the artists/scientist's take, I got the bureaucrat. Having spent a decade of my life being a much more intimidating bureaucrat than she, I was less than impressed with her party line adherence that Diridon would always be a destination. While I don't actually doubt her, I don't care, and wanted to know what the artists thought about how the work would last and stand on its own. Bureaucrats are easy to access, artists are less so. In the end, we all don't know what the future will entail and my question was lost amongst the shuffle of my property taxes towards the cause. I support the arts daily and I'm noticing that my city is rarely operating in my best interest. I will support the project if not it's keepers...though my tax dollars go to support them as well. Curious that. Might be worth a letter to the Mercury News after all.

Jade Chang was awesome and witty. In pulling my notes out for this write up I found her blog information and will make a point of following that. Out of all the talks, I found hers to be the most rational and adhere best to the theme of Zero 1. To recap, she covered random acts of public improvements through art. Some were nefarious, like the modification of a freeway sign for greater clarity by a muralist with an adgenda. Some were just for fun, like the piano stair project. I too find myself wondering how I can make the world a better place through a random act of artistic kindness...sounds just too delicious of a concept to entertain through my sometimes larcenous but well intentioned heart. Keeping my eyes open but I must admit, the beauty would be to DO something and never tell a soul that you had made some or many people's lives a little better. Keeping my eye on Ms. Chang in the future. Good stuff....thanks to Shannon for letting us experience Zero 1!

Global Warming Symposium

The Global Warming Symposium was not necessary what I was expecting. I expected to hear about new technologies as well as new ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Rather the symposium was a regurgitation of what I already knew about global warming.  The three teams that introduced their 100 year old projects consisted of different fields such as engineers, artists, and others. The collaboration of those various fields into each particular project seemed odd to me. I figured that one idea initiated the project but as the different team mates brought their own ideas the initial idea might have been lost. I'm not to say that the pieces that they intend to produce may not serve their purpose rather I'm concern if all the money is put into good use. Most people should have a vague understanding of the issues affected the world at large and the children not so much. I guess making these structures be initial ways of introducing the local youth about issues at hand might work. My understand of their particular projects was simply that they are using art, and the collaboration of different fields, to last a hundred year period an during that time attract different audience representations on issues affecting the now and then concerning depleting resources and issues that will continue to affect the world.

01 Post........finally.

There is a reason I don't keep a personal blog--I sort of hate writing in them and can never remember to update them when I'm anywhere near a computer and can do anything about it. Apparently that applies to school-related blogs as well....but I've got me, my zero-one notes, and an internet-connected laptop all together in one place now, so here it is:

Jahnavi's Zero-One Thoughts:

First, like many of my classmates, I was disappointed by the presentation qualities. I had not attended the event before and from the way people had been talking about it I had expected something a bit more polished. I know these people are all artists not public speakers, but it's very hard to pay attention to a talk when the speaker, however knowledgable, is wandering all over the place and it seemed like a lot of the speakers went up in front of the mike unprepared.

Perhaps because of that my favorite group presentation for the Diridon Station climate clock was that given by Usman Hawk's team--the group that was not actually present and had therefore had to prerecord their talk. I felt like I came away with a clear sense of what they wanted to build and why. They wanted to create a self-building, self-maintaining park that drew that worked with the project goal of measurement, computation, and communication. They would have three main robotic devices/attractions: 1) named Huey (and yes, the goofy working names made me smile), also known as the accretion mounds, builds tower out of junk pulled from the air, making larger, thicker ones on bad years. 2) Dewey/sampled box in which 10,000 cloned daffodils (to avoid any genetic variation in results) are planted in batches of 100 every year on site and harvested and saved as a sample of the air that year. 3) Louie/data packer crawls (very slowly) around the park pulling up dirt and packing it into soil sample cubes (with a neat daily data point stamped into the side for kicks) as another measure of the areas health. I like the idea of localized visual feedback devices as art--it's like getting a report at the end of the year. The public could look at the proposed pieces and see how well they (and everyone around them) have done for the year in terms of atmospheric pollution. I think it has potential to work in terms of changing people's actions a bit: I personally do not like to see visible reminders of my failures and I think that seeing a giant mound/tower of crap that was pulled out of the air on a bad year would make me try harder to avoid contributing to it as much the next year. I was also charmed by the concept--I like the machines built from super simple parts and processes that should side-step becoming obsolete and that largely draw their power from nifty things like the sun, temperature change, being wound like a clock, and so on.

I had no idea what the second group (Wired Wilderness) was presenting by the time they got to end of the their presentation, aside from the fact that whatever it was would involve a series of artists. They were one of the more wandering groups--my notes are full of key words and catch phrases for them, but I didn't feel like I came away with anything at all.

The last group presented their Organograph. I felt like they explained themselves well enough, but for some reason it just didn't capture my imagination like the first idea did--it sort of sounded like a fancier version of the Children's Discovery Museum with a focus on climate. The only bit that really charmed me was the part about wanting to tap into the visceral connection to time humans get from the ticking of a clock and the way it seems to link heartbeats and the passage of time and that was only a minor aside.

The panel was very hard for me to get interested in. I did like Joel Slayton's introduction about paradigm shifts and wanting a project that dealt with computing and sustainability as such, but then it just got very dull and the nature of the answers again made the presenters seem less than perfectly prepared.

The artist presentations after lunch were much more fun. "Particle Falls" is a pretty neat idea, and again I like the localized visual feedback idea--people don't like to see that they're messing up, it's a good sort of reminder to change. I also quite enjoyed Robin Lasser and Marguerite Perret's presentation on "Floating World"--the piece is lovely and I liked the idea of an encampment for displaced voices on all levels. I also really liked the descriptions of the public's interaction with the piece--very cool. I had to leave after Robin's presentation to go throw my grandmother's birthday party, and apparently I missed one of the better talks as a result.

An artist's responsiblity to entertain

The biggest problem I had with the Zero 1 Festival, was the often lumbering and awkward presentation that kept cropping up. Even professor Wright, a woman who willingly went to Finland in winter -thus a proven tolerance for slowly paced days- complained about dullness of many of the speakers.
Of course, artists aren't necessarily entertainers, and there's a reason artistic/instructional presentations aren't called performances. Artists have numerous (sometimes contradictory) responsibilities expect of them, some of which have legal force behind them, such as plagiarism and copyright infringements. Demanding artists create entertainment along with material that moves or improves the human state isn't realistic. Indeed, since a great many things that we need desperately aren't likely to be entertaining at all (undergoing surgery comes to mind), insisting art be "fun" while it is trying to perform far loftier goals would be petulantly foolish.
However, I think it safe to say that art, well, should be fun dammit. Learning new concepts is vastly easier when its entertaining. This is true when its presented through impersonal book form, and even more so when an engaging teacher becomes involved. In order to work art has to connect with the viewer, to get inside them somehow and cause change. Boring art (despite what, as a pun, that would imply) doesn't do that very well. In my experience in fact, boring art creates its own barriers limiting its absorption by the audience. Things that bore and disappoint can create hostility directed back at them.
In a situation in which artistic presentations are also calls for funding or action by the public, disinterest could not be more lethal. Yet some of the speakers created painfully monotone reports and slide-shows that would likely disappoint corportate middle-managers. I'm sorry, but the first segment of Friday, proposing an ingenious bio-mechanical clock/park based upon the cult-classic film Silent Running, was one of the most boring lectures I've ever attended. (And once took an astronomy class as a city college.)
When the issues are this important, and the entertaining distractions around your audience as numerous as they are today, presenters can afford to assume their audience is educated and patient, they can not afford to drone.

Zero1

The Global Warning Symposium that was put on during the Zero1 biannual was very timely for my purposes considering my work falls in the sphere of eco art and environmental art. I was able to go to most of the symposium. I missed the afternoon of Thursday, though I was told that I did not miss much. In my opinion the highlights were the two morning speakers on Thursday, and the keynote speaker on Friday. Though there seemed to be some complaining about Thursday being too intellectual, it was a symposium, which by their very nature are going to be somewhat academic.

The first speaker on Thursday morning, Dr. Kathleen Moore, is a philosophy professor at the University of Oregon. I found her presentation particularly interesting because she discussed the moral obligation of why we should strive to protect the planet, and how we as artists can help in the translation process of the hard science to the general public. This presentation particularly resonated with me because I often get sort of "why should we care" questions. For example, when I was doing research for a project about endangered species, I often would get the question "isn't extinction a natural process?" The answer I always give is yes extinction is a natural normal process, however we are a species are speeding up the process, which then brings up the moral (key word here) question of are we OK with being the cause? This goes well with Dr. Moore's argument that we have a moral obligation.

I will briefly discuss a point that I thought was interesting that the second speaker touched upon. Gail Wright did a fairly straight forward lecture of various different types of approaches to environmental and eco art by different artists. She got a variety of questions towards the end of presentation, many of which circled why it was necessary for artists to be doing many of their projects, and why they were working with scientists to put together many of their projects. One thing that Gail said that stuck with me was when she said that artists seem to be getting grants (which are sometimes government money) to be doing what the government should actually be doing.

Thursday started with the presentations and a panel from the Climate Clock artists. The Climate Clock project is an interesting project in so far as they are trying to address climate change by creating something that will last at least one hundred years. I had heard one of the groups talk about their presentation before, the Wired Wilderness project. They are taking a very different approach from the other two projects, which in some ways are more traditional in their approach to what will eventually be public art. The Wire Wilderness project is more of a platform for multiple art projects or events, one each year by a different artist for the next hundred years, dealing with data from a UC research center. All of the ideas were intellectually interesting, though I am not sure any of them really stood out for me. It was interesting because they get many questions about how they were dealing with the data, and how their projects were "iconic" (one of the things the project was meant to be). Like politicians, the artists would often dodge the question and in my opinion stay to their "talking points." I would be inclined to attribute that to the fact that all of these artist groups have been working on their projects for almost two years and are probably very close to their ideas.

After the presentations were over, a discussion of whether the money (an estimated 15-20 million dollars) would be better spent directly on schools, etc, to affect more direct behavior change. I have not come to a satisfactory conclusion for that question myself. I on the one hand come from a science background, and have worked in government. There is so much red tape and money chasing that it is a miracle that anything ever gets done. Therefore, being an artist does allow for freedom to play and be a cultural changer that being in government does not always provide. On the other hand, as an artist one has to be realistic about how many people outside the art community are aware of what is going on inside the art world. Unless it is public or commercial art, many people do not have access to much of the art that gets created. Another issue is that public art often gets so watered down that does it really get any worthwhile message across to the public? And as an artist dealing with complex scientific concepts, how much can you water them down before they are no longer valid? I think any artist who is dealing with climate change as their platform are going to run into all of these issues and more.

Maybe the solution is for the government to just be run by artists. Can't be any more dysfunctional than it already is.