3 Comments

  1. Thanks for this, good to get the update. I wonder how many artists would consider the nuts and bolts of community building a bit of a distraction from art rather than a manifestation of it. Also, this project (and the circumstances that make it possible) raise the possibility of artist as bigwig landlord. How nice to be able to shape the outcome of a neighbourhood by literally taking ownership of the properties in question, with the power to think more creatively about the possible uses of the land – i.e. if the motivation isn’t profit or resale value, there are many more interesting things that can be done with these homes.

    Well, I should rephrase – it would be interesting to imagine all the possible new uses, I can’t think of a ton right now. What is there beyond residency, gallery space, hotel? The lots probably can’t be rezoned commercial.

    Wish I could be on that walk tonight (or is it tomorrow?)

    • You got it totally right — it’s the difference between community building towards an end-point work of art and community building as art.

      I think simply working to rethink what neighbourhoods need to do, how they should work, what function they really serve is as important as new uses. So, certainly changing the dynamic and scale of the presentation of art from gallery to living room is a part of it, but somehow just the approach of an artist as opposed to a developer or politician or even community activist is what makes this interesting to me… and you get right to the heart of it with this: “if the motivation isn’t profit or resale value, there are many more interesting things that can be done with these homes.”

      Would’ve been excellent to have you on the walk, but there will plenty of next times. Hopefully it’s not long before we see you again.

Comments are closed.