Part of the ongoing Hatch blog series, today’s blogs are reflections by our Hatch artists on their experience from the previous weeks’ class by Heather Alhadeff and Allison Bustin from Center Forward. Staff recaps of the session is available on our blog.
For this class, we ask the artists to reflect on the following thoughts:
- Where is the work that you do most applicable in the planning process? Could it be incorporated in multiple steps?
- Could you see yourself doing this kind of work? Why or why not? What kinds of projects WOULD you like to work on, regardless of whether they are “planning” related?
We hope you enjoy their thoughtful responses!
Last session was information overload for me. Applying my skill set to planning development could be best suited in the planning process or in the execution stages. I tend to have ideas on how to make things flow smoothly and admire the steps it take to achieve a finished product. I also have a diverse range in art disciplines which would bode well in the actual execution of some art applications. What intimidates me about the planning process is the paperwork and logistics of working with city planners that do not know the artists’ way of working. I guess that’s why it’s a good idea to bridge those gaps. The benefits, of what each side brings to the table is ideal in creating a well rounded project since both sides can take advantage of the assets they bring to the project. I’m not sure if it’s something I will pursue, but if the opportunity was to arise I would consider it, knowing what I’ve learn in these last few sessions.
by Michael Jones
“What would you like?” is a question that has resonated with me since our last Hatch session on planning. Some of my process can be reactionary at times and not idyllic or seeking to create an utopic experience/process/product. Morphing a “now” experience into something more ideal has been influential in my creative process. “how do I impact what is already present?” is more my query. “How do I work with what I have?”
“What would you like?” calls for creating or recreating from a clearer palette (though this is not the case when discussing redevelopment). I’m not wholly sure if planning is an avenue for my work. Performance art, my realm largely, is not leaving a tangible footprint behind on a community or on the aesthetic of a community/city (oftentimes). My imprint is more of a memory.
If I were to be a part of planning I’d be interested in upholding memory and history. The Mel Chin example of art in planning structure was impactful as well- how do we hold history on a pedestal, or as a valued relic in community? Therefore, connecting to the community engagement aspect of the process appeals to me. Community members are gatekeepers of what should be remembered (what has stuck) and what has influenced the journey of their specific place. Encouraging and supporting the question “What would you like?” could be explored via my medium. Here is a way to incorporate art in the process and not in the product making. Through performance art, an artist(s) and community members could begin to dig into imagine futures, assess the past, connect the present, via movement, video, any myriad ways performance art is expressed. It can get planners and community members and artist(s) out of their own minds and into the process of others. And performance art is not a product always, the process is key in building for a singular, or many singular moments. This could be ideal for really engaging community thought processes, “languages” in the community, emotional impact, historical/social ramifications/goals. Planning, in this manner, becomes process art making rather than obligatory processes for dodging history’s challenges.
by Danielle Deadwyler