Modes of Engagement

I was absent last class but I gather that the thesis focuses on the disconnection between humans and nature, with an emphasis on critiquing the disconnection itself and not the subject, or object even. I'd like to point out that the objects, or technology, that further our disconnection are products of humans themselves, and that even in its most banal and dulling examples, technology initially was, and still is, a means for us to facilitate actions. With that in consideration, we can maybe say that humans have always searched for a degree of disconnection from nature, or at least one that deterred some of the difficulties of surviving in a natural or urban world. I'd like to express the unpopular opinion that nature is actually incredibly violent, and that surviving in nature, for any life form, is very difficult. In a simulacra fashion, humans seem to to have ironically recreated the hardships of nature inside urban settings, sometimes even elaborating pre-existing difficulties with the help of technology. In an urban context, it seems more reasonable that technology disconnects by distracting us from our urban-fabricated hardships, rather than relieving us from the uncontrolled difficulties of nature. I think keeping this difference in mind can help us remain objective towards the subject (humans) and the objects (technology) and critique the interaction between the two as a disconcerted effort against the awesome and violent forces of nature.

 I'd like to follow with a commentary on our current opinions on nature as urban people: I feel very much that nature is "beautiful", and intrinsically valuable. I think natural patterns and colors provide a primordial foundation for human observation and visual analysis, and aesthetics. I also believe that pre-urban and the first urban civilizations thought highly of nature and their relation with the land, but I would also like to point out that respect of nature came without choice before the development of advanced technology. It's obvious that once technology allowed previously impossible tasks that [many] humans no longer cared for the natural environment. The development of urban environments distanced us from natural environments, and for the urban person, a natural environment becomes beautiful and pleasant mostly through its contrast to urban environments. Can we say then, that our positive views of nature are highly influenced by its absence in our everyday life? The idea of a contrasting environment being desirable is important to keep in mind; it would be very easy to speculate desire for urban environments after prolonged exposure to wilderness. I think this brings up an interesting point in our approach to Casa Lin's garden and how deeply it really connects us to the beauty of nature, or rather to the environment that we happen to be deprived of. There is a constant effort on people's parts to feel quickly accommodated to an environment through imposition rather than integration. I am not sure if any culture ever reached a state of full integration with its natural environment. It would be easy to say that many did, but I want to reiterate that pre-urban cultures were completely dependent on their land and did not have a choice to be disregarding of their natural environment. Symbiotic relationships in nature happen due to necessity and are actualized through compromise, even when each party's set of skills is integral to the other's survivor. I see humans' desire for accommodation as revealing of the fragile state of all living organisms. I think it would be fair to treat technology as a novice and ignorant effort to facilitate survival.

The garden itself has a type of canopy and feels like it encloses the backyard. We can consider the natural placement of trees and plants in the garden and elaborate on the natural features that will help us convey our ideas regarding our inadequate means to simultaneously survive and care for the environment we live in. Some of the trees are fairly tall, and could be used to emphasize distance within the space in an effort to make the audience more aware of the physical space they occupy.
We can create a sense of spatial tension by using materials in a way that imply space, or lack of space. An idea that comes to mind using string or rope anchored to the ground from several distant locations within the garden. This could also show material tension as well spatial tension. Architectural Digest has some examples of string installations in relation to architecture. String can be a relatively cheap material, but we would have consider renting a crane if we wanted to use the higher parts of the trees to attach string. Strings can become an interesting type of barrier, as they only occupy a singular "line" of physical space, as opposed a three dimensional shape of geometric volume. We can create barriers that simulate volume, or barriers that create divisions chaotically. We can use transparent nylon, or organically colored string to blend in to the garden, or strings with a high chroma that create a more jarring contrast.  Anselm Kiefer has some interesting pieces at the Marguiles that I found to be very effective in creating a certain mood using space (although much more geared towards a desolate aesthetic). The material he used is not cement, it either styrofoam or rubber (I forget which), but they appear to be cement. These pieces specifically cover an interesting middle ground between sculpture and architecture, which could open up a framework for us to experiment in when materializing. A piece by Zhu Jinshi at the Ruebell's exhibition, Chinese 28, proved extremely effective in reinventing the space for the viewer; this piece is more sculptural than Kiefer's but still functions as an installation. Also uses string, and paper. It is relatively static but also slightly sways with the air current. Considering the subtle effects of materials may help convey our ideas better. We can always ask ourselves what type of associations materials naturally make in our mind. This following article touches on the link between art, and architecture, and includes a photo a Richard Serra piece that uses slanted steel walls to create a distortion of spatial sense for the viewer. As cool it would be (in my opinion) to use steel in our installation, it would be very expensive. Instead we can consider what type of materials give the impression of weight to the audience. I think the idea of material weight could communicate well messages about the weight of the world, physical, or metaphorical and its associations with survival. This could direct attention to individuals in an audience, instead of engaging with the group as a whole which actually change our mode of engagement (although we could do some pretty interesting things by engaging the group as a whole).