For my second project, here are links to the google slides that I shared, and my blog post with updates.
I thoroughly enjoyed digging deeper into the topic of “rewilding” and continuing to research some of the things that I had started in the first project, because the topic was so deep, complicated, and generative for me. It was helpful for me to start thinking about the plants in more of a systems way — something that I don’t think I fully dug into the first time around. I found it really fruitful to think about the communities that surround the plants — who their stakeholders are, who and what they influence, and the roles that they play. It is so interesting to me how deeply layered this topic became.
A big unlocker for me was finally figuring out a metaphor that worked with what I was researching. Again, I don’t think I fully got to the metaphor stage the first time around, so having the chance to think about this again from a metaphor perspective was validating. I had been thinking about the ways in which different plants are valued by people, and that eventually led me to thinking about the different ways that labor and work are valued in society. If I were to continue working on this topic, I would want to dig more deeply into the valuation of labor, “invisible” labor, essential work, women’s work, emotional labor, etc, as I think that is an area where even more parallels could be made. I am honestly still very poorly versed in some of these categories.
The other place I didn’t quite get to in some of the research I was doing is what we do about it. How we turn the corner from noticing it to how we can respond to it. What are other artists doing? What are entire governments doing? Where is the problem handled the best — or the worst? These are things that I want to dig into as they relate both to the plant world and the human world.
All of that said, I did a much better job this time around of balancing the research and the making, starting with the making much sooner. Creating the prototypes was fun, even though they were very different from where I ended up.
One realization that dawned on me too late in the process is that the direction I was going — objects made from nature that call attention to thier labor — was more generative for me as a process than as an outcome. I would have very much liked to run a workshop or hosted an event where people made things out of leaves or plants, as I think that would have been a much more experiential outcome. I had hoped that interacting with the objects themselves would be enough. But I think for me, the most generative part is the materiality of the plants and the process of working with them. That is something that helps me think, and I would like to share that experience with others. I tried t address that with the guided walk that I added, but I wish that I had been able to do one in person.
I was grateful for Monica and Marina’s feedback. Both were insightful and accurately articulated that I am still very much at the beginning of this journey and not so much at the end. Most of all, I appreciated Marina’s push around how I can connect these ideas to the IMA program. I think that is fair, and I don’t have a clear vision. Some of the artists that are working with sensors in order to “communicate” with plants are really resonant with me, and are something I’m thinking about. I also wonder how we might learn from plants and apply the best of what they do to how we can do things. How might we support each other the way that plants support bees? How might we communicate with each other to warn of danger in similar ways that plants warn others in their species? There is a lot to think about, and I don’t have a clear path at present.