What do you want? I want my dog to recover.

  • express the poetry of relationality by collaborating on an interactive artwork with the soil itself
  • position rocks as mamas that move in deep time, the soil as the child of the rock, and holes as a spirit, defined by the absence of material
    • rocks are the maternal material, weathered over millions of years to create soil
    • soil is the fragile child, facing degradation and erosion, and it is the connection between rock and all life.
    • holes, ontological parasites, are our spirit portal to the below-ground world
  • engage animistic sensibilities towards rocks, critters, landscapes
  • de-center the human / counter human exceptionalism
  • raise topics around Anthropocene – Capitalocene – Chthulucene (for those who engage with Haraway’s work)
  • produce social presence (the sense of being with another) of soil, rocks, and other nonhuman entities
  • use screens as virtual cavities that suggest technology’s relationship to its maternal materials
    • indicates the mismatch of rates between the speed of extractions/burials of toxins and the speed of geological, deep time  by showing soil/rocks “using technology” without humans
    • relates media and geology as a relationship of speed/rhythm — the screen can be seen as a mineral activated at a very high rate but, if slow, becomes a mineral again
  • use human presence via Butoh as a healing dance with nonhuman kin
  • the transformations and pulses produced by the changing state of the soil result in a liberating, healing recognition of different temporalities and movements, nonhuman and non-living forces, both organic and inorganic
  • surprise and move the observers by ways in which soil sensors shape the dynamics in p5.js sketches

What excites you, what terrifies you? 

I am excited about bringing the work together in a site-specific context. I am terrified that there is little time left and much to do. I also fear that the sensor input will pause/stop the animations or the video will not playback. 

How did presenting your work feel? 

I shared p5 simulations of how the interaction with soil will look. I also put together a page with info about the project: mariamaciak.com/soilVisitors engaged in conversations about multispecies relations, animism, and the ways that the interaction is being created. They wanted to see more. Also, Dan’O agreed to soil being brought to the ITP floor. Kudos to Craig for bringing this up 🙂

Web-experience presentation had its own challenges – is it a simulation of soil’s interaction or a witnessing, a live feed of soil’s impact? For the latter, I would need to make it sustainable so that anyone can tune into the interaction.

One of the surprising and welcomed comments was: “it feels like nature has usurped technology (the supposed anti-nature) to communicate and reveal itself. It is not clear who is acting upon who – human/ soil-rocks. Actually feels like these rocks and soil are the ones using technology – the human is being subsumed by it. 

What has changed since you last presented?

I revised the three sketches but more content work in collaboration with soil is needed. I also received additional advice regarding technical execution which made me more confused as it is different than earlier suggestions. (There are many ways to save the cat.) Everything is taking much longer, I am concerned about technical details.

RUBRIC
FULFILLED
SOMEWHAT FULFILLED
NOT FULFILLED
CONTENT
  • Installation feels cohesive and inviting
  • Main topic/ questions are engaged
  • Nonhuman participation is sensed
  • Soil’s impacts on visuals vary; resulting animations reflect topic
  • Sound design strengthens visuals
  • Installation is fragmented
  • Main topic/ questions are somewhat engaged
  • Soil impacts are present but lack variety
  • Sound design works with visuals
  • Installation is a mess
  • Topic/s being explored are unclear
  • Soil participation is absent
  • Sound distracts from visuals
FORM
  • Site is well suited/ adapted
  • Interactions and sound are working
  • Arrangement of hardware (monitors, speakers, sensors,) rock/s and cables results in an integrated experience
  • Site is poorly utilized
  • Interactions/ sound are working but not fully integrated with the installation
  • Site is ill suited
  • Installation components are not integrated or not working
TOOLS / TECH
  • Hardware and software supports content and its delivery
  • Tech delivers smooth experience
  • Code is well written and consistent in terms of formatting and commenting
  • Hardware and software deliver content but were not thoughtfully selected
  • Tech has some glitches (needs restarts)
  • Code is occasionally messy, commenting is inconsistent
  • Hardware and software fail to deliver content
  • Tech keeps breaking
  • Code is a mess and comments (if present) are unclear
PRESENTATION
  • Documentation and website complement each other in terms of content and design 
  • Process, from research to completion, forms a clear, insightful narrative
  • Documentation, and website are developed but not cohesive
  • Process, from research to completion offers some insight 
  • Documentation is unclear and lacking in terms of content and design 
  • Process shows lack of insight

FULFILLED GOALS

Soil, Mama, and Spirit is presented on the ITP floor and runs as planned. The installation evokes animistic mentalities, relationality with nonhuman entities, and the post-anthropocene. The sound design complements the experience. Visitors contemplate the dynamism and magic of the microbiome as well as technology’s relationship to its maternal materials. Visitors sense communication soil’s impact on the images. They walk away inspired.

SOMEWHAT FULFILLED

Visitors are amused by the installation and some of them contemplate nonhuman entities and relationality with the more-than-human world. There are visitors who see no connection between content on the screens and animism or the post-anthropocene. 

NOT FULFILLED

The installation is not working as planned (sensor interaction and or animations/ audio). It does not evoke animistic mentalities. Visitors are confused; the installation does not conjure the dynamism of the microbiome, technology’s relationship to its maternal materials, multispecies relationality, nor human decentering. Things break.

 


TIMELINE (WIP)

Week of June 7

  •  tech solutions / better understanding
  • finalize content interactions

Week of June 14

  • tech resolution
  • hardware cases/ protection and cooling
  • location logistics

Week of June 21

  • install (soil transport and hardware)
  • draft documentation/ website/ presentation

Week of June 28

  • complete website & presentation