(Half)round-table, IfREX

On Thursday 22 April, the class reassembled for their regular round-table discussion with Olafur. Before that got underway, there were some more presentations (less parachute-like this time) from students who had either been unable to attend the week before and some students, those who had been away from the school for a while, presented their work for a second time those so that Olafur could see what they had been doing. There was much more discussion at the end of presentations and at times I felt that the atmosphere was rather charged as I listened to critiques, debates, and differences in opinion. Questions were varied, addressing not only site-specificity but how works might relate to art history, various techniques for sensing space, and exploring art as an object and/or experience.

A few hours later, the ’round-table’ began (although not at a round-table, which is half dismantled) and was primarily concerned with the forthcoming Keller exhibition, where the students will all show some of their work and reflect some of what they have been doing over the last two semesters. There was mention of a discussion last semester (perhaps another round-table discussion) where they re-considered the rules of what a show can be. Although the discussion did not lead anywhere in particular (and why should it?) the group have continued to re-evaluate making and presenting art. Olafur argued that experiments provided some sort of tentative foundation precisely for these re-conceptualisations; experiments as building stones for re-consideration. However, he also made the point that the students should only push for radical or avant-garde art if is what they want and that they should think carefully about what it is they are doing and why. Next time they have a show, it was suggested, they might work within the imposed constraint of pretending exhibitions had never been invented: how, then, might they display and share their work?

There was a lengthy discussion about the title of the Keller exhibition, with everyone keen to be involved in the naming process. I was asked to think of a name but since then, all the suggestions I have made to students has been met with blank looks. How to have a title for a group show, which is composed of autonomous works? It is a very diverse group and I opted for vague, general titles (such as ‘A series of spatial experiments’ and another, inspired by Erin Manning¹, called ‘timed spaces / spaced times’). I’m curious to see what title they do settle on, but in the meantime feel free to suggest titles below!

One of the other issues which came up included a book IfREX are working on, due to be completed towards the end of this semester alongside another show (the Rundgang). The book, it is hoped, will not represent the show but look to amplify its qualities; to see the book as an extension of the show. The plan is for it to not be an introduction to the students’ work but rather to engage more specifically with the work done at the school. I am sure this topic will return over the forthcoming weeks and I look forward to following the book’s life. Perhaps it might be possible for me to contribute something to it, time will tell.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Galerie M, Marzahn

On Wednesday 21 April one of the students at the school organised a trip for people to get the chance to visit her work in a gallery just outside of Berlin.  Timea had been working with people living in Marzahn and wanted to show her work there too. A day before, an email was sent round on the IfREX mailing list with a few observations on the work from one of her colleagues:

What I saw was a somewhat fragmented afterimage of a long period of interaction between immigrants who stranded in Marzahn and Timea. The majority of the communities Timea got involved with where Vietnamese. This reminded me of the project ‘Reorient’ that has represented Hungary on the 2006 Venice Biennale of Architecture. Reorient had put enormous effort and time into mapping Chinese communities in Budapest just to find how impossible this undertaking was. After Reorient fell flat due to the impenetrability of the closed world of this huge immigrant community, they even had to come up with a plan-B that they were able to exhibit something.

Timea however was able find out a lot about the stories and the dreams of the people she worked with. What she presents I think is a model of this somewhat displaced life of former East German Vietnamese people making themselves at home in the concrete jungle of Marzahn. Listening to three generations of Vietnamese woman singing to a communist karaoke DVD at the opening certainly displaced me in space and time.

Although rather figurative, the work was interesting in how Timea had engaged with a heterogeneous immigrant community and been able to put together a series of works with their help, on the ground floor of a tower-block. This raised the question of how the work might travel, even if it was ‘only’ to the centre of Berlin. One suggestion was to have a round-way bus service as part of the artwork, which would ferry people from Berlin city-centre out to Galerie M, but also allow those who live in Marzahn to travel in to visit exhibitions or galleries that they might not otherwise get the chance to see.

One of the videos, part of the show, was a split-screen story where you would see the same room on both sides, but on one side it would be inhabited and lively, and the other bare and empty (except for some hidden traces, a theme which animated another work in the gallery). The camera would pan around the room before moving on to another room and the next and so on. However, the empty rooms started to appear on the other side after a while, and vice versa, and it was no longer clear whether the people we could see were moving in or out of the accommodation: pure transition. The slightly different speeds of the panning cameras created a rather unsettling perception that the split in the screen was moving from its central point to both the left and the right, but also seemed to indicate the different sorts of rhythms that create and produce a space. Upstairs from the gallery was an exhibition on Marzahn and art in large-scale housing projects which was also well worth a visit.

The trip to Marzahn, it had been hoped, would serve not only as a chance to see and respond to a student’s work but also as an opportunity to discuss various issues which had been raised at the transparency talk the week before, in preparation for the following day’s round-table discussion with Olafur. This did not materialise quite as planned, with the group disbanding before any decisions were made…

Inside IfREX

On Monday 19 April I met up with Christina and Eric to continue our discussions about my work and what might be possible while I am in Berlin, and at IfREX. They were both keen to hear how I had found the first week of the semester, realising that it might be quite different to what I was accustomed to. The students, I noted, were quite noisy during the arranged events and would get up, leave, (sometimes) return, make tea, chat even. Christina was quick to reassure me that this was something that her and Eric had become used to and that they understood as the students had so much timetabled. Indeed, this semester they are trying to have fewer things on so the students have more time to do their own work. I also mentioned that I had found the week rather intense, with discussions going on for several hours; it transpires that is rather rare to have so many hours in one week. They were also eager to hear about my time in Montreal and to find out what initial comparisons I could make between here and there. As it had been only a week that the semester had been underway, it was difficult to make any clear connections and I was anxious to not sound as if I understood all there was to know about IfREX (I’m not sure I ever shall). Instead I answered that I had picked up on some resonances but that my hearing might be out, pointing to artists as students, collectives and experimentally-driven spaces. To this end, they were receptive to me organising some sort of dialogue between the various sites I have spent, and will spend, time at – whether in the form of a conference or publication.

On this note, we also talked about how I plan to ‘use’ my field-sites in my work. For example, would I be comparing the labs, judging the labs? Rather than critique the labs, or nominate one as being better than another, I outlined how I would like to draw on these empirical engagements in different ways to explore quite theoretical ideas about experiments, aesthetics and participaction (among others). In a sense, I would be attending to these experimental spaces as I seek to elucidate or assemble a sketch of what an experimental geography, or a geography lab, could be like. Related to my plans for how to incorporate the field in my writing, as if they were somehow separate, was the question of what I could write. There was no need of a contract we decided together but there were matters of circulation (who could access my work) and timing (when my work would be available). It turns out that I am one of the first people to have access to the school and it is important how IfREX is talked about; indeed, what the press writes about the Institute is a intertwined process. For the time being, they are keen to read more of what I have written – I had submitted an essay when applying to the school – and we hope to continue the conversation, or dialogue, over the coming weeks.

Zagreb publication launch, IfREX

The following day (16 April) the students met to launch, celebrate and discuss a recent publication resulting from a fieldtrip to Zagreb in the first semester. The publication, a collection of posters were not quite what I had expected but meant for a number of ways of creating your own publication, without being restricted by page numbers or a particular order. Not everyone had contributed something for the posters as it was optional and students had joined since the trip (IfREX is now in its third semester) but everyone was keen to have a look through and after a short introduction, the room quietened as people explored the posters.

When we came together again to discuss the posters, Eric and some of the students more directly involved in the production talked about how and why they had made various decisions about the final output. Falling somewhere between documentation and an artwork in itself, the posters were both flexible and specific, and searched for a way of being individual within a group. The students were initially quiet – it was a Friday afternoon – but fairly soon became rather animated. Not all were happy with the posters and there were complaints about how fragile they were and the folds down the middle. This was countered by those who argued that the fold allowed for the posters to be put together in different ways, like pages, and that there were all manner of playful possibilities. The ephemeral quality of the posters seemed to mirror the shortness of the trip to Zagreb. For me, it was an engagement with evocation rather than representation.

Later on, after a short coffee break, Eric presented a lecture which looked at space and perception through Japanese gardens which the group had visited at the end of the second semester during a trip to Japan. Beginning with an interest in phenomenal narratives, Eric explored the sakuteiki (Japanese records of garden-making) and the spatial and perceptual dimensions of particular techniques (such as borrowed landscape, miniaturization, altered perspective, folding screen, and hide and reveal). Although there was a tendency to focus on the visual and on cognitive science, there was much of interest in this talk which was not afraid to digress. It even ended with a reading from Beckett’s Molloy!

A series of parachute presentations, IfREX

On Thursday 15 April a day-long series of ‘parachute presentations’ was organised by the students. The idea, not dissimilar to pecha kucha, was for each person to give a 10-minute introduction to their work. The time constraint worked well, providing a set of appetisers, enabling the whole class to present projects, exhibitions and interests in one day. Leading up to the event, many students remarked that although they knew each other very well, and indeed Olafur had noted that the group had developed a certain intimacy, they were less aware of what sort of art everyone was engaged with. Further, for myself and other newcomers to the school, it was a great introduction.

I was invited to talk about my own work for 10-minutes and tried to provide an short overview of my research and why I am in Berlin, with the hope that it may be of interest to some! I found it difficult to know how to pitch my talk, as I wondered if what I had to say might be both obvious (we are interested in experiments at IfREX, nothing new in what you say)  and confusing (why and how will you investigate these issues as a geographer). It was hard to gauge a reaction, but I had tried to provide a bit of time at the end for questions. Two came my way: (1) What is geography for you? and (2) What sort of data will you collect? My rather vague answer to the first question was to discuss how I see it as a point of departure for all sorts of different projects, all with an interest in space. On reflection, I perhaps should have stressed my interest not in what something is but in what something does. In this respect, geography enables me to examine the spaces of aesthetic experimentation and draw on work from a range of other fields. In response to the second question, I tried to explain how I think of generating materials rather than looking to extract data or evidence, as such. This might include all sorts of different things and would not necessarily be restricted to text and/or talk; further the techniques would be open to suggestion, flexible and experimental (in that they might not generate much or anything at all). My fieldwork diary, audio recordings, photos, videos, sketches would be just a selection of some materials that might be produced.

The students’ talks were interesting and stimulating, as well as wide-ranging. To list them all here, or to choose just the highlights would be a disservice to their richness. The day finished with discussions on how you might, as an artist, talk about your work. How to let your artwork do its own work, rather than your talk having to supplement it. Although these are questions that might ordinarily be posed in art schools, I have no idea (!), I found it interesting to think through them with regards to geography and my own work.

Institut für Raumexperimente, Berlin

On the 13 April there was a meeting for the Institute’s guests, those on scholarships and grants. Christina Werner and Eric Ellingsen who run the Insitute (along with Olafur Eliasson) talked a little about IfREX and discussed the provisional blueprint, or timetable, for the summer semester. Later we were invited on a tour of the studio (1st floor), the Institute (2nd floor) and the kitchen (ground floor). The studio is far bigger than I had anticipated and there were many people looking very busy. Upstairs, the Institute, or school, appears even larger due to the white walls and open-plan design. There are partitions between work-spaces but these can and do move around as needed. Although we only met for a few hours, there was a lot of information to process.

The next day there was a ‘welcome back and transparency talk’ with Olafur, followed by food and drinks downstairs. I arrived early for the talk and sat myself down on a spare seat, clutching a book tightly in my hands (Whitehead’s Concept of Nature, if you were curious). Nothing seemed to happen for a while but after a while there was a critical mass which moved over to sit in, between, and on, what was somebody’s work-in-progress: a large wooden contraption with mattresses here and there. Normally, I was told, there is a roundtable in this space where everyone sits around but there was no room for it with the structure there. Instead, we tried to sit in a sort of circle and waited for Olafur to arrive.

When he did arrive, shortly afterwards, his eyes darted around the room: “You are new, hello!” he said to me, before moving on and around the circle in search of other unfamiliar faces. He settled down and welcomed back the other more familiar faces. He asked about the students’ recent trip to Japan. He talked about the Institute.

IfREX has a specific duration: 10 semesters. And then it will end (perhaps). There is no clear structure but rather different speeds or intensities. This semester will be running at 100% (instead of double-time, apparently).

Olafur praised the development of a certain sort of intimacy between the students and how they had been able to work together, sharing the space at the school. A sensitivity for being-together, is what he called it. He was also keen to cultivate hospitality towards guests, gesturing vaguely in my direction, as they can bring new ideas and approaches to the school.

Eah guest was introduced and welcomed in an official yet thoroughly personal manner. I remember feeling wanted and excited to be told that IfREX could see overlaps between its work and mine. Olafur mentioned Doreen Massey to the students and his interest in her work; later on in the evening, I reminded him that I had met him through her almost a year ago.

The blueprint was sketched out in more or less detail, and some internal issues were addressed (such as food, storage space, and the school’s homepage). I wondered if these issues would persist during my time here.

And then it was time for a drink and some food. And small-talk. And further discussion.

If only all inductions were so interesting.

Berlin: fieldsite / intervention?

We agreed to ‘meet’ on Skype at 14:00 (GMT) on Thursday 21.01.2010 to continue our discussion, started in September, and before that by email. By we, I mean myself, Anna Engberg-Pedersen and Christina Werner. Anna and Christina are both based on the Institute for Spatial Experimentation [Institut für Raumexperimente (IfREX)] in Berlin, itself an on-going experimentation in pedagogy.  Unfortunately the Skype connection was unstable and Anna and Christina ended up calling me on my home phone (I was in my flat). It was much better audio quality but meant that I was unable to record both sides of the conversation. Anna asked how my work was going and wanted to know about my time in Montreal. I explained as best I could what I had been up to, outlining the people I had been working with and the spaces I had been moving in. Although Anna had not heard of the SenseLab or the TML, she was well aware of Brian Massumi and Erin Manning and told me she had very much enjoyed reading Brian’s (2002) book Parables for the Virtual.

Christina then came on the phone – I was on loud-speaker their end – and asked me about my interests, but said that first, she would tell me how the previous semester had been. Christina and Eric Ellingsen take care of the running of the school and their work oscillates between the studio (Olafur’s) and the school. The winter semester (2009/2010) was very busy for them, and the twenty students or so were involved in class discussions (some with Olafur), reading groups (organised and led by Christina and Eric) as well as workshops with invited guests. There are also public lectures and meetings which follow a more classical (or orthodox) form. The time with Christina and Eric aims to cover what they describe as the ‘standard stuff’, which seemed to suggest reading which would help situate the more experimental sessions. One example of these sessions was to create a book on-the-fly; the students had three days to design and make a book comprised of lots of different parts. This can be seen as part of the Institute’s attempt to challenge and actively work against so-called ‘ready-made’ knowledge.

The Institut für Raumexperimente is in itself an experiment. To me, the experiment as a mode of inquiry is necessary if we are to insist on a constant, probing and generous interaction with reality. Or to put it differently: by engaging in experimentation, we can challenge the norms by which we live and thus produce reality.¹

It was now my turn to explain so I sketched out my research questions and interests, notably: the historio-philsophical lineage of their experiment(s), the architecture of space and how it might facilitate experimentation (as well as what kinds of experiments) and an exploration of what is at stake (in effect, asking what purpose the Institute/school serves). All really relevant questions, I was told, and Christina and Anna were keen to detail some of the facets of the Institute. Firstly, whilst it is an Institute it occupies a strange position in relation to the College of Fine Arts at the Berlin University of the Arts [Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK)] and operates outside of the institutional framework of the university, although its public lectures are open to all of its members. Secondly, the IfREX provides hybrid space which at once offers close ties to a practising artist’s studio (downstairs) as well as a place to do research. The students are invited to lunch in the studio twice a week – where they are able to make links to all kinds of people – and are provided with an accessible place, with room to work. Thirdly, there is no syllabus as such; instead there are themes. The IfREX is concerned with trying to make connections: it works to push us to think differently. So whilst the semesters are unplanned, there is room to respond to invited speakers and other visiting academics or artists. Trajectories are constructed, connections are seized upon and there is a tendency to experiment with ideas. Indeed, the teaching is an experiment in itself which is a five-year research project. The IfREX is an educational platform, a space where people are trying to learn how to learn, an experimentation with experimentation.

The Institut für Raumexperimente is a research experiment attached as a satellite to the College of Fine Arts at the Berlin University of the Arts. Its purpose is to experiment with new approaches to teaching art in the university setting. The programme focuses on spatial practices and problems in the fine arts and their intersection with architecture as well as their relationship to the humanities and natural sciences. By way of workshops, experiments, different exhibition formats, publications, and symposia, participants are encouraged to interact across disciplinary boundaries and to productively engage with the intersections between art and scholarship.

When asked what I would like, or hoped, to do in terms of fieldwork, I replied that I would be guided by them although I would very much appreciate the chance to visit the Institute and to meet the people who worked there. Christina said that they had been discussing beforehand what they could offer me, and made two different propositions. The first is to apply for a short-term grant for postgraduate study which would last six months, or one semester (April-September). This position is offered to those who are either (a) involved in further education more advanced than the students at the School or those who are (b) not artists, in order to make different sorts of connections. The role is fairly open-ended, with the award-holder expected to be there full-time, attend all events and be able to mediate the content, to provide another perspective. The deadline: 15^th February 2010. The second option would be more non-committal and would allow for me to be in Berlin for a month or so, where I would be able to sit in on all the events that I would like. The IfREX is keen to cultivate a feeling of hospitality as well as make links across and beyond disciplines. The next semester’s theme will be landscape architecture, with an interest in architecture and sound. Sounds good!

At Institut für Raumexperimente, time and space are considered inseparable even at a methodological level. Space cannot be externalised; it isn’t representational and nor are the experiments with which we work. To work spatially does not necessarily entail the creation of representational distance, and we can precisely avoid this distance, essentially static and unproductive, by insisting that time is a constituent of space. Or as a friend has said: space is ‘a constantly mutating simultaneity of stories-so-far’.

—————————————————————————————————————————–