What happened to
our housing? -We sold it!
|
Nils Normans work is informed by urban politics
and ideas on alternative economic systems that can work within the
city. It merges urbanist utopic alternatives with a pungent but
humorous critique of the history and role of public art. He is well
known for his models in conjunction with diagrams, for example "Tompkins
Square Park Monument To Civil Disobedience", 1997, however his latest
show at American Fine Arts in New York City featured a series of
diagrams proposing an alternative development to the Hudson River
Park in Manhattan, together with a prototype bicycle that would
function as a mobile information centre on alternative uses for
the city. I met with Norman in New York to discuss his work. |
KÅ: Can we talk a little about the work from your last
show at American Fine Arts?
NN: This one diagram explains a fictional occupation of pier 33 on the
West Side Highway of Manhattan. The reason why these people are occupying
the pier is to oppose the development of the Hudson River Park in New
York City which has been pushed through illegally by the city.
KÅ: How illegally?
NN: The development hasn’t been properly analysed in terms of its ecological
impact, and it also hasn’t been properly voted in by the community boards.
There have been many different sneaky changes in the rules, regulations
through different manoeuvrings that have changed the decision making
process that would normally regulate a big construction in the city.
Basically it has changed so that big business or private interests can
actually develop the park to their own ends. These people occupying
pier 33 would create a permaculture container garden on the end of the
pier, and a large scaffolding tower which have portable solar panels
on it. It would be barricaded with some tripods which would prevent
eviction for a short amount of time. Another part of the diagram shows
a proposed atoll that would move around Manhattan; a moving community
garden that would have large composting stations on it and different
experimental greenhouses and a geodesic dome made of recycled material
where one could cultivate seeds—organic heirloom seeds that have not
been genetically engineered. The atoll would travel around Manhattan,
locking on at different local stations for community gardens to get
supplies from. It could lock on the east side’s FDR Highway, and the
community gardens go there and could collect compost or deliver their
own compost to the atoll, and also exchange heirloom seeds. It would
have a water-filtration unit on it, and as it travels around Manhattan
it would also filter the water and purify it or clean it.
KÅ: So would these units work?
NN: No they wouldn't work at all (laughter). But the point is,
all the different elements of this fiction do work and work in reality.
So there are all these different parts and tools stuck together to make
a fiction or utopian whole that would be impossible to make, but in
part they are very possible. For example the water filtration unit is
a very real thing which is actually used. Boats have these filtration
units built into them to clean ponds and rivers. As the boat moves around
a pond a lower part in the water has reedbeds in it that organically
filter the water and clean it. It is an invention by the a group called
the Ocean Arks International, which used to be in Cape Cod.
This other diagram is of the northernmost part of Battery Park City,
Nelson Rockefeller Park, explaining how this park could be redesigned
in a way that would highlight what is actually wrong with the park.
It is not a design for a better park, just a design for showing what
is wrong with the park. For example it has a viewing garden with viewing
moats which you look down into to look at the rubbish which Battery
Park city is made on. Battery Park City is a landfill and this is a
design to expose this landfill as part of the park. The diagram shows
how you design the park so that cop-cars can't actually get inside.
Because all the parks in New York have been redesigned in the 70-s,
they are now made so that police cars can move quickly around them.
There is an existing pavilion by Dimitri Porfurious there, and the plan
redesigns it to support alternative energy. It also has a local economic
trading system (LETS) registry in it, which is online so that people
in Battery Park City could possibly come and participate in a LETS system.
The pavilion also has some Gordon Matta Clark hanging pods from it so
you can hang out in it. There is also an earth works competition that
anyone from the public of Manhattan can participate in. The competition
is to design an earth works sculpture that would be most appropriate
for the park, the example of a possible winner has a very large raised
number which is 1400. The number of how many low income units that were
meant to be in the final Battery Park City design but that was ignored
by the developers. Part of the deal of developing the property in this
area was that it was meant to be partly low income housing and mixed
income. Over years of negotiation they fazed that out, the developers
got the development contract but they got rid of the main part of the
plan which was to build low income units too. Finally, the park would
be renamed to Protestation Park.
In another part of Battery Park City there is a sculpture by Richard
Artswager called Sitting Stance. In my diagram it has been redesigned
so that it can be occupied by the public and used to prevent them from
being removed from the park. There are holes especially cut into the
sculpture that you can lock-on to, you are actually locked into the
sculpture and cannot be removed without the authorities destroying the
sculpture first. Built around it are makeshift nomadic dwellings that
you can live in for a short period of time while you are occupying the
area. There is a treehouse, a small information stand about the neighbourhood’s
history, and the different developments it went through, the negotiations
about who was actually going to get to develop Battery Park City. The
final diagram about the park, has a pergola. It is redesigned as a hanging
garden that has permaculture container gardens built into it, and it
has a 24h free access outdoor sound production studio available for
anyone to make demotapes or whatever they want. Of course that would
be a totally impractical thing to have. But this is just an utopian
idea of what might possibly happen. And then there is also a makeshift
bubble kiosk to distribute information about housing rights where you
can lock yourself into the ground of the park so that you cannot be
removed.
Together with these diagrams I have shown
a prototype of a bicycle with a small solar powered Xerox machine on
it and a library of books. The books are a very special library on urbanism,
architecture, city design, experimental gardening, alternative energy
and also alternative city design. You could travel around, stop at any
place and people can Xerox parts of the books if they wanted to. On
the bike is also a weather station so that you can measure the humidity,
the windrate etc. when you stop at gardens.
KÅ: What seems a little different with the work from New York is that
it takes on a larger part of the city fabric and its financial and public
priorities, while the work in Cologne deals perhaps with a smaller almost
private group of people. With regard to the idea of communities of people
and the background of the work, are you involved in any urbanism and
activist groups?
NN: The only group that I have been involved with is a group called
The Metropolitan Council on Housing, an organisation which has been
going for more than twenty years and is primarily set up organise tenants
as a union, to oppose landlords and basically fight for their rights
as tenants. It is the main organisation that fights for rent stabilisation
in New York, and it is very local to New York. They arrange demonstrations
and have a hotline you can phone to ask questions on housing, and I
have been trained through them to deal with questions to do with housing
and rights as a tenant in New York. The laws in New York in terms of
housing are very complicated! There are alot of old people there that
are incredibly knowledgeable about housing issues.
KÅ: What is it that got you to work with urbanism and occupation of
space?
NN: I think what interests me most is living in the city. Living in
a city has become very important to me politically, living in an urban
space, that has been heavily controlled during the last years by private
interests. It is not unique, but an idea of urban protest and uprising
is a very important political mechanism.
KÅ: In terms of the way you are working, -you are member of this one
group that deals specifically with housing rights and so on, but you
are not working artwise in any public space, your work takes the form
of the model and the proposal.
NN: It is mostly proposals
KÅ: Some of your drawings/diagrams in the last show toy with the idea
of public art. Do you see that there is a point or rather a necessity
to work with the proposal when dealing with the idea of public art?
NN: Working with proposals is a way for me to highlight critically what
the whole idea of artists working with public sculpture and what that
means in terms of their own participation in the gentrification process
and also how a lot of public sculpture is in collusion with corporate/private
interests in terms of controlling and redefining public space in a way
that is detrimental to the space. I would only really consider developing
public sculpture or working with a community if I had been with those
people for a long period of time and living with those people. So the
idea of actually making these things is not very interesting to me.
The idea of actually putting this together as information, as something
that has a slightly didactic quality to it is very interesting.
KÅ: How do you choose the different approaches to the spaces you are
dealing with? You for example have ecological approaches in some work.
NN: Well I just take whatever I find would
be helpful to that space. I have a lot of interest in the theoretical
notion of experimental gardening. Which is coupled to for example permaculture
which is very much a form of activism in terms of gardening: It is an
activist methodology using gardening which I find very interesting.
Permaculture has many different parts to it: It has a lot of experimental
design techniques and involves many alternative forms of energy. It
has gardening, it has activism, it is about public space, it is about
the city, it is about urbanism and it is about the countryside. So all
these different things in permaculture I have found have been very helpful
in analysing spaces by using many different elements, like local economic
trading systems, experimental gardening, makeshift nomadic furniture
or architecture. But it is always very specific to the site that I decided
to analyse. I have no set of special things that I always use.
KÅ: How do you choose the different sites that interest you? Sometimes
you have worked with gallery spaces and used the situation there particularly.
NN: Working in a gallery has been very site specific to New York, because
there are very few artist groups here working and there are very few
alternative spaces left. There doesn’t seem to be any other space than
galleries apart from museums. In Europe it is very different, there
are groups that are working and considering other forms of artmaking
than just showing work in galleries. So what I do in Europe is very
different than what I do in New York. But in regard to how I decide
on location, for example the West Side Highway: The development for
this park is very important and will affect a lot of Manhattan, this
park will go from the downtown Wall Street-Battery Park area all the
way up to Harlem and possibly further to the Bronx. So in terms of its
power to create one continuos corporate park, I think it is something
that will change the city considerably, particularly in terms of real
estate gentrification and exclusivity.
KÅ: One thing that I find really interesting with your works is that
a lot of institutional critique work just ends up verifying the institution
or affirms it to a degree. Your work reveals the politics of the space,
but also shows these other possibilities and pulls in these other narratives
from outside (I.e. in relation to the city, with all the issues of occupation
of space) not only what has to do with that place—so it overflows a
very narrow institutional critique.
I am also interested in how you deal with reading in your diagrams,
how you break up between information and humour so it is quite easy
to read, -I am one of these people that can get offended if there are
ten pages down with solid text in a gallery.
NN: ..I quite like that..(laughter), what is interesting is peoples
hostility or inability to read something in a gallery, I made these
models because I was thinking about making these very large diagrams
that had these incredible amounts of text describing what these things
were, and I thought that making the models would be a medium between
that and the public so that they wouldn’t have to read so much. And
that was successful in terms of the audience understanding what these
models and these ideas were about.
KÅ: The piece you did at the Generali Foundation in Vienna seems linked
to the diagrams at American Fine Arts. Working with that institution
reflects many similar things; it is a big insurance company providing
a public function as a sort of public space; the public gallery. But
it is so clearly inscribing that space with their corporate stature,
and the work shown there inevitably takes part in that in one way or
another. The work at the Generali seems to want to deal with that and
has this analogy to the use of public art in public spaces—and how they
participate in the gentrification of those spaces—looking critically
on that economy, similar to the works at American Fine Arts.
NN: What was interesting about the Generali Foundation’s space was that,
first of all it had been heavily analysed by institutional critiquers.
It is a main location for that practice. They actually invite people
to critique them (laughter). They have had a lot of really interesting
shows, but it is interesting that the space was actually designed, and
they always deny this, so that it can very easily be changed. If the
Generali insurance company doesn’t think that operating in this cultural
realm is of importance to them anymore in terms of their profit or what
it means for them, they can then change that space very quickly. The
storage space below could very easily become a carpark and the space
above which is the gallery space has these incredibly thick ceiling
beams and it is only one floor, but it would be very easy to build on
top of it and just convert it into an office space. So if it doesn’t
go to well with these artshows they could very easily turn it over to
offices.
KÅ: Where you invited specifically to think of a way to change that
space?
NN: No it was completely open with what we could do. But since I didn't
know Vienna very well, I didn't want to go outside and impose my ideas
on people I didn't know or communities I didn't know and a city that
I really didn't know. Instead I decided to keep it very local and just
keep it to the site which was the Generali that I had some knowledge
of and had done research on and been told a lot about. It was the only
way for me to not have to go out and make up something about a city
that I really didn't know. I think it is problematic for artists to
fly in and impose themselves on a city.
KÅ: What about the role of the utopic element in the work? It is important
to you that the work has the utopic narrative rather than something
that can be realised or found in everyday life?
NN: My main use of utopia as a tool, is to use it to show what isn't
there, to use it in a critical way. I have no intention for these utopias
to realised. They are meant to show what cannot be realised. I use them
to try to develop a consciousness for myself as well and also for whoever
might come in to a discourse with me about them. It is about why these
things aren’t possible and then it opens up discussions on capitalism,
urbanity and so on.
Pictures
"Tompkins Square Park Monument to
Civil Disobedience" 1997
"Breaking into Battery Park City after Curfew" 1998
"The Gerard Winstanley Mobile Library and Fieldcenter..."
1999