Virginia Ingram

    From afar, the giant sculpture on Virginia Tech’s drillfield summons imagery of blow-up bounce houses, carnival attractions, and fairgrounds. The gray exterior of “Arboria” is composed of many arched three dimensional shapes made of gray vinyl-looking material. There are some colored elements that could be described as “blooms” or maybe even just whimsical architectural elements. The gray almost brings to mind concrete, or other such building materials as the shapes and clearly defined chambers are reminiscent of castles and cathedrals. Except, in the case of “Arboria” it is clear that the material is not weighty and rather is kept up by inflation.

    This manmade attraction clearly stands out, among the bowl-like, collegiate drillfield. The exterior does not bring to mind any natural elements, as its form is very architectural, material is clearly man made and it clearly stands out on the grassy field.

    The first room serves as an introduction to the material, feel and colors of the interior space. Here, upon viewers removing their shoes, an usher gives instructions and guidelines on appropriate behavior in the piece (no running, bouncing, or stepping on walls), as well as a brief introduction to the piece. You then enter through a vinyl entryway into the piece.

    There are three main elements at play in this piece, architecture, light and sound. The architecture is like that of gothic cathedrals, round entryways and domed ceilings comprised of pentagon shapes. There are also patterns at play, both illustrative like that of Islamic architectural adornment and the careful seams that hold the different plastic pieces together to create the form of the space. Light is also an incredibly important element to the piece. Light illuminates the different spaces using red, green and blue.This highly saturated glow contributes to the atmosphere, and is both carefully mixed and used to separate different areas. Sound is also infused into the space, a composed soundtrack of both nature sounds and quiet instruments is played through speakers into the space. The inside of the space in cavernous but whimsical, reminiscent of hectic man made space (such as a bounce house) and walking through a forest. The interior space is cool with air conditioning (in fact very comfortable in comparison the hot humidity outside) and serene with calming music, but also buzzing with activity and high impact lights.“Arboria” gives viewers a nature-like experience but not without reminders that is still a constructed and controlled space.

    “Arboria” seems to highlight different elements of nature through its four main “rooms”. The first is a center room, with the tallest domed ceiling of all the spaces. Lines of red and blue light run up the walls and across the ceiling to form a star-like shape. This graphic element is reminiscent of Moravian stars, and other graphic depictions of stars. This brings to mind the vastness of space, and the distance and spatial relation between ourselves and the stars in the sky above us. The three other rooms are the same in size and are illuminated in three different colors. There is a green room, where a pattern formed by different plastic in opaqueness. The interaction between negative (the less opaque plastic) and positive (more opaque plastic) creates lines and simple shapes. The interaction between these shapes and the green light glowing brings about the idea of sunlight shining through leaves. The connection between this room and plant life and plant-based ecosystems seems clear. And even the darker negative space between the “leaves” seems reminiscent of thorns or jagged plant matter. Another room is constructed in a similar fashion, but the lights here glow blue. The pattern here is only slightly different with edged being more rounded, and the darker negative spaces being reduced. A star in the center of each pentagon which comprise the ceiling construction begins a radiating pattern. This pattern and color brings about images of ice crystals, forming snowflakes. Even though the blue seems to be a very primary, darker blue, the color is so tied to the sky , water and other weather-based images. This room seems to represent the natural element of water, weather and atmosphere. The last room is a high-impact red, and the lights in this room seem to glow even brighter than the other rooms. The pattern here shares the same basic concept and shape, but is more jagged than the rest. The overall imagery that is brought up by these patterns are thing muscle diagrams, veins, and even in some negative spaces individual body parts. With the bright red lights, its believable that this room could represent the human body, and all natural spaces that harbor blood. These four rooms seem to represent four different elements of nature, all divided, yet brought together into one space. Much like the interaction between all parts of nature.

    Aside from these four main rooms, there are also tunnel-like spaces between the rooms, which offer more complex lighted spaces, like tree branches. There are also pillar like sources of light which split the hallways between the space. These can look like tree trunks, uvulas, or icicles, depending on the color of light that is emitted from them. This truly shows now natural elements contain similar form, and how color affects our perception of form. Around the hallways and rooms there are small convex areas, where small groups of people could be found socializing. In all of these small “pods” there is a slit of light. Each emitting its own glow upon that group of participants in the piece.

    When talking about nature in relation to this piece, it is also helpful to consider the role nature actually plays in this piece (other than just a source of inspiration). In the “pods” there is a slit of light, where sometimes it becomes clear what is on the outside of the sculpture. Silhouettes of grass blades and the rain drops falling on the exterior can be seen through these lighted areas. The floor of the sculpture, when beaten down by the footsteps of the participants, reveals the texture of the ground underneath. This truly brings into perspective the relationship between this constructed “nature-inspired” area and the actual nature existing outside. The sounds of nature being pumped into the space is controlled, and composed but serves in contrast the real sounds of rainfall falling on the taught, thin surface between participants and the outside. The interior space is incredibly controlled, with no natural lighting (or at least the light is filtered through color), the air defying the temperature outside, the music emulating nature sounds, and the caverns being constructed from man-made materials. Despite this level of control, some actual nature manages to slip through in the form of silhouettes and sounds.

    The music play is composed of nature sounds, but it is also composed. This environment that emulates nature is constructed of plastic, which is a very far cry from being a purely natural material. This environment is placed on top of grass for several days, suffocating it and preventing it from sunlight, and water. The description of the piece contains allusions to trees, leaves, and  wildlife sounds (recorded in Ecuador), and less than a mile from the placement of this piece is an Old Growth Forest growing behind Virginia Tech’s football stadium. It is almost as if the piece has imported the experience of nature from non-local sounds, to fabricated natural structures, to artificial images of natural elements. Perhaps the piece seeks to give people new appreciation for natural environments or perhaps the piece seeks to be just spectacle and inspire curiosity which would then flow into life outside of the sculpture. However the piece does, on a larger scale, make us ask questions about our relationship with nature. How does our grappling with the reality of nature intrude on our quest to recreate nature? For instance, how does humidity and rain impede on the ideal experience of this piece? In an ideal setup would we be able to notice the the grass trying to puncture the floor?  How do we try to control nature? This pieces also highlight irony of trying to control nature for the sake of “saving” it. For instance, the piece wants us to examine our relationship with nature, it is also likely killing the grass beneath it. We also see these problems in our everyday world, from the breeding of threatened animals using artificial insemination to the introduction of non-native plant species to control erosion. This artistic sculpture is also providing an imported, artificial experience that we could easily have less than a mile from its location. Instead of lighted tendrils and columns that allude to trees, we could walk through Stadium woods and instead of listening to Ecuadorian nature sounds, we could hear native birds in this forest.

The conflict between the artificial and natural is highlighted by the greater context of  this piece, but the piece is also unifying, as it inspires curiosity, a childlike wonder, and an more focused appreciation of both art, community, and the various aspects of nature represented. Many participants can be found chatting in the “pods” around the piece, no doubt discussing the artistry of the piece. Children can be found exploring and playing, being exposed to art in a positive, engaging way. Others are taking pictures, videos and other image making, showing how the piece encourages the proliferation of art itself, something not always found in a museum setting. “Arboria” certainly created an unique immersive experience, and stimulates curiosity, play and wonder, but it also raises conflict between the artificial and and the natural. Virginia Tech’s drillfield for a few days becomes the site of spectacle, conversation and public art experience, and hopefully the participants walk away with a better understanding of art, nature and the environment around them.

“You’re invited to Man Food. Man Food seeks to point out the polarizing  ways food is gendered, creating masculinity and femininity where none exists. Man Food seeks to display the fragility of masculine and feminine roles. Man Food seeks to illustrate this fragility and futility through kitsch and craftiness.”

While reading the story of the founding of Futurism I couldn’t help but think of Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange. The characters of that novel practice “ultraviolence” often driving fast, injuring themselves, and destroying property, much like those thing glorified in the Futurist Manifesto. In that novel, society seeks to reform those violent tendencies whereas this Manifesto says it should be used for a basis of creation and perhaps even applied to society.

The most evident thing about the Futurists’ Manifesto is its focus on all things masculine. This is illustrated by repeated references to machinery, physical danger, speed, strength and pain. In fact, there is very, very little about this piece of writing that isn’t a reference to some sort of “masculine” trait. I find it disturbing that there is very little in regards to women in this manifesto. And when women, or the feminine is mentioned it’s sort of scoffed at. On the other hand, the allusion to the “Mistress” is hilarious to me. They classify this female figure (who they don’t want anything to do with) as “cruel” and spurn the idea of “offering” their physicality to her. What they say works on the assumption that a female figure actually desires their body, so much so that they would need to offer it to her.

My work and interests tend to focus on balancing gender inequity, subverting gender roles and blurring lines of gendered expectations, and the focus of this article was strict gendered work of dyeing and weaving in Kodi. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear about the mystical associations of females in that culture and the cultural and historical contexts of gender roles. It is stunning to hear how the process and objects of dyeing are heavily associated with the cycle of life. The way the Kodi have developed these metaphors for life is both intriguing and beautiful. 

To be honest I started to read this article when class first started, and it captured my interest in the first page. As I read I began to fail to understand what the article was trying to say, and lost enough interest that I put it down for at least a month. When I finally finished the article it brought up a lot of ideas that I have been thinking about recently, especially in regards to gender and performativity. I believe the reason I found the middle of it so hard to read was because the ideas of immigration and colonization are so far from my experiences. Judith Butler’s examples of the national anthem demonstration and the African boundaries were so foreign to be because privilege and geography have made me so cut off from these issues that I’ve only just started to imagine these issues more complexly. What did strike a chord with me was the mention to gender and performativity.

On Aesthetics- I think there are several points of interest in talking about the aesthetics of fiber arts, both in talking about a museum/show setting and a sense of the DIY culture existing today. The article talks about the Nike banner itself being discouraged from being displayed, something that could relate to the aesthetics of the show space. I believe there is value in both the intellectual process behind a work and the physical display of the work, so it seems disappointing that a museum or gallery (because I’m assuming this is definitely not the first time this has happened) would refuse to display the work itself due to the look of the piece not conforming to their image or their space. Then there are fiber arts and processes that have becoming more interesting due to the DIY culture. These works and processes can be commoditized, open sourced, recreated and boutiqued (a word I just made up I think). In short, the DIY culture glorifies these fiber art processes as long as they are consumable. So fiber arts kind of lays in the middle of these things. It’s aesthetic does not fit into the sterilized gallery spaces, yet its not accessible or usable enough for the DIY culture.

The Dadaist manifestos seem to a be a collection of ideas that can be summarized by a loose rejection of every system and formality. The authors wax poetic about all sort of ideas, rejecting almost all forms of tradition, systems and basically all notions of success and typical life. The manifestos paint this picture of a movement that is both characterized by silliness but encounters some serious questions about society as a whole. I think those criticisms are what is most interesting to me.

In general, I found the manifestos to be a little dramatic in terms of the way they spoke about themselves. They seemed to be dedicated to rejecting and turning from the norms, and explained that their own participation in these things made them “idiots” as well. The impression I got was that they didn’t take life too seriously, or at least pretended that life and average experiences were meant to be resisted by Dadaist for the sake of the movement and for the sake of not being too serious. But in trying to establish this movement of absurdity, they set some very rigid guidelines for themselves in terms of what they could and could not participate in. This part I found irritating, along with the plethora of contradictions amongst the manifestos and reminded me of a juvenile mindset of rejecting norms for the sake of doing so, not for the sake of making a statement about anything of importance or making any progress.

There were moments in the manifestos  were I was in agreement with certain points the author (poet? Artist?) made. Examples:

“Being governed by morals and logic has made it impossible for us to be anything other than impassive toward policemen… whom the bourgeois are fed up to the teeth, and who have infected the only corridors of clear and clean glass that remained open to artists.”

           “Goodness is lucid, clear and resolute, and ruthless towards compromise and politics. Morality infuses chocolate into every man’s veins. This task is not ordained by a supernatural force, but by a trust of ideas-merchants and academic monopolists.”

           “Every act is a cerebral revolver shot-both the insignificant gesture and the decisive movement are attacks...”

           “The lack of garters which makes it systematically bend down reminds us of the famous lack of system which basically has never existed.”

           “To be intelligentrespect everyone-die on the field of honour-subscribe to the Loan-vote for So-and-So-respect for nature and painting-to barrack at dad manifestations-that’s the life of men.”

This article’s most compelling idea comes from one of the last paragraphs, the author states “This is a room. It archives touch.” Prior the this the article speaks a lot about habit and intuition and the economic implications that can be derived from these historical documentations of rooms. These all seem true enough (although I still believe the article is subjective), but this by far is the most compelling idea to me.

From a historic perspective, rooms have been used to document class stratification, cultural changes, fashion and advances in technology and making. If this were no true, there would be no reason to preserve and reconstruct rooms in historic buildings, buying back articles in order to refurnish these rooms (such as Monticello). But these sterilized versions of lived-in spaces offer little in terms of the transitive, emotional, archival quality that the article speaks about near the end. The transitiveness of spaces that the author speaks about is portrayed with furnishings, goes beyond those things that show us how fashions and technology have changed, but offer us with the ability to see how transitive live is, and how mortality plays into space.

 In Neil MacInnis’ article three films are discussed, all containing various queer characters, their modes of dress and expression in relation to their queerness are discussed. My interpretation of the article’s two major terms are as follows: deco-jamming highlights subversiveness using decorative elements and eco-glam is using the idea of deco-jamming to create a mode of aesthetics to apply to social spaces that encourage these subversive behaviors and interactions.

MacInnis uses to the term “sexy-work” to refer to the ways in which the characters express their queerness within the context of their day-to-day work. MacInnis states that the term describes a relationship between “private, inner desires and the demands of work” and emphasizes the way the characters “queer the work”. I find it difficult apply this particular phrase to the concept the author is expressing because it carries with it that the experiences of these queer individuals are inherently considered “sexy” because of their queerness. In the examples of Sister My Sister and Pink Narcissus this may be true because these characters are expressing a sexual desire but in Boys Don’t Cry it seems as though (because I haven’t actually watched the film) this “sexy-work” is being enacted by an individual whose gender identity is defined as queer. The non-conformity of sexuality and gender are both expressed under this term as “sexy-work” which I see as sort of misleading since gender identity is not always linked with sex or attraction.