PHPM06 “A Picnic with the Natives”
Posted by DIUMa on August 28, 2007
A Meeting Report:
August 21st 2007
4:30pm, NW corner of E. Susquehanna and Frankford Ave.
Directors present:
Managing director:
DIUM director of the Department for the Investigation of the Unmentionable along its subdirectorships:
DI-ACB director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Authentic Community Benefit
DILG director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Land Grabbing
DISP director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Slowed-down Progress.
Participating directors:
DIF director of the Dept. of the investigation of Failure
DI-IS director of the Dept. of the Investigation of Inter-Subjectivity
DIM director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Meaning
Di-Meta director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Metaphorical Agency
Participating temporary directors:
DIIL director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Intelligent Life
DIRP director of the Dept. for the Investigation of the Reversal of Positions
DIPA director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Performance Anxiety
DICU director of the Dept. for the Investigation of the Confused and Unheard
DIMC director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Mean Crocodiles
DICBA director of the Dept. for the Investigation of Cost Benefit Analysis.
Meeting Introduction:
DIUM offered warm beverages, Stocks Bakery pound cake and shelter from the rain under a portable canopy.
DIUM gave a brief introduction to the history of the think tank and an explanation of its structure, including the purpose and intention behind the think tank made-up of solely directors.
All participating directors were asked to name themselves from a list of names presented by DIUM. Those names were: “native,” “non-native,” “non-indigenous,” “exotic,” “alien,” “invasive exotic,” “indigenous,” and/or any combination of the above.
DIUM invited several members of the community to the meeting. Each introduced themselves and announced their temporary self-appointed directorship. DIRP announced the unofficial, but much welcomed, attending temporary director-the green grasshopper responsible and actively investigating the white canopy. The core members introduced themselves, as well. All the directors were asked to give their position on the topic at hand.
DIUM passed out an agenda and reviewed the topic of discussion
A review of the topic of discussion:
“A Picnic with the Natives,” the sixth publicly held private meeting (PHPM06), continues to scrutinize the cartography of talent, by locating its meeting on an actual site where the “lure of talent” is implemented for the hoped and assumed economic benefit of the community. New Kensington Community Development Corporation, located in the “up and coming” neighborhood of Fishtown/Kensington, Philadelphia PA, has proposed a project to replace an established green-space in the neighborhood with a black box theatre. This green-space, planted with native and local trees, was initially instituted by residents in the community. Seven years ago it was purchased as a green-space and continues to be maintained by the CDC today. Due to budget constraints and high speculation prices of surrounding property (the reasons given by a NKCDC employee, who was present at the meeting) the NKCDC is now considering removing the green-space and replacing it with a theatre and a parking lot. This project hopes to spur economic growth on the city-appointed “Frankford Avenue Arts Corridor”.
Initial questions presented by DIUM:
How does this proposed project benefit the community?
Is one person or one organization’s understanding of benefit enough to make the claim that it is beneficial?
Can there be a shared understanding of what community benefit means, in order for it to be critically accessed to be beneficial?
Is it enough to institute a project based on hope?
Key themes presented by DIUM:
Places in Transition-temporary spaces for conversation about the future.
The Appropriation of the Native for the Growth of a Nation.
Is the creative class the new-indigenous terrain? - A recourse of talent ripe for exploitation.
The Privatization of the Public Commons
Now that time has passed, whom does it belong to anyway?
Theatre and the Culture of the Spectacle.
The role of the spectator in the transformation of a community?
Tree Phobia meets Tree Mania in the global world of warming.
Excerpts from the meeting agenda notes:
You can view more research details and links on anartblog
“A place between is temporal, it pays attention to time, to the ways in which we locate the then from the now, the now from the yet-to come, for in our writings of history, our placing of the past in the present, we are already positioning possibilities for the future.” A PLACE BETWEEN, Art, Architecture and Critical Theory, Jane Rendell
“Public Green poses questions about ownership of land, and suggests the transfer of property from private to public use. Viewers are asked to rethink their local landscape, and to physically transform their environment.” PublicGreen.com, Lize Mogel
“It is not only First Nations people that stand to benefit from a just outcome to the Six Nations standoff, says Horn. Native and non-native people alike are suffering from a system that is destroying the environment.”
Home On Native Land, the people of Six Nations are repossessing their land, by Hillary Bain Lindsay
“Just as we can change the political landscape with our vote, we can improve the environmental landscape with our actions.” The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education, Spring Issue ’07, by Dennis Burton
-
A synopsis of the discussion:
The directors presented several points of view. Each contributed to each other’s train of thought. After a brief history of the site and how and why it came to be a green-space the discussion opened up about the increase in prices of property and land holding due land speculation. DISPA noted the space had many histories and suggested that it will have many more. The term a “face lift” was mentioned to describe the cleaning up efforts on Frankford Ave. The investigation of what a “face lift” does, and questions about the integrity of its underlying structure behind a “face lift” was discussed. DIM mentioned the trend of cities to build “signature buildings” to invite economic growth. Notions of interiority (the private theatre vs. exteriorly (the public green-space) were mentioned. DIF pointed out how a community benefits from a project depends largely on what takes place within its parameters. DICU expressed that in order for a theatre to succeed it must have the investment from the community. DIMC wondered about the use of the words “native” and the “local” that had emerged in the conversation. Is someone who has lived here a longtime more authentic than one that has recently moved in? The cyclical nature of events, movements, and neighborhoods was discussed. DI-IS suggested a metaphor of a dying forest and equated this with the cycles of a neighborhood. DIM cautioned that the analogy was problematic because the reasons in which a neighborhood “dies” or goes into decline is not part of its natural cycle but often instigated by external forces that do not have an interest in the overall maintenance or well being of the place. DIM also suggested spaces could be re-negotiated and constituted as temporary. Could a theatre exist along side the trees perhaps as a simple platform? DIAP mention the successful Open Air Circus Theater in Somerville MA, the experience of gentrification that grew around it and the theater’s eventual de-centralized mutation to other places in the city. DIUM mentioned what was note worthy about the space was that of all the spaces along Frankford it was one of the ones that “works” and benefiting the community. DIRP, DIIL and DIUM all expressed concerns and questions about the future of the trees. DIRP argued that parking was a poor use of prime property on Frankford. DISPA shared the hope that the allocated lot for parking would be temporary as our society becomes less dependent on cars. DIUM re-presented the question: “Is it enough to institute and develop a project based on hope?” There was a general skepticism that this hope could be used to justify the use of the space for a parking lot.
Success of the Project:
The conversation widened as we all shared our experiences and points of view. This provided for a more complex and rich experience of the place and it’s surrounding social and economic circumstances.
Failure of the Project: No one present had lived in the area for over five years.
Creative Commons License / RSS / Powered by WordPress