Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
cept for aesthetic interest and value. For those who enjoyed intimate and regular ex-
perience, the opportunity and its aesthetic condition are easily understood; at the
same time there is limited understanding of the complex problems that affect these
systems. We would argue that problems of natural systems in an urban setting cannot
be defined by science alone. Elements of the water problems (e.g., fecal coliform
counts as a sewage indicator or benthic organisms as indicators of ecological health),
can be defined by science. To define the larger systems problems, the cause of these
effects requires an interdisciplinary effort. To visualize it or conceptualize an issue like
this, and its positive and negative effects, is a challenge worthy of an art and science
collaboration. The questions are: In whose interest shall we labor on these questions?
Who pays? Who benefits from the output? For those that manage the systems as infra-
structure (water source, coolant, sewer, or sink) for industrial or municipal interest or
for the intrinsic value of ecosystems and biodiversity? How about the subordinate
recreational users and advocates of the natural elements of the system?
Product and Outcome
The 3R2N project was defined by evolving cultural research programs, the Mononga-
hela Conferences and Residencies. It culminated in the “Groundworks: Environ-
mental Collaborations in Contemporary Art” exhibition and catalogue, curated by
Grant Kester (2005). There was also an evolving environmental research and plan-
ning program with numerous reports on various ecological issues related to water and
land. This concluded with a published study of recovering ecosystems and the poli-
cies that constrained them: “Ecology and Recovery—Allegheny County” (Collins et
al. 2006).
Critical Evaluation
Many of our friends and colleagues have offered us critical appraisal of the project.
Some say that art isn't intended to “do” anything. Others ask: Why abandon one disci-
pline-specific context for another? Other colleagues felt that we were too far within
the system, too deeply invested in the useful when the proper domain of the arts is the
antithesis of utility. Indeed, many would claim that the intrinsic value of art is unto it-
self. Within this critical framework, there isn't much room for issue-specific environ-
mental art practice. However, Suzanne Lacy (1995) and Grant Kester (2004) do pro-
vide essential directions for an emergent critical consciousness that sees the aesthetic
in dialogic exchange and discourse.
Conclusion
Our interactions were oriented toward the artistic development of an effective public
realm through strategic knowledge and unique platforms for democratic discourse.
The work demanded attention to the intellectual vulnerabilities that occur when citi-
zens, decision makers, and art and science researchers come together. The challenge
Search WWH ::




Custom Search