DOMINIC STEVENS (DUBLIN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, DIT) AND SOPHIA MEERE (LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, UCD) DISCUSS THE ‘FIELDWORK LETTERFRACK 2016: ALTER-RURALITY’ CONFERENCE, WHICH THEY RAN 6 – 9 JUNE IN RURAL CONNEMARA.

What starts to happen when artists, architects, landscape architects, farmers, practitioners and researchers from all around Europe meet to discuss rural life? This June, in Letterfrack, Connemara, an event was held to find out. Three Irish universities (University College Dublin, Dublin Institute of Technology and Galway Mayo Institute of Technology) gathered together 65 researchers, practitioners, teachers and advisors, all engaged with rural life and interested in its future, from 30 different organisations and 10 different countries, for exchange of ideas and experience.

“We do not belong to those who have ideas only among books. It is our habit to think outdoors – walking, leaping, climbing, dancing, preferably on lonely mountains or near the sea where even the trails become thoughtful.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

The primary purpose of this conference was to explore possible futures, opportunities and challenges for rural milieus in twenty-first-century Europe. This meeting of minds had several aims, however, one of them being to cause some kind of convergence between various strands of the design community and the rural community itself. We thought it would be a good start for a group whose ultimate purpose is to imagine viable, productive and lively rural opportunities.

By gathering together attendees with a wide range of experience, and spending each day debating a particular question or theme, we hoped to encourage new dialogues across disciplines. By making the space and taking the time to immerse ourselves in place – walking, talking, thinking, looking, tasting and seeing – we hoped to create an exchange of knowledge and ideas about rural landscapes, lifestyles, production, design and culture, looking at how best to sustain rural places.

Intense exchanges took place in the formal setting of a lecture theatre (3 mornings: 24 plenary presentations, 3 evenings: 9 keynotes), but unlike many academic conferences, the possibilities for informal discussion and exchange also abounded. Lunch, teas and dinner were served in the village’s Ellis Hall, thanks to local chef Derick Healy and his team. Participants spent their afternoons leisurely foraging on the shore, tracing watercourses, visiting farms or simply walking and talking. All were helped by the unexpected sunshine!

Holding this conference in a rural setting was important. Organised as a collaboration between ourselves and Deirdre O’Mahony from GMIT’s Centre for Creative Arts and Media (CCAM), this was the third in a series of events held under the name ‘AlterRurality’. The first was held in Fribourg, Switzerland and the second in London. These events were ARENA projects, an international network that exists to promote research in architecture and allied disciplines across Europe. 

GMIT’s Letterfrack National Centre for Excellence in Furniture Design proved the perfect setting for a conference on rurality, as the village has an extraordinary history of rural development, in which the school buildings play a significant role. 

Thirty-three talks  

The conference kicked off with Pieter Versteegh’s (Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture, ESA Paris) keynote lecture offering an alternative description of rurality in which a provocative list of presumptions are inverted, or as Pieter put it, “viewed through a mirror”.

In addition to invited keynote speakers, 24 papers were chosen for oral presentation, with 24 more made into posters and displayed in Ellis Hall, which is owned by Connemara West. Short presentations succeeded one another in response to specific themes. The sessions and the succession of papers were chosen as counterparts to each other, in order to expand the field of view as far as possible. While some talked of real places and things, others talked of the metaphysical and of transformation. We all talked about time: past, present and future.

Outstanding presentations included that of Dr Ciara Healy (Lecturer in Art, Department of Art, University of Reading) and Adam Stead (visual artist) in a collaborative performance in which correspondence between teacher and student were read aloud. Titled Already the world: A Post-humanist Dialogue, their letters were concerned with ecological and environmental ways of knowing in socio-agricultural and metaphysical modes. With Healy’s help, Stead sought to understand the socio-political and ecological impacts of industrialisation and consumerism on agriculture and rural communities in Britain and Ireland.

In Bows, Buildings and Experimental Archaeology: A Journey from Norway to Dublin Through Bowmaking, Stephen Fox, an experimental archaeologist and PhD student at UCD, described how both questions and answers can arise through making. Fox is an expert in Viking archery and bow making. Having spent the summer of 2015 working in a reconstructed longhouse museum in Lofotr, Norway, he is currently investigating Dublin’s Viking architecture, its raw materials and construction methods through the active building of an authentic type 1 Viking house at UCD’s Centre for Experimental Archaeology and Material Culture.

In the following presentation, Digitally Fabricating Rural Wood Constructions, Professor Urs Hirschberg of TU Graz’s Institute of Architectural Media transcended 1000 years to promote sophisticated digital fabrication technologies, the building of bespoke timber structures in rural areas and, conversely, the showcasing of special timber designs in urban contexts. He demonstrated both the viability of high-tech firms operating from rural locations and the possible revival of craft in the digital age. TU Graz’s IAM works with local industry partners to push the boundaries of timber fabrication, teaching future architects and fabrication factories about the amazing possibilities of the digital tools.

Andrew Freear’s description of Auburn University’s famous design and build programme left us wondering why we can’t all do the same thing! Known for its ethos of recycling, reusing and remaking, Rural Studio provides hands-on educational experience while assisting an underserved population in west Alabama’s Black Belt region. The studio’s philosophy is that everyone, rich or poor, deserves the benefit of good design. Students work within the community to define solutions, fundraise, design and, ultimately, build remarkable buildings. In 25, Rural Studio has built 150 projects and educated more than 600 ‘citizen architects’.

Dr Aine Macken-Walsh, researcher with Teagasc, astounded the audience by her proposition that governmental policies of the past 25 years have largely failed to support Irish farming and fishing families. Funding, she argued, has created a ‘project class’ that has benefitted a few, but been ignored by the majority.

Chinese researcher and PhD scholar at London’s Architectural Association, Jingru Cyan Cheng, suffers no illusions: rurality in China is administratively determined, socially constructed and spatially specified.

Her design research project instrumentalises rural China’s specific administrative, social and spatial conditions to explore rurality as a spatial question. It proposes a spatial framework for China’s rural territory in an attempt to inverse the power of the city.

Three walks

The point of the walks was to be outside, to breathe fresh air and to walk and talk. Aided by unusually low tides and bright sunshine, Rory Keatinge led wonderful walks along the shore, taking us to his secret locations to collect cockles and mussels, before helping us clean and prepare them for dinner. Rory has foraged for food along the coast of Letterfrack since his childhood, a passion that undoubtedly contributed to his choice of profession in fisheries management.

In her booklet The Water Glossary, artist Carol Anne Connolly gathered together Irish terms that describe water, essentially reproducing a descriptive landscape in words sourced from old texts as well as from a diverse range of people including fishermen, farmers, weather forecasters, scholars and poets. Connolly read aloud from her lexicon in the Irish language while we admired the view, the sounds of water and her words.

Michael Gibbons, one of Ireland’s leading field archaeologists and a storyteller, took us on a walk to the far and not so distant past of the hills, pointing out rocks and patterns in the landscape, traces of ancient settlements and tombs that indicate animal enclosures and field systems. He also identified more recent burial grounds and abandoned cottages dating from the Famine.

Located in an extraordinarily beautiful setting overlooking Killary Fjord, we walked across hills on which traditional blackhead horny sheep run as Tom Nee of Killary Sheep Farm described the highs and lows of contemporary farming. His talented dogs demonstrated sheepherding moves while Nee cut turf by hand using the old two-sided spade, or sleán, which cuts through the peat as if it were butter. Tom also talked about the relationship between farming and tourism.

Three Dinners

Immersed in rural matters we indulged ourselves in local food and the eating of communal meals cooked and served daily. Three dinners. Three lunches. Three cream teas of scones and homemade strawberry jam. Connemara lamb, mashed potato and cabbage. Roast chicken. Fish stew. Mussels, cockles gleaned by the beach walkers. Rhubarb crumble. Home-grown watercress. Nettle soup.

Conclusion

‘Fieldwork Letterfrack 2106: AlterRurality3’ built on the experience of two earlier ‘ARENA’ conferences. Held in a rural locality, the event remained intentionally small. It brought together a range of disciplines, teachers, practitioners and researchers from Ireland and beyond, with the aim of encouraging informal debate and exchange across disciplines. It widened participation to include the community voice with the aim of (starting to) overcome the barriers that still separate academia from practice. We believe that this conference is a step in the right direction, and a move towards greater collaboration between the many institutions, practitioners and academics that are engaged in rural life and interested in its future.

Sophia Meeres teaches at UCD. Her research is connected to the transformation of landscapes, the recognition and conservation of rural lands, practices and traditions.

Dominic Stevens is an architect and lecturer in the Dublin School of Architecture DIT whose works and practice is often rurally located.

Images: Attendees at the ‘AlterRurality’ conference; Attendees on one of the walks in Connemara

Source

EMMA DWAN O’REILLY REPORTS ON ‘THE VALUE OF CRITICISM’ SYMPOSIUM, WHICH TOOK PLACE AT THE LEWIS GLUCKMAN GALLERY, CORK, ON 26 FEBRUARY 2016[i]

 In Ireland, practices of art criticism have continued to develop in a changing landscape. Although things remain unsettled with regards to establishing publications and securing funding, there exists a vibrant energy around writing on art in Ireland in recent years. New publications, writers and editors have emerged with fresh initiatives and ideas, and there has been an increased interest in developing new spaces, publishing platforms and audiences, and in cultivating alternative approaches to writing about art.

 ‘The Value of Criticism’ symposium examined the role of art criticism and the critic in determining both the historical and economic value of art. The role of the critic in the changing landscape of art criticism and publishing was also explored, with particular focus on how writers, editors, curators and broadcasters approach and evaluate their subjects and influence public understanding and appreciation of art.

Keynote

Editor of Art Monthly, Patricia Bickers, tackled the definition of criticism, speaking about the historical, temporal jurisdictions that separate art criticism and art history. She dismissed the idea that art criticism exists merely to provide a service to art history: “Art history and criticism are part of a continuum, inseparable and of equal value as in any good relationship but they are all too often forced apart.”

Bickers also raised the issue of class and hierarchy between history, art history and art criticism, explaining that the entrance of art history into the academy divided art history and art criticism, and, consequently, the former was referred to as a discipline, and the latter as a practice, a categorisation that “smacked of trade, the market”. She argued that this categorisation was based on the assumed impartiality of scholarship, a view that’s no longer relevant, as all commentary on art has the potential to be used by the market.

Bickers discussed how writing has helped to shape understanding and appreciation of art, and how theory has further informed art and criticism, contributing to the evolution of both. She closed by stating that criticism has been subject to much analysis and that its conditions are perpetually evolving in response to changes in art and society: “New art begets new forms of writing, which in turn inform art and our understanding of it and its place in our lives.”

Panel One – The Legitimacy of Criticism (chaired by Lucy Dawe-Lane)

Sarah Kelleher opened the ‘Legitimacy of Criticism’ session, referring to art criticism as “increasingly an anxious genre of writing”. She referenced the many events where the anxieties of criticism, its sustainability, influence, rigor and relevance have been debated, and included James Elkins’s proposal that criticism is massively produced and massively ignored.

Kelleher questioned the relevance of criticism in the online era, arguing that much of the anxiety within criticism arises from its lack of influence and authority as well as the uncertain position of the critic. She emphasised the importance of judgement and accepted that authority and influence might no longer apply in the same way, seeing this as an opportunity for critics to evaluate their own role more rigorously. “Though influence of criticism may wane and quality of writing vary,” she stated, “the critic still occupies this role of ambassador, advocate, analyst and appraiser and a contributor to the first draft of art history”.

Taking art ‘personally’ was at the heart of Cristín Leach’s contribution to the symposium. She emphasised the importance of “being in the moment with the art”. While she recognised that the critic has many roles, she stressed that their main role is to take art personally. She emphasised that “the only thing worth writing is the thing only you can write,” explaining that this influences why certain writers become our favourites, that their distinctive style stems from taking art personally, which comes through to the reader in their unique response. Leach suggested that while writers wear a professional mask, thoughts and feelings from their personal lives could materialise in their writing in an invisible way and speak to the reader on a personal level.

Leach argued that the skill in imparting this personal connection or reaction is to do so without using the first person or even the second or third person. “The ‘I’ must be invisible, but always ever present and always taking it personally.” However, later, there was some debate on whether specific circumstances of a particular show could warrant occasional use of the first person pronoun.

 Caoimhín MacGiolla Leith acknowledged the difficulty in categorising the current state or future prospects of the field of art criticism, proposing that criticism and the critic had not one role but many. He considers the audience central to writing on art and spoke about the difference between writing about work that was unknown and work that has already been reviewed many times.

He suggested that criticism could fall into different categories and cited Elkins’s seven categories. Acknowledging that, while this system of classification is still useful, he felt it could “easily be updated, augmented or expanded to accommodate those recently emerging or resurgent forms of art writing that disengage from description, analysis, evaluation and contextualisation in favour of more novel and eccentric modes of address”. Kinds of writing that (here referencing Gertrude Stein), “coexist with the artwork on a parallel plane, rather than just serve it”.

Panel Two – Who is Criticism For? (Chaired by Fergal Gaynor)

Declan Long opened this panel by stating his own personal addiction to criticism, detailing the stylistic characteristics that draw him to certain critics and the learning that can be garnered from reading criticism.

He discussed how, in specialist publications, there are expectations, “not just of shared vocabulary but of shared enthusiasm, shared responsibilities, collective cultural preferences”. He suggested that the writers could be their own first audience: “Perhaps it could also be for me as I write it… I write something I think I want to read”. Long went further towards answering the question of who criticism is for, asking who criticism is advocating on behalf of, rather that who is it against. He concluded that “criticism is against the already decided, the dogmatic”.

Rebecca O’Dwyer steered away from ‘audience’ as a response to the question ‘who is criticism for?’ She peeled away layers of the question, arguing that the ‘who’ is centred on the supposition that the value of criticism is only determined by its ‘use’. She dismissed the value of criticism being evaluated by ‘use’ and ‘being read’, explaining that these stem from the professionalisation of the field and the belief that it should “do something”.

O’Dwyer emphasised the value of both reading and writing in gaining a greater understanding of art and considered how criticism could be for the critic. She came to the conclusion that the act of writing criticism is largely for her, as a writer, while also being “for no one and, at the same time, everyone”.

Brian Fay also considered the idea that writing is a creative process for the writer. He responded to the question of who with “whoever needs it”, proposing that art criticism audiences are heterogeneous, and shifted the question to identifying who those people might be and why they would want it.

Identifying practicing artists as a group that consistently and actively engaged with criticism, with it often informing art production, he presented a model of three stages, from production, to exhibition, to the final stage in which the works invoke a response. He argued that this model failed to take into account that stage three could inform stage one, referring to it as a “twisted cylinder loop”, with criticism, interpretation and evaluation “embedded, entwined in the act of production”.

Fay also discussed the review of finished work, emphasising how artists require resistance, and advocated for the value of criticism as dialogue rather than merely as validation.

Panel Three – The Future of Criticism (Chaired by Chris Clarke)

Opening the third and final panel, Clíodhna Ní Anluain considered how radio and television are often seen as ephemeral and noted the absence of any reference to either in the earlier proceedings of the symposium. She emphasised the importance of story on radio and television, and the power that a broadcasted discussion can have in changing the perceptions of both the contributors and the audience. She considered the significant historical legacy of the spoken archive that RTE has built through its interviews and recordings.

Central to Gemma Tipton’s contribution was the idea that art crosses worlds. She advocated on behalf of writing that brought art and artists’ ideas into other disciplines and conversations. While acknowledging the lines within disciplines and the multitude of contexts in which writing can sit, each with different mandates and audiences, she encouraged separating the idea of the specialist and universal audience.

Tipton emphasised the importance of inclusivity in both language and discourse as the future brought more cross-disciplinary ways of thinking and making. While she understood that specialisms have their own languages, she proposed that technical jargon can be used to hide poor writing, which poses a major threat to art criticism.

Tipton considers the future of criticism bright and advocated “continuing to push for excellence on the specialist side, for cutting through the noise and getting rid of the insecurities, remembering the idea of pleasure”.

Nathan Hugh O’Donnell described criticism as an exchange, mediation between art and some kind of public. The future of art criticism, he argued, lies with magazines, and stated that magazines (including those online) are important because of the way in which they construct publics and have appeared, historically, at every moment when publics have expanded. He contended that publics are heterogeneous, that there is no definitive public: “Most people are crossing disciplines and specialisms.”

‘The Value of Criticism’ symposium built on the legacy of similar events that have attempted to determine the purpose of art criticism as it fractures and evolves at a time when traditional definitions, functions and approaches hold less currency. The symposium had a more optimistic feel to other pulse-checking sessions on the subject. Thankfully, the contributors steered away from the well-rehearsed discussion of the perpetual crisis and towards conversations of inclusion and the value of criticism, giving a sense of a bright future, with space for more voices, audiences and writing.

Emma Dwan O’Reilly is a writer and researcher based in Tipperary.

[i] Twitter proceedings at #VOC16

Image: Keynote by Patricia Bickers; image courtesy of the Glucksman Gallery.

Source