Think bigger and live smaller: the Tiny Houses Experiment in Garfield

Think of your neighborhood. Think about what is good and bad. Look at the market rates and start figuring out smart ways to invest. Then be awarded with a grant from the Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development. Wait a minute, are you living in Garfield? 
I was thrilled to learn about this great idea that CityLab came up with. 
From their website:
<<cityLAB believes that building small houses could make a big impact, and we will begin studying how to bring Tiny Houses to Garfield in late 2013. The idea of Tiny Houses was one outcome of our 2011 6% Place book, which examined how Garfield and Garfield residents could benefit from a systematic effort to grow the neighborhood’s creative capital and attract new residents. cityLAB has recently been awarded a grant by the Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development to bring this idea to fruition.>>Thus, a brainstorming session, open to the public, was organized for December 3rd 2013, at the Assemble Gallery. CityLab organized the event as a workshop in which resident in Garfield and anyone interested in tiny houses could express ideas, concerns and desires about the subject.

(above: one of the slides presented at the brainstorming session, on Dec. 3rd 2013)

The workshop, attended by many people (almost too many, for the space, but the theme was really appealing) was divide in three intuitive exercises. In the first, we had to fill a questionnaire, and possibly add comments, regarding the matter of "living small". We where assuming a space which is around or less 1000 SF, but there are no established rules, and very little precedents. We were asked questions regarding which density we would like around us, which public services we would prefer, near our place. But also: need of parking, or shared services, or needs for a vibrant community of other tiny houses vs a in-fill strategy, with our tiny house compressed between existing buildings, way bigger.

The second exercise was more involving. We were given 12 stickers in shape of stars, and a sheet with different possibilities to spend our stars. Many ideas had different "prices", according to the space, the facilities, the things we wanted to put in a house. This was to understand the must of a tiny house, according to us. What you can and cannot renounce to.

 

The third was definitely hands-on, and it was interesting to see how, despite the big number of participants and the little available space, people really produced great results. We were given scissors, glue, and sheets full of photos. We had to invent a sort of article for a magazine, imagining that our tiny house should have been the cover story of that. We had to come up with a title, tag line and lede (great word find out by Dutch MacDonald, from MAYA design, who was leading the experiment and workshop). Then, we had to select our photos according to the things or features we would like to see in our tiny house. This was a great way to collect data, involving people in finding and expressing their ideas.

Dutch, leading the workshop, from the top of a ladder!

The workshop was absolutely flexible and open to changes. It was really an experiment, brilliantly conducted by Dutch and the CityLab crew. People expressed their availability in DYI, or their concern about money, environmental issues. No one was an expert, but interesting points were brought to the table: economics, society, and physical environment were themes deeply discussed.I was so glad I attended it. And now I can't wait what's next. Everybody will be very excited about learning more, most of all the organizers of the event - that really want to test the field and see "what's the weather like" over Tiny Houses in Garfield.To me, more than learning more about the Tiny Houses Movement, the event was also a great lesson on how to involve people, and how to collect meaningful data. It was really entertaining, but full of information. I am sure we'll hear again about this project. I will follow them again, and will keep you posted.

Check their website, to learn more about others Garfield-based projects and experiments!
And here to learn more about the Tiny Houses Movement.

Buffalo: beyond Art

     I came to Buffalo for Thanksgiving, joining my American family, and we visited the Albright-Knox Art Gallery. 

The courtyard of the Gallery

Until November 2nd 2014 there is a special section dedicated to Anselm Kiefer, the German artist. It is called: "Anselm Kiefer: beyond landscape" and you can bet there is a whole world beyond his paintings. It is also a matter of dimension, being the paintings at the Albright-Knox so gigantic. That is not all, though.

     Everybody talks about the monumentality of Kiefer's work, and of his personality. Even the insert in The Buffalo News starts the review about the exhibition with the concept of monumentality. What I was actually surprised to feel, in front of the three gigantic paintings (each is hung in a dedicated room), was the smallness - of the spectator, that is totally defeated by the bigness of the pieces. And I think also of the smallness of the artist, while he is creating that. I try to imagine how could working on those paintings be, with your tools in your hands. I can figure the buckets, the brushes, very likely stairs or stools. Anything that could help to make the Art bigger, and the Man smaller.

     If you want to understand the composition of Kiefer's places, you cannot get too close to it. It is as if the painting itself is keeping you a bit far. Far enough to think about the meaning beyond the landscape. 

The three landscapes are very different: the Gallery guests the view of a <<post-apocalyptic field>> (Milky Way) but also a field of flowers (Der Morgenthau Plan) and a seascape from a private collection. The three of them are not connected, apart from the same level of power. <<To have more than one in the same room is like listening to many symphonies at the same time>> said the director Janne Sirén to Gusto's critic Colin Dabrowski. I totally agree: Kiefer is very explicit and powerful, in his art. There is no need or possibility to add anything more, most of all: another Kiefer!

These paintings are talking about history, Nature, human condition and philosophy. Kiefer said: <<True art does not portray beauty alone. Beauty requires a counterpart>>. 

And in Kiefer's art, which I believe is true art, the counterpart is given by the mix of wonder and somehow sadness, produced by getting "in touch" with the subjects. There is something beautiful and deeply uncanny in each piece. 

The field in Milky Way looks like painted in winter, which is also a winter of the senses, and of our thoughts. It reminds of a cemetery without graves, with no names. It's like the death of something that will never be reminded.

The seascape is framed with thick pieces of lead, and even if you don't know it's connected to the four rivers at the edges of Germany, the composition is really turbulent. There is only a moment of quiet, in the waves, represented by a flat spot in the paint. But that being just out the perfect center of the composition, it puts everything in movement again, with no rest for the eyes. 

The flowers field in The Morgenthau Plan is a bit upsetting as well, in a way. You feel like a bunny in the field; you really feel overcame by the nature, remaining almost breathless in the flowers. But you could also put it as a try to hide in the nature, to be protected by that, even if in its fragility.

The monumentality (of Nature and History) and the smallness (of the humankind). These opposites fighting, creating a sense of vertigo, are the counterpart I can see in the beautiful Kiefer's art.

photo of the painting by Kiefer

from www.alaintruong.com  

Once out of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, we just had to cross the street to reach the Burchfield Penney Art Center. Such a concentration of art reminds me of capitals in Europe, like Paris. And I wish Buffalo to keep the good work up!

At the Art Center we visited the temporary exhibition Art in Craft Media 2013 (until January 19, 2014). It was a juried presentation of art made of wood, clay, fiber, glass and metal. The quality of each piece was stunning: all the artists were clearly masters of their art.

I loved the architecture of the space, so complex, maybe almost too defined in the shape of the areas, overall well proportioned. I remembered when the MAXXI, the Museum of Art in the XXI century, opened in Rome, couple years ago. It was designed by Zaha Hadid and many were the critiques against her job. It was considered to be not a museum, but a piece of art itself. People were saying it was impossible to display pieces of art, because of the exaggerate complexity of the space. They were saying: it's impossible to hung anything on the walls! But in the case of the space where the Art in Craft 2013 is hosted, there is a big difference: the areas are geometrically complex, defined by white walls, with high ceilings, but it is still flexible. The proof was given by the different sections arranged, one for each material. 

I really enjoyed being able to focus on each section, as if it was an exhibition inside the exhibition, and look at the pieces. 

Some were aesthetically gorgeous, transmitting a joy of life with no comparison. Others were deeply meaningful, expressing sadness or happiness. No piece was merely self-referring. No one. And ending the sequence with the great installation by Ben Perrone with the video of the interview to the author, is the proof that the exhibition is not only about aesthetics, but about ethics. His piece was the "War ongoing Project". These his words for the exhibit: “I proposed to fill the Media room with thousands of small black bags hung from individual filaments at different heights from a foot above ground level toward the ceiling. In every bag would be the names of the war dead, from the present wars to past wars. The bags are metaphor for the life unlived” (see more on buffalorising.com)

  Each bag contains a name of a dead soldier.

Every bag, is a life.

Ben Perrone video-interview

We started our morning with Kiefer, and his desire to go beyond the landscape, since beauty needs something more, and different. We ended our tour with another great proof that Art can, and has the duty, to go way beyond the media.

I recognize this is not always easy to achieve, but still is what we should always aim for, even as spectators. Because even if we are very small in front of the Art, we are there to judge.
And it is also because we watch art that... Art is Art. No Art without a public.

I would like to end this review with a request: do not accept art in a passive way. Try to be active, supporting the good and meaningful art, even just by reading about exhibitions in your town, and possibly by visiting them. Do not accept anything that goes: be incisive and always try to find a meaning in what you see. You don't have to be an expert, you just have to open your eyes and souls, and be very receptive. Do not let others be spectators on your behalf: go out, and try to learn from what you see (in museums, but in regular life as well). And if you feel there is nothing to learn from, or nothing to think about -and after- seeing a piece, then you'll know that's not a good piece of art.

Go beyond, always!