In Städsbørough to present a paper on The Master’s influence upon their practice, two workers attempt to make multiple rendezvous throughout the week from 27 Apr to 03 May 2009. Both newbies in the city and armed with incomplete and nonobjective maps, the workers schedule meetings at what would be a city’s archetypal points of interest:
read more…

conducting bodies, con’t:

i am starting a drawing right now that is what i am referring to as ‘a non euclidean stroll amongst conducting bodies’, it is a series of perspectival views that pick out synecdochic components of the spaces (eg. a private box for the theater, a materials storage locker for the studio) and place them in relationships through which they blend into one another, as in a pictorial cognitive map, and are then given spatial potential by a series of punctuations and prepositions.

i am starting by just composing sketch thumbnail views and then constructing them on a single sheet and developing their relationships. i see these moments as anchor points of not only the space they describe but also a series of stations in the building that can be seen from pertinent other bodies and linked spatially, visually, materially, etc. these points are also where synaesthetic suites coalesce. each sketch i put up will have the prompt and qualitative description of the space i was trying to approach.

chronology, geography, situation. does the wall-map fold together these three concerns? i believe it should be a conflation of situation (gallery, immediate locale) and geography (the representation of abstract relationships, the north american city states). chronology is left to the narrative and the formatting of materials. situation is the binding agent as it should be, that ties geography to chronology through the wall-map. however, the wall-map, needing a primarily geographic status in order to communicate with idiots who do not know where groom, tx is, should then indirectly inform situational concerns about the formatting of pieces on the wall. in other words, the wall map should not just be a throwaway plotting of points, it should also shake out a set of values for how work is placed on the wall in order to infuse the chronology with a broader relevance.

i have spent quite a bit of time researching ways that we might both determine and then link (or vice versa) our stations geographically. i am not sure whether amsterdam and publius would be travelling on foot, bicycle, veg-diesel-powered scooter, or hoverbus (or whether you were anticipating group movement or sometimes intersecting individual movements). i thought we might be looking at a more (what we might now call) secondary or abject movement web. two systems that i have looked into are raillines and power transmission corridors. there is not a very condensed, coherent, or affordable source for plotting out routes using these two modes so i have begun using the online resource of usgs maps at the usgs website. you can use their map viewer and turn off all layers save the usgs quadrangles under topographic maps. these maps contain rail, power transmission, and other possible routes (waterways, state roads, and pipelines). so far i have determined a route that may have allowed amsterdam to reach remingtonton from atlanta. i am not sure whether the bulk of the documented travels should occur later when publius busts out of manhattanville. maybe they meet up in arlingtonton? what have you been cooking up? do you have any liturgical criteria for the picaresque sequence of stations that are to document this cook’d up realm?

the roadmap, one year later…
read more…

read more…

Tonight I scanned…
read more…