exploring the intersection of social/queer culture and human and more-than-human’s beneficial impact on conservation… which is to say, how queer-theory human relations and expression with/through nature, impacts on policy making regarding conservationism.
NOTES
Fairytales:
Debts. Transformation. Chaos. Story. Spells. Alternate parallel reality. Patience. Ageing. Love. Death. Finding your own tribe. Story telling as medicine [Women Who Run With Wolves by Estés]. Fear. Initiation. Self-preservation. Escape from danger. Metaphor. Symbolism. Nature. Animals. Childhood. Ghosts.
Potential Exhibition Format: A room full of story elements. No clear narrative. As the viewer moves around the room they are bombarded with images and sounds and hints and song. Audible and visual poetry.
They can take different routes not only around the room, but also within the different ‘hubs’ in the room.
- Say there is a display with a headset, this hub can be navigated in a nonlinear way: small 3D pieces mounted to the wall above a box, that contains different elements that can be viewed more easily by looking at mirrors that reveals the artwork, than by looking at the artwork itself (i.e. illustrated papercut scenes) in a complex maze of mirrors.
- Or another hub might consist of wall mounted pictures arranged in a victorian gallery style, so there’s no clear way to ‘read’ them.
- Another hub might have books that are afixed to the wall and fan open so the viewer can turn the pages and view many different illustrations at a time in many different books.
- Another hub might be a visual collage on a wall, scrapbook-style, which is arranged differently at each outing/exhibit.
- Another hub might look like an archive from a different world (the world of our exhibition). Items labeled as if by a scientist/explorer. (see Jenny Odell’s 2015 project: https://www.jennyodell.com/bso.html ) I like her use of QR codes- we could use this to link to audio. Possibly a little outdated, though it has been said the QR codes are back in vogue since COVID, so they might still be relevant??… thinking out loud. ;-P
The various hubs appear to be elements of a story. Maybe there are repeating characters across the various hubs (or throughout the exhibition) and so the viewer finds themself searching for a clear story that moves through the whole exhibition, but is disappointed, or feels constantly alluded, as if they have failed to ‘get it’.
Note: After writing the above, I have read the essay ‘Thinking Inside the Box’ by Stephanie Bowry. Very relevant:
“speaks of worlds beyond worlds as well as worlds within worlds.” p140
“actually directs its audience to the possibility of worlds beyond the senses, and hence to worlds unknown.” p.139
“through the conduit of the miniature, ‘a narrow gate, opens up an entire world’ (Bachelard 1994 [1958]:155).” p.137
Kunsthammer, or ‘art chamber’ p. 129
Kunstschrank – literally ‘art cupboard’ p.130
Boxes: A Field Guide [pub. 2020]. ‘Thinking Inside the Box’ by Bowry. p.136
Brain Dump:
Bears, a girl, trees, transformation, autumn, crows/magpies/ravens/corvids, goats, songbirds, beetles, flowers, nuts, shells, weeds, rotting fruit, mushrooms and fungi, horses, foxes, deer, owls, feathers, moths, hybrid human/animals, corn, brambles, rose hips, newts, frogs, toads, water plants, seaweed, seals, rabbits, cattle, bees, candles, horseshoes, bones, apple tree/branches, dried grasses/seed heads, … tbc.
Research ideas/inspo:
Donna Haraway. Cyborg Manifesto (and other works).
Judith Butler -queer theory and feminist ecology.
George Monbiot – Rewilding
Boxes: A Field Guide. Edited by Bauer, Schlünder & Rentetzi. Pub. 2020.
