A few viewers have referenced snakes and serpents when talking about this piece. This pleases me as I have in some ways been equating lines, strings, creeks, roads and snakes in my work and using them to reference each other.
intent
This piece was of course the main impetus for the installation. It is not, however, in the form that I thought it would be. I was envisioning a path that the viewer would walk through not a line that they would walk around. In the end this required more material than I was willing to remove from the site. The main intent, however, was to alter the visitor’s movement through the space and to make them conscious or aware of that movement. After watching people move through the gallery I think this was a success.
My other intent was to create a beautiful clean line with the material. I really wanted to create this stark contrast between natural material and an institutional space. I’m not sure I fully understand what that contrast is about - perhaps this play with words that I’m exploring - place, displaced, misplaced. I feel like I came close to the mark in this regard. If I had it to do over again I would have buffed and polished the floor before the installation. Now that I have experience I also think that I might be able to get a cleaner/smoother edge.
I debated how to begin and end the line. I really liked the taper that I initially made in the beginning but wasn’t sure if I wanted to reference a snake in such an obvious way. In the end I’m glad that I kept it.
changes
It is interesting how ideas transform when you begin interacting with materials within a space. When I began the material explorations I was working with the the rocks and grit removed during the process of acquiring my clay. I experimented with firing the material to achieve different color changes etc. One of the things that came out of that early play was the appeal of the high contrast created by the smoothness of the clay itself and the texture of the removed material. It was that contrast which led to the idea of remolding the clay into smooth stones.
Making an installation with that removed material was not realistic, however. I would have to dig material for this express purpose. I was not aware of how much that disruption bothered me until I began. My compromise is that I needed to be able to return the material to the site and so firing or altering the material in any way was unacceptable.
This is one of the interesting things that I have learned in my research on Richard Long. Even in the beginning of his career he was often very aware of the disruption to a site that his work caused, he was conscious of the displacement of the material that he brought into a gallery. He made a conscious effort to distinguish himself from the land art that was happening in the United States at the time.
He has seemed to go to even greater lengths in his later career. He goes so far as to completely de-install many works after they are documented so that pilgrimages to his sites don’t cause further disruptions if his locations are not remote enough to discourage visits.
I’m not sure how I will approach a project like this again given the opportunity. When is it okay to displace material and when do I think it is going too far?
I love this image as it is a clear documentation of the contrast of materials in my molded stones and the displaced material. It also clearly documents how I elevated each of the stones so that they seem to hover or float above the line. Of note — there are eighteen stones in the piece, one for every year that I lived in Appalachia.
deinstallation
I will be removing all of the non clay material from the gallery and returning it to the creek, restoring the site to the best of my ability. I have not decided if I will keep the stones or return them to wet clay and remake them later if needed. I will keep them for a time, but if I don’t get the opportunity to reuse them soon I think it would be best to return them to the clay pile.