Surface Shift by Alana Fahey

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

SUR SH FA I FT CE

05 PREFACE

06 PHASE ONE (1) An introduction to surface and an exploration of Testing Grounds through observation.

08 PHASE TWO (2)

SURFACE SHIFT

An activation of surface via small insertions and experiments.

10 PHASE THREE (3)

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

Proposal, planning and intervention into site.

16 PHASE FOUR (4) Completion and observation of the project in site. Consideration in respect to ‘interiority’ and inhabitation.

19 BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONTENTS

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

SURFACE SHIFT

(1) A frame bound by a collective of existing structures and visual cues. (2)

The removal of matter within a frame in which depth is constrained either physically or by time.

Collection of removed matter.

(3)

What began as an encounter with light passing through voids in the surface of a timber pallet has become an investigation into the notion of the intangible and negative space. A site-specific project within Testing Grounds, ‘Surface Shift’ consists of two (2) interventions; each employing a process of removal in order to reveal both surface and structure. This process asks us to consider how surface may be altered visually; through changes in arrangement and form. The project intends to test ways of delineating ‘interior’ space via a ‘curation’ of the existing site. This includes the initial act of removal and the collective arrangement of the interventions within Testing Grounds. ‘Surface Shift’ is named as such in reference to both the act of removal and the physical shift in the surface to be encountered as a result of this act.

PREFACE

With emphasis placed on the notion of surface, initial observations of Testing Grounds were very much focused on isolated, two dimensional surfaces. At this stage, photography served as a method of documentation as well as allowing thinking to occur without altering the site. The conceptual starting point to the project came in capturing light passing through the voids in the surface of the timber pallets; initiating a discussion around the notion of an intangible surface and negative space. Fascinated with the way light eluded to surface that was missing, the initial aim of the project was to generate the same encounter, perhaps on a larger scale. Moving into the physical territory of working with the site, preliminary interventions focused on ways of manifesting the negative space within surfaces that were often introduced. Rubbing.

Projecting. It became clear however, that these processes were offering a representation of existing examples of negative space. For the intended encounter to be successful, the project needed to create negative space.

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

Moulding.

SURFACE SHIFT

PHASE ONE (1)

PHASE TWO (2)

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

SURFACE SHIFT

Due to the nature of digging on site, the beginning stages of the proposal were about designing for the unknown. Previously collected imagery of support systems, connection details and investigations into their workings were invaluable resources at this stage as the project relied entirely on precedent examples in order to speculate. Similarly, documentation of existing site conditions allowed for further understanding of the site in terms of its arrangement. Where the negative space sat within the arrangements of Testing Grounds allowed for analysis to begin in terms of locating the project.

its marking of the steps taken.

Being interested in modes of compression in order to support the inner walls of the hole; initial schematics for a structure involved plywood walls and galvanised steel pipes. The ‘unknown’ part of the project meant that the structure needed to exist entirely within the walls of the intervention as structural items such as stakes would be useless if the process of digging was to reveal concrete. The plywood was to be inserted into the hole and the pipes were to extend across opposing sides and work in compression in order to hold everything in place.

‘Their transparency lies in the fact that there is nothing to see in them other than exactly what one sees.’

While there were speculations being made, it was imperative to the project that work on site could commence as soon as possible.

(3) Collection of removed matter. While in production, active research into the minimalists, conceptualists and land artists was undertaken; with a particular interest in materiality and the notion of things being seen for what they are.

Gilles A. Tiberghien, Land Art, 66.

Although initial plans for an internal structure were in reference to scaffolding and intended to be recognised as such, it was found that the process of removal was creating surface as well as structure. The project was very much about the actions being undertaken rather than the materials being used to achieve it. With the surrounding ground working in compression and supporting the hole physically as well as defining the inner negative space, the decision was made to scrap plans for an introduced structure. The project became an arrangement or curation of site. ‘The work is not put in a place, it is that place.’

PHASE THREE (3)

Michael Heizer.

SURFACE SHIFT

The project was very much about experimenting with the process of removal, and the beginning of the project’s abstract is very deliberate in

(2) The removal of matter within a frame in which depth is constrained either physically or by time.

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

The secondary purpose of the structure was to support the project conceptually by defining the negative space within.

(1) A frame bound by a collective of existing structures and visual cues.

SURFACE SHIFT HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

Initial schematics for an interior structure to support the hole.

PHASE THREE (3)

A In plan view, interest was with the space within the arrangement of Testing Grounds. This was refined to the regions within the modules of pallets; both as a way of using the existing site as a frame, but also from a safety point of view.

A: Location of ‘Surface Shift A’. B: Location of ‘Surface Shift B’.

Working literally in site, the site specificity for me came through in the framing of the individual interventions and the way the site dictated the parameters of the project. Although approximate measurements can be given as 1000mm x 1200 mm, what is important is the relationship between the edge of the surrounding site and the edge of the intervention walls.

PHASE THREE (3)

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

SURFACE SHIFT

SURFACE SHIFT HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

Above: Isometric drawing at 1:20 outlining the process of removal during the production of ‘Surface Shift A’. Right: Isometric drawing at 1:20 outlining the process of removal during the production of ‘Surface Shift B’.

PHASE THREE (3)

SURFACE SHIFT HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

While the initial aim of the project in terms of generating an encounter was to elude to the intangible surface of what had been; the project has become so much more than that. The uncovering of surface asks for a consideration of the boundary walls of the interventions, which successfully defines the negative space within. Individually, the act of removal became a method of defining space; and these interventions could be both documented from the inside and physically inhabited. Which is exciting in relation to interiority. Something created via a process of removal was activated by collecting debris and people on site.

As a collective project in Testing Grounds there is a conversation to be had in relation to the boundary of the project as a whole. If territory can be defined by the way people move through a space, perhaps the project’s presence on site will alter the way people navigate Testing Grounds, and therefore define its own space within the site.

‘A territory is the delimitation of a milieu in accordance with the force of a rhythm, it is the rhythmic alliance of a limited milieu and a restricted range of bodies and body movements.’ Elizabeth Grosz, Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth, 47.

PHASE FOUR (4)

HOW TO ENCOUNTER SURFACE (1) & STRUCTURE (2)

The collection of matter was something that was only considered towards the end of the project; until then, dirt was stored in bags on site. Although it was unfeasible to present an open pile of dirt in contrast to where it had been removed, there is a definite transformation from compact ground to collected matter, which comments on the manipulation of surface. It is also appropriate to consider the artefacts that were found throughout the process, and acknowledge the removal as a collection of things rather than a singular entity in itself.

SURFACE SHIFT

PHASE FOUR (4)

Alberro, Alexander, and Blake Stimson. Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999, Currid, Brian, Gerti Fietzek, and Gregor Stemmrich. Having Been Said: Writings & Interviews of Lawrence Weiner 19682003. Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2004. Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. London: L. Erlbaum, 1986. Grosz, Elizabeth A. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Kastner, Jeffrey, and Brian Wallis. Land and Environmental Art. London: Phaidon Press, 1998. Krauss, Rosalind E. Passages in Modern Sculpture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981. Lippard, Lucy R. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Sullivan, Simon. Art Encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought Beyond Representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Tiberghien, Gilles A. Land Art. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995. Weiner, Lawrence. Statements. New York: Louis Kellner Foundation, 1968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALANA FAHEY

RU S H SA F TF I EC