soÖl--idDdari@t@!y

About soÖl--idDdari@t@!y

https://www.spacesofsolidarity.de

Posts by :

Dresden, Neumarkt, 2020

In this filmproject I want to question the (in-)vulnerability of antisolidary architecture and its antisolidariy users as part of the present society.

The Neumarkt as a central place in Dresden, reconstructed on a baroque condition and brought forth pegida, also shows the relation between the political development and the architectural reconstruction as a site of identification. Therefor the place could be representative for the political and architectural reconstruction in Dresden and moreover Germany (GDR + FDR) from 1945 on.

Its 3 phases contain:

1 baroque city : : 2 destroyed : : 3 inner city vacuum

_

neumarkt_09.06.2020scenery

qqq

_

s c r i p t

Historically the Neumarkt was planned and constructed in 1720 as a baroque residence city (phase 1). In the econd world war, February 1945 bombings destroyed (phase2 ) also the Neumarkt. There was hardly no common identification and recognition of the German guilt and offence in the war and though no acceptance, that the place had been destroyed. It’s ruins stayed for the time of the GDR and the ruined Frauenkirche became a war memorial. A witness of time called the site an inner city vacuum (phase 3). From 1989 on there was more financial capacity and political willingness to rebuilt the Neumarkt. At first the Frauenkirche reopened in 2005, and the surrounded buildings, up to 90% financed by private investors, are under reconstruction. The houses are taken up by exclusive shops, cafes, flats and hotels. From 2014 on there are weekly pegida demonstrations at the Neumarkt, this group of people start to identify with the scenery.

So what happened through its reconstruction to that place? Most of the exclusive buildings and space became inaccessible for the inhabitants of the city ((disneyland)). In the private investors meaning the place need to become even more exclusive to regenerate their investments. The baroque facades are expressing this exclusiveness as a scenery for patriotic identification and though antisolidary actions and opinions. The scenery appears as a built border depriving the place of its public diversity.

As Juliet Flower MacCannel says, the scenery masks the need for cities to adapt to the current conditions. They are becoming sterile cities which are denying a common vulnerability and avoiding the possibility of openness to history. That could mean, that places like the Neumarkt have to be built on the expense of others weakness and vulnerability and on fear as the opposite of solidarity and openess to history. It makes users of the place feel invulnerable. The architecture is discriminating.

Speculative part ((this might not necessarily come true)): At the Neumarkt the past is built as the present and future time. There simply is no independent future and present, but there is a time loop within phase 1-3 of the most recent past. That means rebuilding phase 1, includes the denied and potentially invisible phases 2+3 aswell. Initiated by political changes the 3 phases are causing a time loop. From now on there is no future for the Neumarkt, its architecture, its people and its time, expecting the next phase of the loop. For the architecture the loop means, that the borders are going to be destroyed, vacuumed and rebuilt over and over again. They are getting empowered ideological and virtual as transparent, impermeable borders and physically made out of modern materials. At some point they could probably not be destroyed or repaired again. The Neumarkts architecture turns out as a more and more exclusive place. Its architecture is enabled to create a future. For the people the loop means, that they are generally disconnected to the future but moreover loosing their connection to the present time. In its exclusiveness the Neumarkt is not accessible for most of the people anymore. While they are getting younger, the architecture is ageing. But as part of the loop, the society recreates the past again and again. Those people who can identify with phase 1 are making profit out of the loop. The pegida people who are demonstrating for political change, the past, are at the same time forcing phase 2 of the loop. But what happens when through their political change the Neumarkt is destroyed again?

After looping again and again, the question arises how to escape the loop to create a real future. ((we want a future)) At first, there could be no past, no phase 1. Second there could be no architecture, no phase 2. And at last there could be no people, no phase 3. But there might be a more common solution.

beke

Dresden, Neumarkt, 2020

In this filmproject I want to question the (in-)vulnerability of antisolidary architecture and its antisolidariy users as part of the present society.

The Neumarkt as a central place in Dresden, reconstructed on a baroque condition and brought forth pegida, also shows the relation between the political development and the architectural reconstruction as a site of identification. Therefor the place could be representative for the political and architectural reconstruction in Dresden and moreover Germany (GDR + FDR) from 1945 on. Its 3 phases contain:

1 baroque city : : 2 destroyed : : 3 inner city vacuum

_

neumarkt_09.06.2020scenery

qqq

_

s c r i p t

Historically the Neumarkt was planned and constructed in 1720 as a baroque residence city (phase 1). In the econd world war, February 1945 bombings destroyed (phase2 ) also the Neumarkt. There was hardly no common identification and recognition of the German guilt and offence in the war and though no acceptance, that the place had been destroyed. It’s ruins stayed for the time of the GDR and the ruined Frauenkirche became a war memorial. A witness of time called the site an inner city vacuum (phase 3). From 1989 on there was more financial capacity and political willingness to rebuilt the Neumarkt. At first the Frauenkirche reopened in 2005, and the surrounded buildings, up to 90% financed by private investors, are under reconstruction. The houses are taken up by exclusive shops, cafes, flats and hotels. From 2014 on there are weekly pegida demonstrations at the Neumarkt, this group of people start to identify with the scenery.

So what happened through its reconstruction to that place? Most of the exclusive buildings and space became inaccessible for the inhabitants of the city ((disneyland)). In the private investors meaning the place need to become even more exclusive to regenerate their investments. The baroque facades are expressing this exclusiveness as a scenery for patriotic identification and though antisolidary actions and opinions. The scenery appears as a built border depriving the place of its public diversity.

As Juliet Flower MacCannel says, the scenery masks the need for cities to adapt to the current conditions. They are becoming sterile cities which are denying a common vulnerability and avoiding the possibility of openness to history. That could mean, that places like the Neumarkt have to be built on the expense of others weakness and vulnerability and on fear as the opposite of solidarity and openess to history. It makes users of the place feel invulnerable. The architecture is discriminating.

Speculative part ((this might not necessarily come true)): At the Neumarkt the past is built as the present and future time. There simply is no independent future and present, but there is a time loop within phase 1-3 of the most recent past. That means rebuilding phase 1, includes the denied and potentially invisible phases 2+3 aswell. Initiated by political changes the 3 phases are causing a time loop. From now on there is no future for the Neumarkt, its architecture, its people and its time, expecting the next phase of the loop. For the architecture the loop means, that the borders are going to be destroyed, vacuumed and rebuilt over and over again. They are getting empowered ideological and virtual as transparent, impermeable borders and physically made out of modern materials. At some point they could probably not be destroyed or repaired again. The Neumarkts architecture turns out as a more and more exclusive place. Its architecture is enabled to create a future. For the people the loop means, that they are generally disconnected to the future but moreover loosing their connection to the present time. In its exclusiveness the Neumarkt is not accessible for most of the people anymore. While they are getting younger, the architecture is ageing. But as part of the loop, the society recreates the past again and again. Those people who can identify with phase 1 are making profit out of the loop. The pegida people who are demonstrating for political change, the past, are at the same time forcing phase 2 of the loop. But what happens when through their political change the Neumarkt is destroyed again?

After looping again and again, the question arises how to escape the loop to create a real future. ((we want a future)) At first, there could be no past, no phase 1. Second there could be no architecture, no phase 2. And at last there could be no people, no phase 3. But there might be a more common solution.

beke

Tree Neighborhood Museum

flocke

Berlin, 07.07.2071. The Inca people believed, to make a society work, you have to exchange with your local neighborhood and nature, and you have to encounter different points of views. With (still unknown) star investigations they created the encounter algorithm.

It was discovered as a complex Quipu (a node writing with multi-digit numbers in decimal system) close to Machu Picchu in 2027. It has been transformed into the Tree Neighborhood Museum which has meanwhile spread worldwide………..

Tree Neigbourhood Museums collect memories (of inhabitants & environment), share knowledge (from generation to generation), transform this into space (expand spacial fragments) and do it again and again.

How do these spaces look like? This depends on their neighbors, nature and environment. Each one has a unique part of neighborhood’s memory, and that memory is also built in the present.

Tree Neighborhood Museum

flocke

Berlin, 07.07.2071. The Inca people believed, to make a society work, you have to exchange with your local neighborhood and nature, and you have to encounter different points of views. With (still unknown) star investigations they created the encounter algorithm.

It was discovered as a complex Quipu (a node writing with multi-digit numbers in decimal system) close to Machu Picchu in 2027. It has been transformed into the Tree Neighborhood Museum which has meanwhile spread worldwide………..

Tree Neigbourhood Museums collect memories (of inhabitants & environment), share knowledge (from generation to generation), transform this into space (expand spacial fragments) and do it again and again.

How do these spaces look like? This depends on their neighbors, nature and environment. Each one has a unique part of neighborhood’s memory, and that memory is also built in the present.

livingroomless city

livingroomless city

Berlin 2070. The city got dense, Berlin changed a lot since 2020. Back then the city was lacking 150 00 flats, so people started acting and built those missing places for themselves. Flats got separated, hallways, staircases, living rooms, all vanished.
The short movie „Livingroomless city“ is a future speculation of Berlin. How are our struggles embodied on a spatial basis and in what sense can uncertain times change our understanding of solidarity.
„Livingroomless city“ introduces a non-technological future. Due to Berlins growing density public spaces no longer function as a background of the city but become an active part of our everyday-life. The future being shown is not wireless. Cables are representing undefined boundaries between domestic and public space and the complex dynamics of a dense city, its interdependencies and connections.

The film is based on our approach to the term „solidarity“ during the summer term 2020. Using various experiments in an urban context, we aimed to find out how solidarity is embodied in public places. As the center for our analysis, we focused on Wilhelmshavenerstraße in Moabit, Berlin. Among other streets in Moabit, here you can find „niches“ between parking lots, separated from the street by bollards and by tree beds. Sometimes you find a bench, a water pump and bikes stands there. In order to build a critical understanding within the term solidarity and public spaces, three tools were developed.
001 Analysis As a first step, we spend a week drawing in the street with the help of a drawing board. The focus was put on the behaviour of people, architecture and nature in relation to this specific public places. Questions about the Recht auf Stadt, the banalization of public infrastructure and the accepted social norms were discussed. 002 Care After taking our bodies in space and spending the first week observing, we took an active role in the next step: With a mobile-workshop we spent one week in the street confronting some of the issues that we became aware of the past days such as reparing a bench, creating a motorcycle parking slot, cleaning up etc. Reflections on responsibility, protocols of care and different social/cultural disciplines were discussed – Can everybody inhabit those places? Is care related to shame? 003 Action Finally, we specifically observed ourselves and our behaviour on site. We spent three days with a Mobile-cart, trying to embrace certain behaviours which are not normally practiced on this places. The Mobile-cart we developed was used for transport, and could be converted into a dining table and a projection screen. Especially questions about negotiation and justification came up and built the base for our narrative speculation on the future of such public places in Berlin 2070.

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.04.57

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

action01

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.43.12

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.45.12

Paula Granda Ojeda and Polly Bruchlos

Berlin 2070. The city got dense, Berlin changed a lot since 2020. Back then the city was lacking 150 00 flats, so people started acting and built those missing places for themselves. Flats got separated, hallways, staircases, living rooms, all vanished.
The short movie „Livingroomless city“ is a future speculation of Berlin. How are our struggles embodied on a spatial basis and in what sense can uncertain times change our understanding of solidarity.
„Livingroomless city“ introduces a non-technological future. Due to Berlins growing density public spaces no longer function as a background of the city but become an active part of our everyday-life. The future being shown is not wireless. Cables are representing undefined boundaries between domestic and public space and the complex dynamics of a dense city, its interdependencies and connections.

The film is based on our approach to the term „solidarity“ during the summer term 2020. Using various experiments in an urban context, we aimed to find out how solidarity is embodied in public places. As the center for our analysis, we focused on Wilhelmshavenerstraße in Moabit, Berlin. Among other streets in Moabit, here you can find „niches“ between parking lots, separated from the street by bollards and by tree beds. Sometimes you find a bench, a water pump and bikes stands there. In order to build a critical understanding within the term solidarity and public spaces, three tools were developed.
001 Analysis As a first step, we spend a week drawing in the street with the help of a drawing board. The focus was put on the behaviour of people, architecture and nature in relation to this specific public places. Questions about the Recht auf Stadt, the banalization of public infrastructure and the accepted social norms were discussed. 002 Care After taking our bodies in space and spending the first week observing, we took an active role in the next step: With a mobile-workshop we spent one week in the street confronting some of the issues that we became aware of the past days such as reparing a bench, creating a motorcycle parking slot, cleaning up etc. Reflections on responsibility, protocols of care and different social/cultural disciplines were discussed – Can everybody inhabit those places? Is care related to shame? 003 Action Finally, we specifically observed ourselves and our behaviour on site. We spent three days with a Mobile-cart, trying to embrace certain behaviours which are not normally practiced on this places. The Mobile-cart we developed was used for transport, and could be converted into a dining table and a projection screen. Especially questions about negotiation and justification came up and built the base for our narrative speculation on the future of such public places in Berlin 2070.

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.04.57

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

polly+pauli

action01

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.43.12

Bildschirmfoto 2020-10-15 um 16.45.12

Paula Granda Ojeda
and
Polly Bruchlos

traicing the void

The project deals with the typology of the “void”- free spaces that have no prescribed function or have lost their function over time and are freely accessible to everyone. Napoleonkai is a void in the north of Berlin, which was taken over by graffiti artists and has now firmly established itself as one of the 12 “Hall of Fames” (legal graffiti walls) in the Berlin graffiti scene.

The film tells the story of a city that has lost its voids due to rapid growth and densification. Through the eyes and the narrative of the protagonist, the cultural value of the void is visualized and their spatial and cultural qualities and potentials are underlined using the example of Napoleonkai. The protagonist raises the question of the necessity of tough and resilient spaces that are open to appropriation. At the same time she questions spaces that are thoroughly designed, where people encounter a pre-given function and have to submit to a certain layer.

HOW IMPORTANT ARE VOIDS IN A CITY?
DO WE NEED SPACES THAT ARE UNSHAPED?
WHAT IF EVERY SPACE IN THE CITY IS DESIGNED?
CAN VOIDS BECOME SPACES OF SOLIDARITY?
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE APPROPRIATION OF SPACE
IN TERMS OF SOLIDARITY?
HOW DO PEOPLE ENCOUNTER IN VOIDS?
HOW ARE (SHARED) NORMS AND VALUES COMMUNICATED
WHILE APPROPRIATING A SPACE?

These questions formed the base of the project, followed by several studies that were made on the side: Through an artistic intervention, inspired by the „Garbage Wall“ of the artist Gordon Matta Clark, the project explored the extent to which values such as tolerance, acceptance, diversity, solidarity and a potential for appropriation exist and are practiced in the place. Parallel to that, interviews were conducted and observations of happenings at the site were outlined. The results were visually recorded and illustrated in a fanzine – the ‚Napoleonzine‘.

napoleonzine1

napoleonzine2

napoleonzine3

napoleonzine4

napoleonzine5

napoleonzine6

napoleonzine7

napoleonzine8

napoleonzine9

napoleonzine10

napoleonzine11

napoleonzine12

napoleonzine13

napoleonzine14

napoleonzine15

gordonmattaclark1

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment1

gordonmattaclark3

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment2

gordonmattaclark4

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment4

traicing the void

The project deals with the typology of the “void”- free spaces that have no prescribed function or have lost their function over time and are freely accessible to everyone. Napoleonkai is a void in the north of Berlin, which was taken over by graffiti artists and has now firmly established itself as one of the 12 “Hall of Fames” (legal graffiti walls) in the Berlin graffiti scene.

The film tells the story of a city that has lost its voids due to rapid growth and densification. Through the eyes and the narrative of the protagonist, the cultural value of the void is visualized and their spatial and cultural qualities and potentials are underlined using the example of Napoleonkai. The protagonist raises the question of the necessity of tough and resilient spaces that are open to appropriation. At the same time she questions spaces that are thoroughly designed, where people encounter a pre-given function and have to submit to a certain layer.

HOW IMPORTANT ARE VOIDS IN A CITY?
DO WE NEED SPACES THAT ARE UNSHAPED?
WHAT IF EVERY SPACE IN THE CITY IS DESIGNED?
CAN VOIDS BECOME SPACES OF SOLIDARITY?
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE APPROPRIATION OF SPACE
IN TERMS OF SOLIDARITY?
HOW DO PEOPLE ENCOUNTER IN VOIDS?
HOW ARE (SHARED) NORMS AND VALUES COMMUNICATED
WHILE APPROPRIATING A SPACE?

These questions formed the base of the project, followed by several studies that were made on the side: Through an artistic intervention, inspired by the „Garbage Wall“ of the artist Gordon Matta Clark, the project explored the extent to which values such as tolerance, acceptance, diversity, solidarity and a potential for appropriation exist and are practiced in the place. Parallel to that, interviews were conducted and observations of happenings at the site were outlined. The results were visually recorded and illustrated in a fanzine – the ‚Napoleonzine‘.

napoleonzine1

napoleonzine2

napoleonzine3

napoleonzine4

napoleonzine5

napoleonzine6

napoleonzine7

napoleonzine8

napoleonzine9

napoleonzine10

napoleonzine11

napoleonzine12

napoleonzine13

napoleonzine14

napoleonzine15

gordonmattaclark1

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment1

gordonmattaclark3

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment2

gordonmattaclark4

(c) garbage wall von gordon matta clark

reenectment4

Julia Hartmeyer

livingroomless city, dresden, neumarkt, 2020, traicingthevoid, tree neighbourhood museum, the encounter machine, chain prometheus

Julia Hartmeyer

livingroomless city, dresden, neumarkt, 2020, traicingthevoid, tree neighbourhood museum, the encounter machine, chain prometheus

The Encounter Machine

As encounter is the basis of solidarity i was curious about the different ways it is already taking place in my neighborhood and the residents opinions about how we should or shouldnʼt come together. Therefore i knocked on some doors and made interviews with the people. I used video making as a tool for real-time encounter. On the other hand through the process I could get a new insight on the appropriation of the courtyard through the everyday practices of the residents.

In my narrative speculation i reflect on the spatial dimension of encounter. The other sources
of solidarity are interdependence, shared norms and values and shared struggles. One of my struggles was that i was not able to reach out to some mothers. As i am also a woman the head of the family was not allowing me to have a chat with his wife in their flat. in this case my encounter tool, the film making, was facing limitations.

What if the courtyard becomes an encounter machine?
What if everyday practices like washing clothes or having a meal are in accessible spaces like the roof top or even in the courtyard where everyone can see eachother and gather?

In the end my goal was not to build anything in the courtyard. Rather i plan to screen the pro- ject video on the huge „Giebelwand“, creating an event for possible encounters.

The Encounter Machine

As encounter is the basis of solidarity i was curious about the different ways it is already taking place in my neighborhood and the residents opinions about how we should or shouldnʼt come together. Therefore i knocked on some doors and made interviews with the people. I used video making as a tool for real-time encounter. On the other hand through the process I could get a new insight on the appropriation of the courtyard through the everyday practices of the residents.

In my narrative speculation i reflect on the spatial dimension of encounter. The other sources
of solidarity are interdependence, shared norms and values and shared struggles. One of my struggles was that i was not able to reach out to some mothers. As i am also a woman the head of the family was not allowing me to have a chat with his wife in their flat. in this case my encounter tool, the film making, was facing limitations.

What if the courtyard becomes an encounter machine?
What if everyday practices like washing clothes or having a meal are in accessible spaces like the roof top or even in the courtyard where everyone can see eachother and gather?

In the end my goal was not to build anything in the courtyard. Rather i plan to screen the pro- ject video on the huge „Giebelwand“, creating an event for possible encounters.

projects-grete10

Quelle:
Windowflick Project Berlin

projects-grete10

Quelle:
Windowflick Project Berlin

ANALYSIS COURTYARD

projects-grete9

projects-grete6

ANALYSIS COURTYARD

projects-grete9

projects-grete6

grete

grete

projects-grete2

grete

grete

grete

grete

projects-grete2

grete

grete

accessibility + users of the courtyard

i live in a shared flat in a typical Berlin Block house, built in the beginning of 19th century. The neighbourhood is ethnically diverse and undergoing a process of gentrification. Inspired by this environment the narrowed courtyard of the house and its development as a common space became the main interest of my project.

How to Encounter ?

Finding new forms to encounter to include people with different needs

The space in the space. Creating intimicy in open spaces

projects-grete8

grete

accessibility + users of the courtyard

i live in a shared flat in a typical Berlin Block house, built in the beginning of 19th century. The neighbourhood is ethnically diverse and undergoing a process of gentrification. Inspired by this environment the narrowed courtyard of the house and its development as a common space became the main interest of my project.

How to Encounter ?

Finding new forms to encounter to include people with different needs

projects-grete8

The space in the space. Creating intimicy in open spaces

grete

Grete Akinyi Ohlendorf

Grete Akinyi Ohlendorf

Chain Prometheus

Chain Prometheus

How can Human who has forgotten itself maintain a form of benevolence? How can solidarity take place if Human is in the Hybris and believes itself to be almi- ghty? What if human perspective is not associated to general truth?

_

How can Human who has forgotten itself maintain a form of benevolence? How can solidarity take place if Human is in the Hybris and believes itself to be almi- ghty? What if human perspective is not associated to general truth?

_

The studied site is located in the Alt-Hohenschönhausen in Lichtenberg, East Berlin, in the garden of a neighbourhood surrounded by housings, whose height competes with the one of the tree. On the west part of the site, a private collective garden takes place, the intercultural garden, solidarity projet whose main aim is to offer an opportunity for “people from all around the world” (quote chief of the garden) to meet around gardening and other punctual activities. On the east part on the area lays the “Place”. Old foundations delimited by wild herbs, shrubs and trees, the “Place” was supposed to support a sports hall, but the project never came to fruition. It could envy a lot of things to the private garden… its constant liveliness, its greeness, its cleanliess, its peacefulness, feeding a sort of secret garden atmosphere, lacking nothing, organised and wild at the same time…

The Place came as an accident, but it seems to be really considered by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. It is seen and used as a “free” space, with no specific function. It attracts life, provokes play and frees people to wander around. People, especially children pass through this place, they stay on it for two seconds or few hours, biking, running, dancing, playing with nothing and small cars toys. Movements characterise the Place. Everything on it, and in it, is ephemeral. Once dressed, once naked, once loud, once silent.

The studied site is located in the Alt-Hohenschönhausen in Lichtenberg, East Berlin, in the garden of a neighbourhood surrounded by housings, whose height competes with the one of the tree. On the west part of the site, a private collective garden takes place, the intercultural garden, solidarity projet whose main aim is to offer an opportunity for “people from all around the world” (quote chief of the garden) to meet around gardening and other punctual activities. On the east part on the area lays the “Place”. Old foundations delimited by wild herbs, shrubs and trees, the “Place” was supposed to support a sports hall, but the project never came to fruition. It could envy a lot of things to the private garden… its constant liveliness, its greeness, its cleanliess, its peacefulness, feeding a sort of secret garden atmosphere, lacking nothing, organised and wild at the same time…

The Place came as an accident, but it seems to be really considered by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. It is seen and used as a “free” space, with no specific function. It attracts life, provokes play and frees people to wander around. People, especially children pass through this place, they stay on it for two seconds or few hours, biking, running, dancing, playing with nothing and small cars toys. Movements characterise the Place. Everything on it, and in it, is ephemeral. Once dressed, once naked, once loud, once silent.

The Place is taken as it is, it and its users doesn’t seem to ask for any specific Human action to add something, or to transform it. What could be the future of the Place ? In the video «Relentless Therapy», someone sees an «abandonned» and «degraded» Place and tries, in her way, to pay attention to it. She would like to «arrange» it by cutting the grass that will grow again. She would like to «cure» it by filling the cracks, that will appear again since the trees are there, as if she wanted it to survive. «Chain Prometheus» video wants itself to be a reaction to «Relentless Therapy». The idea is to highlight the confrontation between Humans who tries to «control» Nature, and Nature that fights for its right. Then we could ask ourselves « what if Human decide not to put its hand on the future of the Place ? », « what if the Place disappears from the action of the unchained Nature ? One still wants the Place to be rescued while one thinks we can not control everything. To illustrate this idea, let’s go back to the Myth of Prometheus from the moment he has been chained up until the day he broke his chains… Should we put the chains back ? The gods are bored on Mount Olympus, they watch an empty world with no life.
The gods decided to ask Prometheus and Epymetheus, brothers Titans, to create that life, from water and earth. Prometheus left that role to his brother who gave a role to every living being but Human, this last has neither a gift nor an appropriate territory. Prometheus realizes that and wants to protect Human because, naked, it is fragile and doomed to disappear. He then steals the Sacred Fire of Olympus from Hephaïstos, the Art from Athena, and gives them to humans. Zeus gets angry against Prometheus who didn’t realise the risk of his action. He chains him on Mount Caucasus. Every day, the Eagle comes to devour Prometheus’ liver, but it regenerates itself every night… Three major ideas emerge from this myth:
The idea of an organized ecosystem, in which each being has its role.
The idea of freedom, by which the human with an unpredestined role is free.
The idea of hybris, excessiveness and arrogance in which Human can enter when it gives itself no limit. Until the end of the 19th century, the vision of progress was to improve the conditions of human life but since the industrial revolution, Pro- metheus «breaks its chains», goes wild and become uncontrollable. Human enters the hybris. «Transcended» by itself, it becomes the mea- sure of all things and thinks that it can control anything. Its perspective becomes universal. The Human forgets that it belongs to an ecosystem and progress becomes its destiny. It disconnects itself more and more from the earth and its will for immortality only grows. The 17th century is an extension of Greek philosophy, with the classical one, that of knowledge. It is thought that the Human being should be master and possessor of nature (Renée Descartes, Discourse of the Method) in the sense that in order to better evolve, it has to know it. If it does not, it destroys it. In this discourse, the idea of transcendence is not given to Humans. As for the ancient Greeks, there would be something superior to them.

The Place is taken as it is, it and its users doesn’t seem to ask for any specific Human action to add something, or to transform it. What could be the future of the Place ? In the video «Relentless Therapy», someone sees an «abandonned» and «degraded» Place and tries, in her way, to pay attention to it. She would like to «arrange» it by cutting the grass that will grow again. She would like to «cure» it by filling the cracks, that will appear again since the trees are there, as if she wanted it to survive. «Chain Prometheus» video wants itself to be a reaction to «Relentless Therapy». The idea is to highlight the confrontation between Humans who tries to «control» Nature, and Nature that fights for its right. Then we could ask ourselves « what if Human decide not to put its hand on the future of the Place ? », « what if the Place disappears from the action of the unchained Nature ? One still wants the Place to be rescued while one thinks we can not control everything. To illustrate this idea, let’s go back to the Myth of Prometheus from the moment he has been chained up until the day he broke his chains… Should we put the chains back ? The gods are bored on Mount Olympus, they watch an empty world with no life.
The gods decided to ask Prometheus and Epymetheus, brothers Titans, to create that life, from water and earth. Prometheus left that role to his brother who gave a role to every living being but Human, this last has neither a gift nor an appropriate territory. Prometheus realizes that and wants to protect Human because, naked, it is fragile and doomed to disappear. He then steals the Sacred Fire of Olympus from Hephaïstos, the Art from Athena, and gives them to humans. Zeus gets angry against Prometheus who didn’t realise the risk of his action. He chains him on Mount Caucasus. Every day, the Eagle comes to devour Prometheus’ liver, but it regenerates itself every night… Three major ideas emerge from this myth:
The idea of an organized ecosystem, in which each being has its role.
The idea of freedom, by which the human with an unpredestined role is free.
The idea of hybris, excessiveness and arrogance in which Human can enter when it gives itself no limit. Until the end of the 19th century, the vision of progress was to improve the conditions of human life but since the industrial revolution, Pro- metheus «breaks its chains», goes wild and become uncontrollable. Human enters the hybris. «Transcended» by itself, it becomes the mea- sure of all things and thinks that it can control anything. Its perspective becomes universal. The Human forgets that it belongs to an ecosystem and progress becomes its destiny. It disconnects itself more and more from the earth and its will for immortality only grows. The 17th century is an extension of Greek philosophy, with the classical one, that of knowledge. It is thought that the Human being should be master and possessor of nature (Renée Descartes, Discourse of the Method) in the sense that in order to better evolve, it has to know it. If it does not, it destroys it. In this discourse, the idea of transcendence is not given to Humans. As for the ancient Greeks, there would be something superior to them.

juliette delaplace-columelli

juliette delaplace-columelli