One of the struggles Wodiczko mentions is how to make an audience hear something. It is not enough to speak through a megaphone to get people to listen. The difficulty is in figuring out the conditions that are needed for people to care. This is where location based art comes in. The reason some pieces are effective is because of where they are.
The concept I found to be the most important is that of public memory and how it is usually told by the victor and not the vanquished. This directly relates to the Lancaster neighborhood and other areas of the city. The goal of the street should not include a victor or a vanquished. It shouldn't become a classic case of gentrification, where the original residents become resentful "vanquished" and the "victors" are students, yuppies, white people, rich people, or whatever... I don't think the existing community would be very satisfied if Lancaster turned into the next Northern Liberties. Yes the neighborhood could use money, but what it really needs is people. Diversity can greatly improve a neighborhood. I don't think it would ruin what is there now, it would just add to it and improve what is wrong. If people of all races, backgrounds, and socioeconomic statuses, and levels of education moved in, the area would improve. It could be more like the Baltimore Ave. area, diverse and interesting, but not too built up. The idea of public memory is why I believe we do need input from the people who live there and have for a long time, because if the neighborhood does change beyond recognition, and they become the vanquished, at least there is a record of how it once was somewhere, and we had a part of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment