WAREHOUSE

Framing Statement.
From the very beginning, our project has been grounded on architectural expression and the transformation of what’s already there. Even in the initial first few weeks when we were researching into the history of the building and experimenting with the recreation of train lines, we were considering the idea of blue prints, and how an architect, even at the start of a process, has complete control over the direction and flow of people that will pass through the impending space. The initial idea of transforming architecture came directly from Christo and Jeanne-Claude, a married couple who wrapped the Reichstag in Berlin in 1995. As a group, we were drawn into the simplicity behind how blank sheets of material can completely change a well-known building in just a few short days. From this, sparked our exploration of the art of preservation, using the fundamental material of a library, books, to preserve and protect the things that make a modern library function. The aim of conserving was not only to suggest protection of the objects, but also to alienate the object and instead focus in on its surroundings – something that perhaps was similarly achieved by the wrapping of the Reichstag. We also explored how art can change and enhance the mechanisms of the library, which we investigated through both live performance and installation, in a similar way to how “Kaprow works to engage the viewer in a vacillation between places, as her performed practices are imbricated with everyday rituals, events and circumstances” (Kaye, 2000, 110). We focused on altering the everyday experiences of the library in a way that was presented as the norm, for example, the wrapping of the person on the ground floor wasn’t advertised but simply executed.

Our final performance consisted of the audience being met on the ground floor of the library by Dan and Hannah in the role of two ‘library assistants’ wrapping up the ‘librarian’, Anthony, using book pages. A table was placed in front of Anthony, with a pile of books spread across – all also wrapped in pages and displaying instructions on the front. The library assistants then approached members of the public and asked them in a quiet whisper “would you like to visit the library?”. Their name was then taken and repeated to the librarian, who mechanically and without emotion chose them a book from the selection available. Following the instructions on the front of the book (see image 1), the participant then arrived at group room two where they were met by me, also in the role of ‘library assistant’. I requested that they remove their shoes and explained that the room they were about to enter was under preservation, and that “some of the new information is very old”, therefore warning them that they should “tread carefully”. Upon entering the wrapped room (see Image 2), audience members were free to browse at their own leisure, watching the film and projections or reading the text on the walls. In order to leave the room, they simply had to place their wrapped book onto the trolley and exit the room.

The Point of Preservation

W r a p p i n g … the word was heard everywhere: on the streets, in the shops, when people discussed buying or selling.
The action gradually aqquired the dimension of a ritual.
It became a symbolic act:
Somewhere at the threshold between miserable reality,
Scorn
Contempt,
And
Ridicule
There emerged suddenly
A growing shadow of pathos.
Instinctively, I sensed,
And to be more precise I still do,
An imminent threat to the highest
Spiritual human value.
It was, and still is, necessary to
P r o t e c t it
From destruction,
From time,
From the primitive decrees of the authoritities
From the questioning by the official and slow-
Minded judges.
And thus the decision
To w r a p it up!
To Preserve it!

                                           (Kobialka, 2007, 88)

Kobialka’s commentary on how wrapping becomes a symbolic act relates to the fact it has been something we have consistently taken part in for the past three months, without us knowing it became our own habitual procedure within the library – progressively changing the library’s purpose for us from previously being just a place of study, into a placing of wrapping. There are many intentions behind the decision to actively wrap something up, to keep it hidden from the rest of the world. It could be a surprise, a secret, it could be sleeping, something that withholds shame or a means of pausing time with the use of an outer shell. Tadeusz Kantor introduced the idea of ‘emballages’, which are objects that “performed a double function in life. They protected their contents from destruction or view” (Kobialka, 2007, 88-89). We considered how a library’s function could be considered an emballage, as its main purpose is to store and protect sources of knowledge for other people to encounter and learn from. We also contemplated how, in terms of architecture, the Great Central Library Warehouse has now become an emballage itself through structure, with the superimposed modern fixtures and architecture providing an extra layer around the building, actively protecting and preserving its heritage.

 
We quickly realised how essential layering is to the process of preservation. We knew we wanted to focus and centre our piece on preservation, our key question was however, with what material should we preserve with?

Materiality

 
Throughout the process, we tried various different materials on objects around the library in order to see which was most effective. Ranging from bandages, string, tracing paper and transparent sheeting, we tested different aspects of each material, such as durability and whether they had the capability to stick and manipulate around each object, to aid us when deciding on the final choice. In retrospect to the full process, the three materials that were integral in shaping our final piece were; Sheets, Papier Mâché and book pages.

 
Our first major consideration in terms of material was the use of lightweight, white sheets. Left over from another project, the sheets were available to experiment with immediately and gave us a strong starting point with regards to wrapping. The sheets were extremely flexible, and more importantly, they were very light – something we realised early on in the development of our piece was going to be a crucial factor when deciding on materials. Despite the sheets being light enough to sustain being hung for hours, the texture of them made finding an actual sticking method difficult. Another problem we encountered was the fact that, although the sheets were highly flexible, it became very challenging to create the definition and clarity around the objects that we desired.

 
We then proceeded onto experimenting with Papier Mâché, initially inspired by Rachel Whiteread’s exhibition of Ghost. We considered the idea that by casting; we were creating a new object, but thanks to the consistency of Papier Maché, still staying true to its former shape. Much like how Whiteread intended on casting to “manifest an afterlife for an abandoned piece of architecture” (Carley, 2008, 26), we felt that by creating a cast we were almost creating an untouchable outer shell for the object – as opposed to the slightly weaker materials used before. Another trait not dissimilar from Whiteread’s work is the fact that the mould beneath would be saved, especially since “during the casting process the mould is usually destroyed when the cast is created” (Carley, 2008, 26). Whiteread, however, chooses to exhibit the mould alongside the cast, thus providing both a positive and negative imprint of the same object. We would also be presenting both the cast and the mould together as one element – with the mould still completely submerged within the cast. This directed focus on the suggestion of shape rather than the actuality of the object thanks to the opaque uniformity of Papier Maché.

The cast allowed us to cover every area of the objects – something that proved more difficult with the alternative materials. We began by wrapping the object in cling film to ensure no material was damaged by the use of glue, thus in-keeping with our wrapping technique. The cling film provided us with a clean and smooth canvas to build on top of, enabling us to completely rewrite over the surface of any object, much like how Forced Entertainment, during their piece Nights In This City , “engage in writing over the city” in order to reflect “a moving on from the real city” (Kaye, 2000, 8), suggesting that the object can only grow and build layer upon layer. The notion of ‘writing over’ an object was also interesting, as once the mould had solidified, we discussed how it would be possible for an audience member to inscribe over the top of it – once again adding another layer upon the top of the original and possibly connecting new meanings to the object.

 
After discussing the technicalities of Papier Maché, however, we decided that casting was not the answer. The art of wrapping means that the original objects have to remain inside in order for the shape to be preserved. Although we were intending on keeping the moulds inside, this was not a necessity as the cast of the object would no longer require the internal support – the new model could be freestanding. We felt that this didn’t correlate with how we the library maintains it’s historical elements – the architects could have completely destroyed the building and rebuilt it identically but with newer materials. What’s important is, they didn’t. They added to the Warehouse, but they didn’t create a new one. They wrapped it in new architecture, but still kept some original elements. Casting is a different type of preservation, and although it was successful and aesthetically it would look great, it just didn’t suit the nature of both this project and the transformation of the building.

Our experimentation with Papier Maché directly inspired our final choice of material – paper. The artist Liliana Porter has close links with the final direction of our work. An Argentinean artist born in 1941, Porter lives and works in New York creating exhibitions consisting of photography, prints, paper installations and video, and is known to “question the boundary between reality and its representation” (Mon.Charpentier, 2010). This just one of many aspects of her work that I can relate too. With our piece taking part in a working environment, we are also questioning the boundaries between where library users work and where our performance begins, and how and why the two intersect. One installation of Porter’s work that I held much interest in is Wrinkled Environment created in 1969 (see image 3) . This is an example of her use of paper as the principle material, as the exhibition consisted of sections of walls and objects coated with the material. The amount of detail that the simple pattern on the paper provides when it is completely masking the wall and the chair is not too dissimilar to the effect we achieve with the slightly stained and text-filled book pages. Texture becomes important with paper, and one technique in both ours and Porter’s work that highlights the difference in textures is the use of paper in only a selected area. By Porter leaving some areas clear and building around them with scrunched up paper, and us only wrapping half of the library room, we are revealing what’s underneath the preserved area, the ‘normality’- depicting to the audience a clear difference in consistency and perhaps making them concentrate more on what wasn’t there before. This is an example of when wrapping is used to reveal, rather than to conceal.

 
The use of book pages themselves allowed us to create the notion of wrapping with knowledge, physically depicting a growth of new information, in much the same way that new knowledge is constantly being fed into the library. The physical materiality of paper also allowed us to create the same sharp and precise edges resembling those formed when using the Papier Maché, but using a much more lightweight and accessible material. Throughout the process, the cost of funding large quantities of the same material has been a constant worry, but due to finding 70 books for just £12, we simultaneously solved our money worries and decided on a final material.

Exhibiting Labour

Labour has become visible in performance work. Research formats and open forms, educational frames, works in progress, presentations of artistic processes have become an important part of the artistic production and the theoretical discourses around performance.

(Klein, 2012, 1)

Human labour has always been rooted within this building, whether it was the physical labour of working in a warehouse or the labour of knowledge as carried out today.

With so much exposure into how works of art come about and are formed, we decided we wanted to incorporate this exposure into our final piece. The fact we also had to blog about our process meant that we had documentation of every step along the way by filming prototypes of both the wrapping process and of the finished object. We intended to show both films in unison in order for the spectator to have a clear idea of how we went about creating the final products, much like how the theatre company Lone Twin have “often acknowledged the central place of physical work within their pieces” (Whelan et al, 2011, 95). Lone Twin’s work ethic within their pieces has built a “temporary sense of home/community” (Whelan et al, 2011, 96), which is something also found and enjoyed within in the library. By wrapping objects in the presence of other library users, we felt like we took temporary ownership over the unlikely objects/areas that we wrapped – a concept that is alien in a transient building where rules are in place for which objects people may or may not take ownership over.

At the first public presentation of the cinématographe in 1895, the Lumiére showed the 50-second short film ‘La sortie de l’usine Lumiére á Lyon’ (Workers leaving the Lumiére factory in Lyon). They thus established not only the documentary method in early film history but also positioned a motif – the worker ‘after-hours’.

(Klein, 2012, 11)

I was interested in the idea that, like the documentary of the workers leaving the factory, the footage of us working to produce a final piece would help create an image of what the library was like ‘after-hours’. It could potentially captivate the individual to envisage something they saw happening in the video within normal day light hours, thus making them think of different functions for the building in much the same way I initially approached this project, placing both the artist and the spectator within the same mind set.

 
In being ‘recorded and announced’ through the media as an ‘urban event’ (Wodiczko 1992, p.196) Wodiczko’s projections are absorbed back into the economy of images on which he draws. Yet, in remembering the ‘missing’ image, the ‘missing’ part, this media-documentation continues to ‘write over’ the city’s spaces, becoming yet another ‘repertoire of iconography’ in which its meanings are produced.

(Kaye, 2000, 217)

We progressed on from wanting both videos to be playing on a screen side by side, to wanting half of one video playing on one screen, and half of the second video being projected onto the other side of the screen – half of which would be wrapped with book pages (see video clips 1 & 2). We agreed that this would be in-keeping with the theme of unfinished work that was continuing to surface throughout our piece. In 1986, video and projection artist Wodiczko projected an image onto St Mark’s bell tower in Venice in order to make a statement. I was inspired by the way he creates these images on architectural landmarks in order to attract attention to major themes that concern him, such as conflict and trauma, almost as if he is directly matching the importance of the buildings to the importance of his themes. The way he projects these topics onto architecture is not dissimilar to the nature in which we decided to superimpose video footage on top of the book pages, and is also compliant with the constant theme of overlaying new architecture upon the old, something evident throughout the Great Central Library Warehouse.

Video 1: Short example of a work-in-progess video shown during the piece. (GCW Library staircase, 2014).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U40qUsyoxDo

Video 2: Short example of a finished wrapped object video shown during the piece. (GCW Library staircase, 2014).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pVwNoIGnto

(More example clips available at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTxSEDfx1dRD-cA3PiG5RHpmJQRr4–iq)
.

Performance Evaluation
Amongst the 23 audience members that visited the room within a 3 hour period, there was a wide range of reactions and questions from each participant. Many were slightly hesitant when entering the room, presumably because the familiar architecture of the library had become distorted and unrecognisable. After visiting the room, spectators had many questions, including asking why only half of the room was wrapped, one commented on our works similarity to mummification, and why we were performing in the library in the first place and not in the LPAC. This is when I realised many of the questions that these people were asking had already been asked before – by us.

 
At the beginning of the module, I was struggling to understand how Site Specific could differ from being just a play simply performed within a different environment to a theatre. My involvement in this final piece has helped me realise that Site Specific is about creating new space, it’s about exploring, growing and making your own new boundaries from the space itself – something we definitely discussed as a group with regards to where the boundaries of the library user lie, where our boundaries as performance makers lie and how and why the two intersect so much.

 
Another query repeated by several audience members upon exiting the room was the questioning of what time and effort went into creating the piece. With our original focus and intentions evolving around the materials we use, I began to realise during the performance that perhaps the new and unintentional focus was on the labour involved in creating the room, rather than the materials used for the final presentation. It seemed that people preferred to connect, firstly, through sympathy on a human level, after revealing that it had taken roughly 11 hours to create, that we had worked all through the night and we were continuing to perform (see image 4). Only then, did they begin to comment analytically on what they thought the room represented, almost as though the material itself wasn’t enough to provoke interest without the knowledge of the hard labour behind the project.

When considering how I would re-approach and develop this piece, I was immediately taken back to the idea of casting. Using the same room and further inspiration from Rachel Whiteread, I would experiment with casting it completely from the inside and displacing it in different locations around the library. Making multiple casts of the room and placing them side by side around the library, or maybe even using them outside to create a kind of temporary extension, would all be interesting approaches to take in terms of functionality. Observing how much attention every day library users pay to their surrounding architecture and whether they actually avoid, or purposely enter, the casted rooms for something other than to study would be a great way to help define whether the library really is a completely transient space or not.

 
The interesting thing about this project was how we became near-obsessed with a room that could potentially be classed as ‘dull’. Even more interesting than that, was how we managed to persuade other people to come and actually queue up to have a look inside the same ‘dull’ room that was filled with book pages – when there are literally thousands of them outside of the room anyway. We’ve taken away two main lessons away from this project; it is possible to make any room interesting, and how to fold and stick pieces of paper for hours on end without obtaining one single paper cut.

Works Cited
Carley, R. (2008) Domestic Afterlives: Rachel Whiteread’s ‘Ghost’, Architectural Design, 78(3) 26-29.

 
Kaye,N. (2000) Site-Specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation. London New York:Routledge.

 
Klein, G. (2012) Labour, Life, Art; On the social anthropology of Labour. Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts, 17(6) 1-13.

 
Kobialka, M. (2007) Tadeusz Kantor: Collector and historian. Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts, 12(4) 78-96.

 
Mon.Charpentier Gallery. (2010) Liliana Porter. [online] Atlanta. Available from http://mor-charpentier.com/artist/liliana-porter/ [Accessed 6th April 2014].

 
Whelan, G., Winters., G, Williams, D., & Lavery., C. (eds.) (2011) Good Luck Everybody : Journeys, Performances, Conversations / Lone Twin. Aberystwyth:Performance Research Books.