Surrealist Gardens - art3idea.psu.edu
Transcript of Surrealist Gardens - art3idea.psu.edu
Surrealist Gardens 1
Surrealist Gardens:
The Uncanny as a Model for a Pedagogy of Performance
Donald Kunze Penn State University, Nadine Carter Russell Endowed Chair, Spring 2008
Kevin Benham Director of Landscape Architecture Foundational Studies, Boston Architectural College
Abstract. In the Spring of 2008, Kevin Benham and Donald Kunze co-directed a graduate
studio at the Robert Reich School of Landscape Architecture, LSU. Kunze, as the Nadine Carter
Russell Endowed Chair in Art and Design, was invited to propose a study theme, which he
drew from his general interest in the boundary conditions used by landscapes, architecture,
film, literature, and painting. “The Surrealist Garden” aimed to draw from the traditions of the
uncanny, a theme resurrected by Sigmund Freud early in his career and carried further by
Jacques Lacan in his thematic of “the extimate.” This paper focuses on the scholarly and
theoretical aspects of the Surrealist Garden studio.
Marcel Duchamp stated it simply: our culture is built around the production and consumption of objects
whose utility falls outside the domain of needs for shelter, food, and security. This surplus is sustained by
desire, but even more important is the structure of desire that, despite failures, gaps, misapplications, and
breakdowns creates a zone materialized by the imagination to influence events in every domain of life.
There are two directions to follow: (1) the study of specific cases where technology demands our specific
response and extends this demand to social structure and thought — interpellation, the technological
critique of Jacques Ellul, ‘appliance theory’; and (2) the study of the uncanny, which attempts to isolate
terms but then blurs that separation — a practice we learn primarily ‘at the movies’ but neglect in our
theories, books, and schools. This neglect is ‘structural’ and based on the nature of the uncanny itself, so
the remedy of the neglect must take into account the ‘necessity of neglect’ as well as the strategic
centrality of the uncanny at all levels of life — behavior, social life, perception, and thought.
When Demand Exceeds Need
The case of demand surpassing need is clear from the story of the Garden of Eden. In the ideal precinct
created for the satisfaction of need, there is a surplus element, the Tree of Life, guarded by the serpent
who provides the surplus information to Eve that God has left out something in this attempt to supply
Adam and Eve with all they need. The materialization of this lack is the fruit, whose very form (the toroid
Surrealist Gardens 2
of the apple) some have suggested indicates the secret nature of this lack and its relation to self-
reference.
The excessive demand of Eden suggests the general structure of excessive demand elsewhere: in lan-
guage, this excess is the ‘voice’, where phonemic meanings are surpassed by an element that cannot be
assimilated. The voice has an uncanny relationship to speech. It is the excess, the unaccountable element
of ventriloquism, the part that does not belong in the body. The voice’s uncanniness is not an accident. It
is a co-effect and possibly consequence of the topological results of the excess of demand over need,
where the primary example of Eden becomes extremely informative. The walled garden surrounded by
wilderness are not two separate spaces separated by a wall but one space with an interior split, a
permanent internal division that is ‘set against itself’. This structure is made evident by the presence of
the Tree of Life and serpent, and additionally by God’s invisibility (that is later in the story exchanged for
blindness). The problem is not so much one of interdiction and violation but of the ‘impossible choice’ of
the divine command not to taste of the fruit of the Tree of Life in the first place.
Robert Graves’ controversial view, that Genesis was written from Sumerian tablets arranged in a ‘boustro-
phodon’ (lines are read in a back-and-forth motion), where Hebrew scribes read all lines from right to left,
creating backward sequences and gaps with every new line, takes the structure of Eden to the text itself,
where the interpellation of holy text as the ‘word of God’ that cannot be altered is not the literal story but,
instead, the interpolation required by the practices of misreading the ‘typical’ cosmogenical myth typical of
the cultures of the Levant. The Genesis text is, on this account, precisely more sacred because it perma-
nently preserves not just an account of origins but a re-enactment translated in terms of misreading.
Apparatus Theory
One direction that this topology of the excess leads is towards the ideas of Althusser, Lacan, Metz, and
others that the very ‘apparatus’ of the camera is in itself sufficient to make film an ideological medium.
Extending this theory, any apparatuses — cars, televisions, household appliances, garden tools, etc. —
come with their own implicit instructions that transform not only the user but the culture that produces
and uses them. The broader theory can be traced to Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Society, which
makes the point that any technology actively transforms the user and involves unknown interpellation that
causes society to adopt to the tool, rather than adopting the tool to society. The saying that summarizes
this view is: ‘If the hammer is your only tool, the world quickly becomes made of nails’. The
machine/gadget/apparatus interpellates the user, calling him/her to a specific place and giving him/her
specific duties and mandates. This interpellation is converted to interpolation as the context of the
machine/gadget/apparatus is itself transformed according to the ‘problematic’ of technology. Privation
(what the tool cannot do) is converted into prohibition (what one should not do with the tool, as a
rhetorical position, an ‘ought’ that is extended by language, customs, and legal provisions). Apparatus
theory plays out the political aspects of desire without necessarily having to refer to the structure of desire
itself, but at any point (cultural theory, ideology analysis, social group theory, etc.) the issue of desire can
be re-introduced.
Apparatus theory can by itself lead to a ‘screen theory’ because of the involvement of dimensionality,
placement, space-time structures, and other modifications of perception and use of social space created
by the structure of desire and the interpellation of the machine/gadget/apparatus. There are many
Surrealist Gardens 3
examples where the screen condition of anamorphosis is set up in an almost literal self-evident manner:
the interior of an SUV, for example, where between the windshield and driver lie innumerable distractions
— cup-holders, GPS devices, CD players, instruments to control children’s DVD enjoyment in the back
seats — each with its own ideology of use and ability to transform images.
The other approach to apparatus theory involves film theory, the original ‘home’, to analyze the impact of
the ‘inside frame’ on thought and life. Even a purely diagrammatic analysis reveals that the phenomenon
of suture corresponds to what in mathematics is treated as the problem of self-reference (recursion,
short-circuit, Gödel’s theorem, etc.). The inside-out action of suture requires some version of the Möbius
band analogy, since there is no ‘extrinsic dimension’ that can frame the independent effects of the inside
frame. Within the calculus of George Spencer-Brown, this is the case of the closed-curved surface, where
any division of space can be both enclosed and enclosing, inclusive and exclusive. This eventually returns
to Lacan’s idea of the ‘extimate’ (extimité) and, hence, the general themes of the uncanny.
The Uncanny
The other direction generated by the topology of excess is the uncanny. This is the topic that has been (1)
concealed by Enlightenment-related dichotomies such as subject-object, mind-body, etc.; (2) discovered
but then forgotten by Freud; (3) rediscovered but then de-emphasized by Lacan; (4) resurrected
numerous times but always re-subsumed within some ‘traditional study’, such as Vidler’s recalibration of
the uncanny as a symptom of modernism. In short, with all these discoveries followed by denial or
neglect, it is precisely the element of self-cancellation that should be the issue! ‘The Uncanny’ is the prize
recipient who always refuses the award, the guest who does not show up, the missing ingredient of the
intellectual recipe. Why is neglect and denial seemingly built in to the idea of the uncanny?
The answer lies in language, specifically where Freud and (more forcefully) Lacan argue that ‘the
unconscious is structured like a language’. This means on one level what the most popular interpretation
says it means: that signifiers’ relationship to each other, and to the place of the signified (representation),
is the secret structure of the mind, specifically in its need to suppress knowledge through various
strategies (ideology, dream, fantasy, authoritarianism, etc.). The other and considerably more obvious
interpretation is simple-minded at first glance: the very fact that language involves a speaker and a
listener/audience, and that the dialectic implied by the simple existence of any ‘word’ engages an ‘idiotic
symmetry’’, where the chain of signifiers is also grounded within the networks of symbolic relationships
that are, in turn, sustained by the structure of desire, which itself allows for gaps, variations, missing
pieces, and breakdowns.
The condition of language is, like the cinema screen, an inside frame. Communication engenders a
‘dimensional’ explanation based on the metaphor of linear flow, temporalized by the diachrony of the acts
of speech. Whereas meaning is fundamentally ‘syntactical’, speech is unavoidable sequential and
diachronic. Meaning of the beginning is unstable until the end, or rather it is the case that the stability
created in the beginning is always subject to being destabilized by what comes only at the end. Even the
concepts of beginning and end are artifacts of the metaphor of flow and reduce models of communication
to lines, chains, channels, etc.
Surrealist Gardens 4
Language as exchange is not just dialectical, it involves an ‘idiotic symmetry’ where the fantasy
projections of the interlocutors create four ‘persons’ for any two actual interlocutors. In the case of the
stage and screen, the listener is the audience, whose silent reception of the ‘speech’ of the actor on stage
is framed in the logic of the classical rhetorical syllogism, the ‘enthymeme’. Here, the middle term (the
one that facilitates conjunction of the major and minor premise) does not appear in the conclusion and is
‘silent’ both in the literal sense that the audience is required to more or less be quiet during a performance
and in the sense that the audience’s presence and reception is the ‘anonymous connector’ that works to
hold the causes and effects of the performance together. Any actor who does not recognize the audience’s
silent assent cannot sustain a convincing performance, since the audience can easily recognize that it has
inadvertently become a collection of voyeurs.
Although apparatus theory analyzes the same ‘inside frame’ conditions as the uncanny, the uncanny
brings to bear its three traditional themes: anamorphosis (involvement of optics and visuality, the ‘voice’
in its uncanny role in language (as in the audience’s dark ‘silence’), and the creation of ‘partial objects’,
another specifically Lacanian thematic that enables us to realize that the inside frame, itself a partial
object, is expanded through the logic of its genre to countless other objects and structures that don’t
resemble screens or stages at all: the organ that seems to ‘act on its own’, such as the spasmodically
saluting arm of the ex-Nazi scientist in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964).
The uncanny reveals its centrality to psychoanalysis (and everything else) by focusing on the place of
representation as more significant than the alleged signifieds of representation. This place structured by
desire, undermined by the anamorphic action of fantasy, and simultaneously structuring and de-
constructing the authority of the desire of the Other, is the place of ‘contingency’ where we encounter the
Real. Privation (the limits of the senses, of logic, of language, etc.) becomes prohibition. ‘Noise’ (the
suppressed artifact created by the production of meaning) becomes ‘voice’, ignorance becomes secret,
silence becomes conspiracy, and time folds back on itself to create retroactive meanings. What’s even
more important for those who specifically study human spaces and places, this ‘place of the
representation’ and all its inside-frame quirks is the actual structure of the real places we encounter in the
everyday, whose normalcy requires the suppression of these ‘uncanny’ effects. What film enables us to
do, and the reason that film study is essential in ANY study of space/place, is to see clearly how the
‘apparatus’ of the camera explicitly states the implicit ideological/concealed nature of the inside frame
that, in every spatial condition, makes a view into a theory about views, a thought into a conversation, a
field into a domain, and a limit of the senses into a no-trespassing sign.
Raymond Roussel’s Three Tricks
Raymond Roussel revealed his compositional method in a striking exposé, How I Wrote Certain of my
Books (Comment j’ai écrit certains de mes livres, 1935). His method, called his procédé, began with a
word or phrase that was reworked, with puns or re-associations of letters making different words, into a
word or phrase that ended the book. The two different readings formed a problem that the narrative
endeavored to resolve. Some works, however, made use of different techniques. In one, Roussel advised
a different order of reading a novel, and in a series of three poems collected under the title of La Vue
involved a multiplication of descriptive detail revealed by imaginative entry into extremely small images,
one a jewel in a souvenir pen-holder, another a label on a bottle of mineral water, still another the scene
Surrealist Gardens 5
used on hotel guest stationary. In each of the three poems, time is suspended during an extensive
inventory of details that seem impossible to observe even in ordinary circumstances.
the procédé
When Michel Foucault turned
unexpected attention to
Roussel in his book, Death
and the Labyrinth (1963,
English 1986), he emphasized
the technique called the
procédé. In his youth,
Roussel’s family made regular
visits to Nice during carnival.
Festivals in that city included
large floats and papier mâché
effigies of political figures, called têtes de carton, accompanied by captions involving witty puns and plays
on words with subversive intent. A bald (chauve) man singing the Marseillaise is captioned: Je suis
chauve, hein! (Chauvin meaning chauvanist). In a story, ‘Parmi les noires’, Roussel uses a phrase and its
punned inverse to generate a story (texte genèse): ‘Les lettres du blanc sur les bandes du vieux billard …’
initiate a story created by changing one letter: billard to pillard (the phrase les bandes du vieux pillard
then becomes ‘the hordes of the old plunderer’).
The principle here is a kind of verbal anamorphosis: within the conventional meaning of an expression lies
a subversive antipodal meaning that, when mapped, creates a landscape in between that can be filled with
narrative, a journey 180º around the ‘globe’ conceptualized around a minimal shift of meaning. The
procédé also anticipates an idea central to artificial intelligence theory, the ‘minimal definition of thinking’
that is actually employed by physicians treating brain-damage victims. A phrase is spoken to the patient
as brain activity is measured. The phrase involves a word with a ‘normal’ context that is reversed by the
end of the expression. Mental activity that registers this change is regarded as evidence of thought. Like
Alan Turing’s famous test, this ‘minimalist’ test is
based on a difference rather than a positive
expression. Turing realized that a computer could
be programed to respond to any variety of
questions or responses, but that a subject would
judge computer response to be ‘real thought’
only if it were capable of reversing an expected
meaning, a reversal capable of indicating a
different context.
Michel Foucault regards Roussel’s word play as a
serious exploration of language’s interior self-
reference and self-negation, what we might play
out through the distinction of ‘representation’ and ‘artifact’ (Michel Foucault, Death and the Labyrinth,
1986) The subject is ‘interpellated’ by a conventional meaning of a word or phrase, but then, through the
Surrealist Gardens 6
discovery of a double meaning, allowed to ‘interpolate’ between alternative meanings. The image in the
book, Parmi les noires, of the billiard table suggests the analogy of the frame (the bandes), upon which
are written letters in chalk (lettres du blanc), also ‘correspondence from the white man’ whose relation to
the pillard (African despot) and his tribe of outlaws (bandes) which not only creates the story line’s
antipodal points but specifies the linguistic theory by which the narrative depends.
Roussel typically composed in triads. La Doublure, La Vue, and Nouvelles Impressions d’Afrique form a
triptych that Roussel claimed did not make use of the procédé. La Vue was in turn composed of three
poems, La Vue, Le Concert, and La Source. In the poem ‘La Vue’, a souvenir pen-holder is fitted with a
small lens placed over a printed view that could be seen by holding the eye close to the lens. Roussel
magnifies the potential of this small lens further, proposing that the viewer is able to journey into the
world of the scene and partake in impossibly small details: ‘Roussel describes not only the promenaders
on the beach, but a yacht and various small craft in the offing. We learn of a fisherman who is becalmed
out at sea that his jacket is tight under the arms and worn at the cuffs, that his beard is rather untidy and
that his left eyebrow is lightly shaggier than his right’ (Mark Ford, Raymond Roussel and the Republic of
Dreams, 2000, p. 84).
The logic of the view was developed later in a story by Jorge Luis Borges, ‘The Aleph’, about the discovery
of a bright object hovering in the air beneath a cellar stairway, serving as a ‘hole through space’ through
which an observer might view the future and the past as well as any distant location in exquisite but
horrifying detail. This story is deepened and extended by ‘Funes the Memorious’, about a brain-damaged
youth who has gained perfect memory from his injury. The Borges stories show how Roussel’s pen-set and
bottle-label do not vary in their operational logic. Like the Aleph, these are small points of passage where
the viewer is given magic access by virtue of disembodiment. The same relation between the optics of
‘seeing the Truth’ and a small object serving as passageway is the subject of Rudyard Kipling’s short
story, ‘The Eye of Allah’. But, perhaps the ultimate precedent is Book VI of Vergil’s Æneid, where Æneas
stands before the gates of Hades, taking in the images engraved on the bronze doors left behind by
Dædalus, who took refuge at Cumæ after his disastrous escape from Crete. The images on the door
suggest but do not resolve the puzzle-story of the Minotaur and the labyrinth, the theme that figures
again in Foucault’s reading of Parmi les noires.
The homology is between the situation of passage, the incidence of interruption, gazing, puzzling, and
subsequent travel into forbidden space. Where privation (the inability to see the ‘invisible’, either because
it is impossibly small or a part of the realm of the dead) becomes prohibition (the initial refusal of passage
and the subsequent granting of it), the ‘artifact’ of the concealed meaning comes to light. In a sense, the
‘passage into impossible detail’ that Roussel uses in La Vue amounts to the same idea as the procédé’s
more language-based technique.
Hopscotch In passing, it is worth mentioning that Roussel was recognized for prefiguring the technique used (and
named directly) by Julio Cortàzar in his novel Hopscotch (Rayuela), 1963. Cortàzar may have been looking
at Roussel as the most local source, but his ultimate precursor was Ramòn Llull, the Catalan mystic whose
combinatorial memory techniques involved fragmenting and recombining texts to create ‘alternative
stories within stories’, a kind of narrative mise-en-abîme that Roussel would have endorsed. Roussel’s
Surrealist Gardens 7
experiment is brief. He advises the readers of one novel that they might as well begin on an alternate
internal page and save the first section for later. But, clearly, his model of reading put forward by the
image of the billiard table is not only more in keeping with Llull’s memory magic, it provides a deeper
appreciation of what actually goes on in language when the alternative orders are created by openings in
the artifacts of homonyms and minor word distortions.
Hopscotch coupled with the ‘Aleph’ trick can then stand for the Rousselian magic act in its entirety. What
could be the ‘standard formula’, abstracted in its several steps, that might enable us to see other
variations in history, art, and literature? Foucault reminds us that it is important to see Roussel’s initial act
as a ‘split’ of a whole, a presumably ‘intact’ word that, once split through a slight shift of a letter here or a
meaning there, ‘divides itself in two, and produces new figures (It’s a proliferation of distance, a void
created in the wake of the double, a labyrinthine extension of corridors which seem similar and yet are
different)’. This involves a conversion of the apparently ‘straight line’ of words into a circular return to
origins. In this way, we, like the 18c. grammarians, discover the ‘marvelous property of language to
extract wealth from its own poverty’ (p. 15). Through privation turned into prohibition, also the
interpellation which concealed the ‘alternative meaning’ within the artifact of words and phrases, we have
the billiard-ball-style interpolation between alternatives, within a charged ‘domain’ of potentialities.
Put in terms of the interrupted journey to the underworld and the ekphrasis of descriptive wonder, we
have as ancient an example as Virgil’s to consider, and the tradition of the katabasis to add to Roussel’s
kit of tricks.
The Crippled Cow Studio
Like Picasso’s method of reworking a canvas to conserve ideas beneath overpainted images, we employed
a pedagogy of layering ideas and strategies without providing connections. The aim was to reach a point
where, through a transference of responsibility, the studio began to organize itself and take responsibility
for the quality, presentation, and viability of their work.
We employed the fantasy that lost causes and missed opportunities in history of ideas could be recovered.
Jacques Lacan himself employed this technique when he ‘returned to Freud’ to rescue key ideas in the
formulation of his own work. Freud curious abandoned the idea of the uncanny, developed early in his
career. Had he continued it, it would have forged links between psychoanalysis, folklore and . and popular
culture. Lacan’s ideas of the ‘extimate’ (blurring between inside and outside) recover this lost idea and are
the basis of our archeology of the idea of Surrealism. The standard history of Surrealism, too, has its
missing pieces and lost opportunities. Although Surrealists ardently defended the plays of Raymond
Roussel against public outrage, claiming him to be the founder of Surrealism, his name is generally
forgotten as the movement was dominated by figures such as André Breton, Louis Aragon, and Tristan
Tzara. Rather than literature, emphasis was on painting, and the public remembers not the plays and
writings but the drooping clocks and melted landscapes of Salvadore Dali. Man Ray, Tristan Tzara, and
Salvadore Dali excited the public with their provocative images and events. Here, the techniques —
outrage, distortion, fantasy — were evident.
Raymond Roussel’s work, a forerunner of Surrealism and in many ways a catalog of its main ideas, was
largely overlooked as Surrealism developed more salient public forms. Although Roussel’s novel, Locus
Surrealist Gardens 8
Solus, was the obvious place to start in a Landscape studio, we emphasized Roussel’s method, the
procédé, where scale, motility, and identity are disrupted by slight shifts of meaning and ‘impossible’ trips
inside small images. The gardens of Gabriel Guvrékian famously attempted to duplicate the Locus Solus
garden of Marshall Canterell, but neither Gurvrekian nor his historians mentioned the procédé. Other
sources were introduced to build up the case for using landscape designs as a means of understanding the
human world: Giambattista Vico, Ernst Cassirer, Maurice Merlea-Ponty, Slavoj Žižek, Jorge Luis Borges,
Alfred Hitchcock, Italo Calvino, Alan Turing, and even His Holiness the Dali Lama. The background for
development was, however, a special technique known as ‘boundary language’. This multidisciplinary
notation system employs the topological ideas of Jacques Lacan as a basis for the idea of allowing
designers to model the effects of construction and reception in a variety of media and settings. This
technique was developed through a grant from the Shogren Foundation in 1998 and through workshops at
U. Penn, Yale, Penn State, SUNY Buffalo, and the Cleveland Urban Center. Also, we introduced many
critical theory ideas through films: scenography, narrative structure, the differences between metonymy
and metaphor, and the various roles of framing. Because Hitchcock’s and Lynch’s films symptomatically
return to the same motifs and techniques, we emphasized them but included such fantasy classics as
Dead of Night and the structurally complex and nearly silent films of Tati and Charlie Chaplin. The Five
Obstructions of Lars von Trier, universally despised by the students, was
a model of our teaching method, as they later discovered.
The first assignment was to design an imaginary instrument to measure
some invisible force operating in the landscape. The studio held an
exhibition rather than a review, and the objects and their (often feigned
but sometimes actual) results were on display. Students stood nearby to
hawk the virtues of their instruments.
The studio then investigated the ‘hidden properties’ of the LSU campus
itself. The strong axial design of Olmsted Brothers, who for unknown reasons were forced to relinquish the
project to Theodore Link, includes such anomalies as Indian burial mounds and dormitories disguised as a
football stadium. The center of the campus design is the cruciform complex of quads, blocked by a 1950s
intervention, the Middleton Library. Although our LSU colleague Van Cox was right when he argued that
the library gave a better scale to the open spaces of the remaining quadrangles, the position had
something of the nature of a curse for this quasi-ecclesiastical design. The plot thickened when some class
members discovered, in their archival research, that the axis of the cruciform plan worked as a regression
line, predicting the occurrence of violent and criminal acts. Was this punishment for the Middleton Library?
While this thesis could not be supported fully by the ‘facts of the case’, the studio decided to make it the
center of a fantastic ‘lost history’ of the campus, something more in affinity with the Native American view
of the sacred valley of the Mississippi River Basin.
Surrealist Gardens 9
Site study: a diagram of the site showing ‘distractions’
Site study gave the studio a chance to step back and formulate their fantasy narratives in the context of
material details and weird spaces. The focus of their interest was a complex of small structures belonging
to the School of Art. The pottery shed in particular offered narrow passageways and a small, mostly
abandoned open yard that was the terminus of the ‘axis of evil’.
In the midst of their empirical documentation of the site, another Cartesian context gave support to a
fantasy about the antipode of the LSU campus. Although the real antipode lies somewhere in the Indian
Ocean, the drifting continents of the original land mass gave them a basis for re-locating the antipode in
the now-disappeared continent of ‘Lemuria’, a land that has an actual presence in Southeast Asian
folklore. The name comes from the fact that a once-existent land-bridge is the only explanation for the
distribution of species of Lemurs, a primate whose striking eyes afford a binocular vision and resulting
intelligence based on manipulation and motility. At this point the studio was entirely on its own. The magic
act of transference had taken place. We, the instructors, were frequently barred from entering the studio.
Our only role, it seemed was to supply the designers with unlimited cash.
Surrealist Gardens 10
Cartoons: the continent of Lemuria was elaborated through narratives and landscape maps.
The studio developed its ideas of Lemuria through the fantasized design for a ‘city of fire’, Patanga, where
the myths of the lost continent and lore of the Lemur were intensified. Artifacts from this lost civilization
were convincingly recreated, thanks to the artistry and calligraphy of Mikeila Nagura. This ancient book
contained details of the Patanga myth and complex script of the Lemurians, all painstakingly invented by
Mikeila.
The ‘axis of evil’ was re-annotated and reinterpreted using the idea of the antipode and notion that the
‘crime’ of the library’s misplacement could be corrected by the ‘vengeance’ of the City of Fire. A new
narrative was added about a drunken anthropologist-archaeologist whose affair with a college president’s
wife led to the mayhem of campus design and subsequent coverup. The modest pottery yard, after some
intense negotiations with Arts faculty, was transformed through an extensive combination of excavation
and artificial extension. Without our guidance or even consultation, the design was a choreography by
which the narrative would be discovered by the public in a series of quasi-ritualistic encounters, fueled by
images projected on scrims and computer-generated motion feedback loops (discovered with the help of
our own ‘Canterel’, Brad Cantrell).
What surprised us was that the project went beyond our wildest imaginations about what could be done,
and was ‘surreal’ on every level. It was an example of how art intensifies and goes beyond what life has to
offer, but also it taught us that programmatic insertions of ‘art’ can go only so far; at some point, art has
to live as art, not as a theme. The shortcomings of the installation were multiple, but its success was
singular. The studio created good will by reaching out to all those who helped, returning favors, offering a
well-catered reception, and sending thank-you messages. After all, LSU is the south.
Surrealist Gardens 11
Over 200 faculty, students, and interested members of the public attended the event.
The press reported details of the production and credited the students for their originality
autonomy and inventiveness.
The studio’s book documenting the development, production, and performance of the project, along with
critical essays, will be available at Lulu.com. A PDF version is now available at
http://arti3idea.psu.edu/locus/crippled_cow.pdf.
THANKS TO THE HEROIC STUDIO MEMBERS!!!!
Christopher Hall
Taizo Horikawa
Nicole Janic
Mickey Kleinhenz
Joan Long
Mikeila Nagura
Jack Milazzo
Narcisa Parrales
Spencer Rimes
Gretchen Trauth
Chris Ventre
Natalie Yates
Yuanman Zhong
Surrealist Gardens 12
Mickey Kleinhienz, Agent Provocateur
Additional thanks to:
Nadine Carter Russell, Endowment Founder and Patron
The Robert Reich School of Landscape Architecture, Elizabeth Mossup, Director
Louisiana State University College of Arts + Design, David Cronrath, Dean
LSU School of Art / Ceramics Department, Rod Parker and Mickey Walsh
The College of Arts & Architecture, Penn State University
The Schreyer Honors College, Penn State University
Department of Integrative Arts, Penn State
Department of Landscape Architecture, Penn State
Department of Architecture, Penn State
Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture