Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 5: On horizonless futures 鈥� with Patricia Reed
Speakers: Jamie-Leigh Gonzales, Melissa Roach, Maria Cecilia Saba, Am Johal, Patricia Reed
[theme music]
Jamie-Leigh Gonzales 0:06
You鈥檙e listening to Below the Radar, a knowledge mobilization project out of 312 Main. I鈥檓 Jamie-Leigh Gonzales and I work for 丁香园AV鈥檚 Vancity Office of Community Engagement. This podcast is about bringing forward ideas to encourage meaningful exchanges across communities. Each episode we interview guests on topics ranging from environmental and social justice, arts, culture, community building, and urban issues. This podcast is recorded on the unceded territories of the Squamish, Musqueam, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.
Melissa Roach 0:30
Hi, my name is Melissa Roach.
Maria Cecilia Saba 0:32
My name is Maria Cecilia Saba.
Melissa Roach 0:34
This week our guest is . She is an artist based in Berlin. Patricia was at 丁香园AV Woodward鈥檚 in October to give a talk on Horizonless Futures and she is here interviewed by Am Johal, talking more about her practice and the theory work that she does around her practice.
Maria Cecilia Saba 0:54
To see the whole talk, make sure to check out our Knowledge Mobilization Audiovisual Gallery at sfuwoodwards.ca.
[theme music fades]
Am Johal 1:10
Hi, welcome to our podcast everybody, glad that you could join us. We鈥檙e here today with writer, designer, and theorist Patricia Reed, who鈥檚 based in Berlin. Welcome Patricia.
Patricia Reed 1:21
Thanks Am, nice to be here. Thanks for the amazing hospitality here in Vancouver.
Am Johal 1:26
I鈥檓 wondering if you can talk a little bit about your intellectual trajectory. You moved to Berlin in 2002, I know you did your undergrad at Concordia, in Montreal, and then later went to European graduate school, but it would be great if you could talk about some of the work that you did previous to what you鈥檙e working on now.
Patricia Reed 1:45
Yeah sure. I mean, I moved to Germany in 2003. First to Stuttgart, in fact, because I had a really nice fellowship there. And, you know, prior to that had always been, you know, way back when, I went to an arts high school in Ottawa. Public arts high school, a wonderful place. I was always doing a bunch of theoretical readings, since a really long time it鈥檚 always been an interest and coincided with artistic practice. But then it started to really become much more dominant, in many cases, unfortunately maybe, more dominant than the art practice.
Patricia Reed 2:26
So that鈥檚 kind of why I decided to, much later, like I was 30 or something when I went back to do a Masters. So I鈥檇 been doing a bunch of writing and stuff like that on my own and continuing reading, but I think that one thing that was important about doing the Masters was like, if you鈥檙e kind of doing a lot of that reading on your own, you don鈥檛 necessarily feel so confident with the material. Or I kept feeling like 鈥榦h, I鈥檓 probably misunderstanding everything鈥�. But you know, having done a slightly more formal thing, I mean you studied there, you know it鈥檚 not very formal either, just getting a little more confidence that okay, you鈥檙e not a total idiot, you can negotiate this material, and so just having an active life with theory.
Patricia Reed 3:12
And then of course getting involved with other people, mainly via online channels, I would say. Yeah, it鈥檚 kind of been a pursuit and really, I think it鈥檚 kind of interesting that, coming sort of adjacently at it, like not being a proper academic or something, I鈥檝e actually got to meet and work with so many thinkers via design practices, and that鈥檚 always been really cool, because I had jobs doing sound to metrics when I was younger. So like, stemming from the social studies of science, like how bibliographies become analyzed, information visualization in order to map disciplines and map trajectories and map certain economic practices driving disciplinary research and so on and so forth, you have to negotiate with scientists and other disciplines that you have no idea about, and then figure out ways to work and find, let鈥檚 say, information cartographic strategies to best display the complex information that they want to convey. So that鈥檚 always been an amazing position to get in contact with a bunch of other fields that I think that if you just do theory, you don鈥檛 necessarily have that. And so I felt really lucky that basically I could offer services to these people. So it was that you were useful to them, but then you got to engage with all this stuff that you maybe would not have picked up on your own.
Am Johal 4:38
And even today, you continue to work as an artist, you鈥檙e giving public talks in many places as well. I鈥檓 wondering if you could talk a little bit about that relationship between art and theory that you鈥檝e worked with for a while, and also the kind of tensions that function when you鈥檙e trying to work in those various ways.
Patricia Reed 4:58
Yeah. I mean, obviously I鈥檓 not the only artist who writes and does work. There鈥檚 a tradition, I think, actually stronger in North America, because I think that writing is a little bit more part of the artistic education here. You know, I guess every artist negotiates it differently. I have to do them in different headspaces, basically. I can鈥檛 do it in parallel. So you go through phases where you鈥檙e writing and you鈥檙e kind of thinking about things in terms of arguments and definitions and what have you. And then, of course, when you bring that into material practice, that鈥檚 definitely not how you want to think. Like I don鈥檛 think a good artwork is about setting an argument, it鈥檚 about providing a condition of a certain type of experience that you want to convey, but it鈥檚 not as, let鈥檚 say, pointed or fixed as a theoretical argument. So I tend to do them differently and I guess the reason, the way that I always rationalize spending so much time in the theory world is because I think it helps to train your intuition a little bit better. So if you鈥檙e thinking about a lot of problems, so even if you鈥檙e not necessarily illustrating it in a one-to-one way, which I think is, I wouldn鈥檛 want to do necessarily in an art practice, you鈥檙e kind of training your intuition of how you set up the problems that you want to negotiate in an artwork, maybe how you think about the relationship between ideas and materials a little differently. So kind of try to see it in a way of training intuition, a bit, if that makes sense.
Am Johal 6:29
In a number of your theoretical projects, you鈥檝e tended to work in collectives with groups of people through technology in various ways, and I鈥檓 wondering if you could talk about the difference between working on theoretical projects on your own and then when you鈥檙e working in collectives with people.
Patricia Reed 6:48
Yeah, I mean I think that the one that certainly got the most attention is the , and we actually tend to describe it more as a working group rather than a collective, because I think a collective is maybe more associated with having a, let鈥檚 say a more uniform position or a certain focus that there鈥檚 a consensus necessarily around it and that it is put forth in a collective voice. And I think with the Laboria Cuboniks thing, obviously there was a kind of consensus on a diagnostic terrain, but there鈥檚 much difference between us in terms of where our personal interests are more emphasized. Like, let鈥檚 say we鈥檙e interested in different disciplinary pursuits via this common thread of what we call . But what鈥檚 been great about that is again, of course you get exposed to a whole other set of concerns, a whole other angle through which to see the world that you weren鈥檛 necessarily thinking through on your own. So it鈥檚 a kind of immense learning curve because I think we kind of recognize that we can鈥檛 properly address reality from one perspective or one discipline or someone. There鈥檚 not going to be any sort of way to monopolize that if you want to get a bigger picture. Yet, of course, one person can鈥檛 do that, so it鈥檚 interesting to try and work together and try to find ways to interface these different pursuits and figure out where they join, where they don鈥檛, and so on and so forth. So that鈥檚 been really incredibly useful, incredibly humbling as well to work with particularly in that group with these 5 other women.
Am Johal 8:40
In being at your seminar yesterday, it鈥檚 interesting see you speak and the role that diagrams, models play in the way - I guess that鈥檚 the design side of you coming out in particular ways - and I find that quite unique, actually, in terms of art talks that I go to and these types of things. I鈥檓 wondering if you could speak a little bit about, have you always had a fascination with diagrams and models, or did it come in a particular way?
Patricia Reed 9:12
Yeah, I think definitely yes. I鈥檝e always had these mind maps or whatever, they look like those crazy conspiracy, you know, diagrams where you鈥檙e connecting a bunch of things and so on and so forth. So diagrams, I think, to be quite frank about it, it鈥檚 possible to write a text and be a little sneaky and you could include certain things in there that you鈥檙e not entirely sure are fully fleshed out or not, and I think that a diagram is a kind of bullshit meter test. I don鈥檛 think you can bullshit a diagram. And so, I feel like when I really properly understand a concept, then I can make a diagram. So it鈥檚 kind of like a Litmus test for understanding a position that you鈥檙e trying to map out, and yeah it鈥檚 kind of like the ultimate compressor, and I like that challenge of having to take something that, you know, maybe takes 30 minutes to explain. And of course, it鈥檚 helpful to have a narration over a diagram, but that it鈥檚 still possible to work on that compression and get it into one, succinct, two-dimensional surface. I think that that鈥檚 what I enjoy about the challenge of diagrams, basically.
Am Johal 10:33
I鈥檝e visited you in Berlin when you鈥檙e in the middle of working on one of these, and I can see all of these things pasted up on your walls and it looks like a madwoman working!
Patricia Reed 10:44
Yeah, kind of! It鈥檚 not an unfair position. I鈥檒l have to just鈥� that鈥檚 why we鈥檙e doing a podcast and not a video interview in my house! But thanks for revealing it!
Am Johal 11:01
I was going to talk to you a little bit about the talk you gave last night about horizon-less futures. I鈥檓 wondering if you can talk a little bit about how you came to this topic and why this is of concern to you now.
Patricia Reed 11:12
There鈥檚 like a primary interest in this sort of, like, underlying spatial temporal relationship to the surroundings, so that鈥檚 obviously the geometric interest, and how horizons sort of mark a human biosensory limitation. And of course we all intellectually know that wherever our line of sight ends, the world doesn鈥檛 drop off. We know that. But do our corresponding behaviours, activities, and the way we figure relationship to each other, to other species, to the world itself, do those actually not respond more to the illusion of the vanishing point rather than that which is beyond? And that, put in a more simple way, would be like, it seems like we as humans find difficulty in changing behaviours for things that aren鈥檛 directly present to us, right? And I think, that鈥檚 why the example and certainly your work on climate change activism, I think it鈥檚 a really difficult to bring this into a political, or a potlicizable question, because it鈥檚 almost existing only in this idea, only beyond the vanishing point, at least for the immediate condition in Canada. Certainly climate change is not beyond the vanishing point in many places around the world. But how do we understand different ways that we are motivated to change behaviour, to change positions and so on and so forth, because it seems to me that simply knowing alone isn鈥檛 enough.
Patricia Reed 13:03
And so, one of the general questions that I certainly have is what is the relationship between knowing and doing? Because I think that there鈥檚 a lot of assumptions in especially theoretical positions, or even certain modes of consciousness erasing, and so on. These are obviously important, we need to have access to information, better descriptions of the world, or better accounts of the world, as Harraway would have said. But that alone doesn鈥檛 seem to be enough of a motivational impetus for us to change. So the question is how do you exist in those new ideas? How do those ideas become transformed into instruments, into tools? And so I think that there鈥檚 a big negotiation that needs to happen between the way we know the world and the different ways that that knowledge can be articulated through instruments, right? It doesn鈥檛 have to be a one-to-one translation. So that鈥檚 the sort of, that鈥檚 like one interest in the horizon which I guess is kind of sounding very obtuse at this point.
Patricia Reed 14:12
But then, and this is very early stages of this, so it鈥檚 going to be fairly ignorant what I鈥檓 saying to you at this moment. But I鈥檝e been really inspired by the work of this philosopher, , who also happens to be a thinker of mathematics and biology. And one of his interesting insights is that this sort of computational logic that seems to be a very dominant logic of our moment. It doesn鈥檛 coincide, you can鈥檛 map it into biological processes, which are all about particularity. So he has, I think, work in a lot of cancer institutes. When you see him speak he鈥檚 talking about each lab rat is like, you have the full genealogy of that particular lab rat. It鈥檚 not just generic lab right, right, because biological systems require that degree of particularity that鈥檚 not necessarily accounted for in a computational, logical system. So he鈥檚 kind of interested in the tension between these.
Patricia Reed 15:15
But his work in geometry is really talking about the tension or the interplay between human abstract conceptions and phenomenology. So I think it鈥檚 an interesting way, I think geometry is an interesting way to see where those two worlds meet: the abstraction and the everyday performance in life based on a conceptual understanding of space. So it seems to me like an interesting way to, while critiquing this sort of immediacy of phenomenal experience, to also recognize that it plays within this abstract system, so you鈥檙e not disavowing human experience, either, but you鈥檙e rather demanding something other of it, let鈥檚 say.
Am Johal 16:02
Now, I know you鈥檝e been involved a little bit with the and you鈥檙e involved with a number of projects now. I鈥檓 just wondering, what else are you working on right now?
Patricia Reed 16:13
I mean, I wouldn鈥檛 necessarily...I鈥檓 involved with Strelka, I had the great privilege to go and do a couple remote talks there, but also the great privilege to see the final student projects for the second year in Moscow this summer, which was just incredible what these young people are able to do in a very compressed amount of time, and the scale at which they are thinking, but not only that, the different forces that they are bringing together in articulating their projects. What was particularly of note for me in seeing this year鈥檚 cohort was the general approach to design, away from how we typically tend to think of design which is 鈥榶ou make something, you鈥檙e an industrial designer, you create an object; you鈥檙e an architect, you create a building鈥� and so on, is that they are really approaching design from a question of enablement. So what are the forces at work that enable certain practices, modes, evaluation to emerge? So it would almost be like, let鈥檚 say if we take an example of architecture, it would be like, you would say the most influential architect would be like , the software, right? The thing that everyone has to use in order to even make the building. So that was kind of a general observation that I thought was really, really useful. So it seemed to be a lot of focus in that program about, at least this year, of this kind of design from below in a way.
Patricia Reed 17:52
And other projects that I鈥檓 working on right now, I鈥檓 trying to think. It鈥檚 a little messy. Yeah, I mean a lot of the stuff is little bit pursuing more in this geometrical question, which is an immense amount of stuff to learn in the next bit. Hopefully with some collaboration with some mathematicians who can actually set me straight in a lot of it to get out of the nonsense. I think it鈥檚 interesting to work with the scientists.
Am Johal 18:25
I never got into set theory, I just ignored it and went into the rest.
Patricia Reed 18:30
I was always checking the, you know, you get ambitious in these interim chapters and the big books and you look at the legend in the back to at least, you know, verbalize the equations or the formalizations. But yeah, I鈥檓 not a set theory person. I think it鈥檚 interesting to negotiate that, but the thing is if you don鈥檛 know then you also have to be a bit humble because, you know there鈥檚 a lot of bad abuse of the humanities pilfering funny ideas from the sciences and they don鈥檛 necessarily have a grasp on the rudimentary thing that they are trying to take inspiration from. I have no problem with people taking inspiration or liberty with certain things, but you got to kind of know it. So there鈥檚 like a big learning curve, going into that. But quite honestly, I鈥檓 hoping to take a little writing break and get back into materials and stuff again and films and yeah.
Am Johal 19:24
Nice, nice. So our listeners are always interested in getting book recommendations or theorists that you鈥檙e interested in and looking at now. You mentioned a few yesterday and some of the work, but I鈥檓 wondering, who are you excited by in terms of the writing they鈥檙e doing now?
Patricia Reed 19:42
Oh god, there鈥檚 so many! Well I think we have to give a shout out to, I mean, there鈥檚 like one scholar that I鈥檓 really a fan of, I think she鈥檚 really helpful especially in terms of media theory and she鈥檚 new to - as far as I know - new to 丁香园AV, if I鈥檓 not mistaken is Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, and she鈥檚 a wonderful thinker, very helpful. What I find really useful in my own thinking about technology and the sort of interfacing between the social and technical is that she just has a very profound knowledge of technical infrastructure. So she鈥檚 not just looking at technology as a kind of symptomatic, grumpy 鈥榦h Twitter is this鈥� and we don鈥檛 have attentions, blah blah blah, but she can really give you insight how these network structures are formed, under what assumptions do they come into being, and how they are shaping our reality today. So it鈥檚 a much more in depth analysis that I just find really useful because it鈥檚 neither technofetishist nor pessimist, but it鈥檚 a very solid, analytical thing and she鈥檚 done some wonderful books and amazing talks on this as well.
Patricia Reed 20:59
Another philosopher that鈥檚 been very useful for me is not a new one, it鈥檚 , this American pragmatist philosopher where this kind of principle of the stereoscopy of bringing the scientific image into sort of relation with the manifest image and that to me strikes me as a really important, or potentially, interesting angle to work with as an artist. And of course, without putting a positivist hierarchy, the scientific image ought to be instructing the manifest. It鈥檚 not this kind of hierarchical relationship anymore. But if you wanted to be more in general, like, how to bring this counterintuitive, insensible world into some sort of manifest reality, something that can be experienced, something that can be lived in order to transform how we understand ourselves. So that鈥檚, I think, that is quite important. Who else would I recommend? I mean there鈥檚 like this infinite amount! You鈥檝e got to give me that one in advance so that I can prepare.
Am Johal 22:16
Well that was good, that was good! I just wanted to say thank you for joining us Patricia. Ten years being away from Vancouver is far too long, so you鈥檒l have to come back again!
Patricia Reed 22:28
Yeah, with pleasure, especially when it鈥檚 nice and sunny like this! I was not expecting. But yeah it鈥檚 been wonderful to be here and grateful for the hospitality and everything, and hoping to get to meet more of these amazing scholars running around the building here in the next few days.
Am Johal 22:46
For sure, thank you so much for joining us with Patricia Reed this week.
[theme music]
Melissa Roach 22:57
Thank you so much for listening!
Maria Cecilia Saba 22:59
Thank you, Patricia Reed, for being here with us today.
Melissa Roach 23:02
And always, thank you to our production team, including myself, Maria Cecilia, and Jamie-Leigh Gonzales who is here with us in the booth, if you can call this a booth! We鈥檙e in our office.
Maria Cecilia Saba 23:14
Yeah, and make sure to subscribe to our podcast!
Melissa Roach 23:18
Thanks and catch you next week!
[theme music fades]