Today’s task was to critique Team Cadmium’s gallery proposal. I followed the same process as with Team Cerulean and firstly began by taking the time to read and digest the information and then secondly re-reading and taking notes on the positive and negative aspects of the presentation. In this instance the positive far outweighed the negative.
I was incredibly impressed by the concept and by the presentation. Clear, to-the-point, explanation and appropriate visuals facilitated a concise but informative overview of the team’s vision of a future gallery. My critique (shown below) has now been uploaded to the forum and I hope my feedback is considered as constructive.
The Park Artlet presentation is a cohesive document, in terms of both aesthetic and content. It is clear that Team Cadmium opted for a less–is–more approach and this, I believe, was a very wise choice. The presentation clearly outlines the team’s vision, conveying their strong concept at the offset of the solid, concise proposal; thus leaving the reader with just enough information for an insightful overview but also a degree of curiosity to want to know more.
I appreciate the clarity with which the 4, clearly defined, proposal concepts were conveyed. This was obviously a very considered approach and each of the 4 concepts are of vital importance to the overall success of the project. There was certainly no superfluous content ensuring the proposal was easy to digest. The content was also supported by strong visuals and creative animation which, again, were obviously carefully considered and selected in order to emphasize key elements, rather than to serve as decoration.
The concept itself is unique, sustainable and ethically commendable. A Utopian vision, blending community and art. However, the proposal does not communicate if the Park Artlet vision is a permanent exhibit space or merely a pop up gallery. I think this is an incredibly important issue which needs to be clarified due to a number of deciding factors. As wonderful an idea as it is, parking is big business and in inner-city areas, also in big demand. For example, in the area of Westminster, in the UK alone, parking fees equate to over £51 million PA in revenue for the local council (Canocchi, 2014). Therefore, it begs the question of how practical using parking spaces to accommodate the gallery actually is? Would urban planning decision makers be prepared to give up this revenue for a permanent community art project?
No matter how much I would, personally, love to see this project in action, I’m not sure that there are enough forward thinking governments who would share this view. It could be that the parking spaces were rented on a temporary basis, covering the costs of the parking revenue or even if Park Artlet utilized alternative spaces within urban areas rather than dedicated parking lots; for example spaces within current, town center, pedestrianized areas.
In an ideal world, Park Artlet would become a catalyst encouraging positive social and environmental changes in our predominately capitalist, convenience driven society. It would be wonderful if the Park Artlet urban galleries encouraged pedestrianization, higher use of public transport or even cycling in urban areas; perhaps also contributing to lessening congestion issues.
Maybe these could be the arguments targeted towards decision makers; emphasizing the positive social and environmental issues offsetting any loss of revenue. It is clear from the proposal that it is these factors that have driven the team’s vision and their Utopian dream is a enviable one.
Winstanley, L. (2015) Team Cadmium critique
Canocchi, C. (2014). Motorists-ripped-UK-councils-rake-667m-surplus-parking-fees-year-says-RAC. [online] This is Money. Available at: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2870367/Motorists-ripped-UK-councils-rake-667m-surplus-parking-fees-year-says-RAC.html [Accessed 1 Sep. 2015].