The mesh is used both conceptually and materially to assist with communicating the idea that all humans are entangled with each other, things and Nature on a planetary (at least) scale. These relations have the potential to encourage new forms of knowledge to develop around the topic of the Anthropocene.
(The term and its meaning is derived from a combination of Tim Ingold’s meshwork and Timothy Morton’s mesh.)
The mesh is represented materially throughout Anthropocene Interventions I and it is via the co-workers interaction with the physical artwork that a relational mesh developed. A number of the co-workers expressed some understanding of the interconnectedness with Nature during the semi-structured interviews. In particular the summer and winter solstice interventions that allowed the co-workers to experience movement of the planet in relation to the sun.
Further to this set of relational engagements between the artwork, the artist and the co-workers, the co-workers developed a material mesh of relations via dialogue, among themselves, along with visiting clients and contractors as they discussed the artwork and its meaning. The mesh continued to expand. While the interventions in Anthropocene Interventions II are ongoing, there has been a similar engagement with the artwork, artist, co-workers, clients and contractors. I look forward to further research in this area.
Beyond the site of the office, the mesh continued to developed as a result of the engagement in the ArtCOP21 event/action. (as part of Anthropocene Interventions I) The aim was to engage a new group, a wider audience, outside the work space with the intended purpose to encourage more emergent processes that have the potential to develop personal equitable entanglements in the mesh for the participants.
I handed out 25 gifts (details of gifts can be found on the gift page of this website) to people I engaged with in the streets and shops of Paris. I explained the project and asked people to upload an image of the gift to Instagram with the accompanying hashtag. This was the intended emergent process of engagement and where the mesh had the potential to increase further. Unfortunately, no one uploaded an image to the hashtag, from Paris. The reasons for this could be varied, including: language barrier and lack of knowledge or access to Instagram. However, the human experience in this event/action was materially different to the previous interventions. The gifting was a materially fleeting encounter. The time spent between myself and individuals with the gift in context was limited and lacking in depth of engagement. This lack of material relation is likely to be the main factor in the lack of entanglement with the emergent process of uploading an image of the gift to Instagram.
Within Anthropocene Interventions II there have been 2 separate social engagements outside the office space, engaging different groups of people with sculpture created and installed in the office space. This is currently ongoing and the results are not finalised.
Ingold, T 2013, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology,Art and Architecture, Routledge, London, New York.
Morton, T, 2013, Hyperobjects: philosophy and ecology after the end of the world, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.