Finally.....pt 1 (3/15 revisited)

After numerous challenges and setbacks I am able to get back online with minimal interruptions.

I have broken my posts into two separate posts to revisit our conversation from March 15th and the second constitutes interesting facts and personal thoughts on concepts and historical information regarding cemeteries....

3/15:redux

Our typical marathon discussions were renewed this night as we began to address the audience we would be targeting and what concepts may be explored through these groups. We found there were two broad groups to isolate subjects from within. First, are the people on campus. These people may use the cemetery for a multitude of purposes or view it as an alternative. The notion of the alternative was primarily seen as efficiency of travel, however, there may be those that have other uses for it that fall outside the typical notions of the cemetery. The second group are the users. Within this group we were able to break it down further. There are those that are not seen and might leave artifacts and those that are seen and might leave artifacts. In the end, the following list constitutes the groups we chose from:

-The dead
-Loved ones of the dead (both local and distant)
-Those who pass through or cut through
-Those who pass by
-----via car
-----via walking
-----via bike
-Loved ones moving through the cemetery
-Those intrigued by the cemetery (morbid curiosity/fascination)
-Workers
-----grounds upkeep/maintenance
-----day to day operations (sales, hr, accounting/billing, management, etc)
-Adjacent participants (coexist but don't know or care it is there)
-----Law
-----Art and Design
-----ACES
-----Architecture
-----Athletics
-----etc.

Subject rather than audience: The landscape
-----real topography
-----topography of the monuments
-----planning

Specific discussion of subject: The Groundskeeper

There were three topics that arose when discussing the groundskeeper; first, there are the stories. These might be his personal stories, those that may be made up and attributed to the dead and there are the actual true stories of the individuals. Next, the groundskeeper ends up becoming the nexus of everyone. He/she deals with those that work at the main office, he/she works the grounds, he/she deals with the various artifacts (waste or memorial), and he/she bears witness to many of the groups we discussed. The question, then, is what is the viewpoint of this individual? Are they passive and uncaring about the lives of these people? Are they active and very aware of the stories and interconnections? What are we assuming that is eitehr true or false?

Specific discussion of subject: The Passersby

We felt that many of the passersby understand the space of the cemetery and the concept of what occurs and how to interact with it, however, we guess that the majority of these people have no clue about the history of the site nor the individuals contained within.

Conceptually:
-There is an interesting contrast of the lives that move within and around against those that have become "stopped inertia" (once moving and now static).
-Juxtapositions
-----movement/stasis
-----caring/uncaring
-----interactive/passive
-Harmony
-----breakdown of class/racial divisions/workers in the end they are all virtually the same
-Romanticism: there is a romantic view of the cemetery and the sentiments that each individual carries within

In the end we decided to investigate the groundskeeper and the passersby/those that cut through. We were extremely interested in the idea of the groundskeeper representing the nexus, that which all else revolves and the contrast of the individuals that pass by with no or little consideration for the site and its activity. As with our other projects we are trying to maintain an unbiased opinion of these groups and will wait to see where the actual events and ideas take us.