Anticipated Transience: Initial Considerations
tran·sience
Function: noun
: the quality or state of being transienttran·sient
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transeunt-, transiens, present participle of transire to cross, pass by, from trans- + ire to go — more at issue
1 a : passing especially quickly into and out of existence : transitory b : passing through or by a place with only a brief stay or sojourn
2 : affecting something or producing results beyond itself
It is widely understood that only certain aspects of the decaying world in which we live are selected for preservation, becoming as it were ‘heritage’, through an act the ‘pinky show’ calls “time freezing”. In most situations, once such objects are identified, every effort is expended to ensure they are prevented from taking their natural life cycles into disrepair, decay and disappearance, but, perhaps counter to received logic, never actually to neglect. Indeed the decaying edifices of our world are in fact the playgrounds for countless explorers, the fascination with such structures seems to be a trend found amongst at least all post-industrial nations, and most likely speaks to wider feelings of nostalgia and sense of place and belonging, that are also to be found at the root of the psychological underpinnings of the heritage industry. It was through one such explorer, the archaeologist Bradley L. Garrett, that I was recently made aware of the term “anticipated transience”. This blog post consists of my initial thoughts concerning this phrase, that I find it both intriguing and potentially useful.
Within his blog post he stated that ‘anticipated transience’ is an idea taken from a paper by the geographer Dr. Caitlin DeSilvey who used the term at a Royal Geographic Society/Institute of British Geographers conference. In his post Bradley L. Garrett makes the following statement in regards to the difference between exploring decaying places and visiting managed heritage sites:
“And this, I would argue, is exactly what is missing from interpreted historic spaces or managed heritage sites – we cannot anticipate their transience because their material and memorial trajectory is regulated. We cannot see ourselves written into their futures because we are not ‘allowed’ to write ourselves into them. This is a point that heritage managers would be remiss to ignore.” (Bradley L. Garrett).
Despite not strictly speaking being a ‘heritage manager’, I’d rather not be remiss all the same, so I thought I’d give some consideration to this observation. If, as suggested, it is important to be able to write oneself into a space in order to ‘anticipate the transience’ of the space, then it seems that it is correct to say traditional managed spaces prevent such ‘writing in’. Heritage spaces are mediated in terms of access, use, interpretation, and even longevity of presence.
It seems to me that one of the most common forms of ‘writing in’ is in fact literally the written (or pictorial) action of creating graffiti. An act that Bataille (1955 p.222) considered an essential evolutionary indicator of modern man: “It is the man who dwelt in this cave of whom for the first time and with certainty we may finally say: he produced works of art; he is our sort”. Acts of graffiti can be found throughout history and across the world, some that I find particularly intriguing, from the perspective of the idea of ‘writing in’, are those associated with the migrant trails of US western expansion (such as the Oregan Trail). These sites are well known case studies amongst the conservation community. These sites, often cliff faces, contain markings on which settlers have created graffiti. Such acts of graffiti have long been considered important for this very idea of writing into history: ”All of them proclaim to the world in one form or another that ‘I was here. I am a part of history’.” (James Knipmeyer). In fact such acts of graffiti are not only considered interesting, but, are also protected by law. ”Historical inscriptions with names and dates 50 years and older have value, context, and are part of the archaeological record. And they’re protected under federal law.” (Gulliford 2009) The reason why such spaces are interesting for our consideration of ‘anticipated transience’ is also to be found in the previous quotation, for once such spaces become managed they undergo ‘time freezing’ and people are no longer permitted to write themselves into the space. They can no longer interact with their heritage but instead must become consumers and spectators. However, this does not prevent people from doing what comes seemingly naturally and spaces such as those described expand large budgets and (wo)man power removing graffiti that does not fit the arbitrary dates considered ‘historic’ or ‘archaeological’, in doing so of course stripping these terms of their actual meaning. Such actions are apparently justified because “understandable behavior during the exploration and settlement phase of the American West centuries ago in no way condones recent writing on rocks. Wanton graffiti mars the Colorado Plateau, because each year hundreds of thoughtless people carve on rock and deface public lands. The only legacy they’re leaving is proof of their idiocy.” (Gulliford 2009) Graffiti Removal Intervention Team (GRIT) are used to remove ‘modern’ graffiti from such sites Gulliford (2009) estimates that: ”In our week, we sanded 195 square feet.”
I wonder what is “idiotic” about wanting to leave a mark, to indicate to the world that you were there, that you are a part of history, that you are in fact, in a sense that Bataille would consider, evolved into a part of the human community. It seems at least equally idiotic to spend countless hours and dollars sanding down rock faces to remove all trace of human life, in an attempt to show that people were, despite all facts to the contrary, not there. Not to mention that the act of sanding destroys the rock face just as surely as painting on it or scratching into it. Furthermore, nowhere in this article (or the many like it) is any indication given as to why people today are different from people 50 years ago, and why an act then is of historical significance but the very same act today is not? Why should people now not want to be a part of their landscape, to demonstrate their presence, to become a part of history to anticipate the transience of place?
”The society which abolishes every adventure makes its own abolition the only possible adventure.” (Reclaim the Streets slogan)
The words of RTS adopted from situationist inspired slogans daubed on walls during the May days of Paris 1968, speak of the problem of a mediated society. The suppression of desire, whether it be to mark a stone to concretely leave a tangible sign of having been somewhere, or, the desire to explore a building in any way you felt fit, or, the desire to create communities that are not a part of the dominant culture, seemingly leading ultimately to one place, a clash between desire and the management of that desire, ultimately to either suppression or liberation of the desire; the question of course for heritage managers is whether a compromise position can exist. Interestingly during the protests against the G8 in Genoa, June 2001, a piece of graffiti was written and recorded that captured both the spirit of the event, and the mediation-critique inherent in the idea of ‘anticipated transience’, this graffiti became iconic and has been reprinted in countless magazines, books, pamphlets and fliers, it read simply: “you make plans, we make history”. This well crafted slogan spoke of a critique that went well beyond the G8, and incorporated all forms of mediation, commodification and control, as well as presenting an adventurous political solution, to actively create alternative futures in the present. The question for heritage managers then is can concepts of adventure and active participation be applied as means of creating a unmediated, yet managed space?
From: SchNews, Issue 640.
So, therefore finally it seems necessary to apply this concept directly to the conservation profession itself. Interestingly the most significant attempts within object conservation, to create a situation in which heritage is less managed than it was previously, have borrowed heavily from the ideas of heritage site management. Specifically I am referring to practices such as the use of ‘stakeholder analysis’ and ‘statements of significance’, although these are rarely formally conducted within objects conservation their informal practice is based on the shared philosophical idea of ‘stewardship’. Coupled with this has been the concept of ‘managed change’, representing a realization that it is neither possible, nor always desirable, for material culture to exist in perpetuity and in fact all material culture will eventually disintegrate. The approach has then been to make decisions as to the significance of material culture, and therefore, to manage the change to the object or site, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the wishes of relevant stakeholders. This has particularly allowed indigenous peoples to both access and use their material culture in ways that previously institutions would have prevented; often citing preservation concerns. Of course the other benefit is in terms of budget allocation.
The other remarkably intriguing facet of this discussion, that it is essential to mention, is that there is of course one group of people who are entitled to make their mark, to write themselves into objects and spaces, into history, they always leave a signature of sorts… those people are conservators and site managers. In fact I suspect many conservators would agree that this is one of the attractions of the field, we get to explore the objects (both physically as tactile objects, metaphysically for their meanings, and elementally as analysis of their component materials) and then through acts of conservation and restoration we get to make decisions about alterations to the object to tell a particular story, one that to a certain extent often depends on the results of our work. In this respect the conservator is in a unique position in an otherwise totally mediated heritage landscape. The act of conservation is in fact an act of writing ones self into the history of an object/site and in so doing involves coming to an understanding of the materiality of the object in question, it seems that perhaps the act of conservation is one of the few instances of semi-autonomous exploration within the mediated heritage landscape that does allow the potential to experience this anticipation of transience.
Within the conservation literature discussions of this type usually employ the term ‘access’, although a term that could be employed loosely, it is often interpreted more strictly to mean either access to see, research, or use, material culture within a mediated environment or occasionally within a traditional environment, with that use being monitored. I think the idea of ‘anticipated transience’ adds a much needed level of both complexity and accuracy to these discussions. A potential means of demonstrating this difference might be to compare the accounts of experiencing spaces recorded by museum/heritage site visitors with those of urban explorers in their seemingly post-apocalyptic landscapes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scallop_holden/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
References:
Bataille, G. 1955. The Miracle of Lascaux. in Prehistoric Painting: Lascaux; or, the Birth of Art. Wainhouse (tr.). Skira: New York. (pp. 1-3). In: Morra, J and Smith, M. (eds). 2006. Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Taylor and Francis.
DeSilvey, Caitlin. 2009. Stretched-out stories: making sense of transience. Paper given at the Royal Geographical Society/Institute of British Geographers: Annual International Conference 2009. Theme: ‘Geography, Knowledge and Society’. Held at: Manchester: City Departments of MMU and UoM.
Garrett, B. L. 2009. Anticipating Transience – Saying Goodbye to West Park Asylum. Bradley L. Garrett Blog. 30.08.2009
Gulliford, Andrew. 2009. Historic Inscriptions on the Colorado Plateau . . . and Tales from the True GRIT. Insideoutsidemag.com, February 2009.
Knipmeyer, James. quoted in: Gulliford, Andrew. Historic Inscriptions on the Colorado Plateau . . . and Tales from the True GRIT. Insideoutsidemag.com, February 2009.
One Comment
Leave a CommentTrackbacks