Now that the work is finally taking shape and the passing influx of visitors [e.g. lots of walkers form the St Micahels way] is increasing so are the chats/conversations/debates about the burning of work rather than the concept behind it. The general response is that it's a bit sad to see it destroyed ['a waste of an art/work']. Most, feel they would like to see it stay standing and feel it that it is shame to see it burnt in such a frivolous way after the considerable work done by many. I have some sympathy here [I like what I have created too!] as this the point I have been working toward and my feelings are that it would only be half the work if it was left standing. It truly is a waste of art - but my agreement ends there. By destroying a hard won fuel/energy source it underlines in a similar way to how we use energy. The work sets out to create wastage in order to engage with the subject of wastage itself. It creates pollution to engage with the creation of pollution. By destroying something that is cared in for someway, I hope to underline or raise questions about the relationship we have and values we assign to the energy/resources we use.
Project outline:CUT/STACK/BURN is a performative re-enactment of a redundant rural activity - furze cutting for domestic fuel (or gorse outside of cornwall). The project uses art installation as a platform to develop a visual conversation about the implications and absence of sustainable approaches in the management of land and its resources. Our current use of energy in an age of climate change becomes a focal point and pivotal issue in this visual debate.