A Poetics of Infrastructure: Interview with Matt Coolidge

Author(s): Stephanie LeMenager

Source: Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan. 2, 2014)
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/resilience.1.1.21

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Poetics of Infrastructure
Interview with Matt Coolidge

Stephanie LeMenager

Matt Coolidge co-­founded the Center for Land Use Interpretation

(clui) in 1994 and serves as a project director, photographer and cura-
tor for the center. He has written several books published by the clui
and others, including Overlook: Exploring the Internal Fringes of Amer-
ica with the Center for Land Use Interpretation (2006); The Nevada Test
Site: A Guide to America’s Nuclear Proving Ground (1996), and Around
the Bay: Sites of Interest in the San Francisco Bay Region (2013). Matt
received a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship in 2004 and
the Smithsonian Institute’s Lucelia Artist Award in 2006.
Matt spoke with Resilience co-­editor Stephanie LeMenager in June,
2013, at the clui’s offices in Culver City, Los Angeles.
  
Stephanie LeMenager (SL): I’ve heard people talk about the clui
fostering a community of infrastructure geeks. When I took the clui’s
bus tour of the section of California Interstate 5 known as the Grape-
vine, I believe I heard you use the phrase “a poetics of infrastructure” to
describe what you were hoping to produce with that tour, an explora-
tion of a freeway which moves right through the heart of California’s
energy and water infrastructure.1 Why do you think infrastructure has
become such a crucial, magnetic concept?

Matt Coolidge (MC): Well, there’s something very honest and neces-
sary about it. Historically, it tends to be hidden, something we put out
of the way. Engineers don’t want you to see it, because it was considered

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ugly. It’s ironic—­or maybe “paradoxical” is a better word—­[that when]
you’re driving on a highway, looking at the scenery, you don’t want to
see the highway, but that’s the thing that enables you to see the scenery.
It’s a real paradox that in order for us to enjoy our lives we have to con-
sume and alter the planet, and the aesthetics of that have been based on
a kind of nostalgic sense of a dichotomy between humans and nature,
where you think that nature is something that doesn’t see the hands of
humans.
But I think that’s changing. People realize that we are animals trans-
forming our habitat, like all animals do. There is obviously a lot that
could be improved about the manner in which we do it, to not be
quite so wasteful. The alterations themselves aren’t necessarily negative
things, and to expose infrastructure in order to see how things operate,
in order to see the effects of the things we create and enjoy, the positive
things that we want to see, we should also see the connective tissue—­
meaning the strands, the pipelines, the aqueducts, the electric lines, all
the way back through the reservoirs, the power plants, the coal mines.
All of that is part of the same picture and should be seen, understood,
appreciated, and aestheticized, even, if it means we’re going to look at
it and enjoy paying attention to it. We are visual creatures, and aesthet-
ics are an important part of maintaining our attention and ascribing
value to things. We need to value our landfills as much as we value the
contents of our refrigerators. Both those things can have an aesthetic
component in order to communicate to us in meaningful ways.

SL: And there’s a liveliness, a reflection of our own species, in these

things, whether they’re ugly or beautiful, which is powerful.

MC: Aesthetics isn’t always about beauty—­it’s about a kind of clarity.

Aesthetic components can be preexisting—­aesthetics is just a frame of
evaluation. What clui does as an institution is provide a frame, a point
of view, for the existing world. We’ve dematerialized the museumologi-
cal process to the point where we’re just providing a point of view, a
frame, a context. It’s not the only context; it’s our context; it’s our broad-
cast channel or our brand or whatever you want to call it. But it’s that
frame, that institutional structure, that holds up this material-­less per-
spective. Rather than creating artifacts and managing them, we provide
the view of the artifacts. We don’t take things out of their contexts; we
try to understand them in their contexts.

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SL: I wanted to ask you about the collaborative aspect of the clui from
the beginning forward. If you want, we can talk explicitly about the cur-
rent exhibit [“Perishable: An Exploration of the Refrigerated Landscape
of America”] and how that worked collaboratively, or we can speak
more generally about how collaboration works for clui members.2 One
of the things that is exciting about this center is the way in which it has
initiated a different kind of workspace.

MC: It works differently in different projects. The Coldscape [“Perish-

able”] Project emerged as an idea. We had been wanting to do some-
thing about agriculture and food for a long time, because of course a
large part of land use in America is devoted to food production. We
knew that our resources online and our exhibition history were missing
a lot. It’s hard to locate places; it took us a long time to figure that out.
When it comes to crop production, how do you put your [latitude and
longitude coordinates] on a field of corn? Why that field of corn and
not some other field of corn? So it took us awhile to begin to imagine
how we might work. Focusing on companies and headquarters and lab-
oratories, we thought that it might be difficult to tell the story of food in
a very site-­specific way.
I think it was Nicola Twilley’s idea a couple years ago—­we’d been
talking with her about all kinds of things over the years—­to look at the
food landscape through the cold landscape, the perpetual temperature
condition that enables our food to operate on a national and interna-
tional scale, cold being a kind of time machine, where you slow down
the transformation of the objects, the food products.3 All things slow
down when you chill them; same with the ripening or decomposition
of food. So by slowing down the decomposition of food by introducing
cold temperatures, you increase the amount of space that you can cover
to transport the products from one place to another. Time and space
are related; it’s kind of elemental. [Laughs] So we thought that would
be a good way to narrow down the search and to look at the entirety of
food consumption based on this national system of time machines, the
Cold Chain.
It was about a two-­year research program. Nicola’s students at Co-
lumbia did a lot of research. Like with most things, we create a pile of
information over some long period. Something ubiquitous as food,
even cold food, is a huge subject. We had so much to learn, but we

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
forged ahead, and at a certain point the mountain of information began
to sort out. There were players, large companies that dominated differ-
ent sectors of the food economy. Once we decided to break it down into
food types and regions, we could begin to understand that, for example,
most apples come from Washington, so we have a limited area: What
are the big companies doing up there? How does that work? Potatoes
from Idaho, bananas from overseas ripening in these coastal ripening
centers, et cetera. Then the ways in which things could be explained
and described for the exhibit began to be clearer.

SL: A narrative.

MC: Exactly. We considered this project a research project with an ex-

hibition as a component. Then we could begin to share the task of writ-
ing things up and creating information resources online. It’s an ongoing
thing for us—­we’re still putting it out on the Web. It hasn’t been fin-
ished. It will probably have different versions over time, in the future.
It will expand to cover other parts of the food system beyond the Cold
Chain. We looked into that as well. It’s really an initiative to do research
on a certain subject, to feed the tree of information we have; it’s an on-
going processing of information and getting it out on the Internet and
providing it as raw material for doing other iterations, other kinds of
projects.

SL: At what point does the visual image become important? Does pho-
tography or videography work as a means of ground-­truthing early in
the life of a project?

MC: Yes, as soon as you can and as much as you can. There are limita-
tions, like the expense of travel and the networks of people that we have
to take pictures. But going physically to visit the sites is crucial, because
otherwise you’re dealing with things of more of a representative and
conceptual nature, unless the project is about other people’s representa-
tions of a place. We do these independent interpreter projects where we
basically choose somebody we think is doing interesting work to show-
case their point of view of places.
Curiously—­earlier you mentioned the postcards. We did that ex-
hibit about Merle Porter, who photographed Arizona [and] California
and died in the mid-­‘80s [“Territory in Photo-­Color: The Post Cards
of Merle Porter,” 1999]. We featured his work, and his widow was in-

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
volved in that (she died a couple of years ago). We’ve been going back
and rephotographing his perspectives. In that case, we are going back
and revisiting. It’s been really interesting. His historical records date to
the ’60s, ’70s, and early ’80s, but mostly a ’60s and ’70s view of a very
quotidian landscape. He’d go to the national parks, too, but for the most
part it was townscapes: downtowns, roads. So it’s been interesting to
do a rephotography project on his work. Some of that we have online
already.

SL: That’s a fascinating way of remapping, essentially. In the Art Forum

interview that you did with Jeffrey Kastner, you talk about the New
Topographics movement as being somewhat of an influence in terms
of how you see photography. What would you say about that, or about
photography as a mode of survey?

MC: We generally think of photography as a utilitarian device, a way of

capturing the appearance of a place, a way of conveying some qualities
of a place, just as a descriptive text provides another kind of snapshot.
The photograph is a graphic representation of the place. We use live vid-
eo if we can; mostly we do videotape of places, too, from fixed-­camera
positions. We’ve done entire exhibits that have been kinetic photo-
graphs, using video, which allows for an even more descriptive portray-
al of a place. Photographs can’t be too good, and they can’t be too bad. I
guess that in some ways New Topographics was an acknowledgment of
a more boring photograph being interesting, but they’re still incredibly
composed and very photographic things. They are very much about the
individual photographer’s point of view of a place, which is interest-
ing, and in the case of people telling stories through photographs, it is
a fascinating historical period of photography. I guess it was influential
in that they were telling stories about places through a particular lens.
They still were—­I think without exception—­photographers, and then
they were place people after that.

SL: Connected to cultural geography as a movement, but that was still a

relatively new movement.

MC: And so we said, “Okay, just because you take pictures doesn’t mean
you’re a photographer.” If it is about the place, then capture the place
through whatever medium: drawing, descriptive video, satellite photog-
raphy, whatever. Whatever it takes, given your means and the curato-

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
rial limitations based on how you’re presenting the material, in order to
convey the sense of the place in the way you think you should.
But if the photos were snapshotty drive-­bys, then it emphasizes the
vehicular glance, which is interesting, but it limits the utility of the pho-
tographs. If they’re too good, meaning too clever, too well composed, or
too much about the medium, then they also are not so useful, because
they cannot be used in flexible ways where you’re telling the story of a
place without too much of the language of photography getting in the
way. But you do have to acknowledge that there is a language of pho-
tography, and that these are artificial things. They’re not objective; they
are composed. So how do you find the middle ground? That’s the way
we developed our photographic processes, and do our best to maintain
that middle ground. It entails some technical awareness, but it’s some-
thing that anybody can do. It is very much about photography, but it’s
not about people being photographers.

SL: One of the things I think is so interesting about the clui’s projects
is that often you’re taking on macro-­scale systems, this latest [“Perish-
able”] project being a great example, and yet you find a way to make
them hit ground, to create a material, physical narrative from them. Is
there anything that you’ve been conceiving as a future project that is so
macro that at this point it feels almost undoable?

MC: Well, in a way that is our ultimate objective, to develop this portrait
of the country, in its totality, and that’s obviously impossible. And it
would be useless. That would be that Borges’s 1:1 map, where you’ve got
a pile of information that is as big as the thing you’re trying to decipher.
[Laughs] Then you’ve got two piles!
You have to have your Platonic objectives. The horizon is always re-
ceding, because the planet is turning. It keeps you going, but you know
you’ll never get there. You could sort of liken it to gis [Geographic
Information System] layers, where the projects we do, they’re all mac-
rocosmic, meaning they’re looking at a landscape that is too big for
anybody with cognitive rationality to get their mind around. But still,
they’re using this analogy of gis, where you provide the limits of your
data set—­for us, it is the borders of the USA—­and say, here is one itera-
tion of that, and here’s another, and here’s another, and they’re adding
up. We look at the legacy of the projects we’ve done from the beginning
and think about where we’re going, given where we’ve been in terms of

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
subject matter, in order to provide layers that aren’t too much like ones
we’ve done before, but also the ones that seem to be especially interest-
ing or important given the trajectory of our culture and landscape.
It does add up. Everything is piling up on the Internet and shows no
signs of going away. The pile is growing out there in the infosphere, and
we’re aware that we’re adding to that. With all the different channels
that everyone is creating for themselves in different ways, we’re just one
of those channels. It might be that things are becoming clearer as things
add up, as long as you can have access to the information. As long as
you’re selecting the programming in ways that are interesting and have
staying power, it is worth it to keep it all out there.
But we’re also realizing that what we create is becoming historical.
We don’t update everything, and things do have a production date as-
sociated with them, so you can see them within the historical context
in which they were created. Eventually we’ll rephotograph—­we have
been—­our own photographs to think about how they will evolve as
technologies make managing information (hopefully) easier but also
more accessible. Incorporating those historical layers into future ones
is something we haven’t totally figured out, but it’s an exciting thing to
contemplate.

SL: An exciting future project, and an ongoing one.

MC: Yeah, we think a lot about archives and about the perpetualization
of information. A lot of people who are dealing with Internet-­based
technologies are also thinking very materially. There is a physical com-
ponent to information, as we all know. Not just in terms of publications
and resources printed on paper, but the materiality of memory stor-
age. At some point there are limits for that, based more on energy than
anything—­energy and space, cooling and whatever.

SL: A different cold chain. [Both laugh]

MC: We’re working on several exhibits right now and of course over the
next few years. One of them is about information infrastructure. We’ll
see what form it takes, but it will be to some degree about the systems
of conveyance, the linkages between places where information is stored.
The concrete and cables of the “cloud.”

SL: You’re going to be descended upon by academics and librarians.

[Both laugh] I’ll personally be among them.

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MC: We don’t want it to be too hot a subject, in a way. But to provide
some different kind of view of things is always a struggle, especially
when things are changing and evolving so quickly.

SL: It will be interesting to see if you can, to paraphrase one of your

stated goals as an exhibit designer, make that boring in a way that is
interesting.

MC: Exactly. Even architecturally, information spaces are interesting.

SL: So now I’m going to ask a question for geeks, or for people who
want to move through the USA like Matt Coolidge. One of our other
editors, Julia Christensen, knows you, and she talks about how remark-
able it is to drive with you, how your dashboard explodes with mapping
devices. How does digital mapping, or print maps, affect your experi-
ence of where you are as you travel?

MC: These days you can track yourself on your cell phone or your
iPhone while you’re traveling, looking at Google satellite imagery—­
which is fantastic. The one thing that is lacking still is that you can’t
count on web connectivity when you’re driving in remote areas, so even
if you’re using satellite imagery live as you travel, you lose your map-
ping ability if you go below a 3g connection. So having things running
off the hard drive in a dashboard-­mounted computer as you travel can
be very useful. Things like the usgs Topos, which are really valuable
tools for understanding where you are. Not in terms of navigating, but
as an archeological resource. The usgs Topo set—­those fifty thousand
or so printed quads covering the country—­have been digitized, and you
can get the entire set for the whole country on one hard drive, so wher-
ever you are you have that level of information. But they’re old: some of
the quads’ most recent editions date back to the 1970s, so you’re seeing
a recent historical layer of the landscape. The resolution indicates build-
ing locations, old roads, and patterns, but because they are a little out
of date there are things that aren’t necessarily apparent in front of you,
physically, that the maps enable you to find and see.

SL: You have a dashboard-­mounted computer, but do you use print as

well?

MC: Yes, still. We still draw on maps and have state maps with circles
around things. For the logistics of planning trips, certainly you can do

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
it online, but again you’re depending on connectivity if you use on-
line resources. Nothing, so far, seems to beat paper for national cover-
age, where it is not just a project centered around urban centers. We
do paper for our database in file cabinets. The paper things we store in
there—­newspaper clippings, articles, even a lot of stuff printed out from
the Web—­are organized according to state, then category, and then site,
where each site has a manila folder with its name on it. It’s not so much
that we’re building a paper archive; it’s a printed record of information
about the places we’ve been looking at, a base of raw material and infor-
mation on places that we draw from to do projects.

SL: You went online pretty early, with the digital Land Use Database,
which has become such a signature project, a groundbreaking way of
doing the archive. What inspired that? It was pretty early in the ‘90s to
be going online.

MC: Well, it was just sort of the timing of things. We incorporated in

1994, when the Web was just beginning. Our first big project was the
Land Use Database, and at that time, in 1994 or 1995, we would send
out letters—­bulk mail—­soliciting information, asking corporations to
describe where their locations are or to provide their annual reports—­
their 10ks, which tend to describe the physical characteristics of cor-
porations. Government entities. The military. We canvassed the nation
for information: maps, imagery. It was a big bulk-­mail project. We got
thousands of things through the mail slot, which we then processed and
extracted the sites [from] and then filed away. As ’95 became ’96 or ’97
these companies began to put themselves online a bit, and then soon
enough, in the late ’90s, you could get annual reports as pdfs, or proto-­
pdfs, on the Internet, so our research methodology transitioned pretty
quickly from physical-­to Internet-­based research.
But at the same time, we wanted to put resources online to provide
a digital map of the country with clickable sites and scalable maps. We
designed that several times in different ways, starting with Esri gis soft-
ware that was cumbersome. Esri—­they’re out in Redlands—­is the mas-
ter of gis: they kind of invented it, in a way. A landscape architect from
Harvard created the first initiative that became this software company.
Their software is used internationally by governments, by companies,
by scientists, by everybody, to provide the infrastructure for the gis lay-
ers, to understand where buried utilities are, street networks, scientific

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
data, demographic information, everything you can imagine that can
be mapped is usually turned into some kind of gis layer for manag-
ers and scientists and government officials, et cetera, to use. Esri has
been the company at the center of all that. They’ve been very generous
in giving us software to use to get our comparatively meager resources
online, through the early versions of clickable, scalable, diagrammatic
maps where they had done that.
So we worked with them, and we worked with individual, inde-
pendent database designers. Then of course Google came along and
opened up their system, so when that happened we transitioned to their
platform, which is so far still working out. Maybe something else will
come along some day, but they are on top of the game in terms of creat-
ing things that you can import and export and customize; and certainly
the ease for people using it to understand all the iconography and how
it works. That makes it so much better, on the end user side. That is still
what they do better than anybody.
So, yes, we have always seen the organization as physical sites—­
ground truthed, as we mentioned earlier. All the resources we provide,
in terms of imagery, are taken by people working for the organization,
so that represents a kind of ground truthing, a primary layer of infor-
mation, not like a clearinghouse of stock photography. These are images
taken by people within the organization. There is a physical component,
an understanding that every single site we look at has a lat-­long, is lo-
catable, you can point to it, whether or not—­in terms of permissions—­
you can physically go to it. That is another issue (though in many cases
you can).
The point is, there is a corresponding place on the planet that has
physical qualities that are that site, and anything else is a layer built on
top of that, all the way up to the scalable interactive maps on the Inter-
net that represent this informational layer floating above the physical,
geographical layer. The organization [the clui], developing with the
Web in that way, has in its dna the interaction—­the space—­between
those two things, between the informational or representative, and the
actual or physical.

SL: When it comes to receiving permission to display images of sites

like corporate campuses or utilities plants, it is impressive how many
stakeholders you’ve drawn in, how many corporations and government
entities say yes. Diplomatically speaking, how does that work?

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MC: It varies. But like anything else, everything is on the Web. If they
want to figure out whether it is worth it to open up to us, they can just
look on our website and see everything. It’s all out there, in terms of our
attitude and approach and methodology and the information we have.
There is no Trojan horse. They can make up their own minds about our
objectivity or whatever they might be concerned about.

SL: I like how you make it possible to structure a dialogue with entities
that the public might not feel were accessible.

MC: I think there is a tendency for people to fear things they don’t know,
and people who are aware of that—­aware that communication can be
very helpful for community relations or having a broader public under-
standing, they might be sympathetic to your interests in understanding
more about what they are and do. Because we aren’t out to get anybody,
we might be a better risk than some other avenues for passing on infor-
mation. That’s a subjective determination that they make.
We’re interested in all forms of land use—­which is basically every-
thing [laughs]—­but also places that are well known, we try to under-
stand them in a different way, to recontextualize them. Places that are
under-­known, to describe them helps to balance this general awareness
of the way that everything is connected in the landscape. Some people
say that we often look toward the things that are hidden, but I think
that’s the notion that there are certain things you are used to seeing,
certain things that cry out for attention. But there are other things that
are just there as byproducts or collateral spaces that just don’t have the
organization or the reason or the desire to call attention to themselves,
and that is maybe the majority of places. So by that logic, I guess we do
look toward things that are less noticed.

SL: Hidden in plain sight.

MC: Yes, exactly. As you noted we joke that we try to do boring

exhibits—­the more boring the better, because “boring” means that peo-
ple gloss over it, don’t really notice it. It hasn’t become interesting. By
stopping and pausing, the boring places end up being terrific resources
for exploration, understanding, and storytelling.

SL: For me it makes it possible to love parts of the world that I would
normally write off. When you incorporated back in 1994, what did you
imagine would happen with this project? When you think back to the

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
beginning of the clui, what was the idea of the trajectory, of how long it
would last, of where you would be located?

MC: We founded the institution up in Oakland. When you incorpo-

rate and become a nonprofit, there is a lot of paperwork involved; it’s
not something you do lightly. And so it came at the end of a process
of exploring different ways to do something that seemed meaningful
and useful and interesting. It was a leap into the future, which you do a
little heedlessly. We’re not trying to sell the world any particular ideol-
ogy. We’re not out there trying to convert minds or take over people’s
psychological spaces. We just decided we’d do this, and that we’d be here
essentially forever, or as long as we could, to do what we do, and we’ll
provide avenues where people can find us and avail themselves of the
resources that we provide. But there was no campaign to publicize and
grow the organization, in terms of its influence. It was really just we’ll
do what we do, and if people pay attention, fine, but we’d probably do
it for ten people or just for ourselves. [Laughs] We think it’s interest-
ing and are glad that other people do, too, but it is not something that
is conceived in order to broadcast in a wide way. It’s just there, and if
people find it interesting and useful, then great. But we’re not very good
at publicity and stuff like that. I guess part of the reason we’re not is
that there are so many voices out there screaming for attention, for your
mindshare, from advertising to nonprofits: everybody’s got some kind
of something they’re trying to push forward.
We wanted to follow a different kind of strategy, to just be there and
allow people to come find it. We’re not hiding, but we’re not trying to
proselytize or convert anybody to anything in particular. We’re not ac-
tivists in that sense. So there was no projection on how influential or
large or whatever we were going to be. When we founded the organiza-
tion, it was just, we’re going to do this and hopefully sustain it for as long
as we can. We learned early on not to get too big, in terms of office staff
and payroll and all that stuff. We’d love to grow if we had the resources
to pay people better, but so far that’s not all there. But we have a small,
agile group of people who are doing things not for financial benefit but
because they’re interested in the content and in providing resources. We
started out with the same kind of goals and objectives, in terms of set-
ting up a structure for programming and research and resources for the
public that we’ve maintained consistently since the beginning. We’re do-
ing the same thing we started doing almost twenty years ago.

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SL: It’s still working.

MC: It’s still working, meaning we’re still able to do it and still feel like it
is an effective methodology.

SL: If you had to describe—­and this could come from just your experi-
ence—­a typical user of these resources, what is that person like?

MC: We don’t really follow up on who uses the resources in a systematic

way, but you hear things anecdotally. One exception is when we’re do-
ing a public tour that involves a visit to a secure facility, and we have to
furnish the site managers ahead of time with everyone’s Social Security
numbers, residences, and occupation and all that. Collecting that infor-
mation from the people who’ve signed up for the tour gives us a very
good idea of who our audience is, in that case! [Laughs]
But in general I don’t know. We have no target audience. We operate,
in some ways, at a very basic level. . . . When we did the show about the
steel industry a while back, we got people who worked in the industry
commenting on it and seeming to enjoy it; they were happy to see a
broad view of something that is usually looked at minutely or regional-
ly. Specialists hopefully can get something out of it, as well as a general
public—­anyone who’s interested in “What’s that in front of me? What’s
it connected to? How did it get there?” Almost a childlike way of look-
ing at the world: “What’s that? What’s that?” [Laughs]

SL: David Macaulay’s The Way Things Work, blown out into the world.

MC: It’s true. Or Richard Scarry’s What Do People Do All Day? Maybe
those were influences. [Laughs]

Notes
1. For more on the clui’s “Through the Grapevine” exhibit and tour, see the clui
website at http://www.clui.org/newsletter/winter-2011/through-grapevine-exhibit.
2. The Perishable exhibit closed in the clui’s Culver City gallery in September of
2013. A record of it can be found on the clui website at http://www.clui.org/section/
perishable-exploration-refrigerated-landscape-america.
3. Nicola Twilley is author of the blog Edible Geography (http://www.edible
geography.com), co-­founder of the Foodprint Project (http://www.foodprintproject
.com), and director of Studio-­X nyc, an urban futures network run by Columbia Uni-
versity’s Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation, and Planning (https://twitter
.com/studioxnyc).

This content downloaded from

67.165.238.94 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:40:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms