www.christourre.com

Here are a few photographs displaying the family farm and the personal past connections to chickens:

My Great Grandfather Hixson in front of the family steam-powered thrasher.

A farmhand from the Hixson family farm.

My Great Aunt Betts in front of the family chicken coop (1929).

The Hixson family farm in the early 1990s.

Me as a child on a family member’s horse (1985).

Interview

Throughout the duration of the project fellow artist Steve Zieverink and myself had many discussions regarding the project.  Steve’s questions of the project throughout were poignant, sharp, and challenging.  I sat down with Steve to conduct a more formal discussion regarding Gallus Gallus. This interview was conducted on March 29th, 2009; one day before the first egg deliveries.

SZ: How long will you continue the project, when does the piece end or become resolved?

CT: Well initially I wanted the project to sustain till at least the end of the growing season for community gardens in Chicago. I thought it would be appropriate to tie the project in to the beginning and end of the community garden.  However, since the chickens can’t be raised on public lands due to the laws and regulations, its going to be an organic thing.  So long as I can find land that can support the chickens, whether it be public or private land, there really is no timeline. When I exhaust a certain amount of resources where I can no longer raise the chickens that’s when the project (egg delivery) ends.

SZ: What if, for example, a disease killed all of your chickens?  What would you do then?

CT: Hopefully the chickens don’t die, but once the deliveries begin the viral nature of the project will take over.  It’s not a matter of providing the community with food for the whole summer, but initiating something that continues indefinitely.

SZ: But, you are committed to this season as an experiment?  At the same time, if the project starts to fall apart (no additional resources come through or no interest by community) would you just let the project dissolve?

CT: Sure, I would have to let things dissolve.  For instance, if a raccoon got into the cage and killed all of the chickens, then that is the end to a component of the project.  The chickens that I own are my “team” in the project; an animal social unit which is providing and facilitating a larger community of humans.  When the chickens are eliminated, there is still the residual that the project can build off of and continue the discussions which have already begun.

It would be nice for the project to exist in the long term, but since it is a project which I am invested in so personally (taking up so much time in my day to complete) there will come a time when I need to distance myself from it in the capacity which I am invested right now.  In order for me to move on to the next step in my own artistic practice, the piece (delivery of the eggs) will have to end.  Hopefully at some point the community can take over the project and adopt the chickens, raising them on their own.  The entire process of bringing chickens into the city, raising them, and distributing eggs; that gesture is in itself just as powerful as a specific duration of the deliveries.  The project could build steam, but the duration of the delivery service would eventually mean that a large system would need to be set up; more people, land and resources would have to be utilized.  If the project was relied upon as a food source then you have the problem of governmental agencies getting involved (USDA).  The intention of this project is to keep things on a small scale; an example of what can be done by an individual effort; not setting up a permanent project or service that only I can execute, but establishing a permanent system within the community.

Large-scale agriculture in the city should be established holistically.  There aren’t 20 acre plots of land that can be developed into farms, but we can utilize small portions of land that are available to create a system throughout the city.  Its better from a community generated food system not to rely on such heavy industrial agricultural techniques.  I’m not proposing that we stop buying food in stores (that local food systems will replace existing food sources) but we can definitely reduce our dependence.

SZ: So your hopes are that it can become sustainable, that the community would eventually become caretakers of the chickens.

CT: I would hope that when I want to relinquish my responsibilities with the project that people within the community would be interested in taking the birds, which I would be willing to donate to the community free of charge.  I think that would be the ultimate finale to the project; people interested in taking on that responsibility for themselves.

Informing the community of the possibilities of chickens in the city opens up other arenas of discussion.  For example, goats are legal in the city, however that’s an issue of land and humane treatment.  Chickens are actually well suited for urban living.

SZ: Because of the level of engagement within the community, how does responsibility play a role in your practice?  What are you thinking about in terms of the level of trust towards you in the community and how do you build that trust?

CT: One think that needs to be kept in mind with a project like this is that you can’t make too many assumptions of who your audience is.  I am in a community that is comprised mostly of Mexican Americans.  I need to confront my initial assumptions due to my lack of knowledge of the community members and their culture.  Its all about getting out there and to be willing to have that open dialog to get activated within the community.  Also, being a white resident in a Mexican community, which is now under heavy gentrification, is another issue for me in the project.  How can we create a diverse yet cohesive community who can learn from one another?  How can you make a community that’s changing demographically, but still keep it cohesive and not divided.

SZ: People are also weird about food.  They trust the large corporate stores for safety, but would be more reluctant to trust an individual.  We live in a society where we are taught not to trust the individual; which is what I find interesting because you are trying to establish that level of trust within the community.

CT: I like how you’ve contrasted my process to that of a large supermarket.  The large supermarket now seems to have an inherent trust built into it, although if you go into the store and want to know more about an item of food (how it is produced, where it is grown, basic process) you will probably not be able to get that information from any of the employees.  In my project, since I am raising and distributing the food, I have a level of engagement with the food that my audience is eating.  I can answer those questions and even take community members to the coop to further enhance their experience.

Although I’ve been in the community for 3 years I haven’t engaged with the community to this degree.  I am still an outsider in a way; simply by living in a specific location does not make you part of that community.  When you want to relocate yourself in the community that is around you, a certain level of trust has to be established.  It is the community that decides your level of belonging within it.

SZ: As an artist who inserts oneself into these communities, how does the role of aesthetics manifest itself into your work?  How do you see the aesthetics coming into play?

CT: I feel that the aesthetics of this project work on multiple levels.  For example, the physical nature of the nomadic coop speaks to the political structure that is resistant to allowing the chickens to exist on public land.  The logos have a branding effect.  Every time a participant interacts with the eggs (which are stamped with the logos) they are reminded of the locality of the chickens; the potential for food systems in the community.  There is also a humorous aspect to the aesthetics of the project that helps create a convivial mood: creating an entertaining aspect to the project.  I don’t want the project to get too stuffy so I created an aesthetic that is lighthearted and can put people at ease to help develop a more open relationship.

SZ: You are using capitalistic aesthetics such as branding.  Why is the branding necessary and how do those aesthetics come into play into your project?  In traditional relational art those concerns aren’t relevant; usually relational art becomes an anti-comodification of object.  In this piece it seems as if you are working within the framework.  Why have you chosen to do so?

CT: There is a Pavlovian response to these capitalistic strategies.  Logos (branding) on an object represent enhanced commerce through image: something to be bought or sold, a commodity.  However, I am not selling anything.  Everything is given away for free.  It’s a commodification of information, not object.  The branding asks the audience, “What is this?  What does this object want me to do?”  No matter how self-aware we are of our existence in a capitalistic system, we become moved by logos and how they change our perception of things (objects for purchase).  The logo is a constant element which embraces the idea of assimilating aesthetics and ideals.  Logos ask that you “buy into something”. I am asking my participants to buy into what I am “selling”, which is ways to establish local food sources and making the community stronger through enriching conversations.  It’s a “sales pitch” of sorts.

SZ: Does it really need this aesthetic?  Couldn’t you do the same process without aestheticising the project?

CT:  I want to aestheticise the project.  I want to create different avenues of engagement.  I don’t want the piece to be purely focused on the interaction between the audience and myself.  By leaving an aestheticised object [artifact] through the delivery process, the participants are able to reflect and display the object to others.  This incites a new discussion, one in which I am no longer a part of [directly].

As far as I’m concerned, there’s no reason not the aestheticise something to enhance the attitude and mood of the audience.  There is a certain interest generated by the aesthetics, to eliminate that would eliminate an interesting aspect of the piece.  This is why I designed an egg-shaped carrier for my bicycle to deliver the eggs.  It engages not only the direct participants of the project, but passers by on the street.  When seeing this abnormal object they can ask the questions, “Who is that person?  What are they doing?”  Aestheticising objects create more questions around the project, more avenues of discussion.

SZ:  So do you feel that those aesthetics create desirous outsiders?

CT: Absolutely. I’m creating a certain amount of desire and multiple entry points for the community to engage with the project.

SZ:  Is that where you see this project compared to the canon of relational aesthetics. You said recently that people who create relational art pieces and bring nothing new to the practice are “pseudo-avant guard”.

CT: Sure.

SZ: Is that how you see yourself doing something differently?

CT: Canonically it’s difficult to say “I am doing something completely different from the past”.  There are different components that exist in previous [relational art] projects. Gifting and exchange are a huge component of many relational art pieces.  However, I am not looking for this piece to be a final solution to a problem [creating a finite engagement], but a starting point or small component of a larger system.

I feel that embracing certain aspects of a capitalistic model to simultaneously subvert it is something that I find interesting; utilizing effective components of systems under critique to create our own systems of productivity and efficiency.

SZ: So, you’re not completely opposed to capitalism.  I remember one day you told me you are a socialist.

CT: Laughs

SZ:  Do you see this project as a hybrid of the two?  Are you a capitalist or a socialist?

CT:  I don’t see myself as a capitalist.  I think there is a certain amount of balance that can exist between the two principles in a healthy society.  I don’t think how I obtained some materials (through purchasing) taints the project.  Everything can’t always be foraged or exchanged.  This project speaks about tactics that we can use to supplement inevitable spending.

For instance, Rirkrit Tiravanija had to go to the supermarket to get his ingredients for Pad Thai and purchase his pots and pans from a department store.  However, that does not come into play through the examination of the engagements for which he is searching.

SZ: His work is operating on the basis of the conversation more than anything else, but your work is working on the exchange.

CT: True, but I am raising the eggs myself.  It would mean something totally different if I were to go to the supermarket and buy eggs for distribution.  At that point the piece loses its sense of community engagement and becomes a charitable endeavor.  I want the piece to be about working out solutions together, not supplying a deficiency to people in need.

SZ: How much of a purist do you want to be?  How autonomous (materialistically) do you want the project to be?

CT: It speaks to a lack of engagement in the community.  Growing Station is one of only 3 or 4 community gardens in Pilsen.  One of the gardens doesn’t even produce food, its strictly botanical.  For a neighborhood of 45,000 people, with this many empty lots, it’s ridiculous.  It takes a certain amount of resources to become more autonomous.  I want to activate the community first and foremost.  Once a community is established, then you can focus on how you can become more autonomous [as a community].

SZ: There is a safety issue with the project.  For instance, what if one of your eggs made someone sick?  What do you feel about that potential scenario?

CT:  Anytime where you are putting yourself out there with strangers, there is a certain amount of blind trust that needs to exist.  Shit happens.  It’s a concern in my mind, but I have to take that chance.  If you don’t do something because of those fears, then nothing will ever get done.  I think this goes back to our discussion of trust in a company (supermarket) or trust in an individual. Those sanitation issues create hysteria that the most natural way of doing things is also unsanitary; when in actuality it couldn’t be more untrue.

SZ: Can you talk about the motivations of the project?

CT:  The bourgeois has taken over the local and organic food movement.  It has become inaccessible to others.  I didn’t want the project to turn into charity.  Initially I thought of outreaching to low-income families providing them with eggs.  But then I realized the project needed to be something more than supplementing people. Let’s start a dialog for change without the parameters of “who is more deserving?”  Everyone is deserving of this system.  Through the community we can find out ways of making autonomous food production accessible to everyone.

There is still a huge population that deserves to have those foods accessible to them.  If you have no control over you food, or anything for that matter, then the free market dictates you.  If you rely on commodities so heavily that the only way to obtain them is through your pocketbook, then you really need to reevaluate what that object is and how you engage with it.

SZ: So you see this is a way of taking control over the situation at hand, especially communities that have no representation and have no control over their food supplies.

CT: You’ve got to learn to make things happen on your own.  Establishing spaces where people can grow their own food makes shopping at large organic stores seem even more decadent.  “Look, we have the same exact thing, but without the cost”.  Finding ways of taking back control in certain elements of your life is vital.  People have abandoned so much control due to convenience.  Convenience through consumerism is not a right, its unsustainably dangerous.  Just because there is now a high demand for organic and local foods has not made them any more accessible to some people.  The public needs to reeducate itself on how things get done (and start doing what they can) before hegemonic systems make basic needs inaccessible.