construct an art piece sounded like a
great opportunity to practice designing
humbly while paying attention to the
creative power of a group.
What was the origin of the class
format?
WH: To test my research question,
I planned and taught a class through
the UO Department of Landscape
Architecture titled “Collaborative Art-Making for Landscape Architecture.”
I opted to facilitate a class in order
to ensure sustained participant
engagement and gain access to
departmental resources. Through
collaborative and iterative making,
the class explored the capacity of art
making to communicate divergent ideas,
foster relationships, and, as a result,
promote inclusion. Students produced
two collaborative art-making projects
to explore individuals’ perceptions and
values regarding two culturally and
historically significant statues situated
on the University of Oregon campus,
The Pioneer and The Pioneer Mother.
BM: What were the advantages and
drawbacks of that classroom setting?
WH: The structured class format
encouraged consistent and regular
student participation. The class met
for two hours each week for five weeks,
in addition to one all-day Saturday
class meeting. It also prompted me to
be more organized. I had to establish
course objectives, a course syllabus, and
evaluation criteria. Conversely, the class
also narrowed the participant sample to
individuals enrolled at the University of
Oregon.
What was your perception of the
class format?
BM: The class setting was largely
positive and advantageous for the
creating process. Knowing we only had
a few hours over five weeks to complete
our art pieces meant that everyone had
to commit to group decisions fairly
quickly. Some students felt constrained
by the tight time frame, but I believe
it facilitated efficient discussions and
helped ensure that people prioritized
compromise to keep the process
moving. The group size, 10 students,
was small enough to allow everyone to
speak their opinions, but large enough
to include many points of view. The
group size was also perfect for having
informal meetings outside regular class
time, when we gathered at individuals’
houses over food and drinks to discuss
our ideas and plans.
Why did you choose the statues as
the focus?
WH: The Pioneer and The Pioneer
Mother statues were of particular
interest due to discord on campus
pertaining to who and what they
represented. The significance of these
monuments, especially now, at a time
of national tension, reveals the values
statues memorialize in our landscape.
I also believe that landscape architects
are especially poised to respond to both
the spatial and social implications of
memorials. And the statues presented
an actionable project. Students
were able to conceive and construct
installations within the five-week span
of the course.
What did you think of co-creating in
response to the statues?
BM: As students at the University
of Oregon, many of us walk past The
Pioneer every day. This statue is a stop
on every campus tour for prospective
students and is generally considered
an important landmark for the campus
culture. In contrast, The Pioneer Mother
is in an out-of-the-way part of campus,
and many students do not know of her
existence. The different messages that
these statues convey, and the differing
level of attention and deference given to
them, make them interesting launching
points for discussions about the design
of memorials in public space.
What did you do to aid group
decision making throughout the class?
Collaborative collage by students enrolled in the course "Collaborative Art Making."