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."