From June 17 to June 21, a group of around 20 artists gathered in Jyamirkot, Lalitpur, to participate in a workshop hosted by LASANAA entitled “Envisioning Live Art Hub: A Collaborative Model.” Initially, the artists invited did not know what the workshop was specifically about, but many of them came solely based on the reputation of LASANAA and past workshops that they had attended.
After an introduction from Ashmina Ranjit, the workshop started off with a presentation about art, collaboration, and architecture from Piero Pasacantando, who is in Nepal on a Fulbright scholarship to study Tangka paintings. In detail, the two themes he discussed were large workshops as production systems and the connection between art and architecture where that sort of large collaborative system is essential.
After Piero’s presentation the participants were asked to comment on their expectations of the workshop before a detailed explanation of what would happen occurred. Through their comments, the general impression was that everyone had come with an open mind, and was looking forward to the opportunity to collaborate with other artists, in whatever format it would take. They also had the expectation that this workshop would foster creativity and an exchange of ideas between all of the artists.
This workshop came about after a discussion between Piero and Ashmina about collaboration and learning through exchange. After some thought they decided that LASANAA’s Live Art Hub would be a suitable project for this workshop, as it has been LASANAA’s focus for the past four years, and collaboration would be the best way to develop the Live Art Hub further.
The Live Art Hub was described to the workshop as a ‘mental as well as physical space that would be a living art creation.’ The workshop would focus on creating a model of what the Live Art Hub should be, bringing together ideas from everyone’s diverse backgrounds. The exercises over the course of the workshop started very broad, gradually getting narrower as people tightened their ideas.
Workshop participants were asked to focus on the physical aspects and answer the question, “What does Live Art Hub mean to you?” Next, the question was, “What should the physical space look like?” This was still in a very abstract stage, as participants were asked to simply imagine and describe it. The responses were quite diverse, ranging from modeling the building after grain storehouses to a flying cloud with an egg-shaped hall on top. One commonality, however, was the desire for open spaces.
Participants were next asked to think on the question, “What would create the environment that inspires/motivates art and promotes understanding of art,” ignoring the actual activities of the building. Many participants answered with colors, and a few with environmental aspects such as light, sound, and water.
The first day of the workshop ended with everyone sent to think about who else would be using the space, and how that would affect their ideas for a design.
The second day of the workshop continued from the last question from the day before, with people discussing changes in their ideas that had occurred overnight. At this stage some people had already started to collaborate on their ideas for the model, even though everything was still mostly in the written and drawn forms. After a reminder to think about who is both using the space and visiting the space, the rest of the day was spent on creating models out of whatever was available (bamboo, rope, cardboard, paper, wire, etc.), to show a more realized external form as well as an interior view of the building. They were also asked to keep an environmentally-friendly aspect in mind.
The third day of the workshop started off with a presentation and discussion of the models created during the second day of the workshop. Many of the structures were still in progress, with completed exteriors but interiors still being developed. Participants were able to talk through their interiors during the discussion, but were then urged to realize them in a physical form. After the discussion, the rest of the workshop day was spend working on developing models further, creating interiors.
On the fourth day of the workshop participants were taken to do a visual survey of the land that one of the Live Art Hubs would be built on. Until this time, participants were gaining experience in thinking creatively in terms of structures and model-building, which was new to all of them. This was necessary in order to prepare them to develop a building for an actual piece of land.
After doing a survey of the land, participants went back to the workspace to review the rest of the work done the day before. Many people were still working individually, but there were a couple of collaborative groups already in progress. During the review the participants thoroughly went over each model, citing not only drawbacks to each model and what could be improved, but also what aspects of the model they liked.
Once the discussion was over, the participants were told of the next step of the process. They would be divided into three groups, working on three separate models. Two of the models would be for the Jyamirkot location and the third model would be for the Kathmandu location. After two hours of working on the model, each group would switch to another model and continue working on another group’s model. This switch would happen twice so that each group had a chance to work on each model.
This method was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it challenges the participants to think even more creatively. At first they get to design and start building something from scratch, and from their own ideas. After, however, they are given something else and must think creatively on how to build on someone else’s ideas. A suggestion may sound good in words, but may prove to be impractical in practice. This gives them the opportunity to put their suggestions into practice. Also, since the plan is for these models to be constructed, nobody will feel as though ‘their’ model wasn’t picked or that they didn’t contribute to the final product.
The first group based their model off of a noisy insect which is quite prevalent in the area, also working within the context of the terraced landscape. Their idea is for the building to be very prominent, as it will be able to be seen from Kathmandu Valley. In their presentation of the model the group said that when looking at the building from a distance one would see the insect shape, but up close, people will see the building’s integration with the natural landscape.
The second group was very concerned as well about working within the natural landscape. They developed some sketches based on a series of interconnected houses, built into the terraced land available. They were also thinking about the scale of the building, as well as how many people it would hold and how it would function.
The third group was working on a model to be in Kathmandu, knowing that they had 2600 sq. ft. to work with. In their process they combined the initial models of two group members. One was a cup and saucer-shaped model, and another was a model based on the shape of a hand. Their combined model is the cup coming out of the ground, with the hand covering the top of the cup. They stated that they planned to use ¾ of the land available for the building.
After the discussion the plan was to switch groups to the next model, but everyone decided that they wanted to work in just two groups- one on the Jyamirkot model, one on the Kathmandu model. As everyone was still collaborating on the models, this was approved. People were also freely flowing from one group to the other, observing what the other group was doing and making inputs.
The fifth day was the final workshop day. As the models were mostly finished from the day before, most of the day was spent reviewing the workshop in general- how people felt about the process and how the process was going for them. After, a final review of the models took place.
Two questions were posed to the participants during the final discussion. Were your expectations met? What changed in this process? The reactions were overwhelmingly positive. Many of the participants discussed how they enjoyed the collaborative process, as previous workshops worked on a much more individual basis. Participants also discussed how they had learned much about themselves as well throughout the process, and the impact that it would have on their creative works.
The absolute last part of this workshop was reviewing the models one last time before leaving. On each model there were some critical comments on improvements that could be made. However, the criticism will not be the end, as these models will eventually be built and further discussion must of course take place throughout that process. The comments were more of something to think about between now and whenever the next planning phase of the Live Art Hub occurs.
Process:
Participants were invited to a 5-day residential workshop in order to build a collaborative model for LASANAA’s ‘Live Art Hub.’ They were asked to work in groups to facilitate the collaborative process. Throughout the five days, discussions were regularly held to review the work that had been done so far. One discussion was also held at the beginning to outline the participants’ expectations, and a final discussion occurred on the last day to go over what participants had learned through the course of the workshop.
Methodology:
Participants were brought into the workshop without foreknowledge of what would be occurring. Participants were asked to work on conceptualizing, drawing, and building models, and were not given specification on working individually or in groups. The next step was to divide participants in three groups and work on separate models. The final step was forming two groups to work on models for the two locations.
Output:
The workshop produced 14 models, including the large models for the Jyamirkot and Kathmandu locations.
Outcome: Participants left the workshop with a greater understanding of collaboration, art, and themselves. They were able to participate fully and work without restrictions of any sort, apart from the materials available to build with.
Feedback/Testimonials:
Rabita- When other workshops occur, sometimes a topic is given, sometimes not, but everyone works alone and there is nothing new. This whole process is interesting, they have a lot to discuss, they learned a lot and formulated new ideas.
Sandip B.- As the process went on he learned so much; because of the collaboration he could analyze positive and negative points in himself, his strengths and weaknesses and how he could develop further.
Jeewan- He came to the realization that to do any work, people have to have new thinking and think conceptually and build that up, which was something he hadn’t realized before.
Junu- The collaboration made her think through different points of view- not just her angle, but 20 points of view.
Bhuwan- Everything touched him, the whole process and the way of working.
Dawa- In other programs, people dictate what to do and get angry if you don’t do it. Here nobody is dictating, everyone is at an equal level in the work.
Sandip N.- The whole process here opened him up and now he believes that his art will change in a positive, creative way.
Indra- After this workshop he started thinking how he can utilize his home village and property back home to create an artist’s house and a different environment.
Sushma- Every time LASANAA does a program it is unique.
Mekh- He did art before but it was non-functional. Here, he is doing art but the utilization of it. It was really challenging and really interesting.
Piero- “It is also for me the first time for such an intense experience, living together and focusing on collaboration, stepping out of the comfort zone… It has been a wonderful experience.”
Lok Prashad Gurung – While they were working together there was no discrimination so everybody came together and worked together. While they worked together like this [without discrimination], how people came together gave them confidence for the future. Whatever types of things they have to do, challenges they have to face, they have confidence that they can do that now.
List of participants
| Sushma Shakya | Working for one year in association with LASANAAVisual artist; teaches world art history at KU | |
| Mekh Limbu | ||
| Rajan Kaphle | LASANAA since its foundation; painter, likes working in groups | |
| Rabita Kishi | Teaches art in a school | |
| Sandep P Neupani | Pokhara; BA 2nd year | |
| Sandip Baral | Chabahil; studying BA at Sirjana College | |
| Indra Khatri | President of Spectrum; MFA | |
| Junu Aryal | Maharajgunj; sculptor workshop in Sama Koshi | |
| Dawa Lama | Dharmadutta Foundation; painting & management | |
| Sunaina Karna | Women’s Development Centre Janakpur, works with clay | |
| Sita Yadav | Sculptor | |
| Ayestha Rai | Dharan; 2nd workshop with LA painter | |
| Jeewan | YUMA Fine Art Gallery; studying sculpture | |
| Lok Prasad Gurung | Pokhara; Painter; Creative Artists Group Advisor | |
| Basanta Ranjitkar | Lasanaa founder trustee | |
| Ashmina Ranjit | LASANAA: | |
| Renchin Yonjan | Social Architect | |
| Piero Pasacantando | Painting & collaboration | |
| Kim Hurley | Studying art and politics in Nepal | |
| Laxman Karmacharya | Not present on first day | |
| Bhuwan Thapa | Not present on first day | |
| Rajesh | Assistants – Logistics support crew | |
| Bijay | ||
| Madhu |
