[matilda] Urban Decay???

[R&A]

No, you can't change it, too late since it was proposed, read, and has 
been available for weeks now.

Urban Decay has to be interpreted out of the topic concept of Decay 
versus Advance and endless progress, or even of Decay versus 
Regeneration, or decay / sustainability.

Obviously we can think of the Matilda utopia as exciting, alive and 
whatever, but from the planning view point, Sheffield Works building is 
a clear sample of decay, as we found it at least, all covered in grease 
and dove shit, and so.

If we were to ban words like "decay" from an activism/political 
vocabulary, most hip-hop bands like c-90 would also be banned.;)

Yet visual art needs not drag behind music


amp




atw wrote:

> I just read this on Indymedia...
> 
>   The theme for the exhibition will be Urban Decay, which is a direct
>   response to the Matilda building and its location, an old Victorian
>   factory in the heart of a newly developed city centre. The
>   exhibition will be a selection of work that addresses the theme of
>   Urban Decay while the display of the art will work in such a way as
>   to create a dialogue with the audience about the Invasion of Space.
> 
> http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/10/325230.html
> 
> It seems unwise to think about Matilda as an example of urban decay.
> Surely this will only hasten it's demise. If it's decaying then
> logically lets get rid of it ASAP and build something nice and new and
> shiny.
> 
> This is the opposite of how we should portray it if we want to hold on
> to it for as long as possible.
> 
> I haven't, up to now at least, thought of Matilda in terms of decay. I
> think of it as vibrant, radical, exciting new non-corporate entity.
> 
> Can we change it? Maybe the corporate invasion of public space would
> be more appropriate?
> 
> steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independent grassroots news: www.sheffield.indymedia.org.uk
> 
> 
>