PROJECT MEETING IV FROM 26.04 TO 29.04. 2011


E: You can always find an action, an event behind a monument. A monument is not for or against something... B: The potential of those questions is much larger. F: We are returning to the preconceptions we once had of a monument!!! We are very linked to the understanding of the monument for or against something... B: It is first a symbolic action and afterwords it can be defined a monument. F: A monument to the failure is a very classical idea of monument! D: What will be left is an association which owns a piece of land and which will be engaged to operate until that ground is everybody's. The symbolic action will just be interrupted temporarily due to the predicted failure; the intent and the matter remains! The piece of land is waiting for a new destination, and is able to keep the discussion alive and concrete. A: To me it's violence to write history with monuments!... B: It will be for sure not us to inflict to people that our action is a monument. H: It becomes a monument naturally, a monument auto-defines itself. J: We are utopian and ideological: the demolition of private property, the possibility of commons, are we going towards a "critic of private property"? H: The notion "monument"is very trendy, certainly our project has the potential to  be a monument, there is no need to define it as such a priori. It's a waiting monument! A: It's going to be the collectivity to make it become a monument. But what about "everybody" or "nobody"? The desire to donate to everybody something seems definitely prepotent to me! Who is "everybody"? Maybe a "nobody" would give more space for different thoughts? "Nobody's" property.... J: The action unfortunately has nothing fresh! What is the symbolic action? A piece of land left as it was? What benefit could that have, speaking also about spiritual benefit? It is possible to create interesting discussions everywhere. To me it seems to be a very weak action not leaving any space....those are very fixed and utopian solutions! Is there any need for a piece of land to confirm that it is not possible to create "everybody's! or "nobody's"?! A: No, but still it's the matter to do a symbolic action to initiate a more deep and theoretic discourse...

Idea version III

An association founded by us purchases a piece of land in Bolzano. The statute of the association commits itself to converting the purchased land into a common good. The first attempt consists in the request to register the land in the cadastre as “everybody’s land”. should this not be successful then subsequent legal proceedings will be set in motion to manage to achieve the purpose of the association.