Rough day for conzept kiosk.
Gluten-free, vegan (though very tasty) banana walnut bread was cut and packaged in the morning. 16 pieces set out at 9am. The sun was shining, but the day soon turned rainy.
Passed by kiosk around 11pm to find that sign, tray, and $ container were all gone. Later found that kind roommate brought the sign and the tray in at 10pm. The entire $ container, however, was gone! Given the comparative success of the previous three days, it was decided that this theft was due to materials being left out past nightfall. Will make every effort to bring in kiosk in early evening in the future.
16 of 16 treats taken. $0.00 earned.
Sign sanded and repainted late at night. Coconoat cookies made from an invented recipe, with a good taste and decent texture.
3 comments:
Too bad I'm not in Finland... I'd pay way more than $0.25 for a vegan gluten free muffin!
I applaud the effort, but wish to point out a potential flaw in your experimental logic and protocol. What we get from your experiment is a test of the ultimate viability of an alternative exchange system, including the influence of forces external to the actual exchange. For example, if the construction worker's observations were accurate, and on most days, the treats were gone by late morning, and if upon exhausting the treats, money remained in the jar, the experiment is at that moment, reduced to merely observing what happens when you leave a jar containing money outside, unguarded. While related to the exchange system as a whole, this test is ancillary to the actual exchange. In order to truly analyze this alternative method, we need to know out of those who took the offered treats, how many left money in exchange. This requires active monitoring of the test site. In other words, you've studied the whole transaction without consideration of the individual steps that complete it.
You can, of course, make an ultimate outcome argument and say that it is the overall result that dictates system viability, but studying the components first would be a much more scientific approach. Alas, I do realize this is more of an exercise and not intended to be a rock solid socio-economic study, so I do thank you for the brain candy!!
Keep up the thought provoking work.
Thank you for your insightful comments. Your observation that the projects is often relegated to observing what happens to an unattended $ container on the street is provocative and a perspective that I have not fully considered. Since I am not able (and it is contradictory to the concept) to monitor the site, truly accurate results taken through analysis will never be available.
Rescinding control of the situation is a central theme of the project, as well. As the artist, I am creating objects (the treats) and putting them on "the market" to be consumed, taken, or bought upon the whims of the consumer.
Though I choose to be a passive participant, I am also responding to the limited information I receive, through other observers, hearsay, and the visual results at the end of the day. For example, given the series of thefts, I made the decision to screw the $ container down. I am also very aware that there are not enough treats to last the day. I have made a cognizant effort to replenish them using the help of friends, but this is more for the sake of exposure so that more people can be view the project. Working on a small scale, however, also functions against our existing consumer system of gross overabundance and an urban mentality that we can buy whatever we want whenever we want. My public offering is limited; it runs out when it runs out. It remains, in this small way, my art and under my control.
I may not have noted in previous posts that the opening performance also functioned in this very limited way. I baked treats within the gallery space on a ridiculously small scale— one at a time, produced in small toaster ovens. The absurdity of this mode also served to comment on production line mass market fabrication of commodity goods.
Post a Comment