00:12 The Chair (Malte Wagenfeld) introduces the examination criteria, the candidate and the examiners: Laurie Beth Clarke and Carlos Alberto Montana-Hoyos
03:30 Presentation begins. Thanks, acknowledgements and background
04:14 Explanation and evolution of the presentation. The presentation is described as being composed of three parts: Grow, Fruit & Seed (Structuring)
07:15 Grow: using urban agriculture as a vehicle to challenge concepts around: value and waste, public and private, collaboration and co-operation (Methodology)
08:42 Ten things I wish I’d known at the beginning (Practice narrative)
09:53 Projects: The foraging commons (Practice narrative)
12:56 Projects: Reclaim the curb & Sharing Abundance first introduced
13:22 Examiners are invited to view 3 websites displayed on the wall
16:30 Project: Reclaim the curb (Project narrative)
19:52 Project: Sharing abundance (Project narrative)
21:40 Juliette and the examiners distribute fruit (Physical demonstration)
22:30 “It’s not about fruit, it’s a campaign.”
24:15 Campaign Cheat-sheet (Six points) (Methodology)
27:55 Knowledge area 1. Sustainability (Structuring, methodology)
30:15 Knowledge area 2. Activism (Structuring, methodology)
33:00 Knowledge area 3. Civic Agriculture (Structuring, methodology)
35:10 Three practice outcomes identified that are consistent across the work: Fostering participation Realizing agency Generating community
36:10 Fostering participation (Project narrative)
38:27 Realizing agency (Project narrative)
41:10 Generating community (Project narrative)
43:27 Seed Germinating and spreading ideas, reflecting, demonstrating the possible continuum of the work
44:28 Field Guides (Methodology, Contributing, Situating)
45:04 The trees: as gift, enabler and metaphor
50:14 The end of the presentation and beginning of examiners’ questions
51:05 Carlos Alberto Montana-Hoyos (CMH) Q. Why a PhD, rather than activism?
53:48 Laurie Beth Clarke (LBC) Q. What is gained, or lost, to the practice and to Design, by calling it Design?
56:00 (CMH) A question about permission and ethics issues during the PhD
58:12 (LBC) Q: Can you talk to a certain ambivalence or ambiguity about law-breaking?
1:01:46 (CMH) Request for clarification on whether the online components of the projects are tools only or projects in themselves
1:02:42 (LBC) Q. The text and presentation, at different points suggests people do, and don’t, care about the environment. Do they or don’t they?
1:04:33 (CMH) A question about the share economy as a business
1:07:30 (LBC) Q. A question about the food-sharing movement and the social justice movement and how the second doesn’t seem to benefit from the (Juliette's) practice.
1:12:02 (CMH) Q. What do you think your project contributes in terms of aesthetics?
1:14:26 (LBC) Q. What happened to the ‘spiral’ model?
1:15:41 (CMH) Q. How do you deal with cultural preconditioning?
1:18:17 (LBC) Q. What do you do about poisons in the urban environment?
1:19:22 (CMH) Q. Where do you see your project fitting: sustainability, activism etc?
1:20:57 (LBC) Q. Why does Juliette feel the need to remove her practice from the ‘separating the paper from the plastics’ kind of activity (perhaps as if that is derided)?
1:23:38 (LBC) Q. You describe the ‘personal moral compass’ idea as working for sharing fruit but not for ‘saving the planet/separating the paper and plastics'. Why not?
1:25:01 (CMH) Q. What else – other than the social sharing component are there other emotional aspects that your projects bring?
1:27:27 (CMH) Q. So what next? A monetary component?
1:29:54 (LBC) A question about the productivity and importance of tension and friction
1:31:58 (LBC) Q. Isn’t there a distinction between fruits that people labour over and those they abandon?
1:36:00 (CMH) Q. What is the impact of the designer in your work or do you see yourself as an activist.
1:38:10 (CMH) Q. What would make your design practice unique?
1:39:47 (CMH) Q. rapid prototyping is fairly common, what makes yours different?
1:41:20 (LBC) Q. In your dissertation you say calling what you are doing art is a good alibi. Why isn’t what you are doing art?
01:44:19 (LBC) Q. You foreground, adapt, showcase, analyse existing practices. Is this sufficient? Shouldn’t we also be looking for how you have innovated within the practice?
1:46:06 (CMH) Q. What were the main differences and similarities between your projects and those that you cite?
1:49:35 (CMH) Q. What relationship do your projects have to education? What is the educational potential?
1:51:35 (LBC) Q. The PhD comprises three elements: the practice, the dissertation and the presentation. How would you weight them?
1:52:52 (CMH) Q. What was the best thing about the process of the PhD and how do you think it has changed you?
1:55:09 (LBC) Q. Is there anything that you’d like to say to us that we haven’t invited through a question?
1:55:18 Back to the Chair to wrap up. Applause.
Contemporary manifestations of urban agriculture have become symbols of creativity, activism and sustainability in cities. Originally designed to co-locate food and people, urban agriculture produces not just food, but draws people together for social interactions that may have not otherwise existed. What is interesting with these social interactions, is that shared interests don’t necessarily translate to sharing other things.
This practice explores the social context around urban agriculture through a series of design interventions that challenge ideas of ownership, the boundaries drawn between private and public, collaboration and cooperation, value and waste. Utilising action research methodology has enabled an unique insight as both a mirror and a window into the current food and sustainability practices, and urban culture in Australia.
The practice takes place over 3 locations in 2 states: Newcastle NSW, Melbourne and Castlemaine Victoria. All of these places are hubs of creativity and social innovation, offering space to foster and incubate this type of collaborative, sometimes disruptive work.
As part of this reflective process, a model is created that provides a framework in which this work and other similar projects can operate on.
Examiners: Prof Laurie Beth Clark, A/Prof Carlos Montana-Hoyos Supervisors: Assoc Professor Soumitri Varadarajan, Dr Mick Douglas