Inhabit Series 4 Episode 1: “Art in a Warming World”

 

[“Sunshine Strut” plays]

Erika Eitland: Hello, Inhabit listeners, we are back, and you know me. I’m Dr Erika Eitland, the director of the human experience research team at Perkins&Will. On past seasons, the Inhabit crew has grappled with the healthy buildings movement, taken you to Barrio Logan in San Diego and all kinds of public space in Toronto. But this is season four, and we are touching down in Boston, Massachusetts to explore this wondrous city. And I’m bringing a new co-host along with me, former advisory board member, Kimberly Seigel. Now listen, Kimi is my friend, so—oof—I don’t think I’ve ever called you Kimberly.

Kimberly Seigel: I mean, well, as long as it’s not Kim, I think we’re good.

Erika Eitland: Okay, well, for real, I’m gonna call her Kimi, because that’s what friends do. And listeners, if you are lucky, one day, you might be able to call her Kimi too. But this is hashtag privilege. Hey, the most important piece here is that Kimi is a fellow scientist.

Kimberly Seigel: I am a carbon nerd, yeah, yeah, that’s who I am.

Erika Eitland: Kimi, we’re so lucky to have you, and this is exactly why we need you this season, because we are talking about all things sustainability and climate.

Kimberly Seigel: And public art!

Erika Eitland: Yes, we are. And so to get at this zesty intersection of topics, we are hitting the streets of Boston, because this is our HQ, our Nerd headquarters, as members of the Perkins&Will research team.

Erika Eitland (on the street): All right, this is Kimi and I’s first live recording out in the world. Where are we, Kimi?

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Out in the world! We are in the public garden. Actually, no, we’re in the Boston Common right now. I just walked through the public garden, which is noticeably more bumping than… [fades out]

Kimberly Seigel: Yep, we’re taking a journey through Boston to look at how science, people and art come together in the built environment (back on the street: “and the horns along Tremont Street”). With the help of history in five key dates, which just so happens to be my favorite Inhabit segment.

Erika Eitland: Oh, me too! Okay, well, we will chat with the nerds, artists, and strangers who contribute to the richness of the city.

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Yeah, so, we were wondering, how would you define public art?

Erika Eitland: Some of those strangers are in the legendary Boston Public Garden and Boston Common. These were the first places that came to mind when we started to think about the intersection of climate science and public art.

Stranger (on the street): We’re in a public place, right?

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Yeah.

Stranger (on the street): And I’m assuming that’s art…

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Okay.

Stranger (on the street): So, I think it’s public art.

Inhabit Chorus: Inhabit.

[clock ticks]

[Ambient sounds from the Boston Public Garden can be heard in the background]

Kimberly Seigel: So can I just say that people in the Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common had feelings about what public art is.

Erika Eitland: That they did. They were not shy about sharing. But I guess that’s kind of good, because if art didn’t make you feel, then what’s the point?

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, it is Boston for you, right? It’s a city not necessarily known for being shy, so they deliver what’s real. Okay. This is history in five key dates, the downtown Boston edition.

[“Twist of Mentality” plays]

Erika Eitland: Date number 1: 1839, the iconic Boston Public Garden becomes the first public botanical garden in the United States. This is pre dating the American Civil War, and compared to its neighbor, Boston, common, the first public park in Boston, it is much more decorative. At the time it was outfitted with Victorian cast iron fences, meandering paths decorated by statues, fountains and even a six acre pond with Swan boats for visitors to ride.

Kimberly Seigel: We walked by many pieces of public art. We walked by the Make way for duckling sculpture, little fountains, and, dare I say it, a surprisingly contentious, large George Washington sculpture.

Erika Eitland (on the street): Do we think this George Washington statue is public art?

Stranger 2 (on the street): No, no, I don’t like looking at this, like I don’t feel nothing towards it.

Kimberly Seigel: All right, I have a first for you. Date number two, September 1, 1897.

[“The Meeting” plays]

Kimberly Seigel: North America’s first subway tunnel. So here in Boston, known as the Tremont Street subway, the first sections opened up to the public, creating an underground connection between Boylston Street and Park Street Station, which we happened to walk by on our way to the public garden.

Erika Eitland: I mean, this is really critical. But also I thought it was ‘Tree-mont’ Street and not ‘Tre-mont,’ so you learn something new every day.

Kimberly Seigel: It’s very true, ever growing and learning. But you know, you need public transit to access public art and public space, and we will have more on that on the next episode.

Erika Eitland: Ooh, a teaser. I love it. Okay. Well, that brings us to date number three, so just a year later, 1898—so this is the act to establish a board of art commissioners for the city of Boston, and this basically stated that the mayor would appoint five board members coming from: The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Public Library, MIT or Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Boston Art Club and the Boston Society of Architects.

Kimberly Seigel: Hmm. Okay, interesting. So what did this board do?

Erika Eitland: Great question. So their role was to approve the location, design, removal or alterations of art in the city. But based on the organizations listed, you can imagine that this really wasn’t a process by the people or representative of the people.

Kimberly Seigel: Yet it shaped the monuments and the memorials throughout Boston?

Erika Eitland: Yeah.

Kimberly Seigel: Okay.

[“Smoke Signals” plays]

Erika Eitland: And that’s not it, because they had a nice, broad definition of works of art.

Kimberly Seigel: Let’s hear it.

Erika Eitland: Paintings, murals, decorations, statues, reliefs, sculptures, fountains, arches, ornamental gates and other structures of permanent character intended for ornament or commemoration.

Kimberly Seigel: Wow, that’s a whole lot of things, but the definition of art has evolved, and the people we spoke with were definitely willing to call out what’s missing.

Stranger 3 (on the street): It could be more music. I feel like people should be welcome to share their art.

Stranger 2 (on the street): In Roxbury I like the murals that they have. Usually there’s like words under it, and it’s like symbolism—like these just look like, you know, just George Washington on a horse.

Stranger 4 (on the street): I have a niece, and she likes playgrounds and stuff, so maybe, like a piece of art that’s playable.

Erika Eitland: All right, I’m cheating a little, because for date number four, we’re going to 1970, and we’re back in Boston Public Garden. We never left. For the formation of Friends of the Public Garden, despite the love, the care, the commissioners, public spaces and public art take ongoing vision, care, and investment. Shout out to season three, “Whose Parks? Our Parks,” because if you remember former Inhabit co-host, Eunice Wong, had some hot takes on this.

Eunice Wong: There must be maintenance, events, funding, true accountability. Design can only take us so far—without ongoing support, parks can end up like places that are scary, avoided or underutilized.

Kimberly Seigel: It is true. Art is not accidental or effortless. It takes intention.

Erika Eitland: Yeah, we almost lost the garden post World War II because of that lack of investment, if not for critical civic groups like Friends of the Garden, all those bridges would have become unsafe. Fountains inoperable. Fencing gone. Because of this effort, in the 70s, it was saved. Restoration began, and by the 80s, they had brought in all of those fountains we walked by from prominent female sculptors.

Kimberly Seigel: It’s a really good reminder that public art is not static, right? It evolves, it weathers, it captures history, and yet, it’s essential to place making, and it reinforces our community values, right?

Erika Eitland: And I would say, like, just a garden with flowers, public art also requires care and community support.

Kimberly Seigel: Erika, this brings up a good point and question—who is the community that we’re talking about, and what do they define as public art?

Stranger 5 (on the street): I just think, you know, everyone’s out here having a good time, and if there was a guy playing a guitar right there, that’d be fine.

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): How about the guy on the bridge playing the guitar?

Stranger 5 (on the street): Yeah, it’s beautiful. Yeah, I can hear it from here. Yeah.

[Sounds from the environment, a siren, and children playing in the distance can be heard.]

Kimberly Seigel: So here’s our last date, date number 5, 1994. The Massachusetts Constitution passes a general law entitled—now bear with me—defacement of real or personal property. Semicolon, penalties,

Erika Eitland: Okay?

Kimberly Seigel: And it states—yeah, I know, right? Get ready for this. It states, and I quote, “Whoever intentionally, willfully and maliciously or wantonly paints marks, scratches, etches or otherwise marks, injures, mars, defaces or destroys the real or personal property of another, including, but not limited to a wall, fence, building, sign, rock, monument, gravestone or tablet shall be punished.”

Erika Eitland: Wow. And I thought my definition was rough, so this is just aka graffiti, or the intended legal definition of graffiti.

Kimberly Seigel: It appears so, and I definitely think whoever wrote that used a thesaurus to think of every possible word to describe what “defacement,” quote, unquote, might look like.

Erika Eitland: I mean, when you hear that, though, it brings up for me this difference between what is loitering versus who belongs in public space, especially with like whoever “intentionally, willfully, maliciously,” you know—‘oy.’ And then it brings up this question of like, well, what is graffiti versus public art?

Kimberly Seigel: Exactly, right? The renowned street artists that we kind of revere today, like Banksy and Shepard Fairey would really have a fun time defending their public art within this context.

Erika Eitland: This is like where it blurs a line between intention, benefits derived, who benefits— but it’s also just about permission and process.

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, this type of art, you know, is at the nexus of regulation, free speech, and both public and private property, and that discourse continues to evolve.

Erika Eitland (on the street): Can we ask a quick question of why you love graffiti?

Stranger 6 (on the street): I love graffiti because anyone can create it, and anyone can observe it. There’s no ticket, there’s no fee, there’s no, you know, jury deciding that this is okay to put up in this space, right? It’s from the people for the people.

Kimberly Seigel: From the people for the people.

Erika Eitland: Amen. To me, what was powerful about this whole experience of being in the public garden was that everyone had hot takes on what made up public art in that space.

[“The Meeting: Full Mix” plays with the ambient sound of children playing in the background]

Erika Eitland: You know what, Kimi, the one group we didn’t talk to was kids.

Kimberly Seigel: Oh yeah, ha!

Erika Eitland: Right, like from past seasons. We know they have hot takes.

Kimberly Seigel: You know it. But you know what else I’m thinking?

Erika Eitland: Well, carbon nerd, I would say climate change.

Kimberly Seigel: Ha! Are we friends? Do you know me well? Because yes, that’s what I’m thinking. Kids today won’t be making decisions about climate mitigation or art for that matter, but both will absolutely impact their experience in the future.

Erika Eitland: I think you’re really onto something here, because it’s like that is something where I think we take for granted who inherits this.

Kimberly Seigel: So okay, Erika, this brings me to an aha moment from last year when I was talking to Sarah Brophy about her latest public art piece.

Erika Eitland: Like Sarah, like our Boston Perkins&Will colleague—

Kimberly Seigel: The one and only.

[Whooshing sound effect plays.]

Sarah Brophy: I am Sarah Brophy. I’m a new media artist, installation artist, experiential designer and visual storyteller.

Kimberly Seigel: So let’s just start with the name of her piece, called Climate monsters, which is an augmented reality installation. So basically, technology to enhance our real world by overlaying computer generated illustrations that she co created with Boston Public School kindergarteners.

Erika Eitland: So our smallest Boston public school students.

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, they imagined the threats of water related climate change as mythological monsters and visualized their dangerous presence in the Boston Harbor.

[Whooshing sound effect plays.]

 

SB: The project was composed of two view finders which were these objects I created in the likeness of what people may associate as sort of a typical tourist viewfinder that has binoculars inside. Get your face right up in there. They’re free to use, no no quarters required. But I 3d modeled and printed them in the likeness of the binocular view finders. But instead of having binoculars inside, they were housed with iPhones and battery packs that allowed you to look through the optical eye holes and see a live camera feed and animations playing out over top of it. And that, I think, is the thing that’s really powerful about augmented reality is it’s not just like necessarily putting a animation into physical space, but it—but it’s happening over a live feed. So when you’re looking through the view finders, you could see, you know, Dragon Boat practice. And you could see behind them, like the Tea Party, people throwing their tea, you know, off the ship and into the into the ocean, and other boats coming in and out of the harbor. And you could see the Climate Monsters, you know, interacting with all of the regular life of the harbor.

[Whooshing sound effect plays.]

Kimberly Seigel: Now Erika, as a carbon nerd, let me tell you, I have seen it all in terms of how to communicate climate change, how to visualize that data and call out the real impact.

Erika Eitland: Sure.

Kimberly Seigel: Particularly for an adult population.

Erika Eitland: Aha.

Kimberly Seigel: Usually this involves some sort of data chart in the form of a bar chart or a pie chart. It’s highlighting how greenhouse gas emissions will be increasing over time. But the data is often devoid of any relation or emotional connection to what the end result might mean.

Erika Eitland: I mean, unless you’re the scientist and those types of things make their little hearts flutter.

Kimberly Seigel: Exactly. You know, it doesn’t really convey how it’s going to feel. And you’re not going to necessarily, unless you are a carbon nerd and really into numbers, you’re not going to look at a chart and think, “wow…

Erika Eitland: ‘-my heart!’

Kimberly Seigel: …this is really scary. Or am I overheating just thinking about these numbers?”

Erika Eitland: Right.

Kimberly Seigel: But Sarah, what was so genius about what she did is she took the traditional medium of mathematical charts, and she turned it into a result that could be felt in a very different experiential kind of way.

Erika Eitland: Oh, that’s interesting. Okay.

Kimberly Seigel: Even more impressive was Sarah’s piece took the difficult concept of climate change and made it accessible to kids, right? She made them the artists too and made them part of the process, right?

Erika Eitland: Sure.

Kimberly Seigel: She also created the space for kids to express their emotions about climate change, yeah. So in some respects, she had an even greater impact than seeing the data in its raw form, because she let the kids translate it into a concept that they could really understand.

[Whooshing sound effect plays.]

SB: And this is a project in in large part created by kids, and so capturing, therefore the attention of other young minds was important in figuring out where to site the project, and also it being on waterfront property was important, as the monsters are, water based, climate threats, also the seaport is, like, incredibly climate vulnerable. I mean, it’s one of the places that’s like, most at risk for sea level rise and storm surge in the city of Boston, and the Children’s Museum is doing a lot of work to begin preparing for that reality.

Erika Eitland: Wow. Not only is Sarah making it accessible to kids, but she’s allowing kids to have a part of this narrative and really own what this sort of current context might mean for them. I think that’s amazing.

[“Slither” plays.]

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, she basically commissioned local Boston Elementary School kindergarteners to leverage their imaginations. Right? She recognizes that the imaginations of kids are limitless, and I think it’s a really great reminder for even adult designers to listen to voices that haven’t let outside influences like society dictate their ideas.

[Whooshing sound effect plays.]

SB: I wanted just absolutely bonkers ideas. I wanted, like the sort of unbridled imaginations of kids. We’re not—we’re not really worried about plausibility or implementation. This is more of a thought exercise, like, let’s get out of our own heads here and—and let’s use fiction to really get crazy and think about some wild what ifs, like, some of our sort of wildest what ifs have come true. I mean, if you told someone in the medieval ages that air travels, like, totally normal, that would feel like science fiction, you know. So, like, yeah, I just—I needed the—I needed the wild creativity of young minds.

Kimberly Seigel: How freaking cool is that?!

Erika Eitland: I loved that—I could see why it was your ‘aha moment.’ But okay, Kimi, here’s the thing. I have a reflection.

Kimberly Seigel: Okay, hit me.

Erika Eitland: As we wrap up today, I just keep thinking public art isn’t a luxury, it’s a language.

Kimberly Seigel: Ooh, okay,

Erika Eitland: One that speaks across generations, neighborhoods and even disciplines. So Climate Monsters is a perfect example of that. What once was pie charts, probably created in Boston as well, is now food for thought to get us to climate action.

Kimberly Seigel: It’s such a powerful tool for architects and artists, you know, because it turns space into a story. And Climate Monsters takes what could be future mythology and it grounds it in the present moment. You know, having these real ripple effects for future generations.

Erika Eitland: And I feel like there was just so many stories behind what that George Washington statue meant in the public garden, or probably what Climate Monsters inhabiting Seaport really meant to people. So, that’s real.

Kimberly Seigel: I mean, yeah, but that means it’s successful, right? Because it invites people in, and it sometimes challenges them to see the city or their place in it just a little bit differently.

Erika Eitland: Yeah, I mean, hey, it’s especially important in a city like Boston, where we have these very clear impacts of climate change, and yet those are layered on top of deep histories of inequality, activism and really public art helps us feel those intersections, and feeling, honestly, is where change starts.

[“Sunshine Strut” plays.]

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, it absolutely does, all right. Erika, I think this is where our Inhabit love languages can really come alive.

Erika Eitland: Yes, yes!

Kimberly Seigel: Okay, so our love languages, policy, design and research.

Erika Eitland: Amazing.

Kimberly Seigel: You know, public art connects them. It really does. And it can visualize climate data, it can honor lived experience and even influence policy by shifting public perception.

Erika Eitland: I mean, you know how I feel, this would not be a season of Inhabit without the love languages. So the real question is, where do we begin?

Kimberly Seigel: Okay, well, I say we start with the love language of design, because design is in the middle of a Venn diagram between public art and climate data.

Erika Eitland: Okay. One side, public art,

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah.

Erika Eitland: climate data on the other side—

Kimberly Seigel: Yes.

Erika Eitland: design right in the middle.

Kimberly Seigel: Right in the middle, right in that middle.

Erika Eitland: Love it.

Kimberly Seigel: And so, you know, augmented reality highlighting rising sea levels, like we saw with Climate Monsters, or murals dedicated to environmental justice, those examples of art make our collective future a little bit more tangible and shareable.

Erika Eitland: That is interesting, because I think that’s what good design does, right? It tells the truth.

Kimberly Seigel: Yes.

Erika Eitland: it invites participation, and it’s refusing to be passive in the face of a crisis like the climate crisis.

Kimberly Seigel: So the word that comes up for me is intentional.

Erika Eitland: Ooh, yeah.

Kimberly Seigel: Intentional design decisions can even make a single tree a piece of art.

Erika Eitland: Ah, and we heard that, you know, in the public garden.

Kimberly Seigel: We sure did.

Erika Eitland (on the street): Do you think this tree is public art? This, like, beautiful blossoming tree.

Stranger 7 (on the street): I think it is public art, but the only thing about it is that people didn’t choose to have it here. It’s just, like, naturally being here. But it turned to be a public art.

Erika Eitland: I feel like, Kimi, this is, to me, where policy needs to be, the next level language, because you can’t always have intentionality without a little nudge,

Kimberly Seigel: Little nudge, nudge. It’s true. You know, history in five key dates, we saw that policy and processes can determine spaces that get designated to receive art commissioners. See the commissioners, you know, the dollar amounts that get allocated, and even the advocacy work to include art in a building and urban design projects, it’s, you know, policy and process did that.

Erika Eitland: Policy has this really important opportunity to embed public art in climate resilience planning. So again, smooshing that Venn diagram together.

Kimberly Seigel: [giggles]

Erika Eitland: My hope here is that, you know, we could be updating zoning codes to incentivize creative place making in flood zones, or, you know, requiring public art as a part of infrastructure investments in frontline communities.

Kimberly Seigel: I love that. Okay, so just that we’re on the same page, frontline communities are those that experience the first and worst impacts of climate change.

Erika Eitland: Yes, yes. Important to bring everybody along in this journey, and I think to support those communities, specifically, public art should be a part of the design team from day one, just like engineers and landscape architects are, because that’s what makes it more meaningful, not just performative,

Kimberly Seigel: Definitely. So public art can be an activation tool for designers,

Erika Eitland: For sure.

Kimberly Seigel: But climate data can serve as the educational tool to help inform those future decisions for warming worlds. They work kind of hand in hand.

Erika Eitland: I think this is where love language number three comes in. Research. Again, you and I are researchers. We love this.

Kimberly Seigel: We love research.

Erika Eitland: We have the evidence about the human experience. Climate benefits of passively cool buildings and the value of more tree lined streets for shade and urban cooling for a warming world. But I think we need to really return to this topic later in the season, because I would love to bring in Dr Tasha Golden because her research positions art is not an extra, not as a like to have, but really a core component of a healthy ecosystem. And listen, if you’re a carbon nerd, I’m a public health—

Kimberly Seigel: Yeah, I know this.

Erika Eitland: We have to get into it.

Kimberly Seigel: We do, we do. Okay, I feel like you just dropped another little teaser. There’s so many teasers in this episode between public transit, public health. I mean, we’re just getting deeper into the value of public art and design.

Erika Eitland: I’m here for this. I’m so here for it.

Kimberly Seigel: Seriously, Erika, I think we can confidently say that design is a future planet intervention.

Erika Eitland: Oh, I see what you did there. Yes, design is a future planet intervention. I love that, because I think our design decisions have lasting impact, no matter how long they actually take up space.

Kimberly Seigel: Absolutely.

[“In Eternity We Trust” plays.]

Erika Eitland: All right, people, we’re gonna recap, because we just went through a lot.

Kimberly Seigel: We did.

Erika Eitland: Love languages. Here we go, team. Design. Number one, it’s in the middle of this beautiful Venn diagram between public art and climate data. So our hope is, please use design intentionally, and please use public art early to make it the most effective it can be.

Kimberly Seigel: Yes.

Erika Eitland: All right. Number two, policy, listen people. You got to embed public art into climate resilience planning. These cannot be two separate things. They make our community stronger and better, and we need to be pushing that no matter where we are in this country. In the last piece—research—we got to tap into this human and planetary evidence that exists. But there’s a lot more coming, because this is Inhabit—get ready.

Kimberly Seigel: Oh, I’m ready. As we wrap this episode, we want to leave you with some juicy questions,

Erika Eitland: Juicy questions. This is how we’re friends. My vernacular has become yours.

Kimberly Seigel: I say, let me share. I’m like, let me speak your love language. You love a good, juicy question. So something I would never say, but here we are. Here we are, all right.

Erika Eitland: Oh, my god, yeah. Well, this is really just a chance to be more mindful in your day, because public art is all around us, and if it’s not, that’s also pretty telling.

Kimberly Seigel: So I’ve got a little task slash assignment for you. The next time you’re standing in front of a piece of public art, ask yourself, “How can public art teach the public or a community about something you know,” whether it’s climate change or wildlife, natural systems or even history.

Erika Eitland: And to that point, you know, standing would suggest that we all have to slow down. So again, this is a mindful moment. And so next question for me would be, “does it successfully represent your community voice today as it is? And does it look forward and use maybe data or other information, to really consider that collective future we’re all working towards?”

Kimberly Seigel: How can engagement in public art serve as a form of education outside of a traditionally designed classroom, you know, not just for the young elementary school students, but for—

Erika Eitland: The grown adults—

Kimberly Seigel: Grown adults, yeah, how can, how can public art tap into that emotional side of learning.

Erika Eitland: These questions are so critical as we get into the following episodes, we are going to be expanding our definition of public art. We are leaving the public garden to check out all of the great neighborhoods Boston has to offer. And we’re just going to nerd out more with some brilliant artists, decision makers and researchers. So yeah, get excited.

Kimberly Seigel: I’m excited. Let’s do this.

Erika Eitland: You are listening to Inhabit. I’m Dr Erika Eitland.

Kimberly Seigel: I’m Kimberly Seigel. We have kind of an incredible website at: Inhabit.perkinswill.com—there are show notes, pictures and links to all the resources and references that we shared.

Erika Eitland: Mhm, and thank you, Sarah Brophy, for being generous with your time and sharing Climate Monsters with us. It’s amazing.

Kimberly Seigel: Shout out to Dr Laura Neefe for producing and editing the show. Our music is from Epidemic Sound.

Erika Eitland: And have you seen our amazing illustrations by Julio Brenes? Find them on Instagram and follow us @Inhabit.podcast. Inhabit is a member of the surround Podcast Network. We’re cousins with some of the best architecture and design podcasts around. And guess what? We’re all on surroundpodcast.com

Kimberly Seigel: As a former advisory board member, I want to thank the larger team for their wisdom and support. Yanel de Angel, Leigh Christy, Casey Jones, Deidre Mick, Angela Miller and Rachel Rose.

Chorus: Inhabit.

Erika Eitland: Bye, y’all!

Kimberly Seigel: Bye!

Chorus: Places, power, design, change, and health.

[“In Eternity We Trust” cues out.]

Voice: A Perkins&Will podcast.

[SURROUND mnemonic]

 

Bonus on the street:

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): I think it’s a cherry blossom, or maybe it’s not. And just ask people if they think that is public art?

Erika Eitland (on the street): Yeah, sure.

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Okay.

Erika Eitland (on the street): I really think we should ask the squirrel. “What do they think is public art?”

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Yeah? Here! Let’s go. Let’s go! We get a sound of the squirrel. I’m serious. Let’s go up to the squirrel. They’ll think we’re feeding it here. Yeah.

Erika Eitland (on the street): Wait, wait, come here.

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Come here, come here. Dude.

Erika Eitland (on the street): No, he’s not into… he’s like.

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): Haha, we want to record you.

Erika Eitland (on the street): The funny thing is. They—they’re so fearless, like—

Kimberly Seigel (on the street): They really are.

Erika Eitland (on the street): They are a part of the experience of this space. [fades out]