Anant,

Thanks for asking for clarification. I'm still trying to disentangle 
various ideas from the broader set, and tried to convey several of them 
in that one sentence. Your reply and others that have arrived privately 
have helped to separate and clarify the ideas a bit further. Perhaps I 
can make things a bit clearer.

Using your example of estuarine islands, is the matter of national 
identity settled by an absolute geolocation of a border, or is is 
settled by other means? If a river is used as a boundary, might an 
island be shifted back and forth across a national border such that the 
inhabitants of that island have to revise their national identity each 
time? In the example you cite, some specific agreement might resolve the 
issue, but it wouldn't necessarily set the tone for other similar 
examples between other countries/jurisdictions.

Recke's project was initially interesting because it has a connotation 
of taking US sand to Denmark and (re)presenting it as a transportation 
of something more than sand.  He's not presenting it as a souvenir of 
America, nor is he commodifying it in the way we might see Red Sea salt 
promoted on the basis of its geographical source. He's managed to 
emphasise the relationship between that sand and ideas, histories, 
cultural characteristics and presumably legal status of the US (and 
Germany, in another version of the project).

The implications are intriguing. But could it happen in any substantive 
way? Apparently not, given that the entire globe has been subjected to 
legal instruments for somewhat over a century, and every eventuality 
seems to have been covered. So, as you say, the material and the 
immaterial always go together (now). But I suspect that's a recent 
phenomenon, and Recke's work seems like a great starting point to pick 
apart the elements of that relationship

I hope that's a useful clarification.

David.


Maringanti, Ananthakrishna wrote:
> David,
> I am puzzled by the way this question is framed.
> "If one could relocate an entire
> island, would it maintain its legal status even if the new location was
> within a different nation?"
> 
> By legal status I assume you mean the jurisdiction of the 
> international,national, and whatever local laws that might have regulated its 
> use before the move right ? This would be determined through negotiation and 
> arbitration diplomacy and perhaps even armed conflict wouldnt it ? And wouldnt 
> the actual trajectories of that negotiation and arbitration  depend on what 
> meanings the material island would give up / take on as it travels from one 
> country to another ? (there are many precedents for this - for example, much of 
> the ice that was sold in India in the 19th century was hewn from frozen lakes 
> near Boston, shipped there, stored in icehouses - built in Bombay, Madras and 
> Calcutta and distributed from there. One might assume that the ice was US 
> territory until it was hewn by Frederic Tudor!! Or at least Spring came along 
> and melted it away   
> http://www.todayinsci.com/T/Tudor_Frederic/IceTradeAmericaToIndia.htm )
> 
> I mean if what left Long Island is seen as "only sand" (of course imbued with 
> whatever meanings that might attach to it), then it is no longer a place in the US.
> For example, much of the construction industry in Singapore depends on sand 
> imported from Indonesia. And Indonesian restrictions on sand export hurt Singapore.
> see:http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Itemid=32&id=356&option=com_content&task=view 
> <http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Itemid=32&id=356&option=com_content&task=view>
> Yet it is hard to conceive of this as a case where the Indonesia can stake a 
> claim to regulating buildings in Singapore.
> 
> 
> But then there are border disputes between India and Bangladesh and India where 
> the movement of sand actually creates ambiguous border areas. As estuarine 
> islands (largely composed of sand deposits)shift from time to time, habitations 
> of fisherfolk on these islands are some times in Indian territory and some times 
> in  Bangladesh territory. Perhaps with less human costs - both Bangladesh and 
> India have actually been losing territory in some places.
> see for 
> example:http://www.bangladeshnews.com.bd/2008/02/24/river-erosion-eats-into-bangladesh-territory/
> 
> So to cut to the chase, I am wondering if what is important is not so much the 
> distinction between material and non material aspects of place but how the 
> material and immaterial always go together. For sand to leave Indonesia and 
> become part of Singapore it must be seen as no more than a commodity that can be 
> easily mined and traded, for inhabitants of a shifting estuarine
> island along the Indian and Bangladeshi border to be able to see themselves as 
> Indian or Bangladeshi at any given time, there must be adequate domestic and 
> geopolitical reasons for these national administrations to value these people as 
> citizens. And for both India and Bangladesh to work together to arrest the 
> erosion of their territories, there must be sufficient discursive and material 
> compulsion.
> Theoretical work on the material and non material production of place -- how about
> Nik Blomley et al edited "legal geographies reader" ?
> 
> 
> As I suggested at the outset, it is possible that I am missing something in the 
> question so, if this response doesnt address what you have in mind - it is 
> entirely my fault. But thanks for the link. It is an intriguing story.
> anant
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers on behalf of David Papadopoulos
> Sent: Fri 8/8/2008 4:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: A paradox of place & materiality
> 
> Today's Pruned (http://pruned.blogspot.com) mentions artist Nikolaj
> Recke, who excavated ten metres of sand from Long Island, New York and
> shipped it  to a gallery in Denmark.
> 
> The piece prompts several questions: is it still US soil for legal,
> political, commercial purposes, and what are the implications
> (conceptual & otherwise) of excavating a place and moving or
> distributing it around the world? If one could relocate an entire
> island, would it maintain its legal status even if the new location was
> within a different nation?
> 
> Recke's work is interesting because it emphasises a distinction between
> the material(ity) of a place and the legal but immaterial definition of
> that place. I'm wondering if any geographers have addressed that
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Dr. Anant Maringanti, Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Geography, AS 2 # 04-05, 1 
> Arts Link, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 117570
> 
> 

-- 

65D Oxford Road
Moseley
Birmingham
B13 9ES

0121 242 1845