Connecting you with todays arts leaders.

Ep. 3: Ken Lum

CCNC 2020 Interview with Ken Lum


Annetta: Welcome to the Creative City Network of Canada podcast mini series, where we explore the topics and conversations that connect and support cultural leadership, celebrate cultural excellence, and nurture cultural development in local communities throughout Canada. I'm your host Annetta Latham. Today I'm speaking with Ken Lum Current Chair of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania's Weitzman School of Design in Philadelphia. Ken Lum is an internationally recognized artist and curator, a Guggenheim fellow and an officer of the Order of Canada since 1990, Ken has worked on several permanent public art commissions, as well as several temporary public commissions in many cities across the globe. He has an impressive record of curatorial projects and is co-founder and chief curatorial adviser on the Monument Lab, a public art and history collective that recently won a four million dollar Mellon Foundation grant. Welcome Ken.

Ken: Very pleased to be here. 

Annetta: It's lovely to have you join us. What an impressive record, and tell us a little bit about your journey as an artist and in the developing of your career. I've kind of given a very summary in the introduction. 

Ken: Well, I think my journey probably started when I was a kid, but I'm not going to belabor the audience with every detail of my biography, but I do think art, in whatever form [it took], touched something in me when I was very young. I had a disposition for drawing. I still make drawings before every project. I didn't know anything about the art world. I didn't know there was this realm called contemporary art. And I didn't know that it was possible to have a career as a contemporary artist. So I studied science as an undergraduate. I thought that was my destiny, to work in science. I was already working part-time in a chemical research lab for the British Columbia government.  Mercifully, I discovered art in my senior year of undergraduate and it didn't conform to anything I had thought art was. None of my peers could draw a horse. I could draw a horse. I didn't understand why they wanted to be an artist if they didn’t even have basic drawing skills. But I realized there was a logic to art. And I quickly became fascinated and even consumed by art. I made a fateful decision one day just to leave science, despite my four and a half years of investment in it education wise. I moved to New York in short order and tried to learn as much about the art as I could. 

Annetta: Well, that is really exciting, thank you for introducing that snapshot of your history. You know people are always asking, when I interview people, I hear more about them, I didnt hear more about them. And, you know, I as well as others, are very glad you gave up your science career and went into the arts. In relation to your work, your work often speaks to the narrative of immigration, many nationalities coming to new lands, all of which can connect us to the concept of resiliency. And the CCNC theme for 2020, as well as the call for the upcoming creative city summit, is around that concept of resiliency, do you have any insights on how to balance the current sense of urgency that everyone's feeling with producing meaningful, thoughtful arts and connecting that to the concept of resiliency. 

Ken: I've always been driven by urgency. Well prior to this heightened moment of reckoning. Having said that, I also think there's not a singular response to this moment. If you're an artist, it doesn't mean that you stop making art because you're making abstract art or some kind of art that may not be so apparently connected to this moment of social reckoning. Right, you should continue making that art. This is a statement of your freedom and your pleasure. But I do think you can have parallel tracks of engagement, like some artists will make work that is adjusted to a political environment, and then they'll make, on another track, a career of art that is destined for galleries and museums and so on. And you don't actually have to swap the work you do for the museums or make it contort so it fits into the current moment. There's many, many different strategies. One thing you do need to do is to be politically alert and to be nimble and curious about how to become engaged. There is no singular strategy for an artist. I started Monument Lab because I was questioning the dis-equilibrium that I saw in terms of the statuary and the official inventory of monuments in various cities. Out of that curiosity, I started writing essays about that question which have to do with hegemonic power and oppression. When you look or study the statue of a city, most cities, certainly they would be white male statues, most of the inventory, and very few women, unless they're an angel or muse or something like that, and even fewer people of color. Certainly very few of the people who are truly subjugated. So, and I started back, but I never saw that as my artwork. I saw that as a testament to my engagement in the larger field of politics and social change. 

Annetta:  I want to kind of pick up on the Monument Lab stuff for a moment and you co-founded that in 2012. And you know, when the current, what we're seeing over the current year is the toppling of statues and monuments, that it's become kind of the focal point at the height of the BLM movement this year and as a result of that, Monument Lab has become in the forefront of that movement in some way. What has that been like to see that happen and do that journey? 

Ken: Obviously, it's gratifying, it's surprising to the extent that when I co-founded Monument Lab with my colleague Paul Farber at the University of Pennsylvania, we both thought that, you know, this is, we're very late to the game in terms of questioning this disequilibrium, I mentioned in terms of the hierarchy of monuments. Yeah, but it turned out that we weren't late to the game, we were just the first to really formalize it as an object of concentrated study. There's been no entity that's been formulated to respond to that. People have obviously written there has been academic papers written about how monuments are a reflection of power, of perpetuating social injustice and all that, but no real entity in place where people can actually go to have a dialog about these questions. And so it's been incredibly gratifying. I mean, we started just in my office at the University of Pennsylvania in 2012. And now now we have a budget of well over five million in Europe and the US and we have, you know, perhaps two dozen people working with us and students. And we're working, we've got projects in, across the ocean as well in Munich and in Rotterdam and Antwerp, several European cities as well as throughout North America. 

Annetta:  I mean, this whole conversation around monuments has been really interesting and both from a positive and a negative perspective. And there was a bit of a dialog, I was in New Zealand over the summer, and there was a little bit of a dialog around protecting some of the monuments because of they were still related historically to you know founding fathers and all of that kind of stuff. In relation to monuments, can you talk about how you feel about how they you know, whether you feel like they become part of gathering, a gathering point and illustrations of a civic protest, or a civic identity. Where do they fit in that narrative from your perspective? 

Ken: Well, first of all, we have to look at how a monument is defined. There's a theater at play in the operations of the monument. The monument purports to be consensually derived when in fact it is specific regarding for whom it speaks for and for whose interests it represents. And also that the values that it's, it is imbued with, is somehow universal and eternal. But that is actually a fiction because we know that. Every time a monument is toppled, we realize it's just physically hollow inside. It's 90 percent copper if made of bronze. Even the idea of permanence is a fiction because it's expensive to maintain that permanence. You have to clean it twice a year. You have to have an administrative infrastructure to insure it does not build up soot or salt. The veneer of permanence is maintained by a lot of muscle and capital. While monuments operate through fiction, they also speak truth to power. And that's what makes monuments complicated. Monument Lab is very interested in such complications. And because, for example, you can take in Pretoria, South Africa, there's the Voortrekker monument. It's a gigantic building, gigantic. And it's extols the, you know, the kind of Afrikaan journey to the Transvaal and inside the friezes of these vicious Zulus raping white women and then deserving to be shot to death. It's a horrible frieze and so on. In a way, it does speak truth to power, at least historically before apartheid. That question makes it important for people to reflect upon what is being lost, if they just are automatically taken down without questioning, without examination. 

Annetta: Yeah. So I think that's a really interesting point, especially for a lot of our listeners who are municipal cultural workers and thinking about this moving forward in relation to rethinking the statues and monuments that they have in their cities. And, you know, when you're thinking about what needs to be changed or considered in this process, what kind of guidance would you give them and that kind of thinking process that they're doing?

Ken: Well, the first thing I would do is, well first of all, I would separate out certain things like, for example, the previous example of Confederate monuments in the United States, which is occupying a lot of the concerns in the United States regarding monuments. Most or almost all of them, I think, deserve to be taken down because they were erected by and large in the 20th century well after the end of the civil war. They were put in front of courtyards, um courthouses and so on deliberately. And to signal that this lost cause of the Confederacy as it was, is a noble history when in fact a lost cause, which is premised on the idea that the South was really about protecting the rights of the slave and that they were very gentle to African-Americans and that it was a very particular way of life that even the African-American slave actually enjoyed, probably a total fiction. And so they deserve to come down. But I would say generally that I don't think most statues should just come down automatically without some dialog or some creative response by thinkers, by members of the public, by an artist, by creative types regarding even a kind of aesthetic response to the work, first of all. Because I think there's a danger of that is a problematic statue, we should take it down and then there's no more dialog. And if interest is served, I think the dialogue is critical. 

Annetta: Yeah, thank you, I mean, it's a really good thinking point for people, because, like you say, just taking something down for the sake of taking that down is not always the solution. And sometimes there is power in the statement of a piece of public work, which is absolutely extraordinary.  Yourself, you've worked with several municipalities installing pieces of public work. What's that experience been like? 

Ken: Very uneven, depends on what city this is. If it's in Europe, by and large, it's a joy. Because the level of sounds almost condescending to say, but there's a level of acculturation and valuing of part of the public at large, which makes things easier. So when I did a large work in Vienna, which is permanent, in Austria. I remember approaching the city and I said I would present this work, but as I was making the work, I said I wanted to alter it and because and, you know, and I know that that wouldn't be disallowed if I did it in North America. And so I said, “what do you think?” And they said, sure, go ahead. And I said, yeah, but it would cost a bit more. It'll probably cost like around twenty thousand euros more than my budget. And then they came back to me very quickly and said, well, if it's really important to you, we want the best work and we will cover it. So, but that's more, that's more Europe. In North America, and you don't have to be bogged down by administration. You have to worry about finding a team, an engineer, a lawyer and an insurer. Everything is on the artists in North America. But in Austria, in Europe, it's they say, OK, well, we'll go and look for the team for you and you can interview them and we'll take care of all the things. And you just you just concentrate on your idea. Very different. Right. But yeah. Go ahead. 

Annetta: Would you say one is more freeing than the other from an artist's perspective? 

Ken: The European context for public art is much more freeing. But a lot depends on the circumstances. I only will commit to commissions for private development if the site is interesting, and I feel strongly about an idea. It is important that I also have a good relationship with the people involved in the commissioning. But generally I don't have a blanket rule that I don't work with private developments. It's just as it's often more compromising because, you know, there's expectations to satisfy the would be condo owners or the developer and so on. So, yeah, but working in a public context is generally more rewarding. 

Annetta: So talking about a public context and public spaces and permanent art pieces from an artist's perspective, what's your feeling about permanent pieces in public spaces? 

Ken: I think you’ll always have a monument to something that deserves to be remembered. A cataclysmic event like 9/11 deserves to be remembered. But it behooves us to also look at 9/11 with a broad lens, as painful as such an exercise may be. A monument should not simply rest on calling up an abstract notion of mourning. 

Annetta:  So would you in relation to public spaces in the current pandemic that we're going through, which is, you know, another big, huge stop point in everybody's lives. How do you feel that public spaces have changed since the start of the pandemic? 

Ken: Well, I think we realize there isn’t all that much truly public space. I go back to Occupy Wall Street for it offers lessons regarding the question of public space. Bowling Green Park was the public park where occupy protesters initially camped.  But Bowling Green Park is a public park that closed at nine p.m. each night. The police would come in kick the protesters out forcing them to move on to occupy Zuccotti Park, a half block further south. Zuccotti is a private park established as an amenity by private development. So we live in a topsy turvy world where it is often confusing what is a true public space and what is a true private space. One of the lessons that Covid-19 has brought to bear is just how unequal access is to public amenities. And so on. And I mean, I have a backyard to my house. But I know some people who don't have a backyard. Many people live in close quarters. I'm lucky as I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I can walk around and feel relatively protected and safe. We have given over so much public space to private interests, often developers as part of public/private partnerships that extol the reduction of government and the supposed savings of public taxes. Covid-19, for example, in the United States is so, so much worse, not just because people don't have any sense of a collective good, but because of the system of private medicine. With a social environment of privatized health care, there is no incentive for a medical care system that can respond to collective needs as opposed to individual needs. So this kind of lopsided attention and capital invested in cosmetic surgery and all kinds of voluntary surgery where much of the money was made by doctors and so on. It's crazy. 

Annetta:  It's interesting. It's as you mentioned, Covid is having this really interesting effect on a lot of us in a lot of different ways. And one of the things that I noticed in, I was in New Zealand during the New Zealand lockdown, and one of the things that I noticed in New Zealand is the way we used our public spaces a little bit differently. And one of the interesting things was there was a park just down the road from where my mom lives. And we walked every day, my mom and I, and the amount of people who kept their distance from each other but still said hello. And then there was an artist who came and did a piece of chalk art on the footpath, and people really protected it and really engaged with it. And it rained one night and someone had come out and covered it. And we don't know whether it was the artist or not, but the use of those spaces was really interesting and we engaged more with each other. And then obviously the lockdown lifted in New Zealand and we're still walking around the park and suddenly people aren't saying hello to each other anymore. And they were kind of going about their business of walking their dog or, you know, the use of public spaces beyond the lockdown in New Zealand kind of changed and went back to this odd thing. And we weren't sure to say whether we should engage with the people we'd engaged with during the pandemic. From your perspective, do you think there has been a morph and a change in our public spaces that's kind of gone beyond the pandemic back in the American arena that you're currently in? 

Ken: I hope so, but I'm skeptical. I mean, I think in cities like New York or San Francisco, where there's a lot of money, a lot of prestige, even among the oligarchs that run those cities to put their own money and put their own names to this, of semi privatized sponsoring of all kinds of amenities, I think that will probably happened. In New York, you have Madison Square Park. There is Bryant Park. There are all these parks that now have all kinds of public amenities, seating and activities, outdoor art shows and a lot of streets like parts of Broadway that are entirely pedestrian only.  Then you also have cities which are a lot poorer. They not like the highly capitalized cities in America. And I don't really see much change for any of those cities because first of all, there's very little true public transit of any quality in middle sized cities in America. And I think the whole public space thing is tied to good public transit, good public health, good public education and safety, no guns and all sorts of things, which is just not true in a lot of American cities. 

Annetta: Thank you. It is incredibly interesting. You're right. It's a different way of thinking. It puts a different lens on it. And for yourself, as a Canadian artist living and working in the States, have you had the opportunity to critically compare contextually, the difference between how Canada works with space and especially through the monument lab? How they might work with monuments and the way the States is where you've touched on that a little bit and the way the state is working out, is there anything that kind of glaringly stands out for you? 

Ken: I think there are lots of problems confronting American society. There's a strong streak of machismo premised on a white cowboy mentality that extends back to the civil war, perhaps back to the founding of the Republic.  At the same time, the United States is a font of new knowledge production. There's amazing institutions of scholarship. There is amazing cultural emergence. There's amazing creative responses to all kinds of problems. And there's also amazing will and solarity to address problems, social problems quickly. And and, of course, it's not enough, but it is a paradox. On the one hand, you have terrible misery, you know, subject subjugation and so on. And then on the other hand, you have forceful resistance and responses that can emerge very quickly.  The air is always volatile. In Canada I think it's much more toned down, so you may have problems and the problems don't seem as severe as in the United States and in certain respects it isn't. But then on the other hand, if your First Nations can you say that to a First Nations person? That's not as I would say, it's probably just as severe. The converse of that for Canada is that the response, the movements to try to help people real change, radical change, I think comes much more slowly in Canada than the United States.  I think there's much more pleasant as a kind of for the general level of living for most people, I think. Right. Whereas it's much more Manichean in terms of you have the wealthy who have the privilege and then you have the disadvantaged. Right. And it's terrible. And on the other hand, you know, when you have movement to social consciousness, they erupt very quickly and then they become very theorized, they enter into the economies very quickly, whereas in Canada it's very slow to enter into the economies is very slow. And the will to address social problems is at a much more modest scale. 

Annetta: And one of the interesting things and you've touched you touched on this and what you were saying is the connection for black indigenous and people of color art and artists and them having access to public art and monument work and the lack of representation of them as peoples in public art and monument work. I mean, how does a municipal person working under a structure with a budget and a directive more often than not, kind of start to think about readdressing that lack of representation in public art and monuments for these people of black, indigenous and people of color and our First Nations people? 

Ken: Well, there is a term called de-schooling where you try to unlearn the things that school teaches you.  De-schooling comes about because what one learns does not comport with one’s sense of the world. think a lot of institutions need to be de-schooled in terms of their reason for being. And then, of course, we are in this moment where there is a call it a moment right where we want social justice, but we also want it to be registered in terms of the composition of the people who run the cultural institution and so on. So it's not just good enough to say you're concerned about these issues, but that people of diversity and difference need to be in positions of real power and to be, at least in a cultural context, where their voice is heard, or at least they believe that their voice is valued. Right. And so there's a lot of work to be done on that question because there's a lot of museums right now that never visited this question at all in terms of justice and for the marginalized voice and so on. And now all of a sudden, everyone's jumping on the bandwagon and saying, well, we need to examine ourselves now after like a hundred years of not examining it. Meanwhile there were artists of color, artists and intellectuals of difference and so on, have been talking about this for many decades. They all have. I mean, I have all kinds of anecdotes about all kinds of terrible things that I've had to deal with, especially when I was a younger artist in terms of people telling me you shouldn't do this because you're an Asian or so why are you doing this? And these are like star curators. Wasnt that long ago and I remember when I started in art, there was a lot of I remember meeting a collector and a very famous collector and said, oh, you know, I thought so-and-so is a much better artist. And and I said, oh, you don't like her anymore. Well, I mean, she went and had a baby and she devoted her, basically, he was complaining about her serious lack of seriousness because she decided to become a mother and take a leave from making art so long. I've see the lack of commitment to being an artist. And yet, and I remember thinking that was really strange. And a couple of other people did, too. I was just a student at the time and I also remember quite a few other people nodding their heads, yeah thats too bad. It wasn't that long ago. 

Annetta: Yeah, it's a little bit concerning. 

Ken: I mean, I think I'm a bit skeptical in terms of a lot of this concern that's being expressed by a lot of institutions nowadays, although, of course, I support the, I support the addressing of these questions, though. 

Annetta:  Yeah, yeah. And I think one of the things that I think needs to be addressed and like you, I've been involved in the cultural sector for a long time, and one of the almost common threads throughout my journey of the last 30 years is the sector has been around the affordability of spaces and studios in relation to the economy and in relation to real estate, and them being and artists access. What are your thoughts around this? 

Ken: Well, I mean, I support that acknowledgment of that uneven playing field. I think one of the big lies about the entire cultural system, not just the arts system, but the entire cultural system, is that if that is somehow based on a talent meritocracy. When in fact so many are like an old joke. Many people are born on third base and they think they are somehow fantastic batters. But the kind of social aspects of formation is usually not a question that's visited upon us. We don't like to suspend that part. Before the pandemic, I would go to New York about two or three times a month taking in shows. And, you know, many of the galleries are spatially huge, they're eight thousand square feet to 60,000 square feet, the size of a museum.  And and yet you kind of think, wow, look at all the capital that has to go into just doing one show. A show for eight thousand square feet is like, oh, a lot of real estate and who can afford that. Right. And and, you know, throughout history there's been a lot of systemic racism and biases against women, against people of colour.  And it's not just the odds against them in terms of the art system, but the entire system. So I think those questions need to be visited. 

Annetta: Yeah, and that segways nicely into that concept of global capitalization, which you have been known to talk about. And, you know, so what are your thoughts are on global capitalization of this effect on that around Vancouver and on Vancouver? 

Ken: Around Vancouver, I haven’t been to Vancouver in a long time. I can't talk about it properly. Vancouver, it's obviously blessed by fantastic surroundings.  But it also, you know, won a kind of money lottery for a certain class of rich people to park their money. Gobs of global capital decided to settle there. I don't think it's a stable situation. There are a lot of wealthier Americans who are retired. There are many wealthy Chinese who got rich in China. Some of the money I suspect are ill gotten. A business person cozy with the Chinese Communist Party would end up having several hundred million dollars in a very short time. They leave China and become Canadian citizens. There was also a kind of social contract with the Canadian government. Nobody asks questions about the source of all the money.  So Canada invested in this idea of, capitalized investors, you know, whereas I think someone like my family could never have gotten into Canada as we were financially poor. My mother worked in a sweatshop. My father worked in various cafes in the city. My grandfather worked on the CPR, he also worked on the building, the Hotel Vancouver. I feel that my has contributed a lot to Canada.  Yet, we would not qualify for immigration consideration based on the present biases in the immigration system. We wouldn't we wouldn't be at the front of the line, we'd be way at the back of the queue. Yeah. 

Annetta: And when you expand it globally, I think it's becoming interesting.

Ken: Auckland’s in a similar situation to Vancouver.  Sydney too.

Annetta: So very much so. And I have had the opportunity to live and work in Sydney. And, you know, it's definitely, it focuses externally in Sydney, when you're in Sydney, the conversation is about the relationship you're having with Hong Kong or with London. It’s not the conversation about what do you have a relationship with Perth or Broome or Melbourne.

Annetta: It's a very kind of across the sea and was very. 

Ken: Very transactional. And somehow it somehow melded with being even the kind of historical racism of Australia as the lucky country got a history that history is still there. I mean, you see it in terms of  the islands where they basically imprison people who are suspended in terms of their legal status. And yet somehow Asians with a lot of money or Russians with a lot of money, whoever has a lot of money. 

Annetta:  So would you say that that global kind of capitalization and global investment is having a real impact, bringing that back into the dialog of public spaces and monuments and public art that is happening in these cities? 

Ken: Well, I don't quite understand the question, maybe you can repeat it.

Annetta: Sure, the global investment, we're talking about people with a lot of money having a lot of impact. Do you see in your work that having an impact on how public spaces are being used, how, what monuments are being built, what public art is being built, to that relationship between global capitalism and almost driving art and the use of public spaces and things like that? 

Ken: Well, certainly in the art world, you know, hedge fund managers that are billionaires, make up a sizable percentage of the major collectors now. And that's why you have super galleries that cater exclusively to a very small number of super wealthy people. And they often will buy their art with sight unseen and they will store it,  and then they will hope that one or a number of them in a number of the works in their collection will accrue exponential value. And then they de-accession that in a few years the whole thing is about money. Making money is not about, you know, for the love of art or anything like that. Yeah, but in terms of public spaces and so on, I mean, I see it most definitely in terms of private sponsorship, private sponsorship of all kinds of spaces and so on. So just take the Millennium Park in Chicago, which is by all accounts, super successful right now. I don't deny that. But the whole thing was also largely it was a public private enterprise. And every street, virtually every bench is named after a private company. So you have the Pritzker Pavilion, you have the McDonald's walk where you have you have the Whirlpool whatever. It's insane. You have the Microsoft whatever corner, that you can actually go to Google and look up a map of Millennium Park. And you look at it and say, OK, there's the Dell Computer, you know, lawn. There are two dozen companies who bestowed names to it. And, you know of course, it's all good public relations. Right. And the Crown Plaza was named after the Crown family, which is part of a Millennium Park in the Crown company, who owns Hilton is the master company that owns Hilton Hotels. Yeah. So. All right. So I think that's very true. And we see this certainly with the tax dollars paid on public arenas and stay here and announce it after various companies. Very strange to me, you know, and I think it's. I think it's also very short sighted. Yeah, it means it means that it basically gives over the, it gives over entirely the idea of social well-being to the logic of money. And money is also the solution. If you're sure if there's a problem to be addressed, then we need to cultivate donors, have money to solve the problem. The Davos, Switzerland mentality. 

Annetta: Yeah, very much so. And it's one of those sometimes you are definitely on the tightrope balancing where you're going in between those two conversations and that discourse around money I think can be incredibly interesting. Thank you, we've had an amazing conversation. There is so much content here. Before we wrap up for the day, is there anything else that you would like to add to our conversation? 

Ken: Well, I think this is like a moment in history, and I think it behooves Canadians as I'm addressing Canadians, I assume, to really grapple with that fact and don't and don't lose sight of what's at stake right now. I think we're at a moment whereby, you know, if we don't wrestle down, you know, increasing carbon accumulation in the atmosphere, basically it's game over. And I think the whole environmental crisis is really tied to social justice as well, because the environmental problems will affect darker skinned people more than in a very pernicious way, the lighter skinned people, for example, and so forth. And it will affect the poor much worse than the rich. Yeah, all of the questions are, I think, being tackled at least at least there seems to be a will to address these questions. And I implore as many people and as many Canadians to recognize this moment and to see how they can become involved in fighting the good fight for social justice and greater equity in society. 

Annetta: Ken, I want to thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. And it was wonderful to spend this short period of time with you and all the best with your Monument Lab as you move forward. It sounds like there's some phenomenal things on the horizon. And I look forward to kind of keeping an eye on seeing what's going on. So thank you again. 

Ken: My pleasure Annetta. Bye.

Today's episode of the Creative City Canada podcast has been made possible through a partnership between Creative City Network of Canada and MacEwan University, and with the support of the many members of the CCNC.

Thank you Mr Lum for sharing your thoughts and time with us today, and thanks to all of you out there, who took the time to listen.

Continue the conversation online, and see more resources and links from today’s guest on the CCNC Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts.

Join us on the Creative City Canada podcasts for other interviews with Mr Ernesto Ottone the UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture and Nancy Duxbury Senior Researcher and Co-coordinator of the Cities, Cultures and Architecture Research Group at the Centre for Social Studies, from University of Coimbra, Portugal. If you’ve found this useful and interesting please comment, share and subscribe.  Until then, continue being creative.

Latham, A (Executive Producer and Host). (2020, 20 November ). Creative City Network Canada Podcast Mini Series [Episode 3]. Ken Lum. Podcast retrieved from: https://www.artfulconversations.com/ccnc-miniseries-1/2021/2/6/episode-3-ken-lum


Ep. 2: Ernesto Ottone