Breaking down the walk: part 3
I went on to analyse my own “instructions” of the walk, instinctively drawing as I read the directions. Each time the line came out different which brings into question the actual usefulness of supposedly strict, objective rules etc.
Are any of these an accurate representation of my route? Here I have created multiple systems out of one set of instructions. If I gave the left/right commands (without the road names) to a group of individuals, how many would end up in the same place? I am interested in this idea of multiple outcomes arising from something that should be very rigidly set. For me, it creates a kind of fantasy amongst the systems of the huge city. Never tied down.
I wanted to take this focus on the instructions further, so tried to memorise the route. I timed how long this took, again creating an alternative reality to the actual walk (e.g 2h 14m 01s 95 cs becomes 29m 38s 13cs). I’m not exactly sure where this strand of “breakdown” is going but at the moment I am finding it exciting. It’s no longer really anything to do with actual walking or even the city but rather my own obsessive systems. Perhaps this could be a way of creating other walks using the safehouse walk.
I like this way of presenting my memorisation. In a book it would become too obviously like a school exercise (like learning spellings or something). On the wall it becomes more painterly, however, still reads from top left to bottom right, ending with a single sheet which is the one that proved I had memorised it (I wanted to get at last two in a row right, to prove it was actually in there and not just a one off).
I am considering turning this into some kind of film.