Beauty in these Broken Stones: An Outline

In December 2020, I completed one of the favourite papers I have ever written, and now I have the pleasure of reworking it in the scope of this writing course. Part of the reason I love this paper so much is because I feel I am present it in. I’ve included many photos which I took myself, and it is about a place that holds a special place in my heart: Armand Lemiez’s homestead. When I first visited in October 2020, I immediately knew I needed to write about it for my Anthropology of Things course. The homestead was so compelling and unique, and I still remember the reaction of my professor when I told him about it: “You can do so much with this!”

So, why is Armand Lemiez’s homestead so special? Lemiez was a farmer and artist. Starting at the age of 72 he created 21 concrete sculptures throughout the last decade of his life, and displayed them at his homestead. While he wanted his work preserved on his homestead in perpetuity, the Manitoba government did not see any heritage value in his work and upon Lemiez’s death in 1984 his homestead was abandoned. His sculptures have remained on the property since that time, slowly succumbing to the elements. In 2018, the Rural Municipality of Grahamdale opened up the site for visitors, complete with interpretive panels.

In the original version of my paper, I explore various ideas of abandonment through Armand Lemiez’s homestead. I begin the paper by describing the site today, and then I go on a deep dive of Lemiez’s life and his art. I then explore why sites like this may be abandoned by parts of archaeology due to the discipline’s “artistic bias” as well as its tendency to reconstruct a lived-in past because abandonment is seen as apart from the “continuum of types of use” (David and Kramer, 2001, p.110).

I then investigate how segments of the public abandon sites like this and apply inappropriate “elite” standards to “folk” art, and how modern ruins can make people uncomfortable as the ruins are caught in a liminal state between being intact and being rubble. I finish this discussion by questioning what heritage is, the implied expectations of preservation, and the “material intolerance” (Pétursdóttir, 2013, p. 38) towards places that do not fit the aesthetic ideals of heritage.

My final section details how abandonment can instead be celebrated for what it is by recognizing the relationship between humans and non-humans produces agency; in the case of Lemiez’s homestead it can be understood as being full of dialogue. I also elaborate on palliative curation, a unique conservation strategy that celebrates abandonment by not actively maintaining, nor actively harming sites. This is exactly what occurs at Armand Lemiez’s homestead and allows the site simply to exist, and be loved and enjoyed for what it is. I finish my exploration by stating that any preservation decisions of Armand Lemiez’s homestead need to consider the wishes of the surrounding community, the wishes of Armand Lemiez, as well as all the treasures at his homestead.

Thanks to the suggestions of my professor, I made some edits to enhance my ideas in May 2021 and provided a copy to the Rural Municipality of Grahamdale. Since then, I have not tinkered with this paper. My professor encouraged me to get it published and it’s something I’ve been wanting to do for years, but as life does it gets in the way. This opportunity to rework something for publication is the time for me to get work done on this long-deferred dream. Coincidentally, the title that came to me for my blog, Beauty in these Broken Stones, is also part of the title for this paper.

The first thing I did in this reworking process, after brainstorming with my thesis supervisor, was to map out Beauty in these Broken Stones as it is currently structured to remind myself of all its composing parts. As for how I’m planning to transform my paper, I’m framing it more in terms of heritage, and not so much in terms of abandonment in its various incarnations. Abandonment and ruination are still significant ideas for Beauty in these Broken Stones, but they, like art, will enter the overarching conversation of heritage in my paper.

I will notice more things I need to change, and already I have some thoughts. My section on why sites like this may be abandoned by parts of archaeology is a provocative one. While that is a good thing, as I was rereading it a few days ago I realized the need to tone it down! I’ve also gained even more nuance and more knowledge of archaeology as a discipline since writing Beauty in these Broken Stones, and I look forward to applying all that to this section to achieve a more thoughtful, yet still provocative, discussion. With my newfound focus on heritage, my subsection on things as agents feels very much out of place, and I’ll be omitting that to allow more space for the restructuring and expansion of other parts of my paper.

With these transformations in mind, let’s look to my next steps and deadlines:

Step One: Look at journals of interest. There are three journals I’m considering submitting to, and the next thing for me to do is look at articles in each journal as well as each journal’s submission criteria to understand what my paper would look like if it were to be published there. This initial exploration will help me decide what ideas need to be explored more in my paper, and I may even be able to affirm or rule out where I want to submit my paper. Deadline: Monday, February 12, 2024.

Step Two: Explore themes. I will do this through the three journals I am considering submitting my paper to as well as other journals/literature on the archaeology of the contemporary past and archaeological conversations about heritage. By conducting this “field survey,” I will learn what is out there and I will learn where I fit in the discussion, which leads to me having a conversation with certain sources and to the following step. This will be the longest part of the process and I’m going to give myself time for this because I’m not 100% sure what I will find and I’d like to give my mind the freedom to explore. Deadline: Monday, February 26, 2024.

Step Three: Make my next road map. After all this exploration of the literature, it is now time to refine my focus and go back to the initial map of the original structure of my paper and add in the ideas I would like to discuss. Thanks to Step Two, I’ll know what conversations I want to enhance and add to in my paper, as well as those that are less relevant and can be omitted. And yes, this is precisely the time for my classic cartography! I will keep playing with it until I have a road map that is satisfactory and coherent to me. Deadline: Monday, March 4, 2024.

Step Four: Sit down and write. Now that I know what I’m doing and where I’m going to go, I will make a copy of my original paper and rewrite in that document. I anticipate this will progress similarly to how I write a paper from scratch (described in this blog post and in the comments), except this time I’ll be dissecting/reorganizing/adding/omitting sections. Deadline: Tuesday, March 19, 2024.

Step Five: Get feedback. In class, I will ask classmates for feedback on specific things about my first draft. By “first draft,” I am referring to something I’m comfortable showing other people, not something half-baked. I used to think that “first draft” meant something I had not yet fully fleshed out or edited myself, and I found that to be frustrating. I questioned what the point was in showing someone something that I knew I needed to work on, instead of advancing it and soliciting genuine feedback. I like this new definition much better. Deadline: Tuesday, March 19, 2024.

Step Six: Incorporate feedback to prepare second draft. In other words, go back to Steps Two, Three, and Four as necessary. Deadline: Tuesday, April 2, 2024.

Step Seven: Get more feedback. Same deal as Step Five, except now the feedback is something specific on my new-and-improved second draft. Deadline: Tuesday, April 2, 2024.

Step Eight: Incorporate feedback to prepare “final” version. Another reprise of Steps Two, Three, and Four as needed. Deadline: Monday, April 15, 2024.

Step Nine: Submit paper for class. And I will absolutely do something nice for myself to celebrate. Deadline: Monday, April 15, 2024.

Step Ten: Submit paper to a journal! This will occur sometime after I submit my paper for class and receive feedback on it, allowing me to incorporate the feedback before journal submission. Deadline: Whenever the submission deadline is.

And that’s the plan for now. Full disclosure: I have never taken apart a paper to this extent before and strangely enough I’m not a big fan of making rigid timelines, so we’re trying something new here! I welcome feedback on things I should or should not be doing, as well as whether my deadlines are feasible or not. I’m genuinely excited to delve back into Beauty in these Broken Stones and to see where Armand Lemiez’s homestead will take me next.

References Cited

David, N. and Kramer, C., 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2013. Concrete matters: ruins of modernity and the things called heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology 13(1), pp. 31-53.