*Excuse my gramer of English

The question is we know it is a IT self by following the either fact or evidence.
However, are we able to say that from bottom of our heart?
When did we know it is a fact…? Are there any evidence for it at all?

This is because we actually understand that it is a true because other people already shown the evidence.

However, what is going to be happen if we asked to ourselves like conciously?
By this I mean as a Grandstand, people already looked at the venue as some kind of horse racing field or horse breeding place but are there any different way of to look at this venue?

For example, materials that people can find at here:wood, golf balls, rubbish, dried leaves and plastics.
Are these describes that here is a racing field?

At that time now, the sounds that we can hear mostly is car noise, birds tweeting and silence.
It is easy to say that Grandstand is a horse racing stand but is it true for us?

*Excuse my grammer of English

At 9 am, still cold temperature…

However, this time we had a different targets such as to create some ‘Artistic pieces’.
But I think I should start to talk about some historic background about venue.
It is very hard for me to talk about because it is all luck of my understanding.

It is obvious that Grandstand is basically the venue of people watched some horse racing but in our case we have to (or we need to) feel/to get either emontions and atomosphere. It is not as a nature, human beings, technologies or materials.
By this I mean what we felt from this venue generally is one of a key element I suppose.
When we  walked around Grandstand this time, we were able to find many stuffs and places and I personally became more interest about this place.

For example, in outside, there were golf field at the back. Then we could find some stables (either clean and ruined) at just next to the field. On the other hand, in inside we found some rooms that have got different capacities.

History… yes, everything has history. (especially buildings)
But how about horse racing it self before to thingk of ‘Technology’?

Author James C. Whyte illustrated that;

‘Emigrating, as the first settlers did, from the opposite coast of Gaul, where, in common with all the other barbarian nations of the North and “West of Europe, they must have been much accustomed to the use of horses, it seems natural that, feeling early the want of them in their newly-adopted country, their immediate efforts would be directed to obtain them; and we think it far more probable that they should have brought them over on rafts, from the opposite continent, during the finest days of summer,than that they should have been imported by the Phoenicians, who frequented the island at a very early period, for the purpose of trade.

However this may be, we find on Csesar’s invasion of Great Britain, that the landing of the Roman troops was opposed by immense bodies of horsemen, besides chariots and infantry ; and as the fact is well established by the testimony of many Roman historians, we are bound to take it in preference to what is ‘advanced by Bede, who assigns the year 631, in the reign of Edwin the Great, as the earliest period at which the English began to use saddle horses.’

(Whyte James C, 1840, pp17-18)

Following this statement, horses are originally came from some serious historical event and it was more harmful thing for both human being and horses. This is I think a little bit interesting because we never get the chance to listen to what horses are thinking of. We are actully quite unique spieces for other animals but if THEY had got a chance to spell it out to us, what might they (would like to) talk to us; is that something thankful or how repulsive we are…?

*Refrence

Whyte James C (1840), HISTORY OF THE BRITISH TURF: FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT DAY, London: Henry Colburn Publisher, Online: https://ia600306.us.archive.org/16/items/historyofbritish00whyt/historyofbritish00whyt.pdf (accessed on 2nd Feburary 2014)