dear all:
the question about "intimate networks" is a good one. I would argue that in my experience, whether dance or theatre rehearsals, music rehearsals, etc. and laboratory work (and some lab projects of course can involve members or participants not physically present), in the sense of artistic or inventive (software development, interface design, wearable design, iterative design processes involving inter-actors) method, an intimacy and also a protectedness are unavoidable for the concentration of intentions. I do agree completely with what has been said here about artisic intentionality, which lies on the other side of the "assemblage" (machinic aesthetics) theories i cited, cautiously, not yet having hacked into that sci-fi. Perhaps we could discuss some examples of intimate creative networks that need physical presence (in relation to dancing and the larger sensorial and kinaesthetic processes Raul reminded us also of this , that seems to go without saying), and some that may not need them, seeking to locate the specifics of creativity and what you mean by it. Obviously cooking is creative, and one can cook together (not online I am afraid) , but we were not talking about cooking, were we? And yet, relational feasts, as they have been implied in this discussion, seem to be based on the joy of participation, consuming participation. Game environments? Yet surely participation in itself is neither, necessarily, a presumption of art (whether object art or performance or processual art) nor a presumption of creativity. It is a presumption for games, surely. I would like to ask Melody whether one could bring up the example of a "conference" as a creative assemblage that combines the assumptions of participation, performance presentation, dialogue, networking and intimacy (in the private meetings that inevitably ensue), agon, prejudice, difference and translation---- and i am thinking here of the just completed DIGITAL ART WEEKS in Xi'an, China -- organized, i believe, by Art Clay and a team of (mostly western) curators for the event in China. An imported conference? I heard some amazing stories, about how exciting the event was, and also about last minute cancellations of some panels (cancelled by the hosts) where the papers or presentations had not been available in translation. The issue of translation does come up constantly, in work I am involved in, as recently my lab ensemble collaborated over a period of two years with artists and researchers from Japan, and since the process involved dance and software development (for the creation of a mixed reality installation, we call it "Ukiyo"), the contradictions could never quite be resolved, as we needed to share our physical journals (our body knowledge, movement methods, and inventive or improvisational processes, but also our approach to sound processes and image processes) as well as exchange software processes that required us to be in the same room, as the sensors had to worn on bodies. Nevertheless, we also include improvisations with avatars (in Second Life), and those avatars we were happy to greet from afar, and they didn't need as much translation. Translation, however, in organizational terms, quite apart from contents, is immensely politcal (public?) and of course intimate, as it involves the nonverbal registers and tonalities of cultural communities, research scenarios, artistic (official/state sponosred, institutionallly sponsored, and independent ) parameters/infrastructures, and psycholoigical front and back stages, and here i think the term "imagined community" quickly reaches various critical borderlines. has anyone been at DAW in Xi'an? regards Johannes Birringer DAP-Lab / Interaktionslabor PS. one aspect of the latest collaboration turned out to be quite beautiful, we made a silent dance film together, having barely needed to talk about it, we sensed what we wanted. http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/butoh.html >> Yunzi Li wrote Dear all, I am deeply impressed by all the topics and ideas told. Talking about "privacy", especially the Facebook. I want to put "censorship" into question. As I come from China, so I know much about Censorship happening there. Some websites like Facebook, Youtube are banned in China, if so, the "imagined community" established by digital media may be prohibited by official. I know some communist countries also share this problem. Melody On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Eugenio Tisselli <cub...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Christina, > > It's very interesting that you bring up the question of "privacy" as a > possible precondition needed for innovation (and, if I understood correctly, > also creativity). But I wonder if "intimacy" would be a better way to > characterize this "separateness" that an individual or group needs to > develop cognitive processes in a staisfactory way. > > As Scott says, networks such as Facebook are primarily designed to harvest > user data for its use by corporations. Privacy, indeed, has been a big issue > around Facebook, and more so lately, when extreme policies were found to be > invasive. Many users left Facebook because they felt their privacy > threatened, by flocking to "smaller", more grass-roots or focused social > networks. But I think it's interesting to think about this also in terms of > intimacy. As individuals, we tend to seek intimate spots in order to think, > to reflect... to create. As groups, we also gather in places which are > welcoming. These environments seem to propitiate the "invocation/evocation > of the broad contents of the mind", as you beautifully put it in your > question. > > Can we think of an example of an "intimate" network? > Eugenio Tisselli Vélez
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
