Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:40:51 -0600
From: "jonni stutterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:40:27 +0800
Subject: open source -open art
hi folk prob. aware disc. jst strted on empyre ... spin off from
residency program that tk. place as a part of the back_up festival
in weimar
lat autumn....hav sent on jon fawcetts initial contrib, as includes
details of the back_up fest. lounge lab et al............one problem
with
weimar was the conflation of open source as necessarily
collaborative in terms of agency when it is patently not......(i am
part of
artificial paradises who also took part in weimar...)
jon's appearing as part of the NRLA in glasgow ....
regards
jonni
From: "Jon Fawcett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "empyre-list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Felix Sattler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "loungelab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [backup.lounge|lab.02]welcome to february's discussion
on open source-open art
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:11:30 0000
>1. What does the term "source(s)" mean to an artistic environment?
>2. Which elements of the artistic process can become exchangeable sources
>and how can they be determined -> Basically meaning "what is it I
would like
>to contribute and what do I want to receive/learn from the others" (i.e.
>technical knowledge, conceptual approach, material, files,...)?
The source is the artist. I will jump right in with a thought from
having discussed these ideas while participating in the project. I
remember deciding that in a non-consumer/product based artistic
culture - perhaps simpliefied broadly as time-based work (that I and
all of the artists participating find ourselves a part of), the
product, the item to be consumed is the artist themselves. In
relation to this
we can say that artists themselves are the source, in every way.
Every aspect of themselves is the source, from personality to skills
to
ideas to conceptual frameworks. The question is what do they want to
share? What programs do they want to work on today? And
what other programs are accessible to combine code with? In a
collaborative situation such as Lounge.Lab, who is around to build
relations with and in which way?
In terms of my experience of Lounge.Lab, I built a variety of
different relationships with different people as time went on. Some
were
more blatently conceptual and artistic, and some were more sociable.
But in the context of collaboration and art, even the sociable
relationships influenced the work that was produced. It seems to me
that different different sources contributed to the development of
various differnt programs I am developing, which all contributed to
my systems production of work...
>3. Open source code development is bound to a certain programming language
>and the knowledge of this language. The language will generalise the
>discussion/development and makes it possible to understand it.
>What kind of catalysts/interpreters may be used to create such a
generalised
>environment for a collaborative art project in order we have to speak the
>same language?
>This refers also to the meaning and relations of the virtual and
the tactile
>dimension. For .lounge|lab we tried to use the physical space of the
>exhibition as a catalyst everybody could understand and deal with; it might
>be worth to find out what the virtual space may offer here?
The main experiment with Lounge.Lab was the first few days, I felt.
During this time there was a concerted effort by all, particularly
driven by a few individuals, to really all contribute to a
communally developed collaborative/conceptual space, so that work
could
develop in full relationship. After several days of too much
discussion, this effort broke down and people kind of went and did
their
own thing, with smaller collaborations building up naturally. It was
clear that people worked in such different ways that a universal
framework could not be established - at least not in such a short
time. Perhaps this is not an answer to your question, but another
question: is it possible to create an environment where this
universality does occur - where all parties can operate in harmony
and
some truely unique work is produced? Is this collaborative
romanticism or is there a structure of engagement that can
facilitate equal
contributions from all working methodologies, without judgement or
reaction, so that practitioners from different backgrounds can
indeed COLLABORATE? Or do we just get on with it and allow what is
going to build naturally, in a creatively energetic setting?
Jon Fawcett
Invigoration and Disturbance
www.jonfawcett.com (operative in the coming weeks)
____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus!
Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
_______________________________________________
loungelab02 mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://radiostudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/loungelab02
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
-------------------------------------------------
a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland
post: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit
info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and write "info ambit" in the message body
-------------------------------------------------
