Hi Stuart,

 >Sorry for asking questions all of the time, I just find what is 
happening with this project so fascinating.

No problem, these are important questions. Yet, not a good enough reason 
not to do it. The thing is, the soul and intent of it all aims to 
challenge various processes and defaults put in place in the art world 
and similar environments, it is also about challenging ourselves so to 
question our own responsibilities, position and relationship with 
others. By critiquing actively, through experience and collaborative 
negotiation we learn more than just declaring our own more centralized 
voices. The engagement may be less defined, but it also allows room for 
exploration beyond the remit or assumed idea of one curator who knows 
all. There's plenty of room for more :-)

And even though it is essential that we have individuals, who be able to 
expound their own dialogue and creative noise in the world. It is also 
just as important that the frameworks which manage and gate-keep what is 
seen and considered worthy of being represented as art or of academic 
acceptance is challenged. I recently added a new definition to Rosalind 
(http://www.furtherfield.org/rosalind/), our upstart media art lexicon. 
The new definition is 'Acadenemic' - A constant refusal by certain 
academics, historians to grant a truth by not including in their studies 
'real histories' of other significant artists or collectives, 
independent groups in their publications. A cultural sickness recognized 
in Media Art culture. This of course, can be seen in other parts of our 
cultures, I see it as a systemic culturalized disease that too many 
accept without trying alternative ways in rediscovering more open and 
imaginative territories for mutual play and exploration.

 >Sounds scary to me, I think you've got a tough job on there. I mean,
 >what if you get some ass-hole trying to ruin everything from a less
 >interesting art group, who's jealous of how dynamically networked 
everything is?

I would question whether an ass-hole would come from a less interesting 
place, but I get what you mean. it is traditional, for those who become 
more known or successful, to close the door after themselves, not 
allowing other equally valid creative individuals, groups and 
organizations in as well. We challenge this, which means we have to 
leave a few doors open so to bring in others be a part of our own 
process (on their on terms), but there are risks with this approach. It 
is always open to abuse - yet, in contrast to what it might be if things 
were more closed, I think its worth having a go. Being part of 
something, struggling with others is a beautiful and real experience. 
Hiding away and just piling up a production line which only engages with 
just famous, privileged artists is, really boring, unimaginative and 
shallow, and only serves to re-enforce negative power structures, 
closing down essential creative dialogues.

Our shared approaches consist of being playful, messing with and 
challenging existing hierarchies and top down behaviors. Finding ways 
around things creatively, this kind of thinking could be on a par with 
cultural hacking. Cultural Hacking is an art itself, subverting and 
finding alternative ways of communicating beyond traditional, historical 
frameworks - reflecting our imaginations, ideas and practice on our own 
terms. This is not to say we are not influenced by history, we are - 
it's just that some our influences come from a less defined or 
officially acknowledged singular art orientated canon.

Other influences include not only sources from the arts but also 
independent record companies and distributors, such as Factory Records 
and Rough Trade Records. Rough Trade specialized primarily in European 
post-punk and other alternative rock of the late 1970s and early 1980s. 
Relating to ideas around setting up functional platforms for expressive 
cultures and not singularly in the form of a modernist or mono-cultural 
art framework. Allowing a more poly-cultural space and more realistic, 
possibilities for people to explore their creative voices in ways that 
transcend the limitations of imposed, non-contextual remits.

I will shut up now ;-)

wishing you well.

marc



Hi Marc,

To be honest, I think 4 co-curators is enough to be dealing with let 
alone the amount of 11-12, you mention. And there may even be more this 
time round. Sounds scary to me, I think you've got a tough job on there. 
I mean, what if you get some ass-hole trying to ruin everything from a 
less interesting art group, who's jealous of how dynamically networked 
everything is?

Sorry for asking questions all of the time, I just find what is 
happening with this project so fascinating.

all the best,

Stuart.



Hi Stuart,

The other thing to remember, is that many are already making a
curatorial decision when taking part, in choosing their on work...

wishing you well.

marc
 > Hi Ruth & other DIWO/Netbehavourists/Dark Mountain explorers...
 >
 > This all sonds excellent. I have never been involved in this kind of
 > co-curated, art collaboration before and it all feels pretty intense,
 > but exciting and many other things...
 >
 > Anyway, I will definitely try and make to the event on the day. I am
 > also interested to see how the link between virtual and physical
 > works. On looking how it wne tlast time, it seems as though it went well.
 >
 > How many people were involved in the co-curation, when counting in the
 > on-line participants as well last time?
 >
 > all the best,
 >
 > Stuart.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ------- Original Message Follows -------
 > * From: * Ruth Catlow <mailto:%[email protected]%3e>
 > * To: * [email protected]
 > <mailto:%[email protected]%3e>
 > * Subject: * [NetBehaviour] DIWO: Co-Curation event 12-3pm Friday 27th
 > November 2009
 > * Date: * Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:31:21 +0000
 >
 > Hi Folks,
 >
 > A reminder about the upcoming DIWO open curation event next Friday.
 >
 > It will run from 12-3pm at HTTP Gallery
 > http://www.http.uk.net/docs/gettingto.shtml and you can join us via
 > the network.
 >
 > Details of how to get involved across the network will be posted here
 > and on the blog at 10am on the morning of the event. If you are able
 > to join us in meat-space let us know in advance so that we are sure to
 > have enough tea and biscuits to go round.
 >
 > We have been thinking about how best to harness the potential
 > concentration of so many great minds.
 >
 > 1) In practical preparation for co-curation we will gather all images,
 > videos, sound files that have either been attached or linked to a DIWO
 > email for viewing on the day.
 >
 > 2) We have also just bid for a v. cheap Dot Matrix printer - so we
 > would welcome suggestions about how that might be used to display
 > contributions.
 >
 > 3) We invite you to make suggestions about how to approach the
 > curation of the exhibition over the next week.
 >
 > This is how we approached exhibiting DIWO email art last time....
 > (deets here http://vagueterrain.net/journal11/furtherfield/01)
 > <http://vagueterrain.net/journal11/furtherfield/01%29>
 >
 > - we 'curated' the archive of the Netbehaviour list inbox into
 > threads, streams, themes etc (see attached image), projected it on the
 > wall and attached a computer so that punters could explore the mails
 > and forward them to their own friends.
 > - we printed out every image that was contributed
 > - we played all the videos on a loop on a TV
 > - we compiled all sound files and played them into the space
 > - we had a drawing machine working for food to obscure the printed
 > face of Karl Marx.
 >
 >
 >
 > But maybe this time we will want to take a whole new approach.
 >
 > Looking forward to it!
 >
 > Ruth and the Furtherfield.org crew
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > *Plain Text Attachment:*
 >
 > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing
 > list [email protected]
 > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > NetBehaviour mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Reply via email to