Hi Randall, everyone
I think in collabs it's horses for courses. In a large scale funded piece or
anything with large numbers of participants or where a particular kind of
output or range of outputs is aimed for then of course planning and structure
are important.Having said that I've done those kinds of collabs where the
structure has been that everyone has a part to play to make and *anything* they
do for that section is sacrosanct -no-one has the duty or right to criticise or
call them to account. A model for that mgiht be the Japanese practice of Renga
or "linked verse" where each participant completely controls their input within
the parameters of the verse form.
But as for something on a list like this then I'd want to say -no rules, no
structure as playful as you like as serious as you like, remix, don't remix.
Work together, spar, work together *and* spar.. whatever... And that's how I
recall the previous DIWOs in terms of work being made...It also characterises
much of my experience of lists from about 2000 onwards, things like early
Rhizome & webartery.... Lots of performative making and remixing.... And to my
dismay it doesn't seem to be happening here to anything like the extent I'd
thought it might. And I wonder why. Someone long of this list wrote me offlist
the other day to say they were so busy hustling for paid work it was difficult
to focus on anything else ( and by extension I wonder whether the established
artists on this list are just very preoccupied with their own particular
projects or just too plain busy - the crash has really hit since the last of
these kind of projects and I wonder whether it has taken a toll on our psyches
as well as our pockets and living standards ). I also wonder, whether it might
be connected with the growing hegemony of web 2.0 , maybe a kind of cop in the
head effect even for those who might be intellectually critical of it. I don't
know. I'm baffled and intrigued.cheersmichael
From: Randall Packer <[email protected]>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] DIWO Process
Michael, this is a good question and one I have been grappling with since we
began the Netartizens project. I have a long history of collaboration with
numerous artists in varied contexts: from theater to performance to
installation and social constructions. These projects have always involved a
highly structured premise, such as the John Cage Musicircus events I staged in
San Francisco, in which as many as 50 artists and performers worked within an
elaborately conceived and coordinate temporal / spatial plan to carry out
actions and events. I have taught the process of collaboration for years,
including the Intermedia Studio course at the Maryland Institute College of
art, in which MICA artists, Johns Hopkins University science students, and
Peabody Conservatory of Music composers would spend an entire semester
negotiating an interdisciplinary project that integrated their respective
disciplines.
So in terms of a DIWO-conceived process of work exchanged via the network, I
ask: does this process benefit from a form of structure? Do artists need to
express an “idea” or “plan" as a basis for collaboration, in other words, how
do you see the spontaneous creation of work, such as the wonderful portraits
you have made, activating a networked artistic response from others? What is
the collective modus operandi for “encouraging the artistic interchange?” And
what is gained when the process is left entirely free and open?
From: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>, NetBehaviour for networked
distributed creativity <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 at 5:37 PM
To: NetBehaviour for Networked Distributed Creativity
<[email protected]>
Subject: [NetBehaviour] hmm..
I remember in the previous DIWO projects there being a whole slew of work and
interaction between people *as work*.Maybe folk are just biding their time but
I think its a pity there isn't more of this this time around.This *isn't* a
nudge to remix my stuff ( although of course anyone is welcome; the whole body
of work is CC) but just to encourage more *artistic* interchange. If that
doesn't feel like it fits for people then I would be interested to have a
discussion about what has changed over the last few years...because it always
seemed to me that this kind of interchange was *defining* in terms of some kind
of human centred, anti-coroporate take on the network...Having said that I'm
off out for the day to look at splodges of oil & pigment on wood and fabric
supports in London so if anyone wants to chat about this I probably won't reply
until later...warm wishes to all
m.
_______________________________________________NetBehaviour mailing
[email protected]http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
