hi list
re. exquisite corpse/Burroughs
heres an example of DIWO + software process (7 writers, a bunch of
python scripts aed on cut-ups)
orchestrated by Brendan Howell in a London iteration of
a collective novel writing project strung out over 8hr/day for 5 days
producing a 'positive' book text of approx. 1/7th
text production, and a 6/7ths data dump from which some of the launch
event (sound, text) was produced.....
http://www.exquisite-code.com/
http://exquisite-code.com/?action=page&url=london
jonathan
One need only look back at the history of the 20th century
avant-garde: from the Surrealists to Fluxus to Chance to see the broad
range of ways in which collaborative processes can be structured or
not. There are no absolutes: rules or no rules, it depends on the
context, the medium, the participants, a host of things, there are so
many different ways to activate socially engaged DIWO systems of
networked art-making. The Surrealists exquisite corpse is a case in
point:
*Exquisite corpse*, also known as *exquisite cadaver* (from the
original French term /cadavre exquis/) or *rotating corpse*, is a
method by which a collection of words or images is collectively
assembled. Each collaborator adds to a composition in sequence, either
by following a rule (e.g. "The /adjective
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective>/ /noun
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun>/ /adverb
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb>/ /verb
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb>/ the /adjective/ /noun/", as in
"The green duck sweetly sang the dreadful dirge") or by being allowed
to see only the end of what the previous person contributed. – Wikipedia
The DIWO concept has rich precedence, including the cutup technique
practiced by William Burroughs and Bryon Gysin; the scripted events
composed by Fluxus artists Yoko Ono, Dick Higgins, Lamont Young; the
chance operations of John Cage, etc. There are a myriad of approaches
to draw from and no single one is right or wrong it just depends on
the needs of the community and the context.
I am curious to know how previous DIWO actions manifested on this list
and what made them successful?
From: dave miller <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:19 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] DIWO Process
I agree with these things, and I like the way last time we "ruined"
each other's work. I found it quite shocking actually, when I spent
ages carefully making a drawing then someone deliberately hacked it
up. It took the preciousness out my work, which at the time was
upsetting, but soon after I realised the new collaborative piece was
often far more interesting and took on a new life. Richer in that
others were part of it, and a privilege that they'd taken and used it.
The shared energy and excitement creates much more than me sitting
alone in a corner on a private creation.
dave
On 15 March 2015 at 09:12, isabel brison <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15 March 2015 at 18:21, Randall Packer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
@Michael >>>>> "It also characterises much of my experience of
lists from about 2000 onwards… 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.”
So my conclusion here is that perhaps we need to propose new
and evolving DIWO strategies if we really want to “do it with
others” via email lists in the age of overload.
I'd say hustling for paid work may be the issue here more than
information overload, as that overload was already happening at
the time of the last DIWO on this list and that didn't seem to
affect participation (though I must admit to having passively
spectated through that one but I was fairly new on the list and
still trying to get a feel for the conversation).
That said, I'd still argue for no rules. Rules may be necessary in
large funded projects, as funding drives the need for results in
our productivity-obssessed age, but rules tend to bring
hierarchical structure with them. That goes against the best
aspects of participatory work: inclusiveness, the freedom to play
when and if you want to, and the openness and unpredictability of
it all. Necessarily that means projects may fail to deliver
results, spin out of control or take unexpected turns, but surely
that's part of the fun of it?
Also I think more than ever it's important to have spaces where we
feel free to remix, appropriate and play with other people's work.
When artists are being prosecuted left, right and center for
things like doing a painting based on someone else's photograph,
just keeping that space open is a political statement. And
Netbehaviour has been doing a great job of that :-)
--
http://isabelbrison.com
http://tellthemachines.com
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing
list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
Dr Jonathan Kemp
http://xxn.org.uk
http://crystalworld.org.uk/
http://www.freshsent.info/crystal
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
