Hi Jonathan, all
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/tastee_riz_NN/
cheersmichael
( bit crude, might not work on IE)
From: jk <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] DIWO Process
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 noun
adverb 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]>
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:19 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[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]> wrote:
On 15 March 2015 at 18:21, Randall Packer <[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]
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
--
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
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
