cool :) On 15/03/15 1:24 55PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote: > we did some exquisite corpse exercises at drawing class. with folded > paper and people drawing on a different fold, only seeing a thin slice > of the edge of the previous person's work. > > here's a few paper remixes of Michael's paintings - slices & weaves > (I'm mostly doing exercises by hand, off the computer these days) > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/aliak_com/16821399545 > https://www.flickr.com/photos/aliak_com/16821405935 > https://www.flickr.com/photos/aliak_com/16201492383 > > > On 15 March 2015 at 22:23, jk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
-- helen varley jamieson [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.talesfromthetowpath.net http://www.upstage.org.nz
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
