Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
Hi all, Helen, I find that UpStage is a very interesting example of an online community, since it states its scope (and thus its borders) quite clearly from the beginning. Networks like this make a lot of sense, as they can really help people with common and specific interests come together and collaborate. The fact that people in UpStage all relate to cyberformance may create a basis of familiarity, in which trust can be built from the bottom up. Do you agree? This may also happen within other networks where a common interest is made explicit right from the start. However, in bigger networks (ie. Facebook, MySpace) there is a tendency towards dispersiveness: there are myriads of groups, but they don't seem to be strong enough to generate a sense of community. In order to find out how networks can facilitate the emergence of creative communities, maybe we could start by proposing a taxonomy of networks. We would certainly find that some types of networks favor the cohesion of focused, collaborative communities more than others. I am not aware if such a taxonomy already exists... I will look into this. However, let me propose an initial set of traits which may help kick start a general characterization of networks: - Entry threshold: Can anyone join? Do new users have to be invited? Is there any kind of filtering? - Openness towards emergent topics: Does the network allow its participants to create new topics, or is there a set of pre-existent ones which can't be modified? - Openness towards group forming: Does the network allow the formation of groups of people with common interests? Would you like to add to this list? Melody: Although I haven't read After Babel, I can imagine that Steiner maintains a certain coherence throughout his books. In that case, it might be interesting to study the relation of his ideas of translation in communication and invention in the arts. The concepts you mention do point towards an idea of creativity which is quite close to Steiner's invention. G.H. Hovagimyan: The points you make are very interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the relation between art and language? I find that artworks can also arise from the sense of an impotence in language. Eugenio Tisselli Vélez cub...@yahoo.com http://www.motorhueso.net --- El lun, 7/5/10, helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com escribió: De: helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology A: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Fecha: lunes, 5 de julio de 2010, 06:26 pm hi everyone, thank you simon renate for the invitation to be part of this discussion, thanks eugenio for starting things off : ) speaking as a live performance/theatre artist, i'm also of the opinion that creativity doesn't happen in isolation or on our own; we are always building on what has gone before. in this sense, creativity can be understood as interaction conversation, or even a translation (interpretation) ... my work is pretty much always dialogic, it is a creative exchange between performer(s) audience in a shared moment (whether we are physically or virtually present, the time is shared). to begin to respond to simon's questions, in particular Does the internet facilitate the creation of communities where new modalities of creativity, authorship and exchange emerge?, i'll give as an example one of the projects that i've been involved with since 2003: the online cyberformance platform UpStage (http://www.upstage.org.nz/). the project began with the practical needs/desires of four artists, over the years a thriving community has evolved around it. there are about 50 artists currently working with UpStage to create performances for the annual festival ( there might well be others using UpStage who i don't know about), around 300 on the mailing list, it's used in educational situations from primary school through to universities. there is a small ongoing developer community as well. one aspect of the UpStage community that particularly delights me is the emergence of cross-collaboration between the artists; four of the 19 performances selected for this year's festival involve collaborations between artists who have met through UpStage ( mostly have not met in the flesh). this is similar to my experience with Avatar Body Collision - we came together through online networks still have not all met, 8 years 10 performances later. this kind of remote collaboration is not so unusual today, but what's different with UpStage is the wider context - the ongoing interaction is not only between collaborating artists but also between artists, developers audience - there is the sense that we are all cross-pollinating at several levels of creation - the performances, the software, the community. each of these three things is being created by, contributing to the creation of, the other two in a very
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
hi eugenio all, yes, i definitely agree that community ( trust) needs to be built on common interest or connection; with UpStage it is the technology/platform that is the specific common thing - otherwise it's quite diverse, in terms of individual approach, themes, ideas, backgrounds. the word community presupposes at least one point of commonality, whether it's geographic or political or social. online networks allow us on the one hand to be even more specific in our commonalities, such as the UpStage community or another example would be Furtherfield, because we can connect with likeminded people across geographical other distances; and at the same time it becomes general to the extreme, such as facebook etc. the point of commonality can be subtle. i remember being shown MOOs text-based role-playing environments in the early 90s by a friend who was really excited by it, but it didn't interest me at all at the time. it wasn't until the late 90s when i encountered Desktop Theatre their work in the Palace that something clicked the creative/imaginative potential was suddenly obvious to me. the difference was that i had connected with others who wanted to create theatrical interventions performances in this environment, not just role-play for our own amusement; in some senses that is a fine line, but for me it was two completely different situations. now of course i look back on the early MOO/IRC performances recognise the roots of my cyberformance practice. this maybe is connected to what simon has just posted about the distinction between art creativity ... altho it is a minefield to enter into ;) we could say that facebook is a creative community, but are people making art there? ( i mean making, not promoting/distributing). i am sure that some people are ... i am a bit wary of taxonomies, my thinking is more along the lines of axel bruns pierre levy - that taxonomic structures are no longer appropriate for the new knowledge space which is fluid, ad hoc unfinished. networked communities are also in a constant state of flux, with evolving technologies emerging codes of behaviour. h : ) On 6/07/10 9:26 AM, Eugenio Tisselli wrote: Hi all, Helen, I find that UpStage is a very interesting example of an online community, since it states its scope (and thus its borders) quite clearly from the beginning. Networks like this make a lot of sense, as they can really help people with common and specific interests come together and collaborate. The fact that people in UpStage all relate to cyberformance may create a basis of familiarity, in which trust can be built from the bottom up. Do you agree? This may also happen within other networks where a common interest is made explicit right from the start. However, in bigger networks (ie. Facebook, MySpace) there is a tendency towards dispersiveness: there are myriads of groups, but they don't seem to be strong enough to generate a sense of community. In order to find out how networks can facilitate the emergence of creative communities, maybe we could start by proposing a taxonomy of networks. We would certainly find that some types of networks favor the cohesion of focused, collaborative communities more than others. I am not aware if such a taxonomy already exists... I will look into this. However, let me propose an initial set of traits which may help kick start a general characterization of networks: - Entry threshold: Can anyone join? Do new users have to be invited? Is there any kind of filtering? - Openness towards emergent topics: Does the network allow its participants to create new topics, or is there a set of pre-existent ones which can't be modified? - Openness towards group forming: Does the network allow the formation of groups of people with common interests? Would you like to add to this list? Melody: Although I haven't read After Babel, I can imagine that Steiner maintains a certain coherence throughout his books. In that case, it might be interesting to study the relation of his ideas of translation in communication and invention in the arts. The concepts you mention do point towards an idea of creativity which is quite close to Steiner's invention. G.H. Hovagimyan: The points you make are very interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the relation between art and language? I find that artworks can also arise from the sense of an impotence in language. Eugenio Tisselli Vélez cub...@yahoo.com http://www.motorhueso.net ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.avatarbodycollision.org http://www.upstage.org.nz
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
Dear Eugenio, Thanks for your reply. I am very interested in the creative community you talked about, however, it is actually related to politics as well. I think Censorship should be paid close attention to when we discuss cyberformance. For some countries like China, facebook is forbidden. Political and Commercial censorship would make a difference. Don't you think so? Melody On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Eugenio Tisselli cub...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi all, Helen, I find that UpStage is a very interesting example of an online community, since it states its scope (and thus its borders) quite clearly from the beginning. Networks like this make a lot of sense, as they can really help people with common and specific interests come together and collaborate. The fact that people in UpStage all relate to cyberformance may create a basis of familiarity, in which trust can be built from the bottom up. Do you agree? This may also happen within other networks where a common interest is made explicit right from the start. However, in bigger networks (ie. Facebook, MySpace) there is a tendency towards dispersiveness: there are myriads of groups, but they don't seem to be strong enough to generate a sense of community. In order to find out how networks can facilitate the emergence of creative communities, maybe we could start by proposing a taxonomy of networks. We would certainly find that some types of networks favor the cohesion of focused, collaborative communities more than others. I am not aware if such a taxonomy already exists... I will look into this. However, let me propose an initial set of traits which may help kick start a general characterization of networks: - Entry threshold: Can anyone join? Do new users have to be invited? Is there any kind of filtering? - Openness towards emergent topics: Does the network allow its participants to create new topics, or is there a set of pre-existent ones which can't be modified? - Openness towards group forming: Does the network allow the formation of groups of people with common interests? Would you like to add to this list? Melody: Although I haven't read After Babel, I can imagine that Steiner maintains a certain coherence throughout his books. In that case, it might be interesting to study the relation of his ideas of translation in communication and invention in the arts. The concepts you mention do point towards an idea of creativity which is quite close to Steiner's invention. G.H. Hovagimyan: The points you make are very interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the relation between art and language? I find that artworks can also arise from the sense of an impotence in language. Eugenio Tisselli Vélez cub...@yahoo.com http://www.motorhueso.net --- El lun, 7/5/10, helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com escribió: De: helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology A: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Fecha: lunes, 5 de julio de 2010, 06:26 pm hi everyone, thank you simon renate for the invitation to be part of this discussion, thanks eugenio for starting things off : ) speaking as a live performance/theatre artist, i'm also of the opinion that creativity doesn't happen in isolation or on our own; we are always building on what has gone before. in this sense, creativity can be understood as interaction conversation, or even a translation (interpretation) ... my work is pretty much always dialogic, it is a creative exchange between performer(s) audience in a shared moment (whether we are physically or virtually present, the time is shared). to begin to respond to simon's questions, in particular Does the internet facilitate the creation of communities where new modalities of creativity, authorship and exchange emerge?, i'll give as an example one of the projects that i've been involved with since 2003: the online cyberformance platform UpStage (http://www.upstage.org.nz/). the project began with the practical needs/desires of four artists, over the years a thriving community has evolved around it. there are about 50 artists currently working with UpStage to create performances for the annual festival ( there might well be others using UpStage who i don't know about), around 300 on the mailing list, it's used in educational situations from primary school through to universities. there is a small ongoing developer community as well. one aspect of the UpStage community that particularly delights me is the emergence of cross-collaboration between the artists; four of the 19 performances selected for this year's festival involve collaborations between artists who have met through UpStage ( mostly have not met in the flesh). this is similar to my experience with Avatar Body Collision - we came together through online networks still have not all met, 8
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
I believe the cognitive scientists say that language is acquired and learned at an early age and it has to do with establishing neural paths. This establishment of neural paths stops or slows down dramatically after a certain age. (Is it 4 years old?) From there the social aspects of language take over. It seems to me that self is formed first and then the self interacts with the group. If you trace that teleology and map it onto the art making process, a person first make art because of some desire to express the self. From there art becomes a social activity in it's natural path to communicate. OF course all humans have both the self and the social as a system. My feeling is that art is a dissociative state. I also think that the first symbolic abstraction of cave paintings was the manifestation of that dissociative state. It's a step back from the social and the world and a recognition of a linguistic system. On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Simon Biggs wrote: As for art being akin to language and both being somehow hard-wired into the brain...this is contentious territory. This Chomskian view, popular in neuroscience and other empirical domains, that regards language (and thus many aspects of self) as determined by cerebral biology is in direct contradistinction to a view that would regard language and self as emerging from the social. It is basically the old nature/nurture debate re- hashed. G.H. Hovagimyan http://nujus.net/~gh http://artistsmeeting.org http://turbulence.org/Works/plazaville ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
Hello all. one of the curious problems that arise in the notion of community, democratic, creative modes, is whether the artists primary function is not in fact cultural critique, and not cultural celebration. The notion of trust, here in some ways implies that no one will be challenged, all players welcome. does this lead to a kind of feel good art, that avoids tough questions. I have found this to be true in New Media, cyberculture, as the question of whether it is physically, mentally healthy to spend so much time in front of a screen and not in front of humans, is dismissed very quickly, as a topic of discussion. How do retain a critical voice, in self selected, communal minds. Chris Quoting helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com: hi eugenio all, yes, i definitely agree that community ( trust) needs to be built on common interest or connection; with UpStage it is the technology/platform that is the specific common thing - otherwise it's quite diverse, in terms of individual approach, themes, ideas, backgrounds. the word community presupposes at least one point of commonality, whether it's geographic or political or social. online networks allow us on the one hand to be even more specific in our commonalities, such as the UpStage community or another example would be Furtherfield, because we can connect with likeminded people across geographical other distances; and at the same time it becomes general to the extreme, such as facebook etc. the point of commonality can be subtle. i remember being shown MOOs text-based role-playing environments in the early 90s by a friend who was really excited by it, but it didn't interest me at all at the time. it wasn't until the late 90s when i encountered Desktop Theatre their work in the Palace that something clicked the creative/imaginative potential was suddenly obvious to me. the difference was that i had connected with others who wanted to create theatrical interventions performances in this environment, not just role-play for our own amusement; in some senses that is a fine line, but for me it was two completely different situations. now of course i look back on the early MOO/IRC performances recognise the roots of my cyberformance practice. this maybe is connected to what simon has just posted about the distinction between art creativity ... altho it is a minefield to enter into ;) we could say that facebook is a creative community, but are people making art there? ( i mean making, not promoting/distributing). i am sure that some people are ... i am a bit wary of taxonomies, my thinking is more along the lines of axel bruns pierre levy - that taxonomic structures are no longer appropriate for the new knowledge space which is fluid, ad hoc unfinished. networked communities are also in a constant state of flux, with evolving technologies emerging codes of behaviour. h : ) On 6/07/10 9:26 AM, Eugenio Tisselli wrote: Hi all, Helen, I find that UpStage is a very interesting example of an online community, since it states its scope (and thus its borders) quite clearly from the beginning. Networks like this make a lot of sense, as they can really help people with common and specific interests come together and collaborate. The fact that people in UpStage all relate to cyberformance may create a basis of familiarity, in which trust can be built from the bottom up. Do you agree? This may also happen within other networks where a common interest is made explicit right from the start. However, in bigger networks (ie. Facebook, MySpace) there is a tendency towards dispersiveness: there are myriads of groups, but they don't seem to be strong enough to generate a sense of community. In order to find out how networks can facilitate the emergence of creative communities, maybe we could start by proposing a taxonomy of networks. We would certainly find that some types of networks favor the cohesion of focused, collaborative communities more than others. I am not aware if such a taxonomy already exists... I will look into this. However, let me propose an initial set of traits which may help kick start a general characterization of networks: - Entry threshold: Can anyone join? Do new users have to be invited? Is there any kind of filtering? - Openness towards emergent topics: Does the network allow its participants to create new topics, or is there a set of pre-existent ones which can't be modified? - Openness towards group forming: Does the network allow the formation of groups of people with common interests? Would you like to add to this list? Melody: Although I haven't read After Babel, I can imagine that Steiner maintains a certain coherence throughout his books. In that case, it might be interesting to study the relation of his ideas of translation in communication and invention in the arts. The concepts you
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
Simon, I think this is a valid question if we don't let it insist on a firm resolution. At times, it certainly does seem like people want to go somewhere. At other times it seems as though we can be quite content where we are. This points back to Eugenio Tisselli's comments regarding the theological underpinnings of creativity as creation ex nihilo, which presents us with a philosophical brick wall, when we are trying to explore the idea of creation and art. I rather like Bernard Stiegler's account of technics (which, itself, is in default, in that its novelty is certainly not its own, but in its synthesis). Stiegler points in his work to the various instances in which emerging technical arrangements do not emerge simply as positive eruptions from nothing. Urbanization is something which arises alongside ruralization. The individual exist when the collective is realized. To be human is to need a supplement (to be without essence). Etc. But if we get back to that question of relationality and process (especially recent discussions on empyre), I think there is something to be gained from looking at the idea of desire, which does provide a motive for creation, even if it is not original creation. I would be disappointed to arrive at a definition of consciousness which does not include desire. For some, this would be close to essentialist, but in terms of essentialisms, desire really describes a process of cognitive behavior oriented towards some anticipated future state. It is at this moment when the functions of the brain are directed in the present, to ponder the past, and imagine a future. But this doesn't even really tell the full story as it is difficult to imagine this consciousness outside of language. Situated in our own personal archive (individual memory), we reach into the collective archive (culture). Thinking of our individual futures (self-determination), we move into a commonly held future (politics). (Here, my thinking really breaks down... my imagination fails maybe our language fails?) But, the upshot of this, I think, is that, perhaps, the reality of creation is social and relational. The process of art, both as something emerging from language (Hovagimyan) and as an effort to reach beyond the perceived limits of representation (Tisselli), sits on that crucible of desire. What is it that makes people want to manifest ideas? To fabricate methods for representing them to an other? This is why we call the substance in which art is expressed a medium, because it is interstitial, relational, between subject positions, etc, a point which Jamieson makes in relation to UpStage. Not to get theological, but this is not entirely unlike Leonardo Boff's discussion of deity, which is entirely relational--the idea that what makes us who we are is the same principle that is involved with creation as a discursive process. I rather like this idea, because there is often an implied lessening of art when it is declared somehow derivative, as if humble acts of communication are not themselves spectacular in their effects! Is the myth of the modern artist somehow more important than using a familiar word to achieve an ethical purpose? What could be more cliched than the first word a child tries to master-- NO! Yet it is precisely at this moment of the expression that the child tries to enter into human community--to realize him or herself within a community. The child who says, No, wants to participate on equal terms, through communication. To get back to Tisselli's expressed wariness with creativity. I will try to get my hands on Steiner's book. I think that your wariness is merited, if society insists that we operate from a skewed definition of creativity. If creativity has to follow the paradigm of pure originality then we are telling tales. And those of us who are artists (or critics) working under this paradigm, are being dishonest. However, if creativity is a human process of desire, an expression of our consciousness, consistently repeated, using what's available to reach into the social beyond the limited position of the individual then I think creativity is, ultimately, something more powerful. In any case, I have very high hopes for July. Peace! Davin P.S. If I am silent, it is only because I am traveling. But I WILL be reading carefully. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between creativity (a trait most, if not all, humans seem to possess) and art (an activity that emerged a couple of hundred years ago that places value upon a specific socially defined mode of creative activity). As for art being akin to language and both being somehow hard-wired into the brain...this is contentious territory. This Chomskian view, popular in neuroscience and other empirical domains, that regards language (and thus many aspects of self) as determined by cerebral biology
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
hi chris, i was talking about trust between collaborating artists, as an important aspect of community in the wider context. i don't see how this implies the production of un-challenging work, or feel-good art. could you expand on what you mean? h : ) On 6/07/10 7:18 PM, christopher sullivan wrote: Hello all. one of the curious problems that arise in the notion of community, democratic, creative modes, is whether the artists primary function is not in fact cultural critique, and not cultural celebration. The notion of trust, here in some ways implies that no one will be challenged, all players welcome. does this lead to a kind of feel good art, that avoids tough questions. I have found this to be true in New Media, cyberculture, as the question of whether it is physically, mentally healthy to spend so much time in front of a screen and not in front of humans, is dismissed very quickly, as a topic of discussion. How do retain a critical voice, in self selected, communal minds. Chris -- helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.avatarbodycollision.org http://www.upstage.org.nz ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
Hello all - Thanks to Simon for framing this discussion so well. Starting with ontology over epistemology is a great place to go, so I look forward to the coming month. For now, I'll just contribute a few quotes and examples in response to the threads so far. First - in relation to comments about religion - one might just as readily look to the process of secularization when looking for creativity's problematic heritage. For the 2007 MyCreativity conference in Holland, Marion von Osten described creativity's modern emergence as a social obligation, linking it to individual freedom as a compulsory part of living in a capitalist economy: On the one hand, then, creativity shows itself to be the democratic variant of genius: the ability to be creative is bestowed on everyone. On the other hand everyone is required to develop her/his creative potential...The subjects comply with these new relations of power apparently by free will. In Nikolas Rose’s terms, they are ‘obliged to be free’, urged to be mature, autonomous and responsible for themselves.. (http://eipcp.net/transversal/0207/vonosten/en) Where religions situated creativity within ritual and processual fantasy, secularism gave us individual compulsory creativity as an economic instrument - complete with mechanisms for reflexivity. Collective creativities are just as susceptible to this. Growing interest in collective creation is as likely as any a sign of modern subjectivity's transformation during late capital. Newfield and Rayner wrote about the growing interest in collectivism and self-organization among management theorists: In the idealised view of its advocates, the learning organisation is a mobile, self-deconstructing system, perfectly suited to the unstable environments of “post-industrial” or “informational” capitalismThe practical question for contemporary management and human resources (HR) theorists is how to create the kinds of workers that are capable of accumulating tacit knowledge and using it in the service of the organisation. (http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5/newfield_rayner.html) So how do we attend to creativity's ontology as a condition of being social, without ending up with just another form of instrumentalized freedom? I find some hope in looking to the role of ontology in epistemologies of individual creative action. Sociologist Norbert Elias provided one of my favorite descriptions of creativity: The pinnacle of artistic creation is achieved when the spontaneity and inventiveness of the fantasy-stream are so fused with knowledge of the regularities of the material and the judgement of the artist’s conscience that the innovative fantasies emerge as if by themselves in a way that matches the demands of both material and conscience. This is one of the most socially fruitful types of sublimation process. I love this description because it accounts for fantasy/desire, the limits of perception, and the fact that the material into which we work is just more regular than we are. Translate this into a discussion of group creativity, and things get very interesting. It's also why I keep hacking at the tired rhetoric of creativity in my institutional home. Where I used to roll my eyes and wait for the meeting/lecture to be over (ever sat through a talk by Daniel Pink?), I now look for the inevitable limits against which the fantasies of neoliberal creative economies must hit. The Floridians don't know their material - they are bad craftspeople, and the stakes are higher than they know. We can make sure to be there to assert other fantasies, to contribute to their limited sensoria, to remind them of the walls against which they will hit, hopefully before more people get hurt. Kevin Hamilton ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
