howdy from sunny, still christchurch -
i think sian's dimention approximation sounds great. what about pockets on the ends for holding forms/feedback/materials? i'm thinking 2 on either end, one above the other and about 200mm deep...
i don't know if this was already discussed but what do you-all think about a tape recorder on the trolley?
re andi's computer and auxiliary blog idea - i feel like giving the participants time for digestion might influence their initial reaction... maybe they will be able to communicate ideas better? does this give them some kind of advantage over others?
an on-site computer seems important for this to work so that the virtual/paper ideas are all available to potential collaborators.
i'm back in wellington jan 5th
Friday, December 29, 2006
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Prospect Blog?
Hi just some ideas my partner and I were discussing...
thinking about blogs as alternative collaborative spaces for visitors to post comments during the exhibition-maybe we could ask to have a computer in the gallery foyer? I know there's not much space but we could set up ANOTHER blog, specifically for visitors to place comments on the works in the exhibition-to run only for the duration of the show-kinda like a Prospect ArtBash, except, cool?!
If the gallery doesn't let us have a computer we could always set up the second blog if we wanted to, and hand out business cards to visitors inviting them to post comments. The only reason I'm suggesting a second blogsite is because if we invite the public to post on this one it could get really full, and it would be specific to Prospect. Just a thought- as it'd be an easy way to test and document the success of our project.
p.s. If any of us did end up doing time at the gallery we could record our encounters on the blog- because of course the focus should be on face-to-face interactions
but maybe this is all a bit naughty-naughty?
thinking about blogs as alternative collaborative spaces for visitors to post comments during the exhibition-maybe we could ask to have a computer in the gallery foyer? I know there's not much space but we could set up ANOTHER blog, specifically for visitors to place comments on the works in the exhibition-to run only for the duration of the show-kinda like a Prospect ArtBash, except, cool?!
If the gallery doesn't let us have a computer we could always set up the second blog if we wanted to, and hand out business cards to visitors inviting them to post comments. The only reason I'm suggesting a second blogsite is because if we invite the public to post on this one it could get really full, and it would be specific to Prospect. Just a thought- as it'd be an easy way to test and document the success of our project.
p.s. If any of us did end up doing time at the gallery we could record our encounters on the blog- because of course the focus should be on face-to-face interactions
but maybe this is all a bit naughty-naughty?
Practicalities
Dimensions of the trolley I reckon around 600mm wide x 900mm high. That's measuring off my desk. Anyone in a bar for a good bar height?
I have a letter box. Address 42 Treadwell St, Nae Nae, Lower Hutt, Wellington. Welcome to use it.
After reading the article I wondered if the bio could be a little bit of a manifesto like what we aim to do? Only 100 words though. Instead of putting qualifications what about putting things which we reckon qualify us / make us good peeps to be in the group / collaboration? Could be past experience or personality traits or?
23rd Jan is scaring me a wee bit for the collection of work! How soon can we meet up in the new year? How about deciding on some dimensions for the trolley and then our first meeting we could have in the church at my place and actually make it?
Paint; From Fringe I reckon we will get it too late. Tyree has a trade discount at Resene which gives her 50% or 60% off paint. Perhaps we should just use that and buy some? I am gonna look online and see what colours of orange they have so maybe we could decide that too before we next meet? Gonna get off the blog now I feel like i am being a one woman show.......................just bored at work!
Well done Mel for the new job; very exciting! Welly will miss you!
I have a letter box. Address 42 Treadwell St, Nae Nae, Lower Hutt, Wellington. Welcome to use it.
After reading the article I wondered if the bio could be a little bit of a manifesto like what we aim to do? Only 100 words though. Instead of putting qualifications what about putting things which we reckon qualify us / make us good peeps to be in the group / collaboration? Could be past experience or personality traits or?
23rd Jan is scaring me a wee bit for the collection of work! How soon can we meet up in the new year? How about deciding on some dimensions for the trolley and then our first meeting we could have in the church at my place and actually make it?
Paint; From Fringe I reckon we will get it too late. Tyree has a trade discount at Resene which gives her 50% or 60% off paint. Perhaps we should just use that and buy some? I am gonna look online and see what colours of orange they have so maybe we could decide that too before we next meet? Gonna get off the blog now I feel like i am being a one woman show.......................just bored at work!
Well done Mel for the new job; very exciting! Welly will miss you!
Hi everyone, here's the minutes to our last meeting, they're a little bit patchy but hopefully you'll get the gist.
We started off by talking about if two new contributors, who had expressed their interest in the project should be able to take part now at this later stage. This brought up some interesting ideas about levels of participation and commitment to projects, and whether or not there was some sort of qualification that was needed to be a part of the group (in an abstract way).
The logistics of making the group bigger was an issue, as even now, with 7 members, it is really hard to get people together in one space. We decided that it might be best to keep it simple and perhaps open to more people in the future, our invite them to post on the blog as a way of contributing.
We went on to talk about Prospect and what sort of things we would like to do for the show. Colour was discussed, and the possibility of having some kind of colour coordination. We decided upon orange, for it's myriad of connotations, and also lack of connotations as well. It is a kind of neutral colour. Sian said that she will be able to get some free paint it necessary.
We also discussed the idea of being a mobile unit, being able to move around the gallery and outside of it as well. 'Orange roving brigade'. The idea of using a trolley was raised and well recieved, as it would allow us to move freely around, and would also be very functional in terms of carrying items and equipment. We liked the idea of decentralised our work, so that sometimes the trolley would be in its allocated space, and sometime it wouldn't. The object would be dissasociated from us in a way, and not remained fixed and static. While we wanted to disrupt the gallery space we want to do so in a useful way, in a way which animates Prospect and lends to its ciritcality.
We talked about the idea of gallery goers contributing to the work, with post-it notes or something they could write on. We could ask for responses to works and ideas surrounding the pieces. We also discussed the idea of working with the gallery hosts, perhaps swapping roles with them, as a way of interacting with the art audience. We liked the idea of working on something that was cumulative and building up an effective collaboration between us/hosts/audience.
We worried also that this was leaning a little towards 'nice nice' and we preferred to be 'naughty naughty' - both very technical phrases!! We wanted to challenge Prospect and exercise our right to be critical and not just support the sort of congratulatory institutional writing which would surround the show. We want to counter the standard institutional blurb and create meaningful dialogue around the work.
We also discovered the TAOC was a Sagitarius, and went on to talk more about the practicalities of the trolley, and its associations with service and communal interaction.
Mid way through we decided to make a list of things to do. This consisted of:
-getting a photo of the trolley
-thinking of a title for the show
-getting some promotional images
-organising binders
-organising what to put in multiples cabinet
- (i'm sure there was some more but can't remember)
Finally, we went on to talk about the interpreation and understanding of flow charts as potentially useful tools for our project. We discussed using flow charts as a way of mapping responses to work and how they could apply to this function. There was also the tentative worry about over-simplifying, and it was thought that having a number of flow charts would help towards remedying this. We also talked about having a binder, which was cumulative, building up a sort of tool kit to detail responses to contemporary art and they way in which collaborative practice works. We liked the idea of having something we could leave behind, and also found the idea of charts and tables for some reason. Perhaps as a way of clarifying and stimulating interaction and thought.
I think that's all.............let me know if I've missed anything important out. and merry christmas everyone!!!
We started off by talking about if two new contributors, who had expressed their interest in the project should be able to take part now at this later stage. This brought up some interesting ideas about levels of participation and commitment to projects, and whether or not there was some sort of qualification that was needed to be a part of the group (in an abstract way).
The logistics of making the group bigger was an issue, as even now, with 7 members, it is really hard to get people together in one space. We decided that it might be best to keep it simple and perhaps open to more people in the future, our invite them to post on the blog as a way of contributing.
We went on to talk about Prospect and what sort of things we would like to do for the show. Colour was discussed, and the possibility of having some kind of colour coordination. We decided upon orange, for it's myriad of connotations, and also lack of connotations as well. It is a kind of neutral colour. Sian said that she will be able to get some free paint it necessary.
We also discussed the idea of being a mobile unit, being able to move around the gallery and outside of it as well. 'Orange roving brigade'. The idea of using a trolley was raised and well recieved, as it would allow us to move freely around, and would also be very functional in terms of carrying items and equipment. We liked the idea of decentralised our work, so that sometimes the trolley would be in its allocated space, and sometime it wouldn't. The object would be dissasociated from us in a way, and not remained fixed and static. While we wanted to disrupt the gallery space we want to do so in a useful way, in a way which animates Prospect and lends to its ciritcality.
We talked about the idea of gallery goers contributing to the work, with post-it notes or something they could write on. We could ask for responses to works and ideas surrounding the pieces. We also discussed the idea of working with the gallery hosts, perhaps swapping roles with them, as a way of interacting with the art audience. We liked the idea of working on something that was cumulative and building up an effective collaboration between us/hosts/audience.
We worried also that this was leaning a little towards 'nice nice' and we preferred to be 'naughty naughty' - both very technical phrases!! We wanted to challenge Prospect and exercise our right to be critical and not just support the sort of congratulatory institutional writing which would surround the show. We want to counter the standard institutional blurb and create meaningful dialogue around the work.
We also discovered the TAOC was a Sagitarius, and went on to talk more about the practicalities of the trolley, and its associations with service and communal interaction.
Mid way through we decided to make a list of things to do. This consisted of:
-getting a photo of the trolley
-thinking of a title for the show
-getting some promotional images
-organising binders
-organising what to put in multiples cabinet
- (i'm sure there was some more but can't remember)
Finally, we went on to talk about the interpreation and understanding of flow charts as potentially useful tools for our project. We discussed using flow charts as a way of mapping responses to work and how they could apply to this function. There was also the tentative worry about over-simplifying, and it was thought that having a number of flow charts would help towards remedying this. We also talked about having a binder, which was cumulative, building up a sort of tool kit to detail responses to contemporary art and they way in which collaborative practice works. We liked the idea of having something we could leave behind, and also found the idea of charts and tables for some reason. Perhaps as a way of clarifying and stimulating interaction and thought.
I think that's all.............let me know if I've missed anything important out. and merry christmas everyone!!!
Friday, December 22, 2006
Consensus: A definition
Hi all,
Here is that description of the process of consensus decision making that I have been referring to in our meetings...
Consensus
"…It does not mean that everyone agrees on a particular outcome. It does mean that everyone has been involved in the process, and that every one agrees to test a particular outcome for its workability.
Most descision making situations do not have as an inherent component only one best solution. If such were the case there would be no need to decide anything. Consensus involves the complete exploration of a particular situation with the recognition that there are going to be conflicting points of view, and that it is important that these come into the open during this process. These differences are not resolved just because a decision is reached.
Individuals who are not in agreement with the “majority” perspective do not just give up their differences and comply with the majority. They sit back and wait for some way to sabotage the outcome, or to say, “ I told you that wouldn’t work.” These outcomes are likely because a competitive process is established where the goal is to ‘win’ rather to arrive at a workable outcome. Since winning is the predominant goal, all of the dynamics described earlier emerge in a miniture form during this process.
Stereotypes of both paries influence what they hear the other party saying, and power gaining, rather than power generation is the outcome. A nonconsensus descision making process results in the dominant coalition in the process or larger organisational context retaining their power base, and the lesser coalition looking for ways to regain their percieved loss of influence. Immediately they begin to develop strategies to regain their lost “clout” and prestige, or at least to minimise their overall losses by gaining ground in other parts of the organisation or in future descision making situations.
Consensus is a critical value for organisations, not because it is good in and of itself (although that is true), but rather because it leads to better quality decisions, with more investment in implementation. There is less focus on decision making to protect organisational boundries and authority distribution, and more focus on decision making to solve diffulcities facing the organization".
P 138-139. William A Kraus, Collaboration in Organisations, Alternatives to Hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, 1980, New York.
Also, I was chatting with Sue Shone, an advocate for ihc who has had lots of experience working for collectives such as rape crisis and womens refuge and she has promised to send through some relevant resources on collective structures to our email address.
She had some interesting things to say about the importance of the place for individuality in collective bodies, that at their best they worked against a culture of individualism, but for a culture of diversity. Sue also suggested that a succinct one page charter that outlined some goals (a re-occuring suggestion in our blog) and guidelines for process might be helpfull for ongoing functioning (and perhaps a good alternative to an artists statement about ourselves).
Anyway, Merry Xmas and congrats to Mel who has just been made the new assistant curator for the Govett Brewster Art Gallery!!!!
Here is that description of the process of consensus decision making that I have been referring to in our meetings...
Consensus
"…It does not mean that everyone agrees on a particular outcome. It does mean that everyone has been involved in the process, and that every one agrees to test a particular outcome for its workability.
Most descision making situations do not have as an inherent component only one best solution. If such were the case there would be no need to decide anything. Consensus involves the complete exploration of a particular situation with the recognition that there are going to be conflicting points of view, and that it is important that these come into the open during this process. These differences are not resolved just because a decision is reached.
Individuals who are not in agreement with the “majority” perspective do not just give up their differences and comply with the majority. They sit back and wait for some way to sabotage the outcome, or to say, “ I told you that wouldn’t work.” These outcomes are likely because a competitive process is established where the goal is to ‘win’ rather to arrive at a workable outcome. Since winning is the predominant goal, all of the dynamics described earlier emerge in a miniture form during this process.
Stereotypes of both paries influence what they hear the other party saying, and power gaining, rather than power generation is the outcome. A nonconsensus descision making process results in the dominant coalition in the process or larger organisational context retaining their power base, and the lesser coalition looking for ways to regain their percieved loss of influence. Immediately they begin to develop strategies to regain their lost “clout” and prestige, or at least to minimise their overall losses by gaining ground in other parts of the organisation or in future descision making situations.
Consensus is a critical value for organisations, not because it is good in and of itself (although that is true), but rather because it leads to better quality decisions, with more investment in implementation. There is less focus on decision making to protect organisational boundries and authority distribution, and more focus on decision making to solve diffulcities facing the organization".
P 138-139. William A Kraus, Collaboration in Organisations, Alternatives to Hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, 1980, New York.
Also, I was chatting with Sue Shone, an advocate for ihc who has had lots of experience working for collectives such as rape crisis and womens refuge and she has promised to send through some relevant resources on collective structures to our email address.
She had some interesting things to say about the importance of the place for individuality in collective bodies, that at their best they worked against a culture of individualism, but for a culture of diversity. Sue also suggested that a succinct one page charter that outlined some goals (a re-occuring suggestion in our blog) and guidelines for process might be helpfull for ongoing functioning (and perhaps a good alternative to an artists statement about ourselves).
Anyway, Merry Xmas and congrats to Mel who has just been made the new assistant curator for the Govett Brewster Art Gallery!!!!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Why collaboration?
Ok, well, good question. Why did you set up a collaboration? Break it down .. . . .
Call and Response: A curators invitation.
The initial catalyst for TAC came from an invitation to make a new work for a group show that Melanie Oliver was putting together for Enjoy which was later titled Every Now, and Then. The curatorial premise of the show focused on the nature of the relationships formed when artists invite varied kinds of participation to realise their artwork. Melanie was particularly interested in foregrounding the problems and politics involved in the claims made by and for relational practices as being (among other descriptions) inclusive, participatory and democratic artforms; “Rather than designing happy, harmonious projects, the artists featured in Every Now, and Then develop and maintain social tension within their work, addressing the political aspects of communication that are often overlooked” - Melanie Oliver quoted in the press release for Every Now, and Then.
I’ve been making projects that contain relational elements since art school, experimenting with various tropes and degrees of participation to provide subject matter for, enact, and demonstrate concerns and propose questions through my work. I was particularly interested in the critical context that Mel was creating because I have experienced the challenges inherent to these encounters – both as an artist, participator and critic of these works.
These challenges have included questions like: who is the author of this work? Are artists exploiting a participating audience for their own proffesional gain? Are artists prescribing the audiences participation in a way that prevents their role from having any real affect on the work? How can the audience see the results of their efforts? Isn’t the artists role always priveleged in any exchange that they have set up? What is the role of an artist in this kind of work? What is the role of the institution in this kind of work?
These kinds of questions have always been present in my practice but only existed in my work in a backgrounded way, so it was exciting to be given the opportunity to make work for a show that had this very pointed focus.
The following text is a piece of writing I sent to Melanie Oliver during the idea proposal process;
“The politics of human communication are at their most perceptible in group dynamics.The desire to create a project that utilises the structure of collaboration to address these politics is also a desire to imbed the project in a practical and collective experience of a structure which operates by working decision making processes through the problematics of human interaction.
Imbedded in the value system of collaborative structures is the belief that a common goal can be found and achieved in a group setting. Their ability to operate effectively is reliant on the productivity of human interaction, participation and goodwill”.
In retrospect I think part of the motivation for the initiation of the collaboration and its attendent values was to respond to the tone of the show. I felt the critical framework had a slight but perceptibly pessimistic edge, that its review of contemporary relational projects was proposing to be a more ‘realistic’ view and that this de-romanticised de-throning of relational practices presented a challenge to their potential to do more good than harm.
Every Now, and Then’s curatorial framework and the platform of Enjoy’s institutional support provided me with an opportunity to engage a selected part of Enjoy’s ‘audience’ (those that had previously responded to an open call through email) at a much deeper and more generative level than my projects had previously allowed for, and in the continued life of The Association of Collaboration I am able to ask the questions I am most interested in within a group that is similarly interested in discovering the answers - together. (sorry ending is cheese factor high!)
Hope that this goes some way to answering your question Andie! and please respond to any of the ideas raised every one, Im sure you have some questions/challenges of your own too. . .
Call and Response: A curators invitation.
The initial catalyst for TAC came from an invitation to make a new work for a group show that Melanie Oliver was putting together for Enjoy which was later titled Every Now, and Then. The curatorial premise of the show focused on the nature of the relationships formed when artists invite varied kinds of participation to realise their artwork. Melanie was particularly interested in foregrounding the problems and politics involved in the claims made by and for relational practices as being (among other descriptions) inclusive, participatory and democratic artforms; “Rather than designing happy, harmonious projects, the artists featured in Every Now, and Then develop and maintain social tension within their work, addressing the political aspects of communication that are often overlooked” - Melanie Oliver quoted in the press release for Every Now, and Then.
I’ve been making projects that contain relational elements since art school, experimenting with various tropes and degrees of participation to provide subject matter for, enact, and demonstrate concerns and propose questions through my work. I was particularly interested in the critical context that Mel was creating because I have experienced the challenges inherent to these encounters – both as an artist, participator and critic of these works.
These challenges have included questions like: who is the author of this work? Are artists exploiting a participating audience for their own proffesional gain? Are artists prescribing the audiences participation in a way that prevents their role from having any real affect on the work? How can the audience see the results of their efforts? Isn’t the artists role always priveleged in any exchange that they have set up? What is the role of an artist in this kind of work? What is the role of the institution in this kind of work?
These kinds of questions have always been present in my practice but only existed in my work in a backgrounded way, so it was exciting to be given the opportunity to make work for a show that had this very pointed focus.
The following text is a piece of writing I sent to Melanie Oliver during the idea proposal process;
“The politics of human communication are at their most perceptible in group dynamics.The desire to create a project that utilises the structure of collaboration to address these politics is also a desire to imbed the project in a practical and collective experience of a structure which operates by working decision making processes through the problematics of human interaction.
Imbedded in the value system of collaborative structures is the belief that a common goal can be found and achieved in a group setting. Their ability to operate effectively is reliant on the productivity of human interaction, participation and goodwill”.
In retrospect I think part of the motivation for the initiation of the collaboration and its attendent values was to respond to the tone of the show. I felt the critical framework had a slight but perceptibly pessimistic edge, that its review of contemporary relational projects was proposing to be a more ‘realistic’ view and that this de-romanticised de-throning of relational practices presented a challenge to their potential to do more good than harm.
Every Now, and Then’s curatorial framework and the platform of Enjoy’s institutional support provided me with an opportunity to engage a selected part of Enjoy’s ‘audience’ (those that had previously responded to an open call through email) at a much deeper and more generative level than my projects had previously allowed for, and in the continued life of The Association of Collaboration I am able to ask the questions I am most interested in within a group that is similarly interested in discovering the answers - together. (sorry ending is cheese factor high!)
Hope that this goes some way to answering your question Andie! and please respond to any of the ideas raised every one, Im sure you have some questions/challenges of your own too. . .
Some subjective answers
Hi there,
before the meeeting just thought I would post some totally subjective individual thoughts on the questions that Andrea asked.
I feel good about my involvement with TAC so far. I have found it is a hard thing to find people to work with in artist groups. I have so far had two unsucessful attempts at setting up artist groups where my aim was to be able to give and get feedback in a post-art school critique kind of mutually beneficial way. Both of them ended in disaster - collaborations which failed before they even started. First failure due to mismatched expectations and practices. I faced a table of blank painterly faces at the mention of the word 'installation'. The second one failed because the group just didn't get it together to keep meeting up. The writers groups I know which I hoped to emulate have enough members so that there is always someone at the meetings even if not everyone is there. That's something I think we have done well. Somehow there is a shared need which is bringing us together regularly even though that need may vary within the group.
So I feel good and excited and reinvigorated in my faith in collaboration.
I think we have done working together well and agreeing by consensus. I think we have been good at being flexible. I think we do well at everyone expressing their opinion and differing opinions being able to be heard and discussed. I feel like it is a pretty equal collaboration.
In terms of the show, I think we could have maybe made more of an impact on it in terms of visibility, but I think that would have taken more meeting up and I feel like we have done pretty good especially at this time of year. I also quite enjoyed the set up at Enjoy with the chairs because it seemed obvious that we were a bunch of people talking and trying to work things out together rather than setting ourselves up as experts. Which was continued on the wall with the process.
I wonder if we could have done better at encouraging people to contribute to the wall....more porousness?
I think one of the challenges for TAC is to define some ways in which we will determine sucess. I think we are all having a nice time and good conversations but I also wonder whether we are in danger of falling into one of the potential traps of collaborating which is meeting new people and gaining from the group but not necessarily producing anything. I wonder whether that is one of the things to be gained from collaborating though, to appreciate a slower and more organic process. Like when you are single you can be a much easier high achiever go getter cos it's just you doing your thing but when you are with someone you might not achieve so much but you learn more because you have to negotiate with another person. Does collaboration make you a better person? Does collaboration teach you about social engagement? Is that what makes it important? Is collaboration like a relationship where you choose someone who is different to you so that you can be challenged and thus grow somehow?
Now I feel like I am that woman in Sex in the City who writes in questions. Sorry about that. But maybe that's another point, does collaboration make you a better artist because you have to be more rigorous in deciding what you do because there is another person involved?
Now that the Prospects show has come along, sucess could be gauged somehow through our working process with that. Like we have been talking in the abstract about what collaboration is etc and it's easy in a way because it's abstract, but my feeling is that we will be able to learn more by doing an actual project and seeing what happens. In that case we maybe need to document / think about it through the process, which is what this blog is so good for! Yay for cyber presence.
Hope that's useful for the thingy Andrea, Sian
before the meeeting just thought I would post some totally subjective individual thoughts on the questions that Andrea asked.
I feel good about my involvement with TAC so far. I have found it is a hard thing to find people to work with in artist groups. I have so far had two unsucessful attempts at setting up artist groups where my aim was to be able to give and get feedback in a post-art school critique kind of mutually beneficial way. Both of them ended in disaster - collaborations which failed before they even started. First failure due to mismatched expectations and practices. I faced a table of blank painterly faces at the mention of the word 'installation'. The second one failed because the group just didn't get it together to keep meeting up. The writers groups I know which I hoped to emulate have enough members so that there is always someone at the meetings even if not everyone is there. That's something I think we have done well. Somehow there is a shared need which is bringing us together regularly even though that need may vary within the group.
So I feel good and excited and reinvigorated in my faith in collaboration.
I think we have done working together well and agreeing by consensus. I think we have been good at being flexible. I think we do well at everyone expressing their opinion and differing opinions being able to be heard and discussed. I feel like it is a pretty equal collaboration.
In terms of the show, I think we could have maybe made more of an impact on it in terms of visibility, but I think that would have taken more meeting up and I feel like we have done pretty good especially at this time of year. I also quite enjoyed the set up at Enjoy with the chairs because it seemed obvious that we were a bunch of people talking and trying to work things out together rather than setting ourselves up as experts. Which was continued on the wall with the process.
I wonder if we could have done better at encouraging people to contribute to the wall....more porousness?
I think one of the challenges for TAC is to define some ways in which we will determine sucess. I think we are all having a nice time and good conversations but I also wonder whether we are in danger of falling into one of the potential traps of collaborating which is meeting new people and gaining from the group but not necessarily producing anything. I wonder whether that is one of the things to be gained from collaborating though, to appreciate a slower and more organic process. Like when you are single you can be a much easier high achiever go getter cos it's just you doing your thing but when you are with someone you might not achieve so much but you learn more because you have to negotiate with another person. Does collaboration make you a better person? Does collaboration teach you about social engagement? Is that what makes it important? Is collaboration like a relationship where you choose someone who is different to you so that you can be challenged and thus grow somehow?
Now I feel like I am that woman in Sex in the City who writes in questions. Sorry about that. But maybe that's another point, does collaboration make you a better artist because you have to be more rigorous in deciding what you do because there is another person involved?
Now that the Prospects show has come along, sucess could be gauged somehow through our working process with that. Like we have been talking in the abstract about what collaboration is etc and it's easy in a way because it's abstract, but my feeling is that we will be able to learn more by doing an actual project and seeing what happens. In that case we maybe need to document / think about it through the process, which is what this blog is so good for! Yay for cyber presence.
Hope that's useful for the thingy Andrea, Sian
A question for Liz...
Hello Liz,
just a quick question I wondered if you wouldn't mind answering so I can have it in writing ;-)
Why did you want to start the association of collaboration?
thanks, Andie
p.s. what time zone is this blog set in I wonder? I didn't actually post my previous comments at midnight!
just a quick question I wondered if you wouldn't mind answering so I can have it in writing ;-)
Why did you want to start the association of collaboration?
thanks, Andie
p.s. what time zone is this blog set in I wonder? I didn't actually post my previous comments at midnight!
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Some questions
Hi again!
I was planning on producing an edited transcript of our discussion for the writing I am submitting for publication in Hue and Cry, but, it wasn't quite like the roundtable discussion I had envisaged. Also to be fair it wouldn't have done justice to our cause as not all members were present during our meeting and did not have the chance to speak up! I'm pretty confident I can use some quotes from the recording ( I promise not to use them out of context) but I was hoping I might be able to additionally ask some questions of you online, to be included in my/OUR co-authored work(!)
How you feel about your involvement with the association of collaboration so far?
What do you think we have done well?
and what do you think we could have done better?
What do you think will mean success for the association of collaboration?
Please post your comments in response to these questions asap! Thanks!!
I was planning on producing an edited transcript of our discussion for the writing I am submitting for publication in Hue and Cry, but, it wasn't quite like the roundtable discussion I had envisaged. Also to be fair it wouldn't have done justice to our cause as not all members were present during our meeting and did not have the chance to speak up! I'm pretty confident I can use some quotes from the recording ( I promise not to use them out of context) but I was hoping I might be able to additionally ask some questions of you online, to be included in my/OUR co-authored work(!)
How you feel about your involvement with the association of collaboration so far?
What do you think we have done well?
and what do you think we could have done better?
What do you think will mean success for the association of collaboration?
Please post your comments in response to these questions asap! Thanks!!
Minutes of meeting Thursday 14th of December 2006
Hi everyone,
Thanks Sian for your post, that's brilliant to hear we can use the ROAR premises to our collaborative hearts' delight.
Thanks also for recovering the topics we discussed in our last meeting, as unfortunately the recording was full of sirens and thuds and car horns (none of which I remember hearing-it's amazing what the ear filters out). From the scrawl of notes we wrote I can also add that:
Sian talked about the collaborative efforts of bands. Alex pointed out that the heirarchical way a band presents itself on stage can be completely different from the way they collaborate offstage. Thomasin talked about the way performing and practising can be completely different collaborative experiences. She also brought up that collaborations can only work when individual agendas are set aside in pursuit of a collective goal. I wondered if you can only say a collaboration is successful once the process of a collaboration has ended? Then again it seems collaborations can 'really work' on some occasions and 'really not' work on other occasions if you view them in terms of an ongoing process.
Alex talked about Artists and Muses as collaborative partnerships and drew some fancy diagrams for different collaborative circumstances (one of which also happened to be the diagram for probabililty)
We deliberated over the differences between 'participation' and 'collaboration'
Liz introduced Cuckoo as an initiative which is administratively collaborative but who's output is not altogether collaborative (eg the collaborative projects in which artists and writers were still limited by their pre-set roles)
It was also discussed whether a performance/participation artist who frames the audience as part of the work can consider their work a collaboration? eg Maddie Leach's dance floor work as a provider of context, but not an opportunity to affect the outcome of the project(?)
We thought of linking our blog/website to wikipedia as there is no definition yet under 'artistic collaboration'.
In terms of documenting our project we questioned whether or not we should photograph ourselves. One suggestion was that we dress ourselves in lab coats, yellow safety glasses and hairnets... Alas! We made a consensual decision not to physically present ourselves in photographic documentation because it might shift the focus from our practice to our appearance as individuals. We also thought a video of us would be more true to our process-focussed practice than a static image.
Thanks Sian for your post, that's brilliant to hear we can use the ROAR premises to our collaborative hearts' delight.
Thanks also for recovering the topics we discussed in our last meeting, as unfortunately the recording was full of sirens and thuds and car horns (none of which I remember hearing-it's amazing what the ear filters out). From the scrawl of notes we wrote I can also add that:
Sian talked about the collaborative efforts of bands. Alex pointed out that the heirarchical way a band presents itself on stage can be completely different from the way they collaborate offstage. Thomasin talked about the way performing and practising can be completely different collaborative experiences. She also brought up that collaborations can only work when individual agendas are set aside in pursuit of a collective goal. I wondered if you can only say a collaboration is successful once the process of a collaboration has ended? Then again it seems collaborations can 'really work' on some occasions and 'really not' work on other occasions if you view them in terms of an ongoing process.
Alex talked about Artists and Muses as collaborative partnerships and drew some fancy diagrams for different collaborative circumstances (one of which also happened to be the diagram for probabililty)
We deliberated over the differences between 'participation' and 'collaboration'
Liz introduced Cuckoo as an initiative which is administratively collaborative but who's output is not altogether collaborative (eg the collaborative projects in which artists and writers were still limited by their pre-set roles)
It was also discussed whether a performance/participation artist who frames the audience as part of the work can consider their work a collaboration? eg Maddie Leach's dance floor work as a provider of context, but not an opportunity to affect the outcome of the project(?)
We thought of linking our blog/website to wikipedia as there is no definition yet under 'artistic collaboration'.
In terms of documenting our project we questioned whether or not we should photograph ourselves. One suggestion was that we dress ourselves in lab coats, yellow safety glasses and hairnets... Alas! We made a consensual decision not to physically present ourselves in photographic documentation because it might shift the focus from our practice to our appearance as individuals. We also thought a video of us would be more true to our process-focussed practice than a static image.
ROAR! gallery meeting
Hi guys, so it is fine to use the gallery in an ongoing manner for meeting which is great. We close at 5pm wed to Sat and 6pm on Thursdays. We are closed Sun Mon Tues so any time on those days if we needed it. We also have comfy chairs.
Good on you ladies for getting us a place in cyber space.
So what I remember from last weeks meeting........a big pencil, discussion of trying to decide what exactly we are gonna do so that we can move things faster.......a day out Alex mooted greyhound racing and also a picnic where everyone has to bring their favorite sandwich.......discussion of artist muses adn how their role is passive as opposed to an active part in a collaboration. Liz's thought that to be a (good?) collaboration each person must have the potential to effect or affect the results.
discussion of the Prospects show and different compliations of a help desk....my thoughts were that it would be good to have a porous desk in some way so that the help can go both ways ie we are not setting ourselves up as the people who know everything but rather might encourage people to 'help themselves' (how very new age) in terms of trying out their own thinking about different works. in this vein we might supply flow charts which guide people through different possible ways of thinking about artworks / formulating opinions.
After the meeting with Heather today I get the sense that we need to differentiate what we are wanting to do from the usual gallery information which is provided.
Hmm, probably enough for the first one. See you tomorrow at ROAR! 6pm Sian
Good on you ladies for getting us a place in cyber space.
So what I remember from last weeks meeting........a big pencil, discussion of trying to decide what exactly we are gonna do so that we can move things faster.......a day out Alex mooted greyhound racing and also a picnic where everyone has to bring their favorite sandwich.......discussion of artist muses adn how their role is passive as opposed to an active part in a collaboration. Liz's thought that to be a (good?) collaboration each person must have the potential to effect or affect the results.
discussion of the Prospects show and different compliations of a help desk....my thoughts were that it would be good to have a porous desk in some way so that the help can go both ways ie we are not setting ourselves up as the people who know everything but rather might encourage people to 'help themselves' (how very new age) in terms of trying out their own thinking about different works. in this vein we might supply flow charts which guide people through different possible ways of thinking about artworks / formulating opinions.
After the meeting with Heather today I get the sense that we need to differentiate what we are wanting to do from the usual gallery information which is provided.
Hmm, probably enough for the first one. See you tomorrow at ROAR! 6pm Sian
Monday, December 18, 2006
Welcome
Welcome to The Association of Collaboration's blog, our first foray into cyber space!
Liz and Andie have set this up, as discussed, to be a place for posting between meeting discussions, storing and archiving the documentation of our activites and sharing our findings...
This is also a porous initiative that is able to be accessed by everybody. So welcome everybody else too!
Liz and Andie have set this up, as discussed, to be a place for posting between meeting discussions, storing and archiving the documentation of our activites and sharing our findings...
This is also a porous initiative that is able to be accessed by everybody. So welcome everybody else too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)