hey all, a place holder post for possible discussions re interest from Tim Wong in interviewing us for a piece he has been commisioned to write, on the theme of collaboration in the Prospect show.
Check out our email for all the info including full disclosure of the very directive brief he has been given to work off by the commisioner: elecom 'Mob' publication. It makes for an interesting study in the commercial and economic capital spin off of the ol creative process'. I'm confident Tim has got the skills to turn out an interesting piece of writing (based on reading several pieces he has written, you can check out his reader www.Lumier.net.nz to see for yourself) - and it would be great to have a thoughtful response to the relationship between our collaborative process' and the CAMRU work.
I am also wary of our project being championed as an illustration for the values of the evil coca cola bottling company - ah i mean, telecommunications magnate (it costs E.T. alot to phone home these days!). Having said that - we are going to be mentioned with or without our involvement and it could be a chance for us to get something productive out of the inclusion. As usual, we would be working with a truncated time-line...
I suggest to you guys that if we want to go ahead that Mr T. Wong could post a few questions onto the blog and we could let it unfold from there.
What do you think???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Oh yer... aren't we all about talking?
I dont know, it's publicity but it feels kinda dirty. Has anyone read Mob before? How do you guys feel about being part of something that's essentially a commercial? Am I being a bit rough?! xA
But then again if he's going to talk about TAC anyway...maybe we should?
Greetings TACers,
Not to hijack your online hangout, but if I could add to Liz's place holder: Rachael Rakena and Brett Graham, as a more traditional instance of collaboration, have been designated as the 'model' artists of the piece, given they're going to Venice, will inspire the kids, are seeking corporate sponsorship on their return etc. I imagine they're happy to have the publicity.
Where I'd like TAC to fit in is in contributing more fervently to the discussion of collaboration vis-a-vis contemporary art practice. Though I'm obviously limited by the tone and length of the piece, there is some provision for this. Also, it would be silly to ignore TAC altogether, given the angle is collaboration between artists.
Also, I've just found out that the issue has been pushed back four weeks, meaning the deadline has extended until the end of April. So your consensus as a group on being interviewed is now not so urgent.
P.S. I haven't read Mob before either.
-Tim
I reckon we should do it, especially after reading Tim's post Hi Tim - hijack away!
It would be great to be able to yes link what we have made with our processes. Especially after listening to people on Sunday congratulating an absent Liz on how cool her work is! They were talking about how the aesthetic of CAMRU is just so 'her' and blah bla. So yes, let's get it out there as clear as possible that this has been made by seven people!
YES LET'S
p.s. hi tim!
Provided there's consensus from all, what’s the best way to play this out? Given you’re a disparate bunch, conducting the interview online seems the logical move. If I were to post questions here, would you all answer as ‘one’, or would you all like to throw your own comments into the hat? The latter I’d prefer – I think it could be interesting (and certainly more organic) for the piece to have a lively discussion develop on a blog – though I’m also wary of your obligations as a collaborative, and whether you would insist on me quoting you as a group. I’d also really like to open this up in terms of TAC communicating to readers what its genesis/rationale/manifesto is – use this as your post-it note, if you will.
Also, depending on how things shape out with TAC and the other artists, I have the option of rewriting something meatier for The Lumiere Reader, especially if I find that by the 800th word, I’ve had to leave a lot of good stuff out.
good questions...
I'm happy to keep going with this interview process, we just need to hear from Paula and Tom for your takes on it.
I am glad to hear the writing timeline has been extended and the possibility of a Lumier version is definately appealing.
In the event of consensus, Blog discussion seems the most feasible to me. Yes, we would need to discuss the approach to our authorship first...
Our yet-to-be published meeting transcript for Hue and Cry kept the conversation format but excluded the speakers names, which I thought was a sucessfull solution to the united front/party line v individuality/diversity opposition.
If we want to take the same approach this time we could potentially blog our discussion by all using the associations log in details.
And the comments you overheard Sian do need some addressing - i think people rely on what is familiar to them in that viewing process. Hopefully they went on to realise The Associations authorship through reading the resources on the trolley and taking in the different approaches (and handwriting) we all brought to the project, or by considering the formal object and its divergence from my usual readymade approach - or more obviously by reading the wall label .
I guess our work encourages a blurryness of authorship accross the artist - audience relationship (even through the way our wall label is surrounded by notes) and this greyness probably contributed to the misunderstanding.
I do think Sian is right though, the best way to stop this coming up is by establishing a clearer audience awareness of The Associations collective identity. And by doing more stuff!
Which takes us back to the interview...
(We are still a germinating group though, and I think we are doing pretty well in this so far!)
Yup I reckon doing it online is good, and logging in with Association details is a great idea. Then you will get a sense that there are different voices because we all phrase things in our own way, but the identities are less important.
On the identity of the group as perceived by audiences; I was reading the Gmail account and read the invite to Liz to talk on the symposium thingy at City Gallery about collaboration. It is a shame that they didn't just do the invite through Liz's own account if they just wanted to invite her and not the association. Of course Liz's practice is all about collaboration and participation so she is a great person to ask, but if they are asking her to speak on behalf of the association because of the work which is in Prospects perhaps this could be a problem?
Sorry I realise I have a wee bee in my bonnet about this right now and perhaps I am overeacting but ....... And I wonder whether one of us talking about the work in isolation will just compound the problem?
Anyhow. I guess it is still hard for people to get their heads around people working in a group which is working on consensus.
What do others think?!
hey yea i agree sian thanks for your comment. Liz how do you feel about it? I think as long as they only want liz to talk about her practice that's fine. But it seems a little obvious that because the symposium is during Prospect that they will want to ask Liz about TAC. How can we get around this? Could we have other TAC members in the audience who make themselves known and be vocal during the panel discussion somehow? alternatively we could make a general consensus decision that Liz speaks on behalf of TAC but i worry that would only reinforce the belief that TAC is Liz's Project...?
xxA
p.s. i think interview blogging would be a great format for the MOB write up and Lumiere too, wonderful! Meanwhile I'll chase up that 'yet to be published' Hue and Cry write up!!
All great channels of discussion for the potential interview above. What I'd propose (again, provided there's consensus) is setting up a new post/thread established specifically for the interview, which I can then use the comment feature to kick things off, and let it evolve over a week or two. Everything in that thread would be 'on the record', and I'd only pull quotes specifically from there.
If you're all happy to proceed, let's blog-it-out.
I guess that I have been asked specifically to talk because my practice has a history of exploring the concerns that cgal are interested in discussing.
These are their main discussion points:
* How co-dependent are art and audiences in the current climate?
* Who cares about audiences?
* Head counts – how can the quantitative pressure to perform be shifted to qualitative measures?
* Let’s blow open the buzzwords; ‘participatory’, ‘socially engaged’, ‘relational’, ‘responsive’, etc and discuss strategies for participation and inclusion – pitfalls and potential. Is the current interest in these ‘active’ processes compensatory for increased social isolation?
- are these part of TAC's focus too?
I think of TAC and CAMRU as being a part of what I do as an artist though, and I think it might be a bit wierd if I can't talk about TAC stuff because of a need for us to prevent me appearing AS TAC.
We need a bit of a balance between the individual and the collective voice, and this probably relates to the interview set up too, yeah we are a group - but we are a bunch of individuals too...
If I do end up on the panel it would be great if there were more than one association voice to answer questions directed at TAC and CAMRU, and that would prevent the 'speaking as/for TAC' problem, as might an introduction which clarifies that I would be speaking in the capacity as an individual artist foremost.
Alternatively, we could use me as a 'mouthpiece' if TAC does have an interest in talking to the discussion points - and we could brainstorm the concerns collaboratively in the same way as we went about preparing for the representation of group opinion for the artist's talk.
Also, is there really a belief that TAC is 'my project' or are you talking about the conversation that Sian overheard in the city gallery? Do you feel like TAC is 'my project' Andie - or anyone else?
ps yes, lots of fruitful stuff for interview.
hi tim
i'm keen to work with you and get the new post going.
We're just wiating on tom to give the consensus nod now.
I also agree that our comments should be quotable from that comment thread alone. i like liz's idea that we avoid individual authorship, by not being quoted as individuals.
dear TAC
i reckon those who have grey areas or confusion or mixed thoughts about the identity of TAC as separate from Liz herself should address them directly and in a considered way.
this could happen several ways...either have a coffee with youself and liz or email her some questions.
or...if you think this discussion is relevant to the whole group then start a new post about it.
i think some salient points have been raised but lots of misinformed stuff too. for example Liz's invitation to speak has not got anything to do with TAC If you read the invitation that is pretty clear.
i too was upset at the ignorance of the personat the city gallery (debbie) who thought they could address an email to TAC but only speak to liz. but if you actually follow the thread of that email converastation you'll find liz was quick to correct that misunderstanding with debbie.
i vote for clear and upfront communication of our problems collaborating together. it's the point of our association after all.
x p
hi sorry for the confusion, I dont at all see TAC as 'Liz's project' i was using quote marks like that because i was referring to the overheard conversation brought up by Sian.
I think it would be a wonderful opportunity for Liz to speak on the and i dont really see it being a problem for Liz to talk about TAC matters because TAC is made up of a number of individuals as Liz said (and as was the case for the artist talk) we all act as representatives of the group on different occassions.
it's a shame that debbie was not provided with Liz's personal email address but i guess she had to work with what she was given at the time. And Liz I think your response was well worded!
Anyway, congratulations Liz! that's what i think
xxxxA
thanks for clearing that up Andie, I was beginning to worry! Is this something we need to talk about more though? Sian, what are your thoughts and feelings?
re Tim and a new thread;
Yes good idea to do it on a new thread thing and quote from there. Look forward to the discussion.
re the City Gallery talk thing;
I haven't followed Liz's responses etc on teh email so I'm sure it has all been sorted. I agree that eh points they want to cover don't really seem like what we are doing and I realise that your practice is all about collaboration Liz and so you will be great on the panel. I just read it the day after hearing that comment and felt not good about it I guess. And thought I would put my comments on the blog in the spirit of consensus being everyone saying what they thought / felt openly. I was not at all trying to pick a bone or anything else with Liz personally, I just thought that it re openend up that conversation about authorship and how the project is perceived from the outside. I feel like from the inside it has felt very shared and like everyone ahs had a voice and been involved etc. So that's great. But I don't know that it is perceived like that from the outside. And perhaps that's just too bad, I don't know what more we could have done in that respect?! I mean me and Tom did the talk, and other people have been into the gallery etc so we have all been visible etc. Who knows.
In terms of the talk / panel, I don't think I will be able to be there as I work on Saturdays, but I think Mel and Tom will be? I might see if work will give me the day off...But there will be two members of TAC in the audience to help field any questions if it is appropriate or needed.
X S
hi all
sorry about holding things up with tardiness. my eyes feel a bit sore from reading all those comments.
interview for MOB:
i think that this is a great idea, and the format andie used for Hue and Cry work (ie, we don't have individual names) would make the interview work most effectively. so all go ahead on that one. i'm looking forward to getting some outside critical input from someone.
re: forum at city gallery
i think that liz will definitely be asked about her involvement in TAC, as an inevitable outcome of the main interest of that particular forum. i will be there, and i assume that Mel will be as well, so we could help out. but this again seems a little token, as we all won't be around (it was kind of the same problem at the artist talk - i felt we needed to be all or none). it also seems silly for liz to refuse to answer TAC questions, so maybe having as many there as possible would be the better of two evils?
Post a Comment