hey guys
just thought since we're constantly re-evaluating our practice i'd cut and paste a comment from (din din din) artbash!
"My point about participants using language that is concise is an important one, for Bagnall's project has relational aspects. It is makes good sense that it is part of a partnership with Enjoy Public Gallery. CSC has similarities with the current work in Telecom Prospect by The Association of Collaboration, a seven person group linked to Enjoy that interacts with visitors to City Gallery. Again the problem is what is the desired result apart from touchy-feely vibes? Having visitors sticking little memo pad notes on the gallery wall is not a super smart method of encouraging sophisticated discourse. It is skimpy and shallow. There needs to be a lot more than fragmented and unfocussed chat for its own sake. If art is now 'post-production' and moving from 'goods' to 'services', those 'services' need to be thoroughly thought through in terms of the desired results. That is the problem for TAC and CSC."
http://www.artbash.co.nz/article.asp?id=982
maybe this is something we can discuss later
xxA
6 comments:
Cool, great find!
I think art bash are making a value judgement by delineating "concise" language and "fragmented and unfocused chat" .
Art bash are all about "encouraging sophisticated discourse" which is fantastic!
However it's only one means to an end and I don't think we have the same end in sight!!
There is room for both our approaches, especially considering that CAMRU's current public gallery context is very different from their online one.
Yeah I agree with liz. I reckon our project is making a place for people to make their actual responses whatever they may be, adn then we are taking the role of 'curators' in some sense of those responses; working through them and sorting out lines of sense and thought in them. Which brings me to the point that I am increasingly thinking that our next most important project will be to collate and work with the responses. Or decide what to do or not do with them. The most popular question to me has been what do we intend to do with all the responses? And I think it is something we should address.
Also it was nice that whoever on Artbash identified us as a group of seven! Yay!
hwey guys,
thanks for putting this up andie, it is great to see crticism.
the good thing about artbash is that it is informal and allows for feedback.
why not write a comment on artbash instead of here liz and sian.
there are lots of other comments there, and some more critique too.
is converstaion from us, about our work just for TAC to read? i don't think it should be!!
dare ya!!
I posted my thoughts on Artbash ... scary!!!
Hi all, after posting John Hurrell, the editor/moderator replied asking for a description of the difference between CAMRU and educational officer initiatives -does any one else want to answer to that question - I am feeling a bit divided trying to hold discussions in so many contexts at the moment (and without immediate reply the conversation thread returned to its focus on Satiago Sierra's work). Mr Hurrel does have some good questions (also check out his critique of the CAMRU in the Prospect catalogue when you get it)and the Artbash context is a good 'outside' one... perhaps there will be a better opportunity in the future when we have less on?
I encourage you to visit the conversation for interests sake anyway,
L
hey, this is great, a little conversation nook all of my own!
-so liz, what have you got to say today?
-well - I thought i would just mention the review of CAMRU in the NZlive website blog:
http://www.nzlive.com/blog/2007/04/27/attention-art-world-audience/#more-44
-that's great- see you next time!
-thanks, catch you then!
Post a Comment