hi guys,
Thought I would make a new post to muse on my dissatisfactions and where they are arising from. I read one of the articles on the list on the main blog;
"Afterall article: Group and Gang (the Absent Collective)
And it really summed up where I am at. It was talking about how making art is something which happens in space rather than in time, and so the group cannot do the same thing at the same time. Which means that in collaborative groups the main thing which happens is lots and lots of talking, rather than doing. Discussing what the group is going to do before doing it. So the decision making is consensual, rather than the doing?
"In other words, even where a group co-operates to make a video, their agreement on how to fill a given part of the visual array at a given moment can only be achieved by talking – again by a negotiation that by definition is operationally separate from the formative visual technique itself. Hence, the actions of performance groups fail to become genuine group agency in two main ways. First, because much of what the performance group does amounts to multiple synchronous actions – a mere proliferation of co-incidental separate actions. Second, because if the interweaving of these actions are integrated then (and here we return to the earlier claim) the terms of the integration must be separately negotiated, determined by talking not by visually doing."
So, this explains why the meetings felt so much better than the blog I think, as obviously talking is more satifying than reading on a screen and disjointed conversations. And also why I have developed a sense of uh I want to be DOING something. The difficulty for me I guess is that my practice and what I really engage with and enjoy about art is the actual doing. I love talking too. don't get me wrong, but it seems like this is one of the real conflicts in collaborative processes which has been hit on the head by this article.
"The group that we want acts. Above all else, it thinks/acts, and it does so beyond mere coordinated efficacy. The group we want acts beyond the linear flows of discursive thought and outside the blind sedimentation of so-called 'swarm intelligence' – the process whereby the swarm of humans en masse sleepwalks into adopting and then incrementally honing the cleverest tricks of its innovative individuals (like turning the wheel, quitting hunting to tend flocks, or flossing before bedtime). Swarm intelligence in its unguided incremental genius is a marvel: no less evident and marvelous in crows and seagulls than it is in humans. But the swarm is not the group, and the group wasn’t liberated by the web or any other revolution. The group that we want is the branching, nodal warren of thoroughfares that composes its thinking not in speech, but in enaction between and around the partial-selves of its members. The group doesn’t march on its stomach."
Sorry to cut and paste the article if you have already read it; just thought it might be easier to discuss.
What does anyone else think?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Meeting minutes 17.9.07, #1 New Members
New Beginnings: re-Membering TAC
It's been 7 months since we were all together in one room. Remember convincing ourselves that our experimentation of collaborative processes could continue long distance? Well, it's official, blog friend just doesn't bring the cheese to the meeting.
We have been discussing new members for tac for AGES, and before we all wither up and die under the greying light of our PC screens, action needs to make it happen.
Welli has plans afoot and has already found ourselves stumbling into uncharted collaborative territory. We need a collective plan for negotiating the borders between autonomy and unity without the need for an international diplomacy manual.
In the absence of any experts, tac once again turns to its members for their sage and silly contributions towards a renewal of localised collaborative projects.
How do we allow new tac regional groups to make their own decisions without loosing the sense of what brought us together in the first place? What components of our current processes should continue and what should change to allow for new beginnings?
It's been 7 months since we were all together in one room. Remember convincing ourselves that our experimentation of collaborative processes could continue long distance? Well, it's official, blog friend just doesn't bring the cheese to the meeting.
We have been discussing new members for tac for AGES, and before we all wither up and die under the greying light of our PC screens, action needs to make it happen.
Welli has plans afoot and has already found ourselves stumbling into uncharted collaborative territory. We need a collective plan for negotiating the borders between autonomy and unity without the need for an international diplomacy manual.
In the absence of any experts, tac once again turns to its members for their sage and silly contributions towards a renewal of localised collaborative projects.
How do we allow new tac regional groups to make their own decisions without loosing the sense of what brought us together in the first place? What components of our current processes should continue and what should change to allow for new beginnings?
Friday, September 07, 2007
Q: How is Collaborative Art Interpreted?
Hello,
I'm a Philosophy lecturer at Victoria Univ whose research is in the philosophy of art. Last year, a colleague and I were awarded a Marsden grant to study how to interpret and understand collaboratively produced art.
Obviously, your work is very interesting to our research. I was wondering how I might get more information about your work - either about your work practices, or about how work work has been received, interpreted, etc.
I'd love to meet up for coffee and hear more about your work, if any of you are still in Wellington. Alternatively, I'd love to correspond with any of you via email, or if you'd be able to tell me how to find any material on your work, that'd be greatly appreciated too.
Thanks!
Best,
Sondra
-------------------------
Hi Sondra,
thanks for your enquiry - how relevant indeed!
i am sure we'd like to communicate with you and your project sounds interesting, but we need to agree by consensus on these matters. since our PROSPECT project earlier this year, we have dispersed around the world.
we communicate mainly via a blog.
Is it okay with you if i post your request (without contacts ) on our TAC blog? It is the fastest way for us to get a consensus decision as a group - about anything.
also: the prospect project can be found at:
http://www.telecomprospect2007.org.nz/artist/TheAssociationofCollaboration.shtml
hope to hear from you soon,
Paula
_____________________________
Hi Paula,
Thanks for the quick response; I’d be delighted if you posted my request on your blog – especially if it speeds things up.
I first learned of TAC’s existence at the Prospect exhibit, and as a result invited Heather Galbraith to talk about collaborative art at Prospect for a philosophy of art course that I taught last term — and now I’m getting started on my Marsden grant more seriously, and really want to learn more about your work before I begin writing.
Looking forward to hear from some/all of you!
Best,
Sondra
______________________________
hi TAC, so here it is, posted as promised!
how exciting, x Paula
-------------------------
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Banking
hey all
some feedback from chch where it has suddenly become like antartica, though no snow in the city which i find quite dissapointing.
... [have moved Toms thoughts on new members to the meeting minutes comments section for comprehension -L]
in other news, am having a bit of a dilemma in the banking department. we can't open an account where everyone can withdraw money unless we are registered as a society or charitable trust. after investigation i found out that this costs about $150 to become one. so, i thought that next best option would be to open an account under my name, and someone in Wellington could sign up as a joint-account person so as to have more transparency in banking (hehehe, i accidentally wrote baking before that) matters. i have opened an account with Kiwibank, so if someone would like to volunteer as a Wellington joint treasurer then I can get in communication with them about the details.
another problem is that the cheques we have received have been made out to 'The Association of Collaboration', this means that I am not able to deposit them at all because of course I am T. Sleigh, no The Association of Collaboration which doesn't exist in a legal sense. so, I think I need to get in contact with the Museums Trust and New Plymouth City Council, to see if they can make the cheques out to an individual member of TAC and then they can be deposited in the account.
does all this make sense? and should be have one account now for all splinter groups of TAC?
whew. money matters make me tired.
some feedback from chch where it has suddenly become like antartica, though no snow in the city which i find quite dissapointing.
... [have moved Toms thoughts on new members to the meeting minutes comments section for comprehension -L]
in other news, am having a bit of a dilemma in the banking department. we can't open an account where everyone can withdraw money unless we are registered as a society or charitable trust. after investigation i found out that this costs about $150 to become one. so, i thought that next best option would be to open an account under my name, and someone in Wellington could sign up as a joint-account person so as to have more transparency in banking (hehehe, i accidentally wrote baking before that) matters. i have opened an account with Kiwibank, so if someone would like to volunteer as a Wellington joint treasurer then I can get in communication with them about the details.
another problem is that the cheques we have received have been made out to 'The Association of Collaboration', this means that I am not able to deposit them at all because of course I am T. Sleigh, no The Association of Collaboration which doesn't exist in a legal sense. so, I think I need to get in contact with the Museums Trust and New Plymouth City Council, to see if they can make the cheques out to an individual member of TAC and then they can be deposited in the account.
does all this make sense? and should be have one account now for all splinter groups of TAC?
whew. money matters make me tired.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Group work artist's book review
Temporary Services has just published an artists book called Group Work. I got extremely excited when I found out about their collaborative book about collaboration and got myself a copy. I thought you'd all be interested in hearing about it, I also thought that as a way of helping myself think through the ideas I'd make a book review. I will add to it as I get through the articles, probably going back and changing it a bit. There's heaps of info that's applicable to us at TAC, so we could use the comments section to talk about the ideas too. Let me know if you want more info, something photocopied or - once I've finished - a lend!
The initial five members of Temporary Services (TS) started working together in 1999. The group is currently a triadic collaboration, based in Chicago and they have a very busy exhibition history, website and lots of publishing projects.
The book has been edited by the three collaborators and contains interviews with, and profiles of, active and historical collaborative artist's groups and musicians, all from the US and Europe. Their general thesis holds that — acknowledging the interdependence of human existence — all art making is collaborative at some point.
The generality of the title, Group Work, also follows from their interest in the broader scope of groupings as human/societal organising principles, an interest which, TS's editorial explains, consciously extends beyond the specificity of art practices and languages.
The list of quotes, responding to some well worded common questions on collaboration, are the only direct manifestation of this broader investigation. The rest of the contents explore group work through an artistic and musical context.
I am working my way through the book slowly, and have just finished their first interview with AA Bronson, one of the three artists from General Idea. Other collaborators in General Idea (GI) were Felix Partz and Jorge Zontal (all aliases). GI was a collaboration that began in Toronto in the seventies amongst the hippie commune scene. It was hugely prolific in both art and social activism and only wound up after the death of its two other members from HIV related illnesses.
General Idea seems to have been a big influence on the Temporary Services model.
The interview covers the genesis of the group, the way GI worked together, how they resolved conflicts, the roles and languages that emerged in the group dynamic - and finishes with a discussion of Bronson's individual practice after the dissolving of General Idea in '94.
One of the first projects that General Idea undertook was an underground newspaper called FILE which they began as a communication tool for connecting themselves beyond their small local art community to artists in other cities and countries. Bronson gives the example of their "Artist Directory", a 700-strong list of artists addresses published with the purpose of encouraging open mail contact between readers and artists. TS's questions tease out the way FILE seems to have swung between this total openness and a more insular fictional world.
I was really interested to read about their group processes, the members had a very close working relationship, lived together in the same house and used to have conversations every morning over coffee. Bronson explains "We had a rule of thumb that we only actually carried out a project by consensus. So if anybody wasn't sure about something, then we would put it on the back shelf. We didn't reject it ... at a later date ... we might pick up one of those ideas again and knit it into some other project we were doing". They found this "shelving" method worked well as a way of resolving conflicting opinions.
The roles within the collaboration were flexible, shifting from project to project according to what the members were interested in at the time: "We never advertised who did what. And people always thought they knew. People tended to think that Jorge did all the photography and Felix did all the painting and I did all the writing, but it wasn't true at all. It was truly collaborative". Similarly, their approach to their group identity was one of anonymity, initially using pseudonyms to avoid the "artist as genius" trap, although Bronson now believes that "in the end pseudonyms don't make the slightest bit of difference to all of that".
Stay tuned for more, L.
The initial five members of Temporary Services (TS) started working together in 1999. The group is currently a triadic collaboration, based in Chicago and they have a very busy exhibition history, website and lots of publishing projects.
The book has been edited by the three collaborators and contains interviews with, and profiles of, active and historical collaborative artist's groups and musicians, all from the US and Europe. Their general thesis holds that — acknowledging the interdependence of human existence — all art making is collaborative at some point.
The generality of the title, Group Work, also follows from their interest in the broader scope of groupings as human/societal organising principles, an interest which, TS's editorial explains, consciously extends beyond the specificity of art practices and languages.
The list of quotes, responding to some well worded common questions on collaboration, are the only direct manifestation of this broader investigation. The rest of the contents explore group work through an artistic and musical context.
I am working my way through the book slowly, and have just finished their first interview with AA Bronson, one of the three artists from General Idea. Other collaborators in General Idea (GI) were Felix Partz and Jorge Zontal (all aliases). GI was a collaboration that began in Toronto in the seventies amongst the hippie commune scene. It was hugely prolific in both art and social activism and only wound up after the death of its two other members from HIV related illnesses.
General Idea seems to have been a big influence on the Temporary Services model.
The interview covers the genesis of the group, the way GI worked together, how they resolved conflicts, the roles and languages that emerged in the group dynamic - and finishes with a discussion of Bronson's individual practice after the dissolving of General Idea in '94.
One of the first projects that General Idea undertook was an underground newspaper called FILE which they began as a communication tool for connecting themselves beyond their small local art community to artists in other cities and countries. Bronson gives the example of their "Artist Directory", a 700-strong list of artists addresses published with the purpose of encouraging open mail contact between readers and artists. TS's questions tease out the way FILE seems to have swung between this total openness and a more insular fictional world.
I was really interested to read about their group processes, the members had a very close working relationship, lived together in the same house and used to have conversations every morning over coffee. Bronson explains "We had a rule of thumb that we only actually carried out a project by consensus. So if anybody wasn't sure about something, then we would put it on the back shelf. We didn't reject it ... at a later date ... we might pick up one of those ideas again and knit it into some other project we were doing". They found this "shelving" method worked well as a way of resolving conflicting opinions.
The roles within the collaboration were flexible, shifting from project to project according to what the members were interested in at the time: "We never advertised who did what. And people always thought they knew. People tended to think that Jorge did all the photography and Felix did all the painting and I did all the writing, but it wasn't true at all. It was truly collaborative". Similarly, their approach to their group identity was one of anonymity, initially using pseudonyms to avoid the "artist as genius" trap, although Bronson now believes that "in the end pseudonyms don't make the slightest bit of difference to all of that".
Stay tuned for more, L.
Monday, September 03, 2007
1 week decisions: How-to guide
What is 1 week decisions for?
1 week decisions is a process that allows for members to not participate in administrative decisions, this means admin decisions can be made by those who do participate without needing to get others approval.
Administrative (or 'operational') decisions are ones which don't affect the structure or direction of tac. 1wds can be about things which haven't been discussion prior to posting them.
How do we use it?
Blog: Always write up the thing that needs to be decided about and post it on the blog. Include the words "1 week decision" in title and attach the same as a subject label.
Email: U decide! this is up to the person who makes the post. Some decisions might not warrant an email, or the post-er might not be into it, so it will always be useful to visit 1 week decision subject label on the side of the blog - as we have all been doing.
This process was established through a testing, review and discussion process. Below are links to the background and lead up discussions:
initial intro of 1wd
Tac flow-charted reviews of 1wd
1 week decisions is a process that allows for members to not participate in administrative decisions, this means admin decisions can be made by those who do participate without needing to get others approval.
Administrative (or 'operational') decisions are ones which don't affect the structure or direction of tac. 1wds can be about things which haven't been discussion prior to posting them.
How do we use it?
Blog: Always write up the thing that needs to be decided about and post it on the blog. Include the words "1 week decision" in title and attach the same as a subject label.
Email: U decide! this is up to the person who makes the post. Some decisions might not warrant an email, or the post-er might not be into it, so it will always be useful to visit 1 week decision subject label on the side of the blog - as we have all been doing.
This process was established through a testing, review and discussion process. Below are links to the background and lead up discussions:
initial intro of 1wd
Tac flow-charted reviews of 1wd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)