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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
first of all i was wondering who wrote this post? tis hard to respond when you're not sure who you're addressing.
i haven't read the article, but i will be sure to do so.
i had never thought of our doing things as being always talking, agreeing and then doing and as such not 'collaborative doing' but you're right, that is true.
i don't really understand the swarm example given in the text, but i would like to try out ways of 'doing' things together that was not based on the talk first format.
how would that work?
i support just getting on with doing a project too, but i think going through the motions of sepatating into mainly regonal groups then getting new members is important, and nesseasrry to our over all expediency.
paula
I'm guessing it's Sians post.
Yep, coming together to make things is a good idea.
That's all good. I liked the article too. Let's do more doing. yep. balance out the discussion.
Yep also to getting the regional group expediency going.
Less talking. more visual doing. ok
I say: take us forward Sian, make it happen, birth the new era, manifest non talking collaborative visuality.
Hi TAC,
My Marsden collaborator and I are currently working on a paper for a meeting in November on this very topic - we're trying to understand just how contemporary collaborations raise fundamentally new ways of thinking about how collaboration occurs, and how these new artistic practices affect how we think about authorship (and eventually, how the art itself gets understood). So, I find these comments fascinating - but it does raise a really important point about the role of talking, blogging and other forms of expression in contemporary collaborations - because you're developing new groups and new group practices, communication is of central importance. I can talk more about this (though a bit incoherently since I'm still working through the ideas), and would love to hear your feedback.
Best,
Sondra
Hi guys
I agree that through this blog we are becoming too self-referential.
It is important to get consensus on recruiting new members definitely, but to me it would make more sense if we were to also discuss what it is that we want to achieve? I'm sorry if this is something that has already been discussed - i may have overlooked it! From what I understand we have applied for a creative communities grant to make a kit- is this kit to be given to new members? I worry that if this is the case we'll get caught up going around in circles about our mission and identity as a group- rather than on actually doing stuff.
I think it's more important to have a goal that we are working towards, to look more outward than inward. The is a melbourne based collective called DAMP, which I mentioned a wee while back, here is a link to their blog
http://damp95.blogspot.com/
they've been going for 12 years and have had a lot of members over this time, last count was at 69.
I'm not suggesting we model ourselves on them... actually to be honest I'm not 100% sure what my point is, or what we should work towards
i know the process is more important than the product here, but I just think we should just get on with it.
p.s. how should we go about adding to wikipedia?
It seems like we are all sharing this frustration.
At our last meeting we talked about getting on-track with a project for Clubs Melbourne (Tom should be posting something about this soon -Tom?).
This could be our "outward looking" project to direct our energies towards.
Your point about the danger of getting stuck in the identity mirror is a good one but perhaps we need to be there long enough to recognise a collective face?
I agree with Sondra, its necessary for us to be thorough in creating a structure and communicating/ understanding our intentions as a group (not just as individuals). It might be the more mundane part of our collaborative practice but it is important.
I think these communications would be less frustrating if we did have an exciting project to bouy our energies.
Saying that, it makes me concerned that communication over simple things is so drawn out - what happens with the bigger decisions?
It seems pretty clear to me that our best (fastest, most rewarding) way of generating ideas, action and understanding is in face to face communication in group meetings. Its great that welli has been given the go-forward to work with independence on this front.
That brings me back to the Re-membering tac post. (Sorry to repeat myself here:) If we are going to still work effectively as a wider collaborative group then the diaspora members are going to have to figure out how they can best contribute to such activity.
I am all up for action but how can action happen together without "talking" being the action if we are physically removed from each other? What methods of action can happen across distance?
Post a Comment