Shedding light on collaborative common ground, a book review

Above image: PAD/D: DEMONSTRATE!, installation of art made for public protest, Chicago (circa 1983).

This is the second installment of my quest to harvest relevant tid-bits from between the pages of Temporary Services’ new artists’ book Group Work. The trials and accomplishments of past collaborative and collective activities can offer a lot in the way of cautionary tales and models of success. This group has got them both.

New York collective Political Art Documentation/Distribution was established to archive an amassing collection of ephemera from art/political actions and events but snowballed into something much larger. Temporary Services’ Brett Bloom conducted three interviews with four members of Political Art Documentation/Distribution (PAD/D); Gregory Scholette and Janet Koenig were interviewed together and Jerry Kearns and Barbara Moore were each interviewed separately.

PAD/D was sparked into being by writer and activist Lucy Lippard, in New York’s East Village in 1980. Lippard had been collecting up a bunch of posters and other documentation from the preceding two decades of political art activism, mostly through donations from the artists themselves. At the time the art institutions were largely ignoring socially engaged art so, in the spirit of self-organization, Lippard called a meeting to enlist help with the creation of an archival resource. Jerry Kearns recalled turning up to the first meeting after “seeing a leaflet stapled to a pole”, he describes Lippard’s continuing involvement in the group as contributing a “Leadership of doing”.

So told, this was a period of many collective activities, both locally in the East Village and in the US scene in general. Because of this Lippard was interested only in creating a resource - not in forming another group. However, after the first couple of meetings the artists became frustrated with such administrative documentary tasks and started to get excited about the potential of the group as a site of artistic/activist production. It seems like this kind of self definition and direction from amongst the members so early on really continued through the group’s lifespan. These energies meant the group were both prolific and divergent in their output.

While the documentation team became an autonomous entity within the wider group, largely left to their own devices, PAD/D grew to become an umbrella organisation for a diverse range of activities. These spanned from the initial archival project to a reading group that “kind of mutated” into an anti-gentrification project, the publication of a leftist cultural events calendar and a newsletter to distribute the contents of the archive — to name the few ongoing projects mentioned in the interviews.

I thought it was interesting to note, and of some relevancy to the TAC situation, that as the group became larger the structure of PAD/D became more hierarchical. In their first year of operation consensus was used, after which they moved to majority voting. Jerry Kearns explained “We tried to make power transparent within the group. But we also tried to avoid the endless group therapy sessions that consensus decision making often leads to”. I think one of their most interesting achievements was developing a system to deal with their growth. To keep communication and opportunities open a system was instigated whereby people proposed new projects to the group to gauge interest and gain support. In order to keep a track of all the activities there was a regular event called “Second Sundays” where members spoke about their on-going projects. PAD/D was a real large-scale group, something hard to imagine happening in a Wellington context.

It seemed like there was quite a struggle over keeping the organisation centrally located. A steering committee was formed to oversee the activities of the project-focused sub-committees. At times, although the steering committee conceptualised themselves as advisory, this caused uneven power relationships to arise. Gregory Scholette recalls that “As time went on PAD/D became very structured … to the point where there were elaborate flow charts about how you submitted a proposal to the group”. Long-time PAD/D member Janet Koenig argues “It was no longer Democratic, at that point, at least to my mind. ‘Democratic centralism’ is nearly an oxymoron”.

Despite differences of opinion PAD/D managed to hold it together through some challenging events. Koenig and Scholette were part of a reading group that was accused of trying to create a faction. Scholette explains the initial motivation for the splintering: “Some of us felt that we didn’t have enough theory. We didn’t feel like PAD/D had really thought through these issues of art and society very deeply”. During a big event that PAD/D had organised, designed to bring together other counter-institutional groups into a mega coalition, Scholette circulated an essay that he had written which mounted a critique on PAD/D. Crazy times. Luckily, the group had “a very strict structure for dealing with problems” and after an initial period of tension things settled down and people realised that the reading group was generating valuable resources for PAD/D.

One of the great things about this article was the way the different perceptions and experiences of the group are communicated through the discrepancies in opinions between the separate interviews. This group and its structures were formed from a collective desire to honour and continue the legacy of activist/artistic activities from preceding decades of political and social change. They did this through making a place for the materials that were left behind and, more importantly, through keeping the practice of collective activity alive and functioning.

Throughout the interview with members of “Political Art Documentation/Distribution”, in Temporary Services’ Group Work, there is mention of the other many and varied organisations that influenced their group – both in terms of its structure and its ideology. I haven’t really even gone into the specifics of this. There are a heap of touchstones for TAC in the stuff above, it has been great to read about some of the common threads and I hope it’s been informative for you, dear reader.

The first book review installment, which is about General Idea, can be found here: Group Work artists book review
An article on PAD/D written by member Gregory Scholette can be downloaded in pdf form here: A Collectography of PAD/D

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.

TAC meeting minutes adn discussion points

TAC meeting Monday 27th August

I have organised the points into the three agenda areas so it is easier to read. This means that it is not sequential as the meetings actually ran but will be clearer to follow. Points which require feedback have been marked in italics.

All of the below is my subjective note taking and is open to correction, suggestion, comment, feedback etc.

NEW MEMBERS

All are agreed that we need new members.

Suggestion that new members should be recruited in each area of the diaspora.

Blog would then become group to group post rather than internal communication.

Name suggestions; TAC Wellington, TAC Christchurch etc. The when we do something together we would be TAC United?

So, with suggested new members involved, each TAC project would become under their own regional control. Each group needs to be activated and able to act. Esp as noted by recent problems with blog re communication, loss of energy for group etc.

A group focus could be feeding into a new bio / manifesto which could be used to create a new members pack. Enough history to provide an orientation.

Importance of the power structure remaining level discussed. No experts. Decision making should be consensual.

Manifesto should not be too solid / prescriptive etc. Open; like how we have recorded our processes as conversations. New members could get the assessment of CAMRU as a conversational piece in new members pack.

Differentiation between tac groups can develop. Each group could contribute a chapter to the kit. Organic. There would be a natural progression according to each group’s interests.

Value of the initial openness of the call to TAC. Diverse range of people.

Could use photos in orientation/new members pack.

NEW MEMBERS SUMMARY

New members in each centre
Each centre deciding on how to recruit it’s own members
Create an orientation kit for new members – (photos, manifesto, CAMRU assessment?)


KIT

Use the aesthetic of CAMRU like the scattered notes. Give artists / organisations a page where they could write / draw whatever about their experiences in collaboration.

Flow chart model

Open structure for other collaborative structures to engage with.

Non-directive and non-definitive. Can keep being added to. Could be like a ring binder with new chapters / blank pages.


FUTURE PROJECTS

Developing and spreading TAC

Becoming The Association of Collaborations, ie finding ways to be inclusive of other groups without them having to be part of the every day running. Pages in kit are one way.

Funding application to Creative Communities Wellington. Idea of creating posters about TAC to create interest in group / ideas / new members. Then packs could be sent out after this. This would be relevant for Wellington audience. Other groups apply in own districts? Or may prefer alternative methods of recruitment?

Poster ideas; disseminating info, drawings, text, a series of three, drawing of writing on wall at Enjoy? Good to have a visual project to keep interest up aesthetically. Good to have another tangible project this year.

CAMRU ASSESS – questions for the group

Input are Tom’s questions and Andie’s musings previously on blog.
Discussed these and own input and came up with following Q’s;

What were our individual expectations of the CAMRU project?

What did it do?

What TAC processes worked well?

What TAC processes didn’t work so well?

How effective was CAMRU in communicating with an audience?

What did the responses tell us that was valuable towards understanding the Prospect show?

Kit chat

Hi hi

Having looked at that photo and thought it was great.....and also being a good TACCER and making a new post rather than taccing on to the old one with a new subject.....AND using labels.

PHEW.

Anyway. My great idea was about thinking about the kit. And thinking that the element I liked the most about what we did was that it was open and as unjudgemental as we could be. People got to say what they liked and let it be seen. So I wondered if the kit could look something like that? With illustrations and photos like the chairs one and lots of images of peoples comments and stuff rather than long and verbose. Like Liz's visual flowchart was so great and enticing because it looked interesting and good.

My thought is that by describing the project in yummy pictures we create a space for people to think about how they think about artwork and what they want from it and what collaboration is and whether we really were collaborating with the audience or not etc.

I am also thinking about the booklet that MW (is that right?!) made in their Enjoy residency where they asked a bunch of people to describe negative space. Non prescriptive and open and had the feeling that lots more idea could have been added to it too of your own.

Maybe the TAC kit could have blank pages at the end for people to work things out / add to / colour in ?!?!? I guess I just like that idea of it being like a continual work in progress.

PS and no spelling mistakes x

CAMRU home?

Hi all,

So just another practical thing to think about. CAMRU is currently housed in our church / studio space. We have positioned her in a corner so she is taking up the minimum of space.......but it still is rather a lot of space. I am conscious that the corner is in Tyree's workspace and she is making lots more work in there at the moment.

I guess we need to consider a more long term solution ie storage or dismantlement or gift or sale or?! I am loathe to dismantle it after all the work, but I also can't store it indefinately. Perhaps we could consider some other uses for it?

One thing I had wondered was if it could be used as something to do with the Fringe Festival? Very vague ideas at the moment, but I just know that is a really public and outdoor event where it reaches lots of non art audiences................

Could it be somehow used to gather information or be a public beacon for finding out about people's collaborative thoughts / experiences? Could it be the locus for launching a booklet?!

X Sian

New members wrapping up CAMRU

I been thinking and I reckon we should think about inviting some new members to the group. Online is good but it would also be great to have some more peeps in welly. And I wonder whether we should just be quite open in who it is or select? And when we should start looking if we decide we do want to, cos what is our next project....what more do we want to do with the CAMRU info and would new people be interested in that or should we do collating etc ourselves and then invite new people to a new project?

My suggestions are that at the end of the show we do what we have done for the room sheets; ie document the responses and sort them into groups and condense them into an appropriate format. And then they could be made into a document or part of the kit or an online thing.

Then we look for new people who are interested in researching other collaborative structures, to move forward with the kit.

RE the kit; is this still something we want to do? Who do we think the audience is? How much information do we already have which we can use for it ? ( I think we have quite a lot and that we could use making the kit as a kind of debrief session which we had discussed before ie we could all write down what we think has worked well adn not so well in our group and this could start to form part of the kit.)

Personally I have to admit I am all about the art. I am not that interested in going to talk to other groups about thier structures. i am interested in collaboration in an art context and how it works in terms of authorship, ownership, how the magic still gets to happen which so often happens in solitary confinement of the studio........why collaboration is currently important / trendy / contemporary..............all that kind of stuff. Perhaps we would be able to look at areas which interest each of us?

But I do think we have a lot of info already which we haven't put down in terms of how the process has worked for us which we could start by using.

Hmm. What do others think?!

X S

Question Ideas & Meeting Minutes - 29/3/07

The upshot of the meeting was back to Collaborative Kit research, starting by formulating some questions to ask those interested and involved in collaborative processes. This is intended to give us a better idea of potential content and an understanding of who might use a resource on collaborative processes. See comments for partially edited meeting minutes where we threw these ideas around and as a repositary for your contributions & question ideas.
And after a frustrating attempt to chat between 5 people in googleland it's back to the drawing board on how to talk online!
- LIz

Collaborative Process' Debrief

Howdy folks, a quick rundown of the last meeting with plans for the next...

We have scheduled our next meeting for this coming Thursday (22nd) 6-8 pm at Roar. The focus will be on reviewing our collaborative processes so far and we decided to come to the meeting super-prepared:
We are going to bring written documentation of our individual experiences of the collaborative processes we have used so far, with some theories and questions to pose to the group.
Mel and Andie - it would be great if you could also contribute your responses, theories and questions - perhaps by email if its easier than blogging, before the start of the meeting on thursday.
We also decided to have a time constraint (2 hours), appoint a whip and work to clearly defined goals during the meeting.
We didn't decide what those goals would be (!) so it would be great if we could do that ahead of time on the blog - everyone post your comments below!
The idea is that this debrief will start the collaborative process documentation which will eventually become part of the content of the kit. The need for developing and accumulating research on other collaborative enterprises was also brought up, so any relevant resources you can get you hands on and work through will be invaluable as we start to get stuck into the development of our Collaboration Kit.
Awesome!