This is a website developed by a staff member of the Victoria College of Arts for their school-wide paper called Collaborative Contract. It mostly contains brief project descriptions and conversations about arranging meetings between students but it is open for anyone to utilise.
Not the prettiest site on the net but hilarious reading because of how familiar all the conversations about collaborating are. I have linked below to the groups section but you can browse around and see more.
http://cfi.vca.unimelb.edu.au/research/og
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
TAC goes tweedie with Dr Bacharach
Meeting up with Sondra Bacherach was really fantastic! Made me and Liz miss our discussions where we were all together as a group.
She wanted to know:
How we got started, we talked about the everynowandthen project beginnings.
How we made decisions, the consensus process, and how we worked out our times of non-agreement…
Sondra has looked at groups here and overseas. She specifically mentioned gilbert and george and the marukis. She said that as a philosopher, their processes were of lesser interest to her as she thinks through collaborative artistic output. This is because the artwork, in those cases, are the works of multiple individuals, yet each plays their own part – with the Marukis for example, each spends time on a painting before handing it over to the other.
Was interested in the nature of collaboration and the idea of a “true collaboration” as distinct from a role taking scenario where tasks are divided up and completed individually as part of a larger project (eg film crews).
We spoke about how we are a collaborative group formed to work collaboratively to explore, experiment with and test collaborative processes and structures. Sondra thought that was pretty neat and quite philosophical.
Also works collaboratively with her Marsden Grant fellow developing their ideas and writing together – understands the difficulties of long distance communication. She encouraged us to think less as a place based group and try new methods of communication such as skype conferencing.
Talked about the role of communication and our understanding of it as a part of the art that we make (process model).
Sondra said she’d like to meet with us again, later in the year, and is excited about the potential of either working with us or pickin our brains in the future.
Paula and Liz
She wanted to know:
How we got started, we talked about the everynowandthen project beginnings.
How we made decisions, the consensus process, and how we worked out our times of non-agreement…
Sondra has looked at groups here and overseas. She specifically mentioned gilbert and george and the marukis. She said that as a philosopher, their processes were of lesser interest to her as she thinks through collaborative artistic output. This is because the artwork, in those cases, are the works of multiple individuals, yet each plays their own part – with the Marukis for example, each spends time on a painting before handing it over to the other.
Was interested in the nature of collaboration and the idea of a “true collaboration” as distinct from a role taking scenario where tasks are divided up and completed individually as part of a larger project (eg film crews).
We spoke about how we are a collaborative group formed to work collaboratively to explore, experiment with and test collaborative processes and structures. Sondra thought that was pretty neat and quite philosophical.
Also works collaboratively with her Marsden Grant fellow developing their ideas and writing together – understands the difficulties of long distance communication. She encouraged us to think less as a place based group and try new methods of communication such as skype conferencing.
Talked about the role of communication and our understanding of it as a part of the art that we make (process model).
Sondra said she’d like to meet with us again, later in the year, and is excited about the potential of either working with us or pickin our brains in the future.
Paula and Liz
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Flow chart frenzy! 1week decision feedback
Here is our formatted feedback - double click to view.
Taccers please do a close reading because there are some (mostly minor) discrepancies in understanding between members and it would be good to arrive at an overall consensus.
Can we please also feedback further to the suggestions to resolve how best to use "1-Week Decisions".
p.s. Hope you like your designated colours!
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
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
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
-------------------------
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, July 16, 2007
Banking Scenario
Liz and Paula
new post
subject: Banking
(this post is a parody based on well-established patterns)
Hi every one how’s it going?
We’ve got a couple of cheque payments made out to TAC for the pencils; one from the Govett Brewster for $149.62, and one from City Gallery for $134.00. We also need to send in another invoice to City Gallery for the last 27 pencils that were sold and pay Alex and the rest of us back for outstanding trolley resource purchases.
So we need an account to deposit these cheques into. What shall we do? Shall we set up a joint account with all 6 of us as signatories. who want to do that? or should one of us set up an account under TAC name and deal with all transactions in a transparent manner?
2 DAYS LATER…
Andie writes
I support that, sounds like a great idea!
3 DAYS AFTER THAT…
Sian writes
its awesome that were going to have money in hte bank! Rolling init!!
Htet joint account sounds good if u want somoene to come to that bank I can, as one of hte remaining wellington cru
2 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
No further replies
4 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
Liz writes
Ok, well we seem to be a little slow responding on this one, do i need to do another text around? Maybe you need personal email correspondence?
We do need consensus to move forward!!!
8 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
Paula writes
I want to get this money in the bank so that we can pay our bills etc.
I am happy to set up an account and have all the statements mailed to tac offices.
I am with kiwibank so the accounts are free and statments are online (emailable)
So it doesn’t matter if the money just sits there, as there is no cost. Transparent.
So anyway.....
The lack of communication with Tac is really frustrating.
This kind follows on from my last post, entitled ‘where is the association at?’
To which there was only one reply. (thanks andie!)
Who is in this collaboration anyway?
new post
subject: Banking
(this post is a parody based on well-established patterns)
Hi every one how’s it going?
We’ve got a couple of cheque payments made out to TAC for the pencils; one from the Govett Brewster for $149.62, and one from City Gallery for $134.00. We also need to send in another invoice to City Gallery for the last 27 pencils that were sold and pay Alex and the rest of us back for outstanding trolley resource purchases.
So we need an account to deposit these cheques into. What shall we do? Shall we set up a joint account with all 6 of us as signatories. who want to do that? or should one of us set up an account under TAC name and deal with all transactions in a transparent manner?
2 DAYS LATER…
Andie writes
I support that, sounds like a great idea!
3 DAYS AFTER THAT…
Sian writes
its awesome that were going to have money in hte bank! Rolling init!!
Htet joint account sounds good if u want somoene to come to that bank I can, as one of hte remaining wellington cru
2 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
No further replies
4 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
Liz writes
Ok, well we seem to be a little slow responding on this one, do i need to do another text around? Maybe you need personal email correspondence?
We do need consensus to move forward!!!
8 WEEKS AFTER ORIGINAL POST...
Paula writes
I want to get this money in the bank so that we can pay our bills etc.
I am happy to set up an account and have all the statements mailed to tac offices.
I am with kiwibank so the accounts are free and statments are online (emailable)
So it doesn’t matter if the money just sits there, as there is no cost. Transparent.
So anyway.....
The lack of communication with Tac is really frustrating.
This kind follows on from my last post, entitled ‘where is the association at?’
To which there was only one reply. (thanks andie!)
Who is in this collaboration anyway?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Where is the Association At?
I really appreciate Andie's efforts over the last few months to make projects happen.
While I have followed her comments and contributions closely I only posted my first feedback comment today.
This made me realise that it is really hard to gauge the participation of various TAC members, especially as we have become a diaspora.
While this spreading can be positive in terms of new opportunities, contexts and associations for potential TAC projects, I think we need to collectivly ascertain a common communication or gathering method. I think we should also review our personnel situation, as suggested by Sian and Liz over the last few months. Is a head count needed?
It is certainly hard to grow legs on Andie's project or any other new initiative at the moment.
This stalling need not coninue if willing TAcers communicate and new members are allowed to be brought in.
hugs from Kassel,
Paula
Monday, May 14, 2007
Tim's article for MOB now finished
Hello dears,
Tim's article on collaboration featuring TAC, Rachael Rakena & Brett Graham, and Nova Paul is finsished and you will find it in the TAC gmail account.
Check it out, it is interesting to see what he quoted from us in the final version!
x p
Tim's article on collaboration featuring TAC, Rachael Rakena & Brett Graham, and Nova Paul is finsished and you will find it in the TAC gmail account.
Check it out, it is interesting to see what he quoted from us in the final version!
x p
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tim Wong interviews TAC here!
Consensus reached - onwards through interview process. TAC : Remember to use the association's login for commenting, and that all contributions are up for grabs for quoting. Tim: Look forward to your questions, and resulting writing!
Below is an anonymous comment gleaned from CAMRU that I thought might add something to the conversation
click on image to see larger view.
x p
Below is an anonymous comment gleaned from CAMRU that I thought might add something to the conversation
click on image to see larger view.
x p
Monday, April 02, 2007
Interview Request
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???
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???
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Meeting notes 22.2.07
So I thought I would put up some stuff from the last meeting. I think I mainly notated (is this a word?!) the actions which we planend to take rather than every detail.
So, first we discussed what we would try and cover in the artists talk on Sunday. Sian and Tom to do the talk;
* How the Association came about; 'Every Now and Then', call for involvement etc.
* What the connections are between members (I wasn't sure if this meant previous experiences with collaboration or between us as people?)
* Aims of the group; To investigate, test and experiment through collaborative processes to find out how collaboration works (and doesn't work....) To use these cumulative experiences to build a resource for other group to use. To develop further projects which further investigate collaboration through other avenues as well as art practice (political organisations, groups, etc)
Values
Commitment to process over product / object based outcomes.
Use of various models of decision making, but underlying an agreement to work on a consensus model.
Sustainability of the group in terms of management of time energy and resouces.
Flexibility to change evolve and grow as we find things which work more or less well.
CAMRU
Decision making processes evolved for this project due to time constraints. We developed a practical and pragmatic approach which worked on the most practical approach. We did not make decisions purely on an aesthetic basis.
Part of the CAMRU project is to test out models of participation within the gallery context. This means that the structure of the work is fluid to change and development. CAMRU is responsive to its audience. What happens during the show feeds back into the system. What you think matters to the association x
CAMRU has developed in the context of a survey show and aims for a conversation which has the potential to become a form of collaboration between the Association, gallery hosts, the public audience, the gallery and the other artists work.
Some other points which were discussed
*How to document peoples' responses.
After some discussion it was decided that the best idea would be to have a large scrap book into which responses could be stuck with bluetack. This would document how people had decided to take the responses off the wall (their particular rule) and also mean that it was easy for others to take those responses out and possibly put them back on the wall or elsewhere.
Ideally people would write down what the response was in the scrap book if they took one out, so that the 'map' retains that integrity.
We thought that this idea could be a good way to encourage further host engagement with a clear role.
* How to make the outposts more outstanding
Ideally we would like to use the walls behind them as another area where peoples' responses could be put up. Sian will email CG to check this. Otherwise we thought about adding wires to the outside of the outposts so that responses can be attached to them, or stringing a washing line between the outpost and the wall. For either of these last ideas the outposts would need to be weighted at the base so that they are balanced.
There was agreement that we should purchase some more white plastic chairs which can be situated beside the outposts for people to use. Also we discussed raising up teh posts to make them higher, perhaps with rubber feet on the bottom, or pieces of wood cut to the same size as the base.
* Catalogue
Possibility of adding some material into the catalogue. There are approx 500 to be printed. Paula suggested that we put approx 3 original responses into the catalogues. This would mean that they were one offs and that we are spreading and not owning the responses.
Personally I like the distribution aspect of this, and also it is material generated from the public not from us which is nice. I will check when they need this material, as we will need to see how many responses we have by then.
There was also a suggestion of putting some of our own material in there. I will check whether we are to be given any budget for reproducing material ie photocopying.
* Manning the CAMRU
Has been noted that we are all a bit burnt out but also that we all need to make some level of personal commitment. Problems arising are that some peopel are thinking this project is solely Lizs' as she has been a regular visitor. We discussed the best use of time, and decided that perhaps it is more useful for us each to make some commitment each week, even if it is just an hour, rather than trying to commit to chunks of time.
In terms of visiting on a regular basis, one of aims is to keep engaging with teh resposnes. We are still working out how we will use them as a whole resource, and part of the process of doing this is to document them (digital photos, scrap book, map making) and to look for themes and conenction within them. Thus they have the potenital to grow into a true 'Alternative to the curatorial voice'.
* Hosts
Decided that the best way to engage them is just for us to be around more and talk to them on a regular basis. Liz has found this effective.
* Inviting others to join the group
Not yet while the project is in a practical function period ie CAMRU.
Headhunting?
Asking people to join for a specific reason / time period?
Should we have a boy?
Could be hard to 'initiate'?!
*Blog
Discussion due to address being published in catalogue. Decided that although it can be quite 'intimate', that is appropriate for a blog and that it is good to be transparent. Value on process not product and the blog shows lots of the process. Keeps us on an equal level with others ie it's not us being experts, we are obviously working things out as we go.
OK I think that's it, sorry it's huge!!!
See you all soon X Sian
So, first we discussed what we would try and cover in the artists talk on Sunday. Sian and Tom to do the talk;
* How the Association came about; 'Every Now and Then', call for involvement etc.
* What the connections are between members (I wasn't sure if this meant previous experiences with collaboration or between us as people?)
* Aims of the group; To investigate, test and experiment through collaborative processes to find out how collaboration works (and doesn't work....) To use these cumulative experiences to build a resource for other group to use. To develop further projects which further investigate collaboration through other avenues as well as art practice (political organisations, groups, etc)
Values
Commitment to process over product / object based outcomes.
Use of various models of decision making, but underlying an agreement to work on a consensus model.
Sustainability of the group in terms of management of time energy and resouces.
Flexibility to change evolve and grow as we find things which work more or less well.
CAMRU
Decision making processes evolved for this project due to time constraints. We developed a practical and pragmatic approach which worked on the most practical approach. We did not make decisions purely on an aesthetic basis.
Part of the CAMRU project is to test out models of participation within the gallery context. This means that the structure of the work is fluid to change and development. CAMRU is responsive to its audience. What happens during the show feeds back into the system. What you think matters to the association x
CAMRU has developed in the context of a survey show and aims for a conversation which has the potential to become a form of collaboration between the Association, gallery hosts, the public audience, the gallery and the other artists work.
Some other points which were discussed
*How to document peoples' responses.
After some discussion it was decided that the best idea would be to have a large scrap book into which responses could be stuck with bluetack. This would document how people had decided to take the responses off the wall (their particular rule) and also mean that it was easy for others to take those responses out and possibly put them back on the wall or elsewhere.
Ideally people would write down what the response was in the scrap book if they took one out, so that the 'map' retains that integrity.
We thought that this idea could be a good way to encourage further host engagement with a clear role.
* How to make the outposts more outstanding
Ideally we would like to use the walls behind them as another area where peoples' responses could be put up. Sian will email CG to check this. Otherwise we thought about adding wires to the outside of the outposts so that responses can be attached to them, or stringing a washing line between the outpost and the wall. For either of these last ideas the outposts would need to be weighted at the base so that they are balanced.
There was agreement that we should purchase some more white plastic chairs which can be situated beside the outposts for people to use. Also we discussed raising up teh posts to make them higher, perhaps with rubber feet on the bottom, or pieces of wood cut to the same size as the base.
* Catalogue
Possibility of adding some material into the catalogue. There are approx 500 to be printed. Paula suggested that we put approx 3 original responses into the catalogues. This would mean that they were one offs and that we are spreading and not owning the responses.
Personally I like the distribution aspect of this, and also it is material generated from the public not from us which is nice. I will check when they need this material, as we will need to see how many responses we have by then.
There was also a suggestion of putting some of our own material in there. I will check whether we are to be given any budget for reproducing material ie photocopying.
* Manning the CAMRU
Has been noted that we are all a bit burnt out but also that we all need to make some level of personal commitment. Problems arising are that some peopel are thinking this project is solely Lizs' as she has been a regular visitor. We discussed the best use of time, and decided that perhaps it is more useful for us each to make some commitment each week, even if it is just an hour, rather than trying to commit to chunks of time.
In terms of visiting on a regular basis, one of aims is to keep engaging with teh resposnes. We are still working out how we will use them as a whole resource, and part of the process of doing this is to document them (digital photos, scrap book, map making) and to look for themes and conenction within them. Thus they have the potenital to grow into a true 'Alternative to the curatorial voice'.
* Hosts
Decided that the best way to engage them is just for us to be around more and talk to them on a regular basis. Liz has found this effective.
* Inviting others to join the group
Not yet while the project is in a practical function period ie CAMRU.
Headhunting?
Asking people to join for a specific reason / time period?
Should we have a boy?
Could be hard to 'initiate'?!
*Blog
Discussion due to address being published in catalogue. Decided that although it can be quite 'intimate', that is appropriate for a blog and that it is good to be transparent. Value on process not product and the blog shows lots of the process. Keeps us on an equal level with others ie it's not us being experts, we are obviously working things out as we go.
OK I think that's it, sorry it's huge!!!
See you all soon X Sian
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Burn out and meeting agenda
OK so just had a read and I agree with Paula. I think we are getting ahead of ourselves and all getting a bit wiped out. I had an exhaustion meltdown last weekend which it's a good idea not to repeat! I feel like it's really important to focus on the current task at hand, which is the Prospects show.
My feeling is that we should stop pressuring ourselves with stuff which isn't important in the immediate future. At the moment the priority I feel is continuing to make sure that CAMRU is operating well and effectively in the gallery, and that we are able to make adjustments to it as we need to or want to. Thus my feeling for an agenda for the meeting is as follows;
Share feedback we have had from others on the CAMRU so far and discuss what action needs to be taken on these points. Some of these so far from what I know would be the following;
* How to document peoples' responses.
* What to do with the responses as the wall fills up.
* How to make the outposts more outstanding. Use walls behind them? Make them bigger? Supply chairs beside them?
How we are going to better manage manning the CAMRU. So far it seems that the hosts are having to take a laissez faire role becuase they are too busy with other things in the gallery. We had thought that we would be able to man it over the weekends but due to a level of burnout in the group this has not so far been sucessful.
* Roster
* Volunteers. I have interest from people at ROAR! and I think it would be great to get some others on board so that we can share the load. It is better to haev someone there than noone there, even if the person isn't one of us!!
* How to better engage the hosts. (can City gallery supply more than one where the CAMRU is?)
Artists Talk
This is this Sunday and I don't have a good idea yet what the ASsociation wants to say as a whole. I think this should be an important part of this meeting so we can get it thrashed out so we are confident that we are representing all of us on Sunday adn we have some kind of united front?!
Inviting others to join the group
As our numbers have decreased somewhat, I think this is something we shoudl talk about. It would make it a whole heap easier to man the CAMRU and get things done, as well as possibly injecting some new life and energy into making things happen. I realise that there will be a crossover thing where people will need to catch up etc etc but I think it's something we should reexamine. Perhaps there could be some thing where we are looking for peopel to volunteer and help out with this project and then be part of the next one? ! I don't know, may be a bad idea but I think we should start by at least getting some volunteers to help us man the CAMRU. Unless we think that it operates well enough on it's own. In which case perhaps we need a roster so that one of us can just go in each day and check out what's happening and reorganise things etc?
My feeling is that we should stop pressuring ourselves with stuff which isn't important in the immediate future. At the moment the priority I feel is continuing to make sure that CAMRU is operating well and effectively in the gallery, and that we are able to make adjustments to it as we need to or want to. Thus my feeling for an agenda for the meeting is as follows;
Share feedback we have had from others on the CAMRU so far and discuss what action needs to be taken on these points. Some of these so far from what I know would be the following;
* How to document peoples' responses.
* What to do with the responses as the wall fills up.
* How to make the outposts more outstanding. Use walls behind them? Make them bigger? Supply chairs beside them?
How we are going to better manage manning the CAMRU. So far it seems that the hosts are having to take a laissez faire role becuase they are too busy with other things in the gallery. We had thought that we would be able to man it over the weekends but due to a level of burnout in the group this has not so far been sucessful.
* Roster
* Volunteers. I have interest from people at ROAR! and I think it would be great to get some others on board so that we can share the load. It is better to haev someone there than noone there, even if the person isn't one of us!!
* How to better engage the hosts. (can City gallery supply more than one where the CAMRU is?)
Artists Talk
This is this Sunday and I don't have a good idea yet what the ASsociation wants to say as a whole. I think this should be an important part of this meeting so we can get it thrashed out so we are confident that we are representing all of us on Sunday adn we have some kind of united front?!
Inviting others to join the group
As our numbers have decreased somewhat, I think this is something we shoudl talk about. It would make it a whole heap easier to man the CAMRU and get things done, as well as possibly injecting some new life and energy into making things happen. I realise that there will be a crossover thing where people will need to catch up etc etc but I think it's something we should reexamine. Perhaps there could be some thing where we are looking for peopel to volunteer and help out with this project and then be part of the next one? ! I don't know, may be a bad idea but I think we should start by at least getting some volunteers to help us man the CAMRU. Unless we think that it operates well enough on it's own. In which case perhaps we need a roster so that one of us can just go in each day and check out what's happening and reorganise things etc?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Documenting processes and writers
Coupla things, one is just to comment that I reckon LIz's idea about documenting some of the processes we have used would be a great idea. Any ideas on how this might be do able? Obviously there is consensus, and then there is our ad hoc kind of everyone makes lots of comments on a thing and then we pull out words or phrases which we think expresses what we are trying to say. Collective writing?
Also, during Prospects there will be a writers thing where writers have been invited to read for 5mins each either an existing work or a work in response to the show. A friend of mine, Therese Lloyd told me about it, adn I suggested that she might like to come and check out the trolly as an artwork which will hopefully have some writing happening too. I thought it might be worth seeing if we can contact the writers involved to let them know what we are about and see if there are any ways we want to work together / collaborate / have them respond to us / just let them know we exist.........could be interesting.
Also, during Prospects there will be a writers thing where writers have been invited to read for 5mins each either an existing work or a work in response to the show. A friend of mine, Therese Lloyd told me about it, adn I suggested that she might like to come and check out the trolly as an artwork which will hopefully have some writing happening too. I thought it might be worth seeing if we can contact the writers involved to let them know what we are about and see if there are any ways we want to work together / collaborate / have them respond to us / just let them know we exist.........could be interesting.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Consensus: A definition
Hi all,
Here is that description of the process of consensus decision making that I have been referring to in our meetings...
Consensus
"…It does not mean that everyone agrees on a particular outcome. It does mean that everyone has been involved in the process, and that every one agrees to test a particular outcome for its workability.
Most descision making situations do not have as an inherent component only one best solution. If such were the case there would be no need to decide anything. Consensus involves the complete exploration of a particular situation with the recognition that there are going to be conflicting points of view, and that it is important that these come into the open during this process. These differences are not resolved just because a decision is reached.
Individuals who are not in agreement with the “majority” perspective do not just give up their differences and comply with the majority. They sit back and wait for some way to sabotage the outcome, or to say, “ I told you that wouldn’t work.” These outcomes are likely because a competitive process is established where the goal is to ‘win’ rather to arrive at a workable outcome. Since winning is the predominant goal, all of the dynamics described earlier emerge in a miniture form during this process.
Stereotypes of both paries influence what they hear the other party saying, and power gaining, rather than power generation is the outcome. A nonconsensus descision making process results in the dominant coalition in the process or larger organisational context retaining their power base, and the lesser coalition looking for ways to regain their percieved loss of influence. Immediately they begin to develop strategies to regain their lost “clout” and prestige, or at least to minimise their overall losses by gaining ground in other parts of the organisation or in future descision making situations.
Consensus is a critical value for organisations, not because it is good in and of itself (although that is true), but rather because it leads to better quality decisions, with more investment in implementation. There is less focus on decision making to protect organisational boundries and authority distribution, and more focus on decision making to solve diffulcities facing the organization".
P 138-139. William A Kraus, Collaboration in Organisations, Alternatives to Hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, 1980, New York.
Also, I was chatting with Sue Shone, an advocate for ihc who has had lots of experience working for collectives such as rape crisis and womens refuge and she has promised to send through some relevant resources on collective structures to our email address.
She had some interesting things to say about the importance of the place for individuality in collective bodies, that at their best they worked against a culture of individualism, but for a culture of diversity. Sue also suggested that a succinct one page charter that outlined some goals (a re-occuring suggestion in our blog) and guidelines for process might be helpfull for ongoing functioning (and perhaps a good alternative to an artists statement about ourselves).
Anyway, Merry Xmas and congrats to Mel who has just been made the new assistant curator for the Govett Brewster Art Gallery!!!!
Here is that description of the process of consensus decision making that I have been referring to in our meetings...
Consensus
"…It does not mean that everyone agrees on a particular outcome. It does mean that everyone has been involved in the process, and that every one agrees to test a particular outcome for its workability.
Most descision making situations do not have as an inherent component only one best solution. If such were the case there would be no need to decide anything. Consensus involves the complete exploration of a particular situation with the recognition that there are going to be conflicting points of view, and that it is important that these come into the open during this process. These differences are not resolved just because a decision is reached.
Individuals who are not in agreement with the “majority” perspective do not just give up their differences and comply with the majority. They sit back and wait for some way to sabotage the outcome, or to say, “ I told you that wouldn’t work.” These outcomes are likely because a competitive process is established where the goal is to ‘win’ rather to arrive at a workable outcome. Since winning is the predominant goal, all of the dynamics described earlier emerge in a miniture form during this process.
Stereotypes of both paries influence what they hear the other party saying, and power gaining, rather than power generation is the outcome. A nonconsensus descision making process results in the dominant coalition in the process or larger organisational context retaining their power base, and the lesser coalition looking for ways to regain their percieved loss of influence. Immediately they begin to develop strategies to regain their lost “clout” and prestige, or at least to minimise their overall losses by gaining ground in other parts of the organisation or in future descision making situations.
Consensus is a critical value for organisations, not because it is good in and of itself (although that is true), but rather because it leads to better quality decisions, with more investment in implementation. There is less focus on decision making to protect organisational boundries and authority distribution, and more focus on decision making to solve diffulcities facing the organization".
P 138-139. William A Kraus, Collaboration in Organisations, Alternatives to Hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, 1980, New York.
Also, I was chatting with Sue Shone, an advocate for ihc who has had lots of experience working for collectives such as rape crisis and womens refuge and she has promised to send through some relevant resources on collective structures to our email address.
She had some interesting things to say about the importance of the place for individuality in collective bodies, that at their best they worked against a culture of individualism, but for a culture of diversity. Sue also suggested that a succinct one page charter that outlined some goals (a re-occuring suggestion in our blog) and guidelines for process might be helpfull for ongoing functioning (and perhaps a good alternative to an artists statement about ourselves).
Anyway, Merry Xmas and congrats to Mel who has just been made the new assistant curator for the Govett Brewster Art Gallery!!!!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Why collaboration?
Ok, well, good question. Why did you set up a collaboration? Break it down .. . . .
Call and Response: A curators invitation.
The initial catalyst for TAC came from an invitation to make a new work for a group show that Melanie Oliver was putting together for Enjoy which was later titled Every Now, and Then. The curatorial premise of the show focused on the nature of the relationships formed when artists invite varied kinds of participation to realise their artwork. Melanie was particularly interested in foregrounding the problems and politics involved in the claims made by and for relational practices as being (among other descriptions) inclusive, participatory and democratic artforms; “Rather than designing happy, harmonious projects, the artists featured in Every Now, and Then develop and maintain social tension within their work, addressing the political aspects of communication that are often overlooked” - Melanie Oliver quoted in the press release for Every Now, and Then.
I’ve been making projects that contain relational elements since art school, experimenting with various tropes and degrees of participation to provide subject matter for, enact, and demonstrate concerns and propose questions through my work. I was particularly interested in the critical context that Mel was creating because I have experienced the challenges inherent to these encounters – both as an artist, participator and critic of these works.
These challenges have included questions like: who is the author of this work? Are artists exploiting a participating audience for their own proffesional gain? Are artists prescribing the audiences participation in a way that prevents their role from having any real affect on the work? How can the audience see the results of their efforts? Isn’t the artists role always priveleged in any exchange that they have set up? What is the role of an artist in this kind of work? What is the role of the institution in this kind of work?
These kinds of questions have always been present in my practice but only existed in my work in a backgrounded way, so it was exciting to be given the opportunity to make work for a show that had this very pointed focus.
The following text is a piece of writing I sent to Melanie Oliver during the idea proposal process;
“The politics of human communication are at their most perceptible in group dynamics.The desire to create a project that utilises the structure of collaboration to address these politics is also a desire to imbed the project in a practical and collective experience of a structure which operates by working decision making processes through the problematics of human interaction.
Imbedded in the value system of collaborative structures is the belief that a common goal can be found and achieved in a group setting. Their ability to operate effectively is reliant on the productivity of human interaction, participation and goodwill”.
In retrospect I think part of the motivation for the initiation of the collaboration and its attendent values was to respond to the tone of the show. I felt the critical framework had a slight but perceptibly pessimistic edge, that its review of contemporary relational projects was proposing to be a more ‘realistic’ view and that this de-romanticised de-throning of relational practices presented a challenge to their potential to do more good than harm.
Every Now, and Then’s curatorial framework and the platform of Enjoy’s institutional support provided me with an opportunity to engage a selected part of Enjoy’s ‘audience’ (those that had previously responded to an open call through email) at a much deeper and more generative level than my projects had previously allowed for, and in the continued life of The Association of Collaboration I am able to ask the questions I am most interested in within a group that is similarly interested in discovering the answers - together. (sorry ending is cheese factor high!)
Hope that this goes some way to answering your question Andie! and please respond to any of the ideas raised every one, Im sure you have some questions/challenges of your own too. . .
Call and Response: A curators invitation.
The initial catalyst for TAC came from an invitation to make a new work for a group show that Melanie Oliver was putting together for Enjoy which was later titled Every Now, and Then. The curatorial premise of the show focused on the nature of the relationships formed when artists invite varied kinds of participation to realise their artwork. Melanie was particularly interested in foregrounding the problems and politics involved in the claims made by and for relational practices as being (among other descriptions) inclusive, participatory and democratic artforms; “Rather than designing happy, harmonious projects, the artists featured in Every Now, and Then develop and maintain social tension within their work, addressing the political aspects of communication that are often overlooked” - Melanie Oliver quoted in the press release for Every Now, and Then.
I’ve been making projects that contain relational elements since art school, experimenting with various tropes and degrees of participation to provide subject matter for, enact, and demonstrate concerns and propose questions through my work. I was particularly interested in the critical context that Mel was creating because I have experienced the challenges inherent to these encounters – both as an artist, participator and critic of these works.
These challenges have included questions like: who is the author of this work? Are artists exploiting a participating audience for their own proffesional gain? Are artists prescribing the audiences participation in a way that prevents their role from having any real affect on the work? How can the audience see the results of their efforts? Isn’t the artists role always priveleged in any exchange that they have set up? What is the role of an artist in this kind of work? What is the role of the institution in this kind of work?
These kinds of questions have always been present in my practice but only existed in my work in a backgrounded way, so it was exciting to be given the opportunity to make work for a show that had this very pointed focus.
The following text is a piece of writing I sent to Melanie Oliver during the idea proposal process;
“The politics of human communication are at their most perceptible in group dynamics.The desire to create a project that utilises the structure of collaboration to address these politics is also a desire to imbed the project in a practical and collective experience of a structure which operates by working decision making processes through the problematics of human interaction.
Imbedded in the value system of collaborative structures is the belief that a common goal can be found and achieved in a group setting. Their ability to operate effectively is reliant on the productivity of human interaction, participation and goodwill”.
In retrospect I think part of the motivation for the initiation of the collaboration and its attendent values was to respond to the tone of the show. I felt the critical framework had a slight but perceptibly pessimistic edge, that its review of contemporary relational projects was proposing to be a more ‘realistic’ view and that this de-romanticised de-throning of relational practices presented a challenge to their potential to do more good than harm.
Every Now, and Then’s curatorial framework and the platform of Enjoy’s institutional support provided me with an opportunity to engage a selected part of Enjoy’s ‘audience’ (those that had previously responded to an open call through email) at a much deeper and more generative level than my projects had previously allowed for, and in the continued life of The Association of Collaboration I am able to ask the questions I am most interested in within a group that is similarly interested in discovering the answers - together. (sorry ending is cheese factor high!)
Hope that this goes some way to answering your question Andie! and please respond to any of the ideas raised every one, Im sure you have some questions/challenges of your own too. . .
Some subjective answers
Hi there,
before the meeeting just thought I would post some totally subjective individual thoughts on the questions that Andrea asked.
I feel good about my involvement with TAC so far. I have found it is a hard thing to find people to work with in artist groups. I have so far had two unsucessful attempts at setting up artist groups where my aim was to be able to give and get feedback in a post-art school critique kind of mutually beneficial way. Both of them ended in disaster - collaborations which failed before they even started. First failure due to mismatched expectations and practices. I faced a table of blank painterly faces at the mention of the word 'installation'. The second one failed because the group just didn't get it together to keep meeting up. The writers groups I know which I hoped to emulate have enough members so that there is always someone at the meetings even if not everyone is there. That's something I think we have done well. Somehow there is a shared need which is bringing us together regularly even though that need may vary within the group.
So I feel good and excited and reinvigorated in my faith in collaboration.
I think we have done working together well and agreeing by consensus. I think we have been good at being flexible. I think we do well at everyone expressing their opinion and differing opinions being able to be heard and discussed. I feel like it is a pretty equal collaboration.
In terms of the show, I think we could have maybe made more of an impact on it in terms of visibility, but I think that would have taken more meeting up and I feel like we have done pretty good especially at this time of year. I also quite enjoyed the set up at Enjoy with the chairs because it seemed obvious that we were a bunch of people talking and trying to work things out together rather than setting ourselves up as experts. Which was continued on the wall with the process.
I wonder if we could have done better at encouraging people to contribute to the wall....more porousness?
I think one of the challenges for TAC is to define some ways in which we will determine sucess. I think we are all having a nice time and good conversations but I also wonder whether we are in danger of falling into one of the potential traps of collaborating which is meeting new people and gaining from the group but not necessarily producing anything. I wonder whether that is one of the things to be gained from collaborating though, to appreciate a slower and more organic process. Like when you are single you can be a much easier high achiever go getter cos it's just you doing your thing but when you are with someone you might not achieve so much but you learn more because you have to negotiate with another person. Does collaboration make you a better person? Does collaboration teach you about social engagement? Is that what makes it important? Is collaboration like a relationship where you choose someone who is different to you so that you can be challenged and thus grow somehow?
Now I feel like I am that woman in Sex in the City who writes in questions. Sorry about that. But maybe that's another point, does collaboration make you a better artist because you have to be more rigorous in deciding what you do because there is another person involved?
Now that the Prospects show has come along, sucess could be gauged somehow through our working process with that. Like we have been talking in the abstract about what collaboration is etc and it's easy in a way because it's abstract, but my feeling is that we will be able to learn more by doing an actual project and seeing what happens. In that case we maybe need to document / think about it through the process, which is what this blog is so good for! Yay for cyber presence.
Hope that's useful for the thingy Andrea, Sian
before the meeeting just thought I would post some totally subjective individual thoughts on the questions that Andrea asked.
I feel good about my involvement with TAC so far. I have found it is a hard thing to find people to work with in artist groups. I have so far had two unsucessful attempts at setting up artist groups where my aim was to be able to give and get feedback in a post-art school critique kind of mutually beneficial way. Both of them ended in disaster - collaborations which failed before they even started. First failure due to mismatched expectations and practices. I faced a table of blank painterly faces at the mention of the word 'installation'. The second one failed because the group just didn't get it together to keep meeting up. The writers groups I know which I hoped to emulate have enough members so that there is always someone at the meetings even if not everyone is there. That's something I think we have done well. Somehow there is a shared need which is bringing us together regularly even though that need may vary within the group.
So I feel good and excited and reinvigorated in my faith in collaboration.
I think we have done working together well and agreeing by consensus. I think we have been good at being flexible. I think we do well at everyone expressing their opinion and differing opinions being able to be heard and discussed. I feel like it is a pretty equal collaboration.
In terms of the show, I think we could have maybe made more of an impact on it in terms of visibility, but I think that would have taken more meeting up and I feel like we have done pretty good especially at this time of year. I also quite enjoyed the set up at Enjoy with the chairs because it seemed obvious that we were a bunch of people talking and trying to work things out together rather than setting ourselves up as experts. Which was continued on the wall with the process.
I wonder if we could have done better at encouraging people to contribute to the wall....more porousness?
I think one of the challenges for TAC is to define some ways in which we will determine sucess. I think we are all having a nice time and good conversations but I also wonder whether we are in danger of falling into one of the potential traps of collaborating which is meeting new people and gaining from the group but not necessarily producing anything. I wonder whether that is one of the things to be gained from collaborating though, to appreciate a slower and more organic process. Like when you are single you can be a much easier high achiever go getter cos it's just you doing your thing but when you are with someone you might not achieve so much but you learn more because you have to negotiate with another person. Does collaboration make you a better person? Does collaboration teach you about social engagement? Is that what makes it important? Is collaboration like a relationship where you choose someone who is different to you so that you can be challenged and thus grow somehow?
Now I feel like I am that woman in Sex in the City who writes in questions. Sorry about that. But maybe that's another point, does collaboration make you a better artist because you have to be more rigorous in deciding what you do because there is another person involved?
Now that the Prospects show has come along, sucess could be gauged somehow through our working process with that. Like we have been talking in the abstract about what collaboration is etc and it's easy in a way because it's abstract, but my feeling is that we will be able to learn more by doing an actual project and seeing what happens. In that case we maybe need to document / think about it through the process, which is what this blog is so good for! Yay for cyber presence.
Hope that's useful for the thingy Andrea, Sian
A question for Liz...
Hello Liz,
just a quick question I wondered if you wouldn't mind answering so I can have it in writing ;-)
Why did you want to start the association of collaboration?
thanks, Andie
p.s. what time zone is this blog set in I wonder? I didn't actually post my previous comments at midnight!
just a quick question I wondered if you wouldn't mind answering so I can have it in writing ;-)
Why did you want to start the association of collaboration?
thanks, Andie
p.s. what time zone is this blog set in I wonder? I didn't actually post my previous comments at midnight!
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Some questions
Hi again!
I was planning on producing an edited transcript of our discussion for the writing I am submitting for publication in Hue and Cry, but, it wasn't quite like the roundtable discussion I had envisaged. Also to be fair it wouldn't have done justice to our cause as not all members were present during our meeting and did not have the chance to speak up! I'm pretty confident I can use some quotes from the recording ( I promise not to use them out of context) but I was hoping I might be able to additionally ask some questions of you online, to be included in my/OUR co-authored work(!)
How you feel about your involvement with the association of collaboration so far?
What do you think we have done well?
and what do you think we could have done better?
What do you think will mean success for the association of collaboration?
Please post your comments in response to these questions asap! Thanks!!
I was planning on producing an edited transcript of our discussion for the writing I am submitting for publication in Hue and Cry, but, it wasn't quite like the roundtable discussion I had envisaged. Also to be fair it wouldn't have done justice to our cause as not all members were present during our meeting and did not have the chance to speak up! I'm pretty confident I can use some quotes from the recording ( I promise not to use them out of context) but I was hoping I might be able to additionally ask some questions of you online, to be included in my/OUR co-authored work(!)
How you feel about your involvement with the association of collaboration so far?
What do you think we have done well?
and what do you think we could have done better?
What do you think will mean success for the association of collaboration?
Please post your comments in response to these questions asap! Thanks!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)