stepping out

well...
in light of Sians departure from Tac the (now) two wellington-based members have decided we definitely need to make a priority of finding more collaborators.
The way we see it, a down-scaled unfunded run of posters will do the job just fine. Cheap and cheery, black and white, photocopier printed and distributed over the next couple of months with a plan to meet up in the new year.
It seems practical that there won't be much real action until around late January - considering that, I think we should work towards planning a hoolie of us all around that time in Wellington. Also, by that stage Toms move back won't be far off the horizon. (land ahoy!)
Above is a pre pre pre idea for poster, see comments for a draft of an email to be sent out to potential interested peoples.

Thank you and good night x

Hi all,

Sian here; some confusion over who posted my last post.

Sorry for lack of engagment; Tyree's dad died and so that has taken huge amounts of time and energy, as well as being involved in four shows in as many months. One of which is my solo show opening next week, so still going and working............!

Anyway. We didn't get the Creative Communities funding for our poster recruitmemt project in Wellington. They rang me up to clarify the application and basically the problem was that they just couldn't understand what we were about or for or what our function was in the arts community of Wellington.

Now I did my best but man I really struggled to get a succinct version out of what we are about etc. .........and reading over the recent posts it seems that other people are a bit too?

I think the problems are that we started this group and then Prospect came along so soon that we did a big project which took lots of energy without having that groundwork on working out what we were and what we wanted to achieve. So now I feel like there is a lot of confusion because there is no solid base. I know at work that we have a very simple but totally nutted out and clear manifesto of what we are and what we do and why, so projects can be tested back against that model.

I empathise with others who have tlaked about how we seem to be doing a lot of research or something on our own processes. To me this feels laborious and is not really what I was interested in being part of the group for in the first place. As I said on the previous post, I am interest in making things and I hear you barking Liz when you say that I should pick up and make this happen, but I find at this stage that I just have no energy to do this!!!

I think I have run out of steam for this project of being part of the group, and I know that I have really no time to energise or get going any new projects between now and starting school at the end of Feb. I have plans for next year to set up critique and feedback groups in Wellington for artists who wish to build a more connected and responsive community, and I feel that this is more in line with satifying what I am interested in.

So I think I am done! We have done some great things and it has been cool working with you ladies. Paula and Liz if you would like to meet up and discuss further that would be cool, but I thought it would be useful to post this up here so we can all see it.

TAC in Christchurch

Hi all,

This post relates to our discussion of re-membering TAC, and setting up individual TAC centres in other parts of the country. As sole member of TAC in Christchurch I have obviously been thinking a lot about the potential of setting up a similar group here. As a preliminary step, I have been talking with a number of people who I thought might be interested in being part of something, and in the interested of not being exclusive to people I know, I also got them to extend the network and ask other people around and about if it would be something that would interest them.

After a couple of months of testing the feeling on the ground, I just don't think that there is enough interest here to make TAC worthwhile or beneficial in any way. There just doesn't seem to be enough people who are interested in the idea of collaboration or testing the possibilities of this paradigm.

Another reason for not instigating a TAC in Christchurch was also because I'm not sure that I would have enought time to create recruitment packs and go through the setting up period, which would take quite a bit of energy. I didn't want to get involved in something down here that I wouldn't be able to properly facilitate from the development period which would be important for the group. I'm also probably going to be leaving Christchurch in March which would be a factor as well for the group.

I would still like to involved in TAC and would like to contribute as much as possibly to the Wellington group, although I realise that this is increasingly becoming unfeasible for quick decision making and action-taking on projects. So, once TAC in Wgton has recruited some more members I guess we can assess the situation further and see how our diasporic TAC members can work with this group in the best way?

At long last...Two-fold documentation shots

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

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!

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

Is artistic collaboration all about talking?

hi guys,

Thought I would make a new post to muse on my dissatisfactions and where they are arising from. I read one of the articles on the list on the main blog;

"Afterall article: Group and Gang (the Absent Collective)

And it really summed up where I am at. It was talking about how making art is something which happens in space rather than in time, and so the group cannot do the same thing at the same time. Which means that in collaborative groups the main thing which happens is lots and lots of talking, rather than doing. Discussing what the group is going to do before doing it. So the decision making is consensual, rather than the doing?

"In other words, even where a group co-operates to make a video, their agreement on how to fill a given part of the visual array at a given moment can only be achieved by talking – again by a negotiation that by definition is operationally separate from the formative visual technique itself. Hence, the actions of performance groups fail to become genuine group agency in two main ways. First, because much of what the performance group does amounts to multiple synchronous actions – a mere proliferation of co-incidental separate actions. Second, because if the interweaving of these actions are integrated then (and here we return to the earlier claim) the terms of the integration must be separately negotiated, determined by talking not by visually doing."

So, this explains why the meetings felt so much better than the blog I think, as obviously talking is more satifying than reading on a screen and disjointed conversations. And also why I have developed a sense of uh I want to be DOING something. The difficulty for me I guess is that my practice and what I really engage with and enjoy about art is the actual doing. I love talking too. don't get me wrong, but it seems like this is one of the real conflicts in collaborative processes which has been hit on the head by this article.

"The group that we want acts. Above all else, it thinks/acts, and it does so beyond mere coordinated efficacy. The group we want acts beyond the linear flows of discursive thought and outside the blind sedimentation of so-called 'swarm intelligence' – the process whereby the swarm of humans en masse sleepwalks into adopting and then incrementally honing the cleverest tricks of its innovative individuals (like turning the wheel, quitting hunting to tend flocks, or flossing before bedtime). Swarm intelligence in its unguided incremental genius is a marvel: no less evident and marvelous in crows and seagulls than it is in humans. But the swarm is not the group, and the group wasn’t liberated by the web or any other revolution. The group that we want is the branching, nodal warren of thoroughfares that composes its thinking not in speech, but in enaction between and around the partial-selves of its members. The group doesn’t march on its stomach."

Sorry to cut and paste the article if you have already read it; just thought it might be easier to discuss.

What does anyone else think?

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?

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

-------------------------

Banking

hey all

some feedback from chch where it has suddenly become like antartica, though no snow in the city which i find quite dissapointing.

... [have moved Toms thoughts on new members to the meeting minutes comments section for comprehension -L]

in other news, am having a bit of a dilemma in the banking department. we can't open an account where everyone can withdraw money unless we are registered as a society or charitable trust. after investigation i found out that this costs about $150 to become one. so, i thought that next best option would be to open an account under my name, and someone in Wellington could sign up as a joint-account person so as to have more transparency in banking (hehehe, i accidentally wrote baking before that) matters. i have opened an account with Kiwibank, so if someone would like to volunteer as a Wellington joint treasurer then I can get in communication with them about the details.

another problem is that the cheques we have received have been made out to 'The Association of Collaboration', this means that I am not able to deposit them at all because of course I am T. Sleigh, no The Association of Collaboration which doesn't exist in a legal sense. so, I think I need to get in contact with the Museums Trust and New Plymouth City Council, to see if they can make the cheques out to an individual member of TAC and then they can be deposited in the account.

does all this make sense? and should be have one account now for all splinter groups of TAC?
whew. money matters make me tired.

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.

1 week decisions: How-to guide

What is 1 week decisions for?

1 week decisions is a process that allows for members to not participate in administrative decisions, this means admin decisions can be made by those who do participate without needing to get others approval.
Administrative (or 'operational') decisions are ones which don't affect the structure or direction of tac. 1wds can be about things which haven't been discussion prior to posting them.

How do we use it?

Blog: Always write up the thing that needs to be decided about and post it on the blog. Include the words "1 week decision" in title and attach the same as a subject label.
Email: U decide! this is up to the person who makes the post. Some decisions might not warrant an email, or the post-er might not be into it, so it will always be useful to visit 1 week decision subject label on the side of the blog - as we have all been doing.

This process was established through a testing, review and discussion process. Below are links to the background and lead up discussions:
initial intro of 1wd
Tac flow-charted reviews of 1wd

Trolley storage

Hi guys,

We couldn't cover everything in the meeting and I forgot that we need to discuss storage of the trolley. All great ideas about reusing it but all still involve it being stored in Tyree's space until next Feb! She is doing lots of work at home and really needs the space. It's urgent and I am getting hassled!! Any ideas??

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?

Two-fold catalogue text + images

Hi all,

Would be great to get some feedback about what kind of writing we should include about TAC in the two-fold catalogue. There's only space for about 200 words, this could be a discussion piece, an interview, a piece of collaborative writing, a piece written about us by somebody else. It could even be a re-hashed collage of writing from our blog, blog found poetry! argh! Also any thoughts about images? perhaps we could use the old trusty circle o' chairs!

let me know your thoughts asap, the deadline for text is friday september the 7th... uh-oh! But it's only 200 words, easy-peasy

xA

Assessment of Prospect

I've been thinking about the necessity of assessing TAC's activity in Prospect in order that me may move onto greener pastures with clear directives, awareness of successes and failures and evident focuses. I don't know if the Wellington meeting of TAC has gone ahead or any discussion has been had a about this?

I thought that since we are all now spread around corners of the globe, one way to collect and assess would be to draw up a number of questions to which each TAC member could respond (perhaps by using the email system). After this we could analyse, assess, see if there are any similarities or wild discrepancies in our responses.

I also thought that these written responses could also partially be used in future documentation of process and potentially some of it could even be re-worked for the toolkit if we decide that is something we want to go ahead with.

A few questions I had thought of so far were:

1. At what stage did you feel most comfortable with TAC's processes?
2. How effective did you feel the trolley project was in engaging with a community wider than the art community?
3. If you could have changed a process in the development of the trolley project, what would you have changed? Why?

ps Best title award goes to Sian for title previous to this one :)

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

Wellington TAC regroup - postponed

Sian, Paula and I are now meeting up next week to talk TAC, so there's xtra time to add to our agenda. Anything that you want discussed will be reported back in the minutes. It would be great to get some input and gauge where we are at xL

lecturer interested in our empty chairs

Hello All,
yesterday I was asked for and gave a senior lecturer at Vic this image of our work from 'Every Now and Then' at Enjoy.
Another collaborator metioned that this fact could be of interest to the rest of TAC so here is our correspondence about the inclusion of our documentation in her Sydney Lecture.
I am not sure what angle she plans to take discussing our work, however I thought even analysis of the problematics of this installation is useful and fitting for our project.
Since some curators have complained when TAC hasd posted their correspondence on this blog, all personal references will be removed....

.....1st Email.....

Dear (Enjoy Gallery Employee),
When you talked to my class you showed an image of the chair arrangement set up by the Assoc of Collaboration as part of Mel Oliver's show at Enjoy.

I wonder if you could send me a copy of this, good enough quality to show in a powerpoint?

I'm talking as part of a panel discussion at Artspace in Sydney which is part of a project called Aftermath which is canvassing the relationship of performance and installation.
Many thanks
(Lecturer)

.....2nd Email.....

Hello (Enjoy Gallery Employee),

I wonder if you could let Paula know which image I mean and get her to send it to me?
Thanks
(Lecturer)

.....3rd Email.....( my reply)

hi (Lecturer),
I have sourced an image of TAC's residual post-meeting chair set up, from towards the end of the 'Every Now and Then' show (after a few TAC meetings). Please confirm that this is what you seek, it should be sized appropriatly for powerpoint.
See attached
best wishes, Paula

.....4th Email.....

perfect
thanks
(Lecturer)