|
|||||
Wednesday Jan 9 Introductions Relations: Similarity, simulation, agreement, empathy, rhythm, counterpoint, weaving, felting, hierarchy, communal, symbiotic, revealing, tense, taut, loose, illustrative, associative, aglutinative, loving, historical, familial, together, apart, close together, far far apart, side by side, on top of, to the left of, conjunctions (and, if, but, therefore), transposition, translation, Composition: notation, grids, improvisation, foreground, middleground, background, rhythm, narrative structure, time, space, Neccessary Activities: researching, collecting, pasting, returning, removing, What do you bring to the interaction? How do you start together? Parts and Wholes. In-division of labour: these are based mostly on film My Approach in Four Movements and Making Films with Friends: statement by Jean Luc Godard Notes on Making Together: Radul
Wednesday Jan 16 Read and come prepared to discuss: Florian Schneider: Collaboration - some thoughts concerning new ways of learning and working together reference The Ignorant Schoolmaster, by Jacques Rancière Collaborative Models in your discipline: come prepared to discuss.
Wednesday Jan 23 Each student comes prepared to discuss an example of a collaborative art work in their discipline, and each student invents/presents (please make a copy for all 16 students and Judy) a model for collaboration (can be in the form of a text, a set of instructions, a diagram, a score....or whatever you can imagine). Wednesday Jan 30 Presentations 1 groups : Pablo & Galen, Natalie & Hanne, Iris and Kari & Deborah & Erik,
Wednesday Feb 6 Presentations 1 groups :Tom and Laurynas, Erika and Dan, Chun Ping & Brent, Vivienne and Marly,
Wednesday Feb 13 Confirm 2nd (and possibly 3rd) collaboration partners. Discuss collaborative methods so far, the notes below may form a framework. Today's discussion is more or less about the politics of participation but future discussion could take up the ideas of collaboration from a much more medium or discipline specific perspective, i.e. what are ways of working specific to the medium/material (for instance Michel Chion, says in a way a soundtrack doesn't exist separate from the image, etc). Harmony and Counterpoint: What is being 'brought together' in a collaboration? If a 'new entity' is born out of the collaboration then, to some extent, one brings nothing to the collaboration, but rather begins to 'draw out' from the collaborative environment as the work proceeds. What does the collaboration begin with? Several works were made based on a shared experience (a walk for instance). This could be described as a strategy of starting 'fresh' rather than bringing some kind of discursive 'self' to the project partners went out to start from a new point in which they were 'together.' By and large participants seemed to judge the collaboration 'successful' if they had 'integrated' their works/points of view etc. This evaluation does seem to correspond to the 'ethos' and labour of collaboration, to not 'dodging' the difficulties of bringing two (or more) types of working together. What kind of structure / composition arises from collaboration? Some works took on a multi part strategy, weaving several instances or parts together. What kind of forms could a group collaboration have? A decision making form (i.e. an elected director for instance) may differ from the production/participation form (i.e. everyone should be 'in' the production or willing to be in it, or everyone should produce source material, etc.) Time and space very likely need to be encountered. Political theorist Prof. Chantal Mouffe writes about forms of democracy, this link is to an interview with her. Using this text as "source material" lets make a group collaborative project. Be attentive to the 'material potentials' within the text. That is the references/associations to form, matter, sound, colour, text, image. The text itself suggests certain ways of practicing, for instance agonism and conflictual consensus, the idea of a common aim but different ways of approaching it. What would the common aim of our project be? Does it need a 'singular' aim? My suggestions on how to proceed are: Discuss an issue or idea as a group, set a time limit such as 10 mins, at the 10 min mark either vote or achieve consensus about if we should a) stop the discussion and make an action or decision or b) continue to discuss. We could work to devise a strucutre for a collaborative work (of course devising the stucture would also be collaborative). Along the way we could have points of action or trying things out/improvising as well as collecting info. We could sit in a circle (this is actually a form of connection if you talk to those on both sides of you and pass on info) and go through the article after a couple of paragraphs you turn to the one on the left/right and a) question them about their responses...all responses....and they do the same for you. Both your thoughts and theirs become material for you to use...At three or four points in the process we stop and see if there are some actions/theories/performances/soundmaking etc. that people have an idea to try. We are all available as participants in the other persons idea (or , should we discuss that...that kind of idea is where the conflict between the equality of all members of the group and the 'rights' of a single participant come into potential conflict.) http://roundtable.kein.org/node/545 references: aggregative model of democracy could be understood
in brief as the one that is presently more dominant. Participation is along
the lines of a bringing together or " deliberative model of democracy is (according to Mouffe) articulated through two main contemporary thinkers, Jurgen Habermas and John Rawls. Both want to reformulate a more participatory ie. "deliberative" , political process which centers on deliberation. Their approaches differ in ways (and Mouffe distances herself from both) but center on (according to Mouffe) balancing liberal ideas of individual rights with the collective formation of democratic politics. She states "Their aim is not to relinquish liberalism but to recover its moral dimension and establish a close link between liberal values and democracy....Their move consists in reformulating the democratic principle of popular sovereignty in such a way as to eliminate the dangers that it could pose to liberal values." Popular sovereignty is a phrase which expresses the idea that the authority for a rule or law is based on the consent, agreement, of the people over whom which it voluntarily or through agreement presides. Hardt and Negri Neo Liberal, often associated with a belief in economic free market, some degree of awareness of social equality, but ultimately concerned with individual rights, perhaps a perversion of more radical or left rhetorics to suit an individualist agenda. From Wikipedia: Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s and through at least the late-1990s, and possibly into the present (its continuity is a matter of dispute). In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories, right-wing libertarian political philosophies, and political rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberalism is not a unified economic theory or political philosophy — it is a label denoting an apparent shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that manifested themselves in theories and political platforms supporting a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones. Few supporters of neoliberal policies use the word itself.
I would suggest that one pricipal we should explore is that chance proceedures not be heavily relied on. Chance seems to replace negotiation with aleatory proceedures.
Further Research users.unimi.it/dikeius/pw_72.pdf Here is a PDF of Chantal Mouffe's "Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism" Watch Richard Foreman interviews on youtube
Wednesday Feb 20 presentations 2 group 1, 2, 3
Wednesday Feb 27 presentations 2 group 4, 5, 6
Wednesday March 5 presentations 2 group 7, 8
Wednesday March 12 TBA DAY
Wednesday March 19 presentations 3 group 1, 2, 3
Wednesday March 26 presentations 3 group 4, 5, 6
Wednesday April 2 presentations 3 group 7, 8
The goal is to thoughtfully interact on collaborative art works across disciplines. You will be asked to reflect on the quality and nature of the collaboration. How the process worked practically, what you learned/brought from your "home" discipline etc. to the process. What your learning experience was. The goal is to really create meaningful, considered connections between elements of the work. Each collaborator will write a short statement reflecting on the process, references, structures used etc.
Recommended Text The Third Hand: Collaboration in Art from Conceptualism to Postmodernism. Charles Green, 2001 this book is available as an online resource through SFU library click: http://proxy.lib.sfu.ca/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/sfu/Doc?id=10151197 (if you have problems, quite a bit of it is available on google books as well...)
|
|
||||