Hi Saul, Susan & all,

I'm going to bed...

I will get back into the frame tomorrow - great stuff everyone, much to 
think about :-)

marc

>Hi Luci, Ruth, Marc, All,
>
>By highlighting NODE.London's funding genesis (exodus?) I was trying to
>counterbalance Marc's account of 'grass-roots' organising strategies. I
>find all of your descriptions of NODE.London to be accurate, compelling
>and insightful, Luci's description of the process is an especially clear
>summary, and the Sufi proverb hits the nail squarely on the head. I hope
>over the coming months, we can amass more descriptions of the beast,
>perform some gentle taxonomical studies on it and keep it live, happy and
>breeding in the wild, rather than mythologising it, or nailing it's head
>to a trophy-shaped board.
>
>On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:18:44PM +0000, Luci Eyers wrote:
>  
>
>>>In relation to curating, this might simply be seen as an attempt at
>>>control through a distributed model and one in which power is
>>>expressed in more  subtle forms as is the case with much of the labour
>>>invested in it. [Geoff]
>>>      
>>>
>>I agree that curation plays an essential role in many of the  
>>projects, and not only institutional ones. NODE.London's Voluntary  
>>Organisers include as many curators as artists or activists but I  
>>would still argue that NODE.London as a framework is non-curatorial.  
>>There were no doubt differing motives for people to dedicate  
>>(enormous amounts of) time to developing the bigger picture. I think  
>>that an exploration and role in defining a context for media art  
>>practice now has been a shared and driving motivation. We are in a  
>>different position, as Marc and Simon acknowledge, to the smaller  
>>scene 10 years ago. I'm intrigued to see Saul describing this process  
>>as a curatorial activity, maybe artist-curatorial?
>>    
>>
>
>You make a good distinction between an overall curatorial framework, and
>the practice of curatorship in the project, The latter, motivated, as you
>say, by a desire to define context for practice, has been very present in
>NODE.London, giving it an unusual degree of coherence and clarity of
>programming. 
>
>I think you are right that as a framework NODE.London aspires to be
>non-curatorial. However, a lack of an overall curatorial framework is
>difficult to detect. What does the lack look like? smell like? Can you
>definitely tell it isn't there? That's what Geoff seems to be suggesting:
>that hidden beneath the layers of discursive 'collaboration', a
>Bilderberg-like curatorial cadre lurks, subtly manipulating everything
>into position. Explanations of processes, minutes of meetings,
>constitutions and sworn testimonies can't assail this overriding
>suspicion that there must be some kind of controlling entity guiding all
>this concordant-looking activity. Perhaps he's right and I just haven't
>been invited to the secret meetings yet.
>
>Is this is the doubt that causes some people to shy away from
>NODE.London,?  If so, 'protesting too much' (which is how I read Marc's
>first mail to this list) won't help. Projecting the complexities and
>contradictions of NODE.London might begin to break down these inevitable
>preconceptions - which I think we are all doing now.
>
>Of course there is always the danger of framing and re-framing a
>discursive process as an artwork. If we are artist-curators, is
>NODE.London a season of media art, or a season as media art? Possibly
>both, but again, this is treacherous territory where the possibility of
>collaboration can be dogged - not just by plays of 'power' as control,
>but worse, by those of value as reputation. 
>
>On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:10PM +0000, Ruth Catlow wrote:
>  
>
>>Saul, I have to just take you up on the following point.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I think it will be very successful because putting aside qualitative
>>>discussions about programming and politics, the primary difference
>>>between NODE.London and other media arts festivals is that it has
>>>managed to mobilise a *huge* amount of voluntary labour and as such
>>>has been an incredibly efficient and lean festival, put on for a
>>>fraction of the cost of equivalently sized events.
>>>      
>>>
>>If I felt that the dominant interest and interpretation of Node.London 
>>was as an efficient way of coordinating slave labour for the 
>>art-machine I think I would become quickly disillusioned. Perhaps the 
>>disillusionment experienced by protagonists associated with the 
>>previous similar projects described by Simon (hey Simon- please can you 
>>give us some examples) can be put down to the dominance of narrow 
>>transactional interpretations of what took place. I'd be interested to 
>>hear from people who identify themselves as "old hands" in this area of 
>>work. It would be good to make connections with their experiences and 
>>to consider what we might usefully carry forward.
>>    
>>
>
>I was focusing, tunnel-visioned, on NODE.London as a strategic funding
>experiment, which, is how Rachel Baker has been tirelessly explaining it
>to the Arts Council of England. 
>
>I excluded qualitative discussions that would flesh out the actual values
>of the project because they fell outside the remit of my extremely
>limited observation. I cackled when I read you pointing out that I had
>described NODE.London as 'efficient' - you really got me there. That's
>absolutely the last word I would use to describe it, if I was thinking
>about it in anything other than a purely fiscal context.  Perhaps I
>should have qualified the term 'successful'. I meant that it is likely to
>get funded again next year.  Whether it is successful on it's own terms,
>or in the terms of people on this list, or people who come to it, remains
>to be seen - and I'm absolutely bursting with excitement about finding
>out in 3 weeks time.
>
>X
>
>Saul.
>
>
>  
>