Hmmm
wondering how work that is as generic as this might be picked up on by more specifically arts-driven thinking (as opposed to champions of the "experience economy" and "creative industries"). Indeed the timing issue is key - different stakeholders with their respectively different kinds of engagement may (probably do) require/ be deployed across different time frames.
I'm quizzical about the equation whereby "the more authorship is shared, the more it allows for many stakeholders to appropriate the piece" etc etc. Does voting within a democratic system make you an author of that system's collectively validated decisions? How do you ensure that top-down definitions and mechanisms of authorship (and of the categories it corresponds to) don't deride stakeholders, abusively vouching for their (lame/ constrained) participation? It seems to me that many instances of what might be called "shared authorship" (notably by people who profit from them) leave others feeling sidelined, disenfranchised and non-responsible. Apologies for raising an issue that may be too complex for the framework you're developing, but it strikes me as being very real. And leaves me querying the reality of the framework, or at least of its applicability beyond a tidily categorisable world whereas art that interests me tends precisely to broil the categories. Of course this requires trying to identify them in order to broil them. Chickens and scrambled eggs.
Thanks likewise for the contribution - there's lots in there and lots out there.
best
sjn
________________________________
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Beryl Graham
Sent: Sun 07/10/2007 6:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Exchange Pieces
Dear List,
Thanks Melissa and Kelsey - this looks really useful - in particular,
the way that you break down "who can potentially be involved", and
whether this is is "process" or "outcome". As we discussed on the list
a while ago in relation to Bourriaud's 'Relational Aesthetics', some of
the things that those from fine art seem to find particularly
problematic is in identifying who exactly is relating to what, whether
participation is in making or reading, and of course the huge
challenges to artistic 'authorship' that this entails.
I see that your references come from design and architecture fields,
and some posts so far on this theme have referred to exhibition design,
and to architectures (see Verina Gfader's post). I think that this will
come up at the Urban Screens conference too, and I'll be posting from
there. Does the List think that the knowledge or methods from
architecture and design are equally important?
So, I have a particular question related to your identification of
"timing" as an important factor in interaction - could you say a bit
more about timing? I'm asking because I think that this is a particular
issue for video curators moving into new media art - how the timing is
different - Caroline Langill also mentioned factors of time in her
comments on 'e-art' at the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal.
Thanks again, it's very interesting work!
yours,
Beryl
On 6 Oct 2007, at 00:12, hello wrote:
> Hello Crumbsters,
>
> We are Melissa Mongiat and Kelsey Snook, part of Milk And Tales, a
> group of designers who work on interactive environments. We have been
> following this past month's discussions on CRUMB and thought some of
> our research on interactive environments may be of interest.
>
> We conducted a one-year research project called Exchange Pieces: Tools
> and Strategies for Engagement. It focuses on the quality of engagement
> that a piece or the making process can generate. This can also be of
> use when gathering a set of pieces together, in making sure the
> visitor experience as a whole is engaging.
>
> We have drawn out a framework to help map out a plan for successful
> exchanges. It first lays out 4 broad categories of players - maker,
> client, audience, environment - identifying who can potentially be
> involved, and then sets out the different project stages to look at
> how these players can be engaged both in the process and the outcome
> of a project.
>
> Once the framework map is built to outline the players and exchange
> opportunities, Fundamental Components for Interaction serve as a
> checklist for developing strategies to encourage engagement, as well
> as specific tools to make it happen within a project context. They
> help ensure a relevant take-away for all the players.
>
> A brief summary:
>
> * INVITATION and INCENTIVE play on motivation, and the role of the
> designer is to help the players envision the experience take-out. In
> presenting incentives, the designer needs to manage expectations and
> provide an interesting reward to keep people engaged.
>
> * The SENSE OF IMPACT deals with awareness in the engagement. Players
> need to know they are active agents, that they are changing a
> narrative. The design of the interaction must comprise a response to
> the act of participation and this response must be understood as such.
> These feedback mechanisms are therefore key to sustaining the
> engagement.
>
> * From seconds to months or years, consideration of TIMING addresses
> both the immediacy of feedback mechanisms and sustaining momentum over
> different periods of time.
>
> * Planning CONTACT in an interaction affects the level of engagement.
> A multi-sensory approach enhances the level of engagement and can make
> the experience more memorable.
>
> * OPENNESS is a crucial part of planning an interaction, the exchange
> pieces presented were each open to change. Designers provide the
> medium for the players to create their own stories within the grand
> narrative of a project.
>
> * RULES affect the overall structure of the exchange and will directly
> impact the level of authorship given to participants. They facilitate
> lines of communication and help to establish clear roles for the
> players.
>
> * AUTHORSHIP is the subject of a negotiation between the players. The
> more authorship is shared, the more it allows for many stakeholders to
> appropriate the piece, making it more customisable, and fostering a
> sense of belonging, empowerment, and responsibility.
>
> * INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES can make the environment become an active,
> responsive player. They serve as a great platform for contributions,
> but must be studied within all the FCoI to insure quality of
> engagement.
>
> For more information you may have a look at the short paper presented
> at Include 07:
> http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/kt/include/2007/proceedings/paper.php?
> ID=1_149
> or don't hesitate to ask us questions!
>
> Your feedback would also be very much appreciated,
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Melissa and Kelsey
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
Ashburne House,
Ryhope Road
Sunderland
SR2 7EE
Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
Ashburne House,
Ryhope Road
Sunderland
SR2 7EE
Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
Ashburne House,
Ryhope Road
Sunderland
SR2 7EE
Tel: +44 191 515 2896 [log in to unmask]
CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
http://www.crumbweb.org <http://www.crumbweb.org/>
|