Dear fellow contributors, I am pleased to be involved with this month discussion topic, which is especially relevant to all working with ‘digital’ in its myriad forms, I hope to get a lot out of it, and maybe put a bit back in.
About me, I make stuff, predominantly for museums and galleries but also for commercial clients and occasionally private Individuals. This stuff, is often digital or new media, as with my research into AR, but is often very physical, making furniture or landscaping a playground for example.
The initial reflections from my own practice, in relation to this, the discussion at hand, is the outcome driven methodologies of those who are both commissioning and funding creative endeavors. In all of the projects that I have been involved in, there is an overwhelming inference placed upon final, deliverable product with little or no interest or value placed upon processes or the development.
I feel that this is particularly true, from personal experience at least, when dealing with commercial entities rather than arts/heritage institutions (I am sure others will have a view on this, Suzy?).
The only time, when those commissioning a project considered planning or development, was when it was a stipulation of their own funders. An example of this would be the requirement of workshops with children to garner designs for the new play spaces.
This is also the case with the vast majority of artist residences, where the artist is required for a fixed time to work on either a personal project or a specific theme, which inevitable culminates in an artwork or exhibition.
The problems with this are manifest. As a creative practitioner, hacker, maker, artist, or all or any of these, gaining experience, learning new skills or spending months/years developing a process, what ever that may be, becomes problematic or non-viable because we all have to pay a the bills.
This pressure, for early stage identification of end product, is also at odds with a more the much more organic developmental processes that are form part of the core methodologies of fine art and design higher education. Meaning that many graduates are poorly equipped to engage with creative/tec industries that are perusing a marketable, commercially realised concept.
There is obviously great value in the creative process and in the ways that ideas develop, and as an individual I can full apprehend the benefits of creating environments, be that as a workshop or lab etc. that fosters innovation and delivers critical discourse. But convincing sponsors to invest in a project with no defined product/artwork and in many cases no desire for any tangible outcome can certainly be challenging. Whilst a few organisations are most certainly onboard, there is still, I feel a disconnect between the desire for innovation and the willingness to pay for people to try new stuff out.
Cheers, Liam.
|