 |
 |
Dear Zach, Many thanks for this, I think it's a really useful outline of different kinds of projects - I'll respond in more detail next week, but one thing I wanted to ask you about as a short question is the Interactivos project which I think will be a really interesting study in different collaboration styles as it's in Spain and the USA. I was interested that on the Eyebeam site it says that the New York bit of the series "was initiated by current R&D OpenLab fellow Zach Lieberman, and will be curated and produced by Eyebeam staff, fellows and residents." So it's always interesting I think that an initiator quite often ends up somehow 'responsible' throughout a process, even if a lot of other people are involved. I think every project needs some kind of initiator role, but could you say a but more about your role in this case? cheers beryl On 3 Jun 2008, at 15:39, Zachary Lieberman wrote: > Greetings all, > > I first wanted to say hello -- I've been lurking a bit on the list, and > happy to have an opportunity to jump in. I'm currently involved in > several > collaboration projects and I can see right away it will be useful to > write > about them and also, to engage in a dialog with folks here. > > I thought I would compile a quick list of things I've been working on, > as > relate to collaboration and then try to answer the questions posed by > sarah > and refer to them if I can.. I don't mean this to sound like a CV or > anything, just wanted to try to identify things in these projects that > are > interesting and see if I can relate them: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------- > > a) interactivos workshop -- organized by medialab prado (formerly > medialab > madrid) this workshop, as sarah mentioned, is centered around creating > new > works from young artists and more specifically, about trying to foster > collaboration. there is a short video from last years event here > (it's half > english / spanish). The theme of that interactivos was magic and > technology: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=CPZb9EJkK9M > > I've been teaching the last two years and this year teaching and > organizing > several of the workshops (NY, mexico and bogota) > > b) personal artwork, including collaborations with Golan Levin (tmema) > and > Theo Watson - such as : > > tmema.org/messa > tmema.org/mis > openframeworks.cc/liners > > c) working with experts, such as choregraphers or magicians: > > http://thesystemis.com/rotosketch > http://thesystemis.com/opensourcery > > d) doing a fellowship in the Eyebeam openlab -- > > good description here: > http://lunchbuffet.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!880F7BACD6654F3C!388.entry > > e) working with theo watson on an open source toolkit in c++ for making > creative works called openframeworks -- > info & movie is here: > openframeworks.cc > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------- > > > >> * Can collaboration exist without openness? > > > I think it can, but I've found that openness is often times helpful, > since > it means the work is better understood by all parties. For example, > in (c) > above, I made a performance with a magician, and he was very reluctant > to > open up his tricks -- he wouldn't explain to me how things worked. > Obviously, he had to tell me some things, but in general, there was a > code > of secrecy about how his magic worked. Sometimes, actually, I would > figure > out tricks on my own, and the moment I told him he'd be totally > relieved, > and show me everything, but we worked together in a sort of open/closed > way. My stuff / software, etc was all open source, and I tried to > bring him > in as much as I could. > > I've pesonally found the best way of collaborating with other artists > (b) is > to be as open as possible, just because the more we trust each other > and can > evaluate each others work, the better the quality is. We often times > program over each other's shoulder -- peer coding I think it's called > - and > that level of flexibility and comfort has helped immensely. > > > * Is collaboration 'hardcoded' into the lab model, and what are the > implications when the lab's philosophy embodies open source-ness or > releasing work into the public domain? (as is the case with the > Eyebeam R&D > OpenLab) > > One thing about this, is that I'm not entirely sure that focusing a lab > entirely about open source is a good thing. from my experience with > (e), > I've seen that community and the public is way more important then just > dumping your code somewhere. if it's not maintained, if it's not > shown that > it's really a living growing thing with love from above (sound cheesy, > but > it's true) then I don't think people will find it that useful. The net > (sourceforge, for example) is full of abandoned open source projects, > and > thought I'm not a curator, I'm sure there are tons of abandoned > open-source > models, etc, which really serve little value but just to be remnants of > older energy. I'm not a fan of that as a model for publishing. > > I do think it's great to open source / open-ness as one of the goals / > motivations of the lab, but others things in addition, like public > outreach, > community building, etc seem to me to be as, or more important. > > * Is it necessary or helpful to have a creative commons mentality when >> engaged in collaborative projects? > > > I'm not sure what a creative commons mentality really is ? for me, I > see > open-ness and creative commons as parallel, and somewhat overlapping, > but > not entirely sure about this. One thing I've felt with OF (e) > especially is > a sort of apathy as it relates to copyright, gpl, licensing, etc. I > believe > in public domain, and trying to get people to do good, etc, but the > license > stuff really bores me I think. Maybe I am of the generation that is > tired > of license debates? We put it up, and let people do what they want. > for > me, it seems to slow things down to geek out about licenses. > > I would argue that there is a public domain mentality -- like, this > stuff > should be free and open -- and a legislate to freedom mentality, like, > lets > make sure it's free but with clauses. I can understand both, but my > heart > is really with the former. anyway, I think this is a may > conversation, not > june. > > I do think it's helpful to imagine the projects going into public > domain, > or least in some sense getting into a dialogue with people, so that > things > can be maintained. The problem is that these collaborations range from > artists works (b) to tools (e) and there level of open-ness I think in > some > way ought to be proportional by the amount of annoyance you might have > with > someone saying "I think it should do this" or "here's my patch". Part > of > making work is stimulating brains and if you can use openness as a > tool to > get other peoples brains into your work, it can be very helpful. > > also, some works, like the liners project (b) are centered about > open-ness > and bringing people in -- for me these kinds of projects are great > because > they are a nice way to engage a community to make a larger work. It's > also > just fun to be able to work with people you don't know. > > hope that's helpful start -- look forward to hearing more and jumping > in > when I can. Thanks sarah for getting this topic going.... > > take care! > zach > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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