 |
 |
Hei, I follow on from my posting a couple of days ago. I described my residency project 'Add+PF' embedded with the 'Pedagogical Factory' event series in Chicago, and my action to make an open call for collaboration/development of events, using the social capital of my hosts. Lets say, using the 'open-source' contact list of the organisers - used to promote a previously- determined events programme - to try and make something new. I didn't really mention how this approach might benefit or develop the original aims of the events programme or the hosts themselves. There is the risk that the 'forking' [the splitting of development] of the original programme would create new social and cultural associations undesired. It could be easy here to elaborate on the positive and negative contributions of outsiders in a process. However, in short, I believe such outsiders can open up new angles, topics and people who are not involved in the way that was predetermined by the initiator of the programme. Such contributions built upon, and expanded cultural, institutional and social capital of the host - the original programmers of events, and the new hosts of additional events - even if this was only so in communications, rather than in audience. This raises for me the question.. Is this the other side of the mutual aid/benefit of residencies? The Lab, the Institution, or the Centre offers 1 or all of the following: technical, material, human resources, accomodation, workspace for the guest; and the new context offers new inspiration or different people present to work or collaborate with. What is given in exchange; from the resident to the host? What expectations and obligations may be in place in a residency? How can one contribute to context-specific activity if one is coming from elsewhere? The following Latvian context and abstract models are shared within this thematic of 'Open Source, Residencies and the Lab Model' to suggest the types of collaborative exchange possible in residencies (within Labs, Institutions, Centres), and who may gain 'what' in the process. Best regards, andrew . Case of 'Cultural Residencies' consultancy for SERDE, Aizpute, Latvia. In collaboration with Olga Mashkina (a transition-economics/ environmental policy researcher also based in Helsinki), I was considering this question during a recent consultancy for Art Group SERDE in Aizpute, Latvia. Aizpute is a small town (5000 population) in Kurzeme, western Latvia, where SERDE have an old traditional wooden building, converted to independent cultural house with 20 beds, and ceramic, wood and metal craft workshops. We were asked to explore the cultural residency potentials in this countryside town, where economics and enterprising human resources are tight. SERDE have become national award-winners in the category for cultural heritage in Latvia (2007: with the 'Točka' project: homemade/illegal vodka-making culture), and recently received Ministry of Culture grant to host visual artist residents in 2009. We (Olga and I) decided it would be useful to 'unpack' the different types of cultural residency beyond the 'classic' model, to consider the above factors. On the basis of conversations with the local director of town museum & tourist information, finance members of the town council and several local business and cultural persons, it also seemed appropriate, due to the emergant eco-tourism of the region, to see SERDE as host-facillitator for contact/experience-exchange with local arts, heritage and ecological practitioners and specialists. We thought about who might come to be in residence at SERDE, based on contextual factors. So, in this case.. Emerging artists from Latvian or other Baltic Art Academies. National or international artist, heritage or designer professionals. Multi-disciplinary or experimental craft-persons. Eco and traditional culture enthusiasts/tourists from Germany, North America, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Russian Federation, 'AirBaltic' flight network. Work-exchange backpackers. Local residents as 'special interest residents'. . 'Classic creative residency' model * Guest comes for space & resources to make new work, outside of usual work-life context. * Guest supported by own funds, national cultural funds or a grant given by host. * Guest works on own or with specialist support, with exposition at the end. * Guest's experience and work spreads reputation of residency host. * Host gains cultural capital and reputation from professional expertise in residence. * Community gains from additional cultural events, professional presence, nourishing cultural locals. 'Socially-engaged residency' model * Guest comes for the social-cultural context to make new work, as an extension of their work-life context. * Guest supported by own funds, national cultural funds or a grant given by host. * Guest works in negotiated collaboration, with event(s) during or at end of the period. * Guest's experience spreads word of residency host and community. * Host gains social, cultural capital and reputation from professional expertise in residence. * Community gains from additional cultural events, professional presence, and collaboration with cultural & mixed locals. 'Eco/cultural heritage/experience residency' model * Guest comes for the social-cultural context to learn & experience, extending their interest. * Guest is supported by own funds or national cultural funds. Money is exchanged for experience. * Guest learns & experiences in negotiated collaboration with specialists, with event(s) during residency. * Guest's experience spreads word of host, local specialists, and ecological or cultural heritage of the region. * Host gains social, economic capital & reputation from the negotiated events with local specialists. * Local specialists gain economical capital & reputation in local & international ecological or cultural heritage scenes. 'Work cultural exchange' model * Guest comes for the social-cultural context to learn & experience, as an extension of their work-life context. * Guest is supported by own funds. Labour is exchanged for accomodation, food & experience. * Guest works in negotiated individual or collaborative work, according to the needs of host. * Guest's experience spreads word and reputation of residency host, people and community. * Host gains human capital (skills, presence, resources) from the work-exchange. * Community gains from additional human and infrastructural investment in host organisation. . -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- andrew gryf paterson http://agryfp.info/ mobile [FI]: +358 50402 3828 email: [log in to unmask] skype/AIM: agryfp locale: Helsinki, FI -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------