 |
 |
Hello List, Picking up on Sarah's post, it was thought-provoking to get three distinctive approaches – institutional, independent and 'private' – across the presentations, as each sector raised issues related to very specific curatorial (and socio-political and economic) perspectives. One of the operational differences that emerged was, as Sarah pointed out, the uses of purposefully built platforms versus existing ones. One of the speakers, Robert Sakrowski, presented a series of curatorial projects that employ You Tube as a site of production, a gallery, but also as a strategy of display and distribution. See for example his project "3 hours in one second", <http://grid.curatingyoutube.net/show/> There were two distinct positions that came out of the presentations. On the one side, there was the position of a curator with the "responsibility" to subvert hierarchical systems of production and distribution of art – for example, through exploiting the tools and characteristics offered by existing platforms –; on the other side, there was the position of an institution, which aims to explore new modes of sustainability within the current art system – though building a customised and 'user-friendly' platform. Both these positions somehow break with what is understood as 'authoritative', and perhaps validating, system, through an 'horizontalisation' of the system of production and distribution, such as wide access with various levels of participation, as well as an increase of new opportunities for creating work and distribute it. The two adopt very different methods of curatorial operation, as well as differing models of collaboration, which are tied to each sector's specific agenda. It would be interesting to hear more about these 'differences within similarity'. Perhaps from people who attended the workshops, or maybe from some of the contributors of the discussion, who might want to expand on the above. Words/issues that came up very frequently during the breakout groups were: access, interactivity, specificity of the online experience and of the Internet as a tool, as well as sustainability in relation to current funding schemes in the UK. In my breakout group one of the pressing issue seemed to be that of sustainability, especially for small organisations and 'independents'. There will be more on this on CRUMB website and hopefully also over the course of this discussion. Another notion that was raised and might be interesting to bring up here is that of "cross-platform content", e.g. content produced for being experienced across different digital devices, thus formats, or, more generally speaking, across different display platforms, including gallery spaces. This brings me back to few earlier messages of this list about the role of platform and sites in relation to one's curatorial approach and strategy of distribution. We have had great contributions touching on networked performance in the context of live festivals for example, or streaming technology; of performative works taking place in a gallery space to be experienced either there or "in a common space [online] that stretches across the globe" (Kelani) But I also wonder what other contributors to this discussion, whose work don't deal directly with performance, approach this type of distribution, and thus participation; a type of dissemination of which content develops across and through different platforms and sites? I am here thinking of Simon Biggs who mentioned "the issue of having the event at two sites", but also Tatiana Bazzichelli, whose ReSource project has been developed across different platforms and formats, for example an international research group, a series of discussions, a newspaper and a series of performances/events, incorporating a strategy of "decentralisation". Tatiana also raised the concept of the "living stage", and Annie Abrahams posted a link to "The Social Life of Artists on Facebook" which relates to a very current phenomenon which is that of "[artists] performance of their own personal brand" through their online presence…I am interested in this idea of "performative exhibition/site" and I wonder if anyone I mentioned would like to add something in relation to their experience? Thank you. More soon, Marialaura On 14 Mar 2012, at 15:46, Sarah Cook wrote: > Hi Johannes > great that Marlon was in town (is he traveling anywhere else in the UK while here?) -- we at CRUMB are also fans of his work, and lessons which can be learned about new media collaboration through salsa dancing! > Will you be able to post online anywhere documentation of the discussion you had? > Cheers > Sarah > > > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 15:30, Johannes Birringer wrote: > >> dear all >> >> i was just going to distract you all when Sarah's message came that Newcastle was a slow down event. I am glad to hear that (having moderated a month-long debate last year on "deceleration"), and did not mean to rush anyone, i had just wondered aloud. >> >> Meanwhile (and that might be an indirect response to the posting this morning), I'd like to mention that in my Digital Technologies Lab last night (for MA students) we welcomed as visitor the producer/developer of www.dance-tech.net, >> and for a few hours Marlon Barrios Solano worked with us, and gave a talk on how he created the platform (which, he mentioned, now is a hub/spider web of several platforms underlying dance-tech.net and on one, for example, runs the Live Streaming channels, on another the community forum, on another the video interviews with artists, and so on and on) – http://www.dance-tech.net/ – and then we discussed some consequences for collaborative working methods and pegadogies, bottom up, p2p, distributed, DIY and Do it Wth Others, generous, open source, open. >> >> Marlon was inspiring, and i think the evening left a mark on everyone, and of course it encourages to see how Marlon (who once studied for a dance/tech MA at Ohio State when I taught there) developed an independent career as a platform developer and producer and researcher, and thus also a distributor of media.