 |
 |
Hello Crumbs, Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I've been thoroughly enjoying reading the many insightful and interesting posts in this month's topic, so thank you to Suzy and the contributors. I'm Director of the Australian Network for Art & Technology (aka ANAT), which has been offering art/science residencies for the past ten years in partnership with the Australia Council for the Arts. The residencies are delivered as part of the Synapse initiative, which also includes longer-term (2-3yr) residencies through the Australia Research Council's Linkage program and an online database of art/science collaborative projects: www.synapse.net.au I started looking after the Synapse residencies in 2007. At that time, many of the earlier residencies had been limited in their collaborative potential by the process we had in place, specifically: - we would call for host organisations; - we would select three/four organisations; - we called for artists to select which organisation they would like to undertake a residency with; - we would match an artist to each host for a three-month full-time residency. Generally, what would end up happening (noting there are always exceptions): - the artist and host would spend the first month learning how to talk to each other; - they would spend the second month trying to figure out what research they might collaborate on; - and then have a whole four-weeks to do so. Not surprisingly, this often resulted in relatively limited collaborations and little in the way of an ongoing relationship between the artist and hosts. We changed this process for the 2007 round, with immediate and encouraging results: - we required a joint application from artist and host (meaning issues of language/communication and identification of research focus had all been dealt with prior to the application being submitted); - we increased the residency term to four months full-time. Since this change, we have witnessed relationships between the artist and their host researchers that are considerably deeper and which continue over many months and years after the conclusion of the residency. Also, the outcomes are generally much more interesting. That said, it is important to note that Synapse residencies have no requirement for outcomes; indeed, if someone submits an application that anticipates an outcome at the outset (for eg. a new work or an exhibition), they will usually not be selected. Why? Because the Synapse residencies have as their core focus speculative collaborative research... we want the partners to be able to 'follow their noses' and incorporate learnings gleaned throughout the residency. Whilst we foreground the speculative nature of the residencies, there are almost always outcomes that arise as part of the research process, rather than being the driver. These have included academic papers, exhibitions, workshops or seminars, artefacts, conference presentations, successful bids for longer-term engagement through the ARC Linkage program or, in one case, the establishment of a University-based artist's residency program, placing artists into other faculty and supported directly by the Vice-Chancellor. I'm happy to write further about our model if anyone is interested, but in the meantime you can read about the 30+ artists who have participated in Synapse residencies over the last decade here: http://www.anat.org.au/synapse-art-science-residencies/ With best regards Vicki ----------- Vicki Sowry | Director Australian Network for Art and Technology [ANAT] On 18/03/2015 8:56 pm, "Suzy" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear List, > > I would like to share a valuable contribution from Prof David Garcia, Digital > Arts & Media Activism, Bournemouth University. > > I look forward to hearing your thoughts. : ) > > Suzy > > On 16 Mar 2015, at 15:36, David Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Dear Suzy, I wanted to contribute to the Terminology thread in your notes >> from the Emerge meeting. This part of the discussion focuses on the fact >> that something about the digital revolution has made it harder to categorise >> practitioners in the creative sector. Where once we would have spoken easily >> about artists, illustrators or designers we now have to work with a more >> expanded hybrid, boundary crossing vocabulary. >> >> I think that Simon who declared that he was "interested in how artists are >> currently self-identifying. We increasingly see a range of titles beside >> that of Œartist¹ in the biogs of artists. At a recent talk, Dave Griffiths >> introduced himself as a Œgeneralist¹. Dave describes himself as an artist, >> director and inventor and mentions Liam self identifies as a creative >> practitioner, hacker, maker, artists or all or any of these. Danny mentions >> artists and digital creatives. >> >>> While artists themselves seem comfortable with using multiple titles, it >>> does >>> raise some interesting questions about the term 'artist', what it covers and >>> what it doesn't and what understanding and expectations industry partners >>> have >>> of the role and process of the artist in collaborative art/digital industry >>> projects?" >>> >> I agree with Simon that this is important because the change in terminology >> points to a deeper change. I would argue that it is indicative of how the >> persistant concept of the *Creative Industries* in conjunction with the fact >> that for more than two decades courses of media art and design are no longer >> locked into single media crafts; e.g. painting, sculpture, film,graphic >> design, or web design etc means that we have seen the emergence an employment >> cultural landscape made up of networks of interdisciplinary General Purpose >> Creativity companies. >> >> These companies and other organisations frequently use digital media as a >> catalyst for cross platform hybridity. The general acceptance of this kind of >> creative >> hybridity is reflected in the currency of a term designating a new kind of >> professional: *the Creative*- a term that, these days, frequently displaces >> -artist or designer- Our acceptance of hybridity as a fact of proffessional >> life is the basis of the new MA that Neal and I have been developing for >> Bournemouth. >> >> A symptom of this has been the recent decision of Central St Martins to >> develop of all things an MBA. It would have once seemed absurd to have >> instituted an MBA in an art school but these days it is seen as simply a >> logical >> consequence of the commodification of the concept of creativity. The >> question is does this attempt to capture and commodify digital cultures mean >> that the radical potential of this movement is now extinguished. In an >> article here: >> http://new-tactical-research.co.uk/blog/notes-towards-reframing-creative-que >> stion/ I have attempted to demonstrate that this is not neccessarily the >> case. >> >> David Garcia >> >> >> >> BU is a Disability Two Ticks Employer and has signed up to the Mindful >> Employer charter. Information about the accessibility of University buildings >> can be found on the BU DisabledGo webpages This email is intended only for >> the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete >> this email, which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other >> person. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do >> not necessarily represent those of Bournemouth University or its subsidiary >> companies. Nor can any contract be formed on behalf of the University or its >> subsidiary companies via email.