On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Gabriel Menotti
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If opensourcing is just revealing the code-to-be-compiled, maybe it
> makes not much sense outside the software world. But what if we see it
> as a continuous practice to fight the transparency of the interfaces
> and overcome the blackbox's programme (in a flusserian way)?
Yes. Perhaps thinking about the way barcamps and unconferences work might help.
There is a statement of what kind of thing might be expected.
People participate and contribute something which fits the purpose.
The venue insurance promotion and expression of the event could all be
How would that change the process of event making?
Would there be too much friction with expected processes to include
the kinds of insurance and venue questions in the process.
Define the kinds of things which you want to focus on and perhaps the
scope re what needs to be mutable will make sense as a part of that
Imagine an exhibition on value. Perhaps the whole expression of the
exhibition could be a series of actions which the visitors engage in
to progress through the exhibition - paying in different ways buy a
ticket, pull a ticket from a wall, make a comment, go through a
turnstyle counter, would later stages include things that the visitors
could make as their own pieces of process to add to the end.
do people need to bring with them all of the things which they will
add to the end of the process through the process itself
would it be filmed. is filming a stage of process. do some aspects of
the process exist outside the building, does this change the
relationship between open v closed and access. is it still interesting
if it is open in a park and there is no real restriction of progress.
how much is the progress a function of restriction of the exhibition space.