Hello all. I work in the production lab at eyebeam and here are some of my
thoughts:

*
* Can collaboration exist without openness?*
Lots of people collaborate without being open what they are working on. Like
weapons.  However in a context where collaboration is a model to produce
artwork, i think there is no way it can exist without openess.  I want to
make a distinction between assistance and collaboration.  Assistance happens
very often and easily in a lab context, is obvious and expected i feel.  But
assistance doesn't assure collaboration.  To me collaboration in the true
sense means to share the impetus to create the work and distribute the
control over it. And this is a difficult process, therefore very valuable.
Without openess it is impossible to create using collaboration as model of
production of work.

* * 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)*

I work in lab (production lab) where neither collaboration, open source or
public domain are hardcoded. However lots of projects and ongoing
collaborations have been created specifically to meet this values. Maybe new
media works are a response often to works concerned with all the the
implications intellectual property? Also they are concerned with alternative
models of production of work and that is why they take adavantage of open
tools to being created. Often, not always.  However for me, the implications
of hardcode this values in  lab, implies to produce work that affirms this
values in its process and in the final outcome. The work produce in a lab
with this hardcoded values has to reflect it the philosophy of the
environment of creation.
Eyebeam is an interesting place, i think this is hardcoded in the whole
building. Is not only about a lab. Collaborative projects are often
developed by people in different labs. Workshops and particpatory events are
a combination of people of different labs. I guess Eyebeam for me is a place
where you can come and create work that adress this values and if your work
doesn't inspires you to find mechanisms to do so.

* * Is it necessary or helpful to have a creative commons mentality when
engaged in collaborative projects?*
I feel that people interested in create using collaboration as model of
production are often interested in participation. As i think that you can
create collaboratevely withouth having to release in the public domain, in
the moment you add the audience to your work, then more than hepfull is is
necesarry to move over the realm of public domain.
I dont know if it has to be trough creative commons, GPLS, copyleft,
workshops,talks etc.. but we should use all the means necessary to assure
the participation of the public in what we do. Otherwise working in Lab
context wouldn't make much sense to me. I feel that even more than for us,
this values are promoted in Eyebeam to benefit the public with the work they
support.

* What can be learned from the model of artist-curator residencies within
labs, where participants are expected to collaborate?

I have a very good experience of developing a project in a residency in
inCUBATE in Chicago. My whole idea and research was created with their close
participation during the process of the curators in-house.  Both parts have
to be interested in being open to the ideas of the other part. They
obviously invite people to their residency that they are excited about their
work but they provide a whole other input regarding the distribution and
presentation of the work, that is really helpfull. Also, working with
curators in the development of a project helps you ease a bit about all the
networking/pr part, that sometimes just take time out of you from the actual
production. I learn that collaboration doesn't exist without openess. In
this model too, if there is no interest in the ideas, is impossible to be
open about them and therefore develop something together. However is valid
and normal, to not being interested about every single idea in the world.

--------------
About weapons and destruction.  In reality most of the most destructive acts
in the world are possible through collaboration, like war or terrorists
attacks. Even in the network of secret destructive projects, they have to be
open to each other in order to develop. I guess the important question is
the reasons someone have to collaborate and being open and share  or not,
when create something.  I don't think openess in the development of
destructive technology will prevent us to make it harmless.There are too
many interests beyond the good intentions. Isn't Rotblat joined the
Manhattan Project because he wanted to stop the atomic bomb? He couldn't.
Anyway, the formula of *E* = *m**c*2 its in the public domain already, and
anyone can do with it what they please. This doesn't mean that is going to
be used only to create clean energy plants, unfortunately.


--- thanks + ciao
Geraldine


On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Gale Moore <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been following these discussions with interest.
>
> One way I've seen these differentiated is to describe the nature of the
> engagement as being 'cooperative' or 'collaborative'
>
> There's a longstanding discussion and debate in the literature on
> 'interdisciplinarity' that may help reflect on this. This literature
> differentiates among inter- trans- cross- and multi- disciplinarity. The
> term 'interdisciplinary' which dominates general use is not likely the best
> description of the majority of research team processes and practices as it
> suggests a new set of shared theories and methods emerging and often leads
> to greater specialisation (e.g biochemisty). In my own experience most
> projects are either trans- or cross- disciplinary (cv collaborative
> perhaps)
> where there are shared goals and objectives and the work is tightly coupled
> (to varying degrees) and multi-disciplinary (cv cooperative) where more
> multiple viewpoints are the idea and the work more loosely coupled.
>
> Gale Moore
> Professor & Director, KMDI
> Room 7250, Bahen Centre for IT
> 40 St. George St.
> Toronto M5S 2E4
>
> t. 416-978-4655
> f. 416-978-KMDI
>
> http://kmdi.utoronto.ca
> http://open.utoronto.ca
> http://epresence.kmdi.utoronto.ca
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beryl Graham
> Sent: June 16, 2008 6:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] June Theme: Open Source, Residencies and
> the Lab Model
>
> Dear List,
>
> Thanks for these interesting post- it's great to hear namings of kinds
> of collaboration from practice, and I'd like to throw in something from
> Sara Diamond, formerly of the New Media Institute at Banff.  At the
> summit "Participate/Collaborate: Reciprocity, Design and Social
> Network" in 2004, she names 2 kinds of collaborative new media
> research:
> "Parallel Research" where each researcher does their own 'module' of
> research which might be part of a greater whole.
> "Conjoined Research" where there was a closer and interdependent
> research.
>
> Any more namings?
>
> Yours
>
> beryl
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>