hi Steve, 

sorry i am drifting a bit away but there are a few things in what you
write that seem interesting to me: 

_the parameters Sol LeWitt sets. Especially in relation to drawing,
spatiality (his drawings in a space), and abstraction, and how this
relates to issues of a limit of engagement? And how the limit becomes
the conditions for the making. The artist’s system and the boundaries
and also freedom he sets for himself? 
One could also think about Matthew Barney’s performance based work
incorporating “blockages”, or ‘restraints of drawing’.
(http://www.drawingrestraint.net/ > path > DR1 – DR12) - situating his
body and physical energy within a strict setting of devices in order to
produce a work. I think about how the vitality of the line that emerges
in a way has to contradict the strictness of the setting, maybe the
vitality of the line comes ONLY into being through this restriction and
resistance.   

Possibilities of speech, of articulation and expression. Is it about how
to create them? Any method allowed. 
 
And then, maybe one can also refer to how Raqs Media Collective speak
about the organised rendition of a stretch of code.    
In A Concise Lexicon of/for the Digital Commons Raqs Media Collective
describes ‘Iteration’: An articulation, when seen as an event, is an
iteration. Utterances, whispers, manifestos, graffiti, stories, rumours
and fragments of poetry found in the streets – each of these are
iterations. The organised rendition of a stretch of code is also an
iteration. Iteration implies a willingness to say something, and access
to the means of saying it, and a time in which it can be said. Every
iteration resonates through orbiting memes that are set off on their
vectors by the fact of an utterance. An iteration is the kernel of a
rescension. It needs to be said, and then said again.   

I am interested in to what degree the idea of the System becomes
fundamental to think about practice, e.g. making as system, creating as
system. How the system, as embodied in the ‘code’, more particularly in
the dynamics of open source, affects our relationship to think other
practices as well? What is it that brings us ‘back’ to Sol LeWitt?


best
verina















----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Lambert <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:53 am
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] June Theme: Open Source, Residencies
and the Lab Model

> I have a definition of this that works for me and quiets the 
> questions.
> For me it's about being the author of the system, or writing the  
> rules to the game.  You set parameters that others work within.
> 
> There is an art to setting good parameters or writing good rules.  
> I  
> may have referenced Sol LeWitt here before.  His rules are 
> specific,  
> and the outcome, although different every time, is very much a Sol  
> LeWitt piece.
> 
> Another example is rules to a game.  Good rules allow for 
> drastically  
> different outcomes that allow for all the drama of sport, but are  
> strict enough to make sure the game has a logic, remains 
> interesting,  
> etc.  Friedrich has found great ways of changing these rules to  
> literal games – video games – that provide for different outcomes 
> but  
> are still just as interesting, and maybe more interesting to play.
> 
> The rules or parameters maybe strict or very loose, but this 
> concept  
> fits most projects in my experience.  For interactivos, it was  
> collaboration, a 2 week time limit, and so on.
> 
> I think that might be the role of a curator – or an artist, 
> depending  
> on the project – in the most general sense.  The curator sets up  
> boundaries.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --
> Steve Lambert
> http://visitsteve.com
> Eyebeam Senior Fellow
> http://eyebeam.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Verina wrote:
> 
> > Dear all
> >
> > I would like to pick up the threat running through the June  
> > discussion/theme
> > Open Source, Residencies and the Lab Model.
> > Parts of CRUMB are just returned from a great working/producing/ 
> > presenting
> > environment at Eyebeam. Two weeks of the hybrid workshop 
> interactivos?> culminated in an installation 'Double Take' that 
> opened last  
> > Saturday, and
> > the frantic programming time seems to be replaced by working  
> > prototypes and
> > functional installations. {http://eyebeam.org/about/about.php? 
> > page=thisweek}
> > There is the issue of the state of the work, the moment of a 
> model  
> > becoming
> > art. There is also the collapsing of the status as resident in a lab
> > situation, the collaborator whose role of an agent is ambiguous 
> and  
> > shifting
> > during his collaboration, and the curatorial process that remains 
> 
> > to some
> > degree fairly ‘hidden’ – does the curator need an exhibition to  
> > make visible
> > the processes she initiates? How does the open source model 
> change our
> > understanding of curating practices (which are already subsumed 
> in the
> > larger term of ‘cultural producer). But to ask quite 
> provocatively:  
> > is the
> > curator position in an open source environment replaced by a  
> > coordinator of
> > the artists/residencies/workers? Or does everyone become a 
> curator  
> > in the
> > sense of creating an interface to the public? And what public?
> > Is a residency always taking place within a lab, a space?
> > Is an online residency possible, and how?
> > What is the end of collaboration?
> >
> > Any ideas and thought welcome!!! Experience from Eyebeamers??
> >
> > Best
> >
> > verina
> >
> > CRUMB
>