JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  January 2015

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING January 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: January/Feb 2015 theme: Remote artworks and mediated experience

From:

bec dean <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

bec dean <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:45:48 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (20 lines)

Hello everyone and thanks for inviting me into this discussion.
I’ll just give you some personal background which might be pertinent to this conversation: I was born in the UK, in Birmingham and I migrated to Perth, Western Australia when I was 13. As you may know, Perth is one of the most isolated major cities on earth – a fact often proudly proclaimed by its inhabitants. I think that my growing up into Perth’s rather small but complex contemporary arts context had a profound effect on my thinking about location in relation to art making, art ‘worlds’ (so many of them!) and curatorial practice. Living the 'tyranny of distance' and the 'centre & periphery' theory at once!
We are all of us remote and distanced from most artists, most forms of art-making, practices and cultural contexts all of the time. I am here at my computer in Sydney with access to Youtubed documents of performance art from New York in the 1970s and surrounded by books filled with representations of art made across so many times and places. There is always a distancing, as many of you have already discussed in this thread.
My main questions in relation to the topic are: For whom do we make the dispersed or rural work we are doing digitally accessible and why? Is it important that we digitally mediate these projects, now that we are technologically able to do so, and is this intrinsic to the work? For whom is the work or the art experience not regional at all, but local? Whose space or culture are we regionalising?
Turning to a more practical, hands-on, recent experience, I’d like to reflect on the laboratory program Time_Place_Space: Nomad, which I co-curated with Angharad Wynne-Jones (Artshouse, Melbourne) last year and which is an ongoing program between Performance Space, Artshouse and the Australia Council for the Arts. Angharad and I are working towards its second iteration for November 2015 and we really want to get the social media and distributed or publicly accessible part of the laboratory right this time. Not that we got it wrong per se, but I certainly made presumptions about technological and human capacity, and the willingness or ability of participants to engage with social media and other digital platforms throughout the program.
As background for TPS: Nomad, I’m pasting text I’ve edited from our initial call for participants, which was distributed last year:
Time_Place_Space: Nomad.A travelling laboratory program for interdisciplinary and experimental artists.
Time_Place_Space: Nomad is a national initiative that aims to challenge, invigorate and strengthen interdisciplinary and experimental arts practice in Australia, with an emphasis on collaborative performance-making, site-specificity and artistic resilience, following on from the original versions of the  Time_Place_Space program (TPS 1-6) that were produced by Performance Space from 2002-2009, and curated collaboratively by Fiona Winning (Performance Space), Sarah Miller (PICA), Julianne Pierce (ANAT) and Teresa Crea (New Media Arts Fellow, founding Director Para//elo).This original program sought to seed new artistic collaborations and productions with the capacity to tour nationally and internationally; build new networks for artists, curators and presenters; broaden and diversify audiences; and establish an international reputation for artists working in this field.
 The original laboratory programs were set in institutional, university and technically well-resourced urban contexts. This new iteration of TPS goes camping on the road, from city to countryside and asks artists to consider economic issues, scarcity and transience, urban life and remoteness, nationhood, the bare necessities of life and art-making in an unfixed and ever-changing environment. This program is collaboratively curated by Bec Dean (Performance Space) and Angharad Wynne-Jones (Artshouse, City of Melbourne).Key questions stimulated by this model include:– What resources do you really need to make your work?– What is your understanding of time, place and space in an Australian context?– In what ways is your work or your working process experimental and can this be challenged?– Do you factor any green or sustainment thinking into your performance making?– Do you have the capacity to live and work with others in communal and personally limiting circumstances?– Who is and where is your audience or participants for your work? How do they encounter and engage with your work?
So we went on the road, for 17 days, with 20 artists, 2 technicians, a video blogger, 2 curators and an assistant. We had lots of portable technologies, gadgets and materials on hand. We camped outdoors in places with no internet signal, and then later in small rural community contexts where we had more flexible access to laptops, power and internet platforms.
We employed a videographer to make short works about artist collaborations and experiments on the hop, and to document the lab in progress. It was our intention that some of this material could be uploaded to a Tumblr we had made for the program, and other material deemed non-public or for documentation purposes only would be uploaded to our password protected artist site. 
TPS: Nomad was a new version of a program, Time_Place_Space which Performance Space had curated and managed with the Australia Council for many years – 6 programs in total. One of the things that struck me about the program and its legacy was its invisibility in terms of publicly available documentation and information. Many of the artists that have participated in the TPS laboratories talk about how formative, crucial and important they were in terms of their practice and I thought that this was something we might be able to address with our new version. We had a plethora of small, portable and handheld technologies at our disposal as well as new solar packs for recharging all of our devices. We had access to portable wifi through Australia’s major telco. Collectively we created a lot of potential and ‘content’ for such a platform.
There were a few practical, ethical and IP hurdles to this idea of embracing social media and other digital forms for TPS Nomad which I will list here:
1.     Internet coverage in many parts of rural and regional Australia is patchy or non-existent (implementing the National Broadband Network which might have dragged the country into the 21st Century has been hopelessly stalled and botched by the current government). For half of the program we were completely unplugged from all phone and internet services – which actually turned out to be a fine thing in terms of usefully making and collaborating in a short amount of time.
2.     We ran the program through a democratic, Open Space process and the artists completely exceeded our expectations in terms of the volume and abundance of workshops, conversations, collaborative making projects and performances etc. produced over the time. It was difficult for our single videographer to capture everything that was happening, then edit the material and then drive to a place where we could get enough bandwidth to upload it.
3.     In spite of being contracted to engage with social media and to make some aspects of their participation publicly available, a number of artists objected to certain elements of documentation during the laboratory, or even to the presence of the videographer. With the benefit of hindsight, the documentation and distribution process should have been mutually agreed-upon within a group dynamic, or at least very explicitly detailed in the artist contract. We eventually negotiated a position on public availability of images, text and video as a group a few days into the program – putting the IP responsibility and the submission/uploading of material firmly and respectfully in the hands of the artists.
We always understood that deciding what content to make ‘public’ from the context of an ostensibly non-public, artist laboratory would be challenging. We had some aspiration that we could somehow reflect the ‘liveness’ or ‘nowness’ of what was happening as it happened in this incredibly rich artistic space. It felt like such an important thing us to have achieved prior to leaving for the program, but now I am not so sure. I’m still trying to figure out whether adding more videographers and editors to the program will be an improvement or whether it is even necessary to be ‘present’ in that live, digital space? Always pushing digital content into the ‘now’. For whom? How will this increased documentation and documenters affect how/what work is made? How will it affect the artists' relationships to the sites they are inhabiting and making work in? As participants we are still all discussing this aspect of the program, as for me it was really the single most unresolved/problematic issue of the program.
Here is a piece by one of the participants, just to give you an idea an experience of the program:http://www.realtimearts.net/article/issue124/11785
Perhaps later on in the month or further along in the conversation I can contribute by discussing the rationale behind some of Performance Space’s located and site-specific programming and its strategies for documentation, interaction, digital mediation and dissemination over the last eight years. Particularly where digital distribution/broadcasting is an essential PART of the work. I really enjoyed Michael Schwab’s response in this thread and I look forward engaging with JAR.
Thanks!Bec Dean 		 	   		  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager