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  March 2015

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING March 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Emerging Ideas: March 2015 Discussion

From:

Suzy <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Suzy <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:33:00 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (168 lines)

Victoria, thank you so much for your insightful descriptions of what sounds like two very fruitful experiences in China. : )

You bring up some very important issues around the artist role within the new collaborative and co creation models being discussed this month and their effect on the ways artists are working now 

You highlight two different production contexts, in 2012, you describe engaging with a network, which provided you with access to skills, resources and mentoring, whereas in 2008 you were provided with space and time to work and exposure to local artists or galleries. It seems in both of these contexts, it was up to you, the artist to engage with and make use of these contexts rather than it being a facilitated interaction, which is what we are seeing more of now. Can you talk a little more about this?  

 Suzy O'Hara 
e:[log in to unmask]
t: 07891719319
twitter: @suzy_o_hara

PhD Researcher
www.crumbweb.org
www.intopractice.com

Curator & Arts Producer
Thinking Digital Arts
www.thinkingdigital.co.uk/arts 


On 16 Mar 2015, at 10:42, Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi List,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the great discussion Suzy and for the invitation to participate.
> 
>  
> Just a quick introduction to my recent experiences related to this topic. I am an artist working in new media and have been working internationally in maker spaces as well as organising and participating in hacks and art hacks throughout the UK. 
> 
>  
> As an artist, I have benefited from some of the models and examples already mentioned on this list, while trying to understand my role within them and their effect on the ways artists are working now. In September 2014, was an artist-in-residence at Digital Media Labs, for which respondent Dave Lynch was one of the organisers. Later, in November 2014, I presented the work that I created at DM Labs at the White Building during Irini’s Disobedient Objects event. I was co-Lead-Artist on the Thinking Digital Arts // Hack in Newcastle in 2014. I participated in Hack the Space at the Tate Modern http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/hack-the-space-tate-modern and sketched out some tips for artists participating in hacks during The Yorkshire Hack at the Digital Utopias Conference: http://victoriabradbury.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/victorias-rules-for-hack-participants.html
> 
>  
> While I have plenty to say about the above, I am going to use this space to compare my two experiences working in China in 2008 and 2012, how I approached these differently, and how they have affected my practice.
> 
>  
> In 2012, I was living and making work in China, where I did not have a studio. To create my project, Toast (http://blurringartandlife.com/vb/toast.html), I was working in a “hot-desking” format at XinCheJian Hackerspace (http://xinchejian.com/) in Shanghai and at Beijijng Makerspace (http://www.bjmakerspace.com/) in Zhongguancun. Using these maker spaces as a studio-base allowed me to find willing participants for my projects, draw upon shared equipment, and locate other local resources. For Toast, I needed a bespoke Perspex/plexiglass box. I interfaced with someone who I met at XinCheJian, an artist/designer who runs an interior architecture startup. She invited me to her studio where I was able to work with one of her team to draw up a CAD design for my box and send it to be custom-made (something that would be exceedingly difficult to source on my own with my limited Mandarin abilities - I tried;) ).  Also while in Shanghai, I became acquainted with Core Labs, a company working at the intersection of art and technology with a gallery space and office space where they create commercial and artistic digital projects and host events. Core Labs were just starting in 2012 and I missed their opening event by weeks, but would have liked to have gotten to know them better had I stayed longer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/core_labs/sets/72157623017582856/
> 
> 
>  
> The most useful aspect of working out of the maker space venues was the opportunity to meet other people working with art and technology, which led me to other events, talks (including Barcamp Shanghai), conferences (including Node.js), and exhibitions. I was also selected to participate in the Shanghai Biennial IMMERSION: Art and Technology Workshops, which were organized by (now NYC-based) curator Juliette Yuan and taught by Graham Harwood, Roy Ascott, and others. These were presented in a mentorship/workshop format that brought artists and student-artists together to learn new skills and create collaborative projects.
> 
>  
> These experiences from 2012 sit in contrast to my time in China in 2008 when I was in an artist-in-residence role at Imagine Gallery, Beijing.  During a month in residence, I independently created my 37 Red Hats project http://blurringartandlife.com/vb/redhats.html. This was a more traditional residency format, in which I was offered a place to work and live in a city away from home. This type of residency offers space and time to work (both welcome commodities for an artist), as well as varying degrees of exposure to local artists or galleries, in this case, mostly other artists-in-residence at Red Gate Gallery in adjacent studios.
> 
> 
> As a new media artist, I am finding that dynamic and usually short-term experiences, in the form of workshops, hacks, or pop-up residencies (such as Digital Media Labs which provided equipment, mentorship and other artists work work/play with during a high-intensity week), are more productive for pushing my practice forward and opening up new opportunities than traditional studio-style residencies. Exposure to equipment and networking tend to be the most difficult resources to obtain, but ones that are plentiful in these new dynamic models.
> 
>  
> I would be interested to hear the list’s response to these comments and am happy to elaborate on these and other related topics.
> 
>  
> - Victoria Bradbury
> 
>   CRUMB Researcher: The Performativity of Code
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> // Victoria Bradbury
> <PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com
> Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org
> New Media Caucus <CommComm>
> Attaya Projects // Collaborator 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Suzy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks a million for all of your contributions this week. We have covered some interesting ground. I’ve pulled out some of the key ideas and themes that have been emerging over the past couple of weeks for people to connect to and tease out further from their own perspective. You are of course welcome to pitch in with any other themes or thoughts you think are relevant!
> 
> Role of Research:
> 
> Its been great to hear about Emma and Simon’s collaborative research projects that bring together arts, technology/industry and research to experiment with new models of practice, test ideas which may potentially fail, self reflect and share new knowledge of developing collaborative practices. It offers us two different models that explicitly value the research and development process over the end product.
> 
> Interesting that Liam’s experiences of working with commercial clients and partners when research was not a key partner showed a different picture.
> 
> Olga raised some great questions around the artists’ role and remit as researcher within wider society.  She identified some important challenges in how we ensure that art remain an ‘outstanding free domain’ where we can ‘reflect upon future scenarios we may fear or desire’.
> 
> She asks
> 
> How do we ‘maintain and prosper these values of autonomy-quality-experiment-freedom.’?
> 
> And
> 
> How do we sustain autonomy whilst simultaneously stay open for new, applied (business and corporation) models and strategies?
> 
> Olga also highlights an important point relating to identifying new ways to articulate cultural value and its impact in relation to industry and other domains outside of the realm of the arts.
> 
> Working Practices
> 
> A number of people have mentioned some of the challenges of collaborating with partners who have differing working practices and processes.
> 
> Simon mentions the ‘mismatch in terms of academic and industrial life (academia tending to be slower and more reflective /abstract, whereas industry tending to be quicker and more action – orientated and specific).
> 
> Liam highlights how the ‘early stage identification of an end product’ demanded by industry is at ‘odds with a more organic developmental process that form part of the core methodologies of fine art and design higher education.’
> 
> Liam also notes that current art/design graduates are ‘poorly equipped to engage with creative/tec industries that are perusing a marketable, commercially realised concept. It would be great to hear some thoughts on this.
> 
> Danny identified the differing ways that designers and subject specialists ‘see’ cultural heritage images.  It would be great more about how these differences in perception and process have impacted upon emerging practices and projects?
> 
> Olga thinks the idea of ‘open and playful experimentation and research as part of the artistic practice is crucial and serves as a foundation for our society and as a tool for culture in general.
> 
> Context for Production
> 
> I was interested to hear people’s thoughts on Olga’s reflections of issues surrounding autonomy vs applied art and Johanne’s question relating to who is setting the agendas in these our increasingly collaborative landscape?
> 
> Danny highlighted the impact of his particular context  ‘a large third – sector organisation with independent commissioning budgets’ in relation to the museum engagement programme he is developing.
> 
> It would be great to hear about the ways in which participants’ see their context impacting upon their practices and programmes.
> 
> Danny and Olga have mentioned a number of collaborative projects that they have commissioned and produced. It would be great to get a little more detail of the curatorial infrastructure that underpinned them. I would be very invested to hear about any other models people have used/ heard about for commissioning collaborative arts / digital industry projects
> 
> Danny mentioned that within his game/media/art projects, ‘the development and production process was often far from easy’. Could we hear a little more about this?
> 
> Dave highlighted a range of creative production contexts he has created in order to foster collaborations and develop networks between different disciplines and sectors. Collaborative discussion and talk events, output oriented intensive labs, open ended residential labs without the pressure to produce a final outcome, are all interesting models and strategies that highlight the needs of our developing collaborative landscape.
> 
> Olga highlights that Baltan’s ‘open minded strategies’ for open and creative collaborations are based on ‘trust, empathy and mutual inspiration’
> 
> A model not mentioned so far is the rise of hack events, cultural hacks where organisations are experimenting with new ways to consider their data and art hacks that often bring different communities together to co create. They often have a competitive element with ‘prizes’ for winning projects.
> 
> As well as the opportunity to develop new project ideas, a key selling point for these research and development based events is the possibility for participants to develop new practices, ideas and relationships in the process of co creation. To pick up on one of Liam’s points, it is interesting to note that in general, participants are not paid when they attend these events.
> 
> Sector Development
> 
> It is great to hear about our developing infrastructures (from artist led and organizational initiatives to strategic funding) that underpin and nurture our emerging co - creative, cultural communities to collaborate effectively.
> 
> Through his featured artworks, Jonas raises some critical issues around existing systems, behaviours and practices inherent within contemporary art and the commercial art market.
> 
> Dave highlighted his artist led initiatives that support the development of artistic collaborative practices, such as The Superposition, ASMbly and Digital Media Labs.
> 
> Simon explains that the Creative Exchange project is using co – design or co-creation as a means to facilitate collaborative learning between academia, creative/cultural and industry partners.
> 
> Emma mentioned that supporting sector development is central to her initiative. ‘Projects have been supported because we feel that they can provide wider learning for the arts and so sharing the learning is a key element of their deliverables.’ She also articulates her strategy for sharing the knowledge gained via the funded projects.
> 
> Johanne asks if Danny’s programme of "digital presence & work on art, media and game projects" a new and a different avenue? The evolving position of these new practices in existing arts structures is an interesting one! Where do these kinds of projects sit within the wider arts and creative digital industries?
> 
> Terminology
> 
> A few thoughts on the evolving language of collaborative practices
> 
> Simon highlighted that his team is not so keen on the term ‘knowledge exchange’ to articulate the collaborative learning that is occurring in his project. How are we articulating the co learning that is happening in collaborative projects more broadly?
> 
> I’m interested in how artists are currently self-identifying. We increasingly see a range of titles beside that of ‘artist’ in the biogs of artists. At a recent talk, Dave Griffiths introduced himself as a ‘generalist’. 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 am also interested in how we are naming the contexts for collaborative production. 'Incubator' and 'Culture Hack' are two examples where the language and models of practice from the creative digital industries are modified and utilised in a cultural setting, reflecting evolving collaborative art/industry systems and practices.
> 
> An interesting example would be the use of the term ‘incubator’ from New INC project. I’m curious to hear thoughts about the understanding of the word ‘incubator’, an industry word relating to start ups, when it is used in a cultural context.  Maybe we can hear more about that from Julia? I am also keen to discover the ways in which an ‘incubator’ differs from a ‘lab’?
> 
> I’m looking forward to our continuing discussion. ; )
> 
> Suzy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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