Just before the clock hits JUNE, we are thinking of how we've enjoyed this
discussion process (thanks Juliette!) and how endings or products/objects
can be arbitrary like this month or carefully conceived earlier in the
process.

Thank you Ursula for raising the question of a curating practice that
parallels the creative process.
This is something that we have been thinking and pursuing a lot with our
long-term and process/research based projects such as iParade and Reaction
Bubble.

Needless to say, we are all part of a digital culture obsessed with
transparency of process. We share and "share" our research, inspiration,
fabrication, failures, successes, public presentations, breakfast,
meetings, fundraising, trips to Home Depot. Organizations and artists use
social media as a way to engage with their public and build a dialog around
works that might be complex and require this type of long-term conversation
for full appreciation.

Thanks also to Laura for bringing up the responsibility institutions,
curators, and artists have for finding the right presentation,
distribution, and archiving method for each work, or body of work.

One example we can share is our collaborative project Reaction Bubble, a
commission from Real Art Ways (CT) with support from The Robert
Rauschenberg Foundation.
For this project we invited two other artists, a ceramist Matt Towers and a
choreographer Deborah Goffe to work with us. All artists and Real Art Ways
staff have been committed to the idea of shared process that has been
evolving since we started working on the piece in 2012 and included a
series of public events that track our artistic thinking, problem solving,
and production. This has taken the form of an intimate talk, a
participatory presentation, and coming up next; an online discussion.

Curating a process-based project might require an interdepartmental
collaboration when working with an institution (e.g., an education
coordinator or public events manager) rather than simply work with a
curator. Perhaps the expanded view of a curator or curating parallels the
expanded view of "objects".

Tali and Kyle (LoVid)


On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Ursula Endlicher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Juliette, dear everyone,
>
> Having been on the road in Europe since the beginning of May and in the
> process of developing a new piece called “Far-Flung’s future” – a second
> installment of the real-time data and performative installation series
> called “Far-Flung” – I unfortunately only found time this week to follow
> up on (most of) the exciting and informative posts on this panel. Thank
> you, Juliette, for inviting me to be part of this, and having the chance
> to be connected to a lot of inspiring thoughts.
>
> As the panel will come to its end soon, as I understand, I’d like to touch
> upon just a couple of thoughts that caught my attention, and also refer
> briefly to my own art practice.
>
> In my work I utilize real-time processes of a variety of sources and
> re-enact them through other process-based “languages” – physically or
> virtually or both. I started working in that way – with real-time data –
> about fifteen years ago, being intrigued by the idea of “liveness” as this
> novel and uncontrollable parameter adding a new layer of reality, or
> medium, to my work.
>
> In earlier works HTML code became dance and then performed HTML again, or,
> more recent, remote weather data controls the performance of different
> components in Internet art works or "physical" works.  In the above
> mentioned “Far-Flung” series, I find myself dealing with a variety of
> processes. One, the software-based part that constantly reaches out to
> weather stations and grabs the data to choreograph the space itself,
> controlling video, audio and lights in a theater space,
> while, secondly, performers and the audience are to follow the same
> “rules” as the media. I am fascinated by bringing machine language and
> human/physical language together, while applying the “on-the-fly”
> character of computer processes to human performance.
>
> Reading through the posts in this panel I was smitten with the discussion
> about “residue” versus “object” in process-based art, brought up by Ashok
> Mistry and Victoria Bradbury.
> Also, I find Stephanie’s installation “Reversal of Fortune: Garden of
> Virtual Kinship” such a strong example for a contemporary process-based
> art work, as it uses an actual (and social) real-time process
> (crowd-sourcing) while reenacting this virtual process through another
> process, through the watering system of plants.
>
> I often think about such complex works as flexible “frameworks” that
> become alive and "animated” through real-time input. I usually describe my
> own work as this kind of framework, which I would call an object, no
> matter if it consists of a physical or virtual framework, but I think what
> makes it contemporary is, that it is a “live” object, one, that only
> completely exists when some sort of “life-line” is hooked up to it.
>
> I wonder, Juliette, when you think about “curating” the process, do you
> maybe see a parallel here, meaning: do you think about showing
> process-based artworks through other processes, and if yes, what kind?
>
> Looking forward to hearing back…
>
> Thanks,
> Ursula
>
>
> Ursula Endlicher
> www.ursenal.net
>



-- 
www.lovid.org