[-empyre-] Re: [backup.lounge|lab.02]welcome to february's discussion on open source-open art
>1. What does the term "source(s)" mean to an artistic environment?
>2. Which elements of the artistic process can become exchangeable sources
>and how can they be determined -> Basically meaning "what is it I would like
>to contribute and what do I want to receive/learn from the others" (i.e.
>technical knowledge, conceptual approach, material, files,...)?
The source is the artist. I will jump right in with a thought from having discussed these ideas while participating in the project. I remember deciding that in a non-consumer/product based artistic culture - perhaps simpliefied broadly as time-based work (that I and all of the artists participating find ourselves a part of), the product, the item to be consumed is the artist themselves. In relation to this we can say that artists themselves are the source, in every way. Every aspect of themselves is the source, from personality to skills to ideas to conceptual frameworks. The question is what do they want to share? What programs do they want to work on today? And what other programs are accessible to combine code with? In a collaborative situation such as Lounge.Lab, who is around to build relations with and in which way?
In terms of my experience of Lounge.Lab, I built a variety of different relationships with different people as time went on. Some were more blatently conceptual and artistic, and some were more sociable. But in the context of collaboration and art, even the sociable relationships influenced the work that was produced. It seems to me that different different sources contributed to the development of various differnt programs I am developing, which all contributed to my systems production of work...
>3. Open source code development is bound to a certain programming language
>and the knowledge of this language. The language will generalise the
>discussion/development and makes it possible to understand it.
>What kind of catalysts/interpreters may be used to create such a generalised
>environment for a collaborative art project in order we have to speak the
>This refers also to the meaning and relations of the virtual and the tactile
>dimension. For .lounge|lab we tried to use the physical space of the
>exhibition as a catalyst everybody could understand and deal with; it might
>be worth to find out what the virtual space may offer here?
The main experiment with Lounge.Lab was the first few days, I felt. During this time there was a concerted effort by all, particularly driven by a few individuals, to really all contribute to a communally developed collaborative/conceptual space, so that work could develop in full relationship. After several days of too much discussion, this effort broke down and people kind of went and did their own thing, with smaller collaborations building up naturally. It was clear that people worked in such different ways that a universal framework could not be established - at least not in such a short time. Perhaps this is not an answer to your question, but another question: is it possible to create an environment where this universality does occur - where all parties can operate in harmony and some truely unique work is produced? Is this collaborative romanticism or is there a structure of engagement that can facilitate equal contributions from all working methodologies, without judgement or reaction, so that practitioners from different backgrounds can indeed COLLABORATE? Or do we just get on with it and allow what is going to build naturally, in a creatively energetic setting?
Invigoration and Disturbance
www.jonfawcett.com (operative in the coming weeks)
Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus!
Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and