[-empyre-] practice, research, curating, common, deconstruction

Ana Valdés agora158 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 14:36:26 EST 2012

Sorry to come so late into the discussion but I have been really busy
gathering the guests to the next month's topic in -empyre. I am a bit
concerned about the relation between the reproduction of knowledge and the
ability to generate changes in the paradigms ruling our quotidianity.
Using the concept of Cornelius Castoriadis "l'imaginaire social" and
Giorgio Agamben's State of Exception we should be able to examine the
framework of our intellectual commitment, l'intelectuel engagé" and propose
a strategy to generate real changes and not only cosmetic or minor changes.
To avoid being a kind of Lampedusa's ""Gatopardo", "Change a little bit to
keep everything unchanged".
How do we curate or choose in a world where originals and copies merge and
loose their shapes? If we follow Baudrillard's these of a world without
originals we should keep in mind the production of artistic objects (books,
images, photos, plays, films, music, etc) seems doomed to a permanent
repetition, a kind of loop where originals and copies are interchangeable.
Making the whole concept of creative commons, copyright and copyleft more
complex than ever :)


On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Magda Tyzlik-Carver <
magda at thecommonpractice.org> wrote:

> Sorry for coming back with some of the responses with this delay.  Also
> thank you Ioana for your answers, which again seem to articulate proximity
> of our interests. ****
> ** **
> >>You talk about "...practice in flux, nomadic practice that exists in the
> common." If I may infer some degree of useful disorganization results from
> the distributedness in your curatorial practice, I would then ask if there
> are any incompatibilities emerging from 'nomadic'****
> (where I read 'disparate') and 'common' (where I read 'shared' and
> 'collective'). I mean, in your Common Practice is there any difficulty in
> curating togetherness, in organizing collectivity? What is the effect of
> the technology in this case? How do you respond to the different aspects of
> a practice in flux?>>  (Magnus)****
> ** **
> Yes, there is lots of difficulty in, as you call it, curating
> togetherness. I would say it is a reassuring difficulty, however. In fact,
> my intention is not to curate togetherness, nor is it to direct forms of
> commoning. Perhaps it is valid to say that I am hoping to curate nothing in
> projects such as common practice. A situation like common practice is more
> of an assemblage of people, technology (software, hardware,), texts, but
> also skills and affective responses to the way in which the session
> develops, to the software and the kind of protocols it requires (it is not
> uncommon that some get frustrated during sessions). ****
> ** **
> I used to think of common practice as a curatorial system but I think
> assemblage is more appropriate, as there is no presumed result that common
> practice session is supposed to generate except for the fact that it
> invites to share time, thoughts, engage in discussion, intervene in texts,
> experience individually and collectively common practice as an event. ****
> ** **
> >>Hmmm, I am also thinking about your mentioning the production of
> subjectivity (self-constitution?) through this practice. In another thread,
> I think there was some reference to invisibility and I see that the
> Department of Reading has its own Faculty of Invisibility.****
> Does Common Practice pertain to this in any way? Since I've been quiet now
> for a couple of days, that may a good question to close on :) >> (Magnus)*
> ***
> ** **
> Department of Reading
> http://automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/Main was/is part of
> the Faculty of Invisibility http://facultyofinvisibility.tinka.cc/together with other departments (of Haunting, Doubt, Survival, etc.).
>  Interestingly, the Faculty is of course concerned with the question of
> invisibility directly by asking ‘what is artistic research and production?
> I would recommend checking their website to see more on the project
> initiated by Inga Zimprich.****
> In common practice the focus is on materiality of practices of immaterial
> and cultural production and how they are played out by putting together all
> the elements: texts, poetry, people, code, language, wiki, chat, etc.; how
> they are played out in relation to the fact that sessions last for 3 – 5
> hours (3-5 hours in front of the computer screen), and require participants
> to learn how the system works, and then how they want to use it for the
> session. During the sessions we read the proposed text which is stored on
> the Department of Reading wiki page, we start to
> work/play/intervene/comment on the text dierectly from the skype chat room
> (where a discussion also takes place) and which is connected to the wiki
> directly via specially designed programme called doris (Department of
> Reading internet system). This turns skype into an interface allowing to
> edit text on the wiki. What I would say takes place in common practice is
> production of collective subjectivity which is very much contingent upon
> all the elements which art part of it: technological, thematic structures,
> people, etc. this shared activity of production and reproduction of
> language, knowledges, experiences, affects define what common practice
> becomes for each session.  This process is repeated each time, as new
> elements shift the familiarity which might be carried from other similar
> experiences of working online, or from the previous sessions. The value of
> the session is in the forms of interaction with texts, software, each
> other, during the actual event as it is happening and as such it opens a
> possibility of understanding the event as a location of co-production of
> knowledge and ‘a materialist temporal and spatial site of co-production of
> the subject’ to use Rossi Braidotti’s terms. And to respond to Ioana’s
> question about ‘another knowledge’,  it is one of the ways in which it
> could be defined. ****
> ** **
> > I am not sure what is meant by the concept 'directed commoning'. More **
> **
> > explanation would be. [MT]****
> Oh, it wasn’t meant to have the weight of a “concept”, I was just trying
> to refer to a process of commoning that would be planned or developed in a
> centralized way (by one person, for example).>> Gabriel****
> Directed commoning seems like a paradox in itself. Also it seems to assume
> that commoning can be prescribed for example as a game.  Before each
> session I wonder (like we do in similar situations) will people come, will
> they want to engage in this? It is so dependent on their generosity,
> curiosity, and then decision of spending time on this activity. There is no
> prizes, no points, sometimes people leave because they find it frustrating
> or pointless. Those reactions are also part of the event, how wouldn’t
> they. ****
> I agree there is a degree of directedness, or perhaps direction of some
> sort, which is suggested by a proposed theme, texts, software, etc. but the
> process engaged here results from the interest of exploring the ways in
> which control (so characteristic to the figure of a curator) can be
> shifted, though I wouldn’t say it is about distribution of control either.
> More like a deconstruction in common.   ****
> ** **
> magda****
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


mobil/cell +4670-3213370

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
long to return.
— Leonardo da Vinci
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120227/3eb9dab2/attachment.htm>

More information about the empyre mailing list