[-empyre-] FW: lounge lad discussion

[Felix Sattler <felixsattler@web.de>]

Hi all,

this is from Sandrine Albert, lounge|lab participant and also from Luna
Nera, it was directly addressed at me, I guess she'll join us soon anyway,
so here it is.

Felix


----------
Von: sandrine albert <sandrinesnail@yahoo.com>
Antworten an: sandrine@luna-nera.org
Datum: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:57:58 -0800 (PST)
An: Felix Sattler <felixsattler@web.de>
Betreff: Fwd: Re: lounge lad discussion


 Dera Felix.
 i hope you are well,
 here are some quick answers to some of the questions
 you raised, i will try to send you more questions
 and thoughts a bit later.
 
 sandrine 
 luna nera
 
 
 1. What does the term "source(s)" mean to an
 artistic
 environment?
  
  
  As far as my own practice is concerned the "source"
 is  the physical space i am working in. This includes
 the  elements which come with that space: its
history,
 the traces which remains, objects. As my work is site
specific the source, i.e.: the building is part of it
 and interacts with it. It is not just a departure
point which will be transformed and regurgitated but
 an integral part.
  At the Lounge Lab, the ?source? was used in a
 broader way, materials, concepts, experiences,
technical knowledge and space were used as sources, as
each contributor was coming from a different
background
 / practice. It was a space were all these could, in
 theory, be shared and therefore providing the
 participants with a potential enormous stock of
 possibilities. This I thought was exiting as it would
 enable us to explore new grounds and create works
 which we might not usually be involved with.
  
  
   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,...)?

 i think that the level of contribution is to be
adapted to each different situations. As general
 guideline I would say that I am always in favour of
 the exchange of technical knowledge, which is
 something which worked quite well in the lounge lab
 and which seemed to be accepted and expected by most
 participants.
  
 i feel that Concepts are a bit more tricky, although
 I believe that a concept needs to be shared by each
 contributor, and find it interesting to work towards
 the same outlines i also feel the need for each to
 provide its own angle and therefore introduce a
dialogue between each points of views and reflect
 it in the final project. i see collaboration on a
 concept as collection of opinions / perspectives more
than an agreed common direction. i think that the
 discussion that emerge from this basic common concept
are benefic as they enable each participants to
further affirm its own views.
 I felt that this was something which was very
 difficult to deal with in the Lounge lab as we were
 so different (in practice, approach, delivery,
 techniques...). As the concept derives from the
source
 in my work, it was hard for me, and i think for a few
 others, to inverse my way of working and decide of
concept that we would then each adapt to the work we
 would then create.
 As far as sharing created materials (footages,
sounds,
 foods...) i find it interesting to see what other can
 produce using something i first generated, i think
 it  can provide me with other ways of looking at the
 materials i generated. And reciprocally the same can
 be said of me using others? materials to create
 work  with.
 Sharing experience about past experiments and
 projects, is also something that I find prolific. I
 feel that this is an open source which can really
 provide a tangible step forward, (or sometimes
 sideways) in the development of new work and the
 deepening of one?s practice.

 
 
> > Dear empyreans and artists of the
> backup.lounge|lab,
> > 
> > 
> > when Christina and Melinda proposed to discuss our
> > experiences with the
> > open source - open art project ?backup.lounge|lab?
> > publicly in the empyre forum I was very happy to
> be
> > granted this possibility of extended discussion
> and
> > reflection.
> > 
> > 
> > I. Introduction
> > 
> > When Alexander Klosch, Carina Linge and I
> developed
> > the idea for the
> > .lounge|lab our aim was not to create an art
> project
> > for people who are
> > involved in open source (however open source
> > programmers where invited
> > as long as their work applied to be of artistic
> > nature).
> > The theory of open source had proven to be one
> > working
> > model for
> > collaborative work on a certain subject. Its
> > regulations, structures
> > and its ability to improve something's complexity
> by
> > the contribution of many people's skills rather
> then
> > to have individualistic narrowness made it our
> > choice
> > for the theoretical background of the lab.
> > Furthermore
> > it has  been discussed widely not only within
> > specialist forums but also in the public
> > broadcasting
> > media which makes it easier to understand our
> goal.
> > 
> > We believe there is a lot of thrilling
> collaborative
> > work happening 
> > (even before .lounge|lab!), we are definitely not
> > innovators on this field.
> > Anyway these collaborations mostly remain bound to
> > the
> > realm of artists who are dealing with new(er)
> media
> > and networking structures. Even if these groups
> > exist
> > there are heavy differences between groups, (i.e.
> > being more scientific, artistic, applied...).
> > 
> > What we therefore tried to do is form a group of
> > creatives (there is
> > More than artists here) who were so different on
> all
> > possible axis' (genre, age, experience, gender...)
> > that they were hardly to meet outside the lab.
> > To have this group examine and shape a shared
> > physical
> > space (which we
> > though to be a good framework to hold on) was the
> > aim
> > of the lab.
> > 
> > 
> > II. Questions
> > 
> > During the process of .lounge|lab I came up with a
> > variety of questions
> > based on what we experienced while working
> together.
> > 
> > I would very much like to start the discussion
> with
> > these questions,
> > However anybody might feel free to ignore these
> > questions and pose others ? or answer those not
> > posed
> > yet (remember this is an open source
> > theory-based project!). They are more offers on
> what
> > to talk about than guidelines.
> > 
> > 
> > III. questions
> > 
> > > a) sources:
> > > 
> > > 1. What does the term "source(s)" mean to an
> > artistic environment?
> > > 
> > 
> > As far as my own practice is concerned the
> "source"
> > is
> > the physical space i am working in. This includes
> > the
> > elements which come with that space: its history,
> > the
> > traces which remains, objects. As my work is site
> > specific the source, i.e.: the building is part of
> > it
> > and interacts with it. It is not just a departure
> > point which will be transformed and regurgitated
> but
> > an integral part.
> > At the Lounge Lab, the ?source? was used in a
> > broader
> > way, materials, concepts, experiences, technical
> > knowledge and space were used as sources, as each
> > contributor was coming from a different background
> /
> > practice. It was a space were all these could, in
> > theory, be shared and therefore providing the
> > participants with a potential enormous stock of
> > possibilities. This I thought was exiting as it
> > would
> > enable us to explore new grounds and create works
> > which we might not usually be involved with.
> > 
> > 
> > > 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,...)?
> >  
> > 
> > i think that the level of contribution is to be
> > adapted to each different situations. As general
> > guideline I would say that I am always in favour
> of
> > the exchange of technical knowledge, which is
> > something which worked quite well in the lounge
> lab
> > and which seemed to be accepted and expected by
> most
> > participants.
> > 
> > i feel that Concepts are a bit more tricky,
> although
> > I
> > believe that a concept needs to be shared by each
> > contributor, and find it interesting to work
> towards
> > the same outlines i also feel the need for each to
> > provide its own angle and therefore introduce a
> > dialogue between each points of views and reflect
> it
> > in the final project. i see collaboration on a
> > concept
> > as collection of opinions / perspectives more than
> > an
> > agreed common direction. i think that the
> discussion
> > that emerge from this basic common concept are
> > benefic
> > as they enable each participants to further affirm
> > its
> > own views. 
> > I felt that this was something which was very
> > difficult to deal with in the Lounge lab as we
> were
> > so
> > different (in practice, approach, delivery,
> > techniques...). As the concept derives from the
> > source
> > in my work, it was hard for me, and i think for a
> > few
> > others, to inverse my way of working and decide of
> > concept that we would then each adapt to the work
> we
> > would then create.
> > As far as sharing created materials (footages,
> > sounds,
> > foods...) i find it interesting to see what other
> > can
> > produce using something i first generated, i think
> > it
> > can provide me with other ways of looking at the
> > materials i generated. And reciprocally the same
> can
> > be said of me using others? materials to create
> work
> > with.
> > Sharing experience about past experiments and
> > projects, is also something that I find prolific.
> I
> > feel that this is an open source which can really
> > provide a tangible step forward, (or sometimes
> > sideways) in the development of new work and the
> > deepening of one?s practice.
> > 
> > 
> > 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 same language?
> >  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?
> >  
> > 
> >  
> >  I guess that might give us enough to start here,
> at
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> =====
> To find out more about LUNA NERA arts group and
> other site-specific events visit:
> http://www.luna-nera.org.uk
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com


=====
To find out more about LUNA NERA arts group and other site-specific events
visit:  http://www.luna-nera.org.uk

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com