[-empyre-] re: [empyre] cooperation: forward from Barrie

[Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>]

on 6.2.04 04:56 AM, Trebor Scholz at treborscholz@earthlink.net wrote:


> Collaboration
> Is fear in the face of terrorism in all its variations the reason for the
> renewed attention to collaborative efforts of the 1960s, which were often
> seen as models for social change (Cotter)? Looking back to Fluxus, play
> theory of the 1960s, networked art, and micro radio -- what can we learn for
> our cooperations in new social network architectures such as collaborative
> weblogs or wikis? How real or imagined is the potential of these open
> content formats for social change?

the town square
Place is important for social/idea exchange, this discussion list is like a
slow chat room - time to reflect before you reply. I think it needs a few
decorations tho to make it a bit more homely and comfortable looking.

The town square was/is a traditional place to meet and discuss, discover new
people and things, make new friends and make plans for collaborative work
and to eat and drink. Our local council tried to make a 'town square' but
completely failed, its just an ornament, hardly anyone sits there. They
missed the point, like so many corporations do where nurturing creativity
and social interaction is concerned.

Morton Feldman writes - in Give My Regards to Eigth Street - about *Bosa's
Mansion* a NY set of apartments on East River Drive and Grand Street where
he met Cage, moved in and got to know the other artists there, Lippold,
Sekula, etc. Much enriching experience evolved from this physical proximity.
The collaboration was in sharing ideas, friends, a collaborative spirit.
Collaboration isn't necessarily just to make a collaborative work but also
to feed on each others ideas, to share your own ideas, evolve your work as a
result of all this. Such a pleasant thing to do.

> 
> Can the term Free Cooperation become useful as it points to a particular
> setting of collaboration? Do we need collective leadership (what about the
> German saying "too many cooks don't make for a good pie")? How can we be
> "free" in a cooperation? Who gets the credit? What are the rules of a given
> cooperation and how can we re-negotiate them? Whose labor remains invisible?
> What about competition, self-sacrifice and individual gain? What should be
> part of an ABC of free cooperation? What did we learn about gender dynamics
> in cooperations (man/ man, woman/ woman, woman/ man)?

In my area there is what we have called a Collaborative enterprise group. We
got together last year to explore ways of making money, most of us are
living on peanuts. Writers, artists, a teacher etc. We use the net to share
resources etc. What evolved was a free-for-all plunge into a huge number of
issues, many of them to do with current global issues, this enriched my work
as a writer amongst other things. There is no obligation to be there,
rather, people want to be there. I feel that recent events have something to
do with this, Iraq, bush, oil depletion etc seem to have provided an
impetus. It feels like if we don't do something, whatever it is, evolve,
change the way we do things, we are fucked as a culture. I don't know
whether our collaborative enterprise group will ever make any money but we
sure have a good time.

A recent book by Richard Florida, the rise of the creative class, discusses
the conditions under which creative people function best. His focus is more
on industry and its needs for top creative people but he links this with how
all creatives mix and co-nurture, barnstorm together for their creative
co-existence/needs. Its about cities, the vitality of the urban centre,
about place, re-purposing old buildings, about where a synthesis of informal
and formal collaboration promotes creative excellence. Its about how
industry and commerce are evolving to attract the best creative workers, and
its about community.

> 
> By definition collaboration implies "to work together, especially in an
> intellectual pursuit." The term "collaboration" suggests that we cannot
> achieve the same goal on our own. It assumed that there is a common goal and
> that people in the group share responsibility in achieving this goal.

E.A.T. NY 68 was a good example of this.

Barrie
> 
> -- ...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre