[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology

[helen varley jamieson]

hi eugenio & all,

yes, i definitely agree that community (& trust) needs to be built on 
common interest or connection; with UpStage it is the 
technology/platform that is the specific common thing - otherwise it's 
quite diverse, in terms of individual approach, themes, ideas, & 
backgrounds. the word "community" presupposes at least one point of 
commonality, whether it's geographic or political or social. online 
networks allow us on the one hand to be even more specific in our 
commonalities, such as the UpStage community or another example would be 
Furtherfield, because we can connect with likeminded people across 
geographical & other distances; and at the same time it becomes general 
to the extreme, such as facebook etc.

the point of commonality can be subtle. i remember being shown MOOs & 
text-based role-playing environments in the early 90s by a friend who 
was really excited by it, but it didn't interest me at all at the time. 
it wasn't until the late 90s when i encountered Desktop Theatre & their 
work in the Palace that something clicked & the creative/imaginative 
potential was suddenly obvious to me. the difference was that i had 
connected with others who wanted to create theatrical interventions & 
performances in this environment, not just role-play for our own 
amusement; in some senses that is a fine line, but for me it was two 
completely different situations. now of course i look back on the early 
MOO/IRC performances & recognise the roots of my cyberformance practice.

this maybe is connected to what simon has just posted about the 
distinction between art & creativity ... altho it is a minefield to 
enter into ;) we could say that facebook is a creative community, but 
are people making art there? (& i mean making, not 
promoting/distributing). i am sure that some people are ...

i am a bit wary of taxonomies, my thinking is more along the lines of 
axel bruns & pierre levy - that taxonomic structures are no longer 
appropriate for the new "knowledge space" which is fluid, ad hoc & 
unfinished. networked communities are also in a constant state of flux, 
with evolving technologies & emerging codes of behaviour.

h : )

On 6/07/10 9:26 AM, Eugenio Tisselli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Helen, I find that UpStage is a very interesting example of an online community, since it states its scope (and thus its borders) quite clearly from the beginning. Networks like this make a lot of sense, as they can really help people with common and specific interests come together and collaborate. The fact that people in UpStage all relate to cyberformance may create a basis of familiarity, in which trust can be built from the bottom up. Do you agree? This may also happen within other networks where a common interest is made explicit right from the start. However, in "bigger" networks (ie. Facebook, MySpace) there is a tendency towards dispersiveness: there are myriads of groups, but they don't seem to be strong enough to generate a sense of community.
>
> In order to find out how networks can facilitate the emergence of creative communities, maybe we could start by proposing a taxonomy of networks. We would certainly find that some types of networks favor the cohesion of focused, collaborative communities more than others. I am not aware if such a taxonomy already exists... I will look into this. However, let me propose an initial set of traits which may help kick start a general characterization of networks:
>
> - Entry threshold: Can anyone join? Do new users have to be invited? Is there any kind of filtering?
> - Openness towards emergent topics: Does the network allow its participants to create new topics, or is there a set of pre-existent ones which can't be modified?
> - Openness towards group forming: Does the network allow the formation of groups of people with common interests?
>
> Would you like to add to this list?
>
> Melody: Although I haven't read "After Babel", I can imagine that Steiner maintains a certain coherence throughout his books. In that case, it might be interesting to study the relation of his ideas of "translation" in communication and "invention" in the arts. The concepts you mention do point towards an idea of creativity which is quite close to Steiner's "invention".
>
> G.H. Hovagimyan: The points you make are very interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the relation between art and language? I find that artworks can also arise from the sense of an impotence in language.
>
>
> Eugenio Tisselli Vélez
> cubo23 at yahoo.com
> http://www.motorhueso.net
>
>    
>>      
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>    


-- 
____________________________________________________________

helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen at creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.upstage.org.nz
____________________________________________________________