[-empyre-] my observations about collaboration

[Paul Vanouse]

I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s posts so far!  Most of my experience in this area of collaboration has been for the purpose of (1) creating conceptual, highly experimental artworks; (2) with a critical, interventionist and/or tactical intent; (3) with a reflexive use of contemporary technologies--as a media in themselves.   With these three tendencies for the work in-mind, I’d like to pass on four of my key beliefs/observations about collaboration.  I'll deliberately try to keep language simple... hope these might be useful and provoke response…

These observations stem from about twenty years of projects with great collaborators--scientists as well as other artists.  Many of these projects were undertaken at the Studio for Creative Inquiry at Carnegie Mellon in the 1990s, alongside people like Patricia Maurides, Michael Mateas, Steffi Domike, Andres Tapia-Urzua, Rob Fisher, Peter Weyhrauch, Patrick Lichty, John Pollock and others.  Later collaborators include the Critical Art Ensemble, Faith Wilding, Beatriz da Costa, Millie Chen, Warren Quigley and Andrew Johnson.  Furthermore, I’ve frequently worked with several scientists in relationships that are more cooperative than necessarily collaborative, but many of the same notes apply.

(1.) Shared Agendas:  Pose project collaborations in terms of shared goals and agendas, or even shared sense of process.  Avoid collaborations based on some notion of a fixed form or final outcome.  It can be tempting when working with someone that you don’t know well or have little in common with to try to invent a project based on a shared form/product through which you will each achieve your own separate agenda.  I’ve found this never works because experimental projects never exactly take the form you expected and if goals differ then you’ll never agree on the acceptable changes to the form.   But when agendas and process sensibilities are shared, each new challenge and change of plan tends to strengthen the project.

(2.) The Non-Rational:  Work with people that you generally like to be around and to drink with (or whatever ;-)  The most interesting ideas typically arise when you aren’t “on-the-clock” or trying too hard.  Conversely, the processes and the outcomes of purely institutional collaborations tend to recapitulate the institutional structure in which they occur.  (In this sense it is analogous to the open source critique of institutional software structure being merely a diagram of the corporation’s power relations.) 

(3.) Parity:  Try to collaborate with others with similar levels of experience to contribute (but hopefully in different areas), and a similar time commitment.  Try to share all credit equally and avoid any complicated differentiation that might undermine shared ownership.  (The film industry model is an appropriate example of what I try to avoid because of its minute detail in credit differentiation and the static titles in which participation might occur—which insure a predictable result.)

(4.) Nomadism:  Obviously, collaborations are usually undertaken by identifying a project, teaming up with those with complimentary backgrounds best suited for it and following the project through to its completion.  The next project however, will probably necessitate (or at least suggest possibilities for) different tactics, different skill-sets and different processes.  Perhaps because the former outcome has been re-appropriated or diffused of its radical potential or perhaps because of a more subjective personal need.  Try to be open to new vectors of participation—not only a different type of project, with different collaborators, but also try new roles for your own participation.  If you’ve typically been the theoretician in the group try being the technician, or if you’ve previously done all the visual production try taking on the logistical planning.  Nomadism in this sense is not only about with whom you play, but also who plays which roles.