|
[- Collaboration and 'then some' /or/ Get me out of the 19thC
|
|
By MathewKabatoff, Section whatever...
Posted on Sun May 11th, 2003 at 09:04:57 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME
|
|
What does it mean to think of, articulate, or be artistic practice today? Up until recently I have had expressed anxiety about the medium and type of practice I have been engaged in, fretting about such things as 'the new' and my gesture produced in conjunction with 'the new' rather than the modes and mechanisms of production themselves. These modes and mechanisms of course are modes and mechanisms of multiplicity: of rhythm and chorus; of frightfully playful and directed collaboration, inside and outside of the frame.
|
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
I was recently provided with the definition of "bootstrapping". Not that I didn't have sense of what "bootstrapping" was, (the idea of it was burried deep within the recesses) but when I was told, and when I saw it applied it seemed quite appropriate. "Bootstrapping" is taken from the story of Baron Von Munchausen, the adventurer who pulled tightly on his boots and was able to propell himself to the moon. This metaphor was used in a discussion on cybernetics and in particular qualities of 'group action' (in the cybernetic case the working together of the multiple qualities of the machine to produce...something greater than itself...what ever that greater or excess may be).
This metaphor is useful when thinking of the mechanism of the 'multiple' on various levels. 1) the traditional artwork, or the artwork of the 'frame' 2) the networked artwork or the software device (although there too is a frame although it is permiated by either the action of algorithm or of user) 3) of a group working on an 'art' project 4) of a group working or functioning as a group (working together but not necessarily on the same project). When applied to each of these four different scenarios (and each scenario has properties unto themselves that need to be futher discussed and applied --although that can be done at a later date--) the mechanism of the 'multiple' not only produces a variety of ingredients and textures to the stew, allows for tasks to be delegated and handled by people who know those tasks, or provide a greater interpretive measure for either 'an' audience involved or 'those' that participate (people or objects - ie. the multiple imgs/scenarios in a film or results produced from a piece of funk software), but a site of 'action' is created from that conflagration/congregation. The matrix becomes skewed so what is operating is not a perfect system (either of representation, algorithmic producer, or group interaction), unexpected twists, turns and stutter steps that a a-part of, not a result of that combination.
A 19C model would focus just on the gesture ie. just on the individual. That individual who had access to either the world unknown, world untamed or world where their word or their image was their world or their image. And this still continues. It continues 'even' if you have a network, it continues even if you have film, it continues even if you have software. What is disregarded is the modesty of recognition of the group, of recognition of interdependence. A modesty of the hustle, tustle, and bustle of togetherness whatever that togetherness may be. What is at stake is the mechanism. A modest mechanism that invites intersection, laughter, embarrassment, tough criticism, stepping on toes, deep programming maneuvers, sessions that run all night, a little bit of worry (just a little) and the williness to roll the other way. |
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
|
|
