Of course, tnis is a thorny proposition. As a member of a number of several collectives, this is something that I have had to negotiate quite rigorously.
There are many instances of how the collective approach works, but much of it retunrs to the deire for the 'genius', or the singular talent, quite similar to the need for news soundbytes in the US.
This could also be attributed to the idea of the heroic in ancient literature. Is it human nature to want to draw singular prototypes when considering ladership, talent, virtuosity? I think that there is something to this; maybe it's the way we process information, maybe it's marketing (e.g. - the 80's rock band Scandal, which became 'featuring Patty Smythe').
For example, a particular interest of mine is the subversive corporation RTMark. They're anonymous, although artists like Natalie Bookchin have surfaced after leaving. However, in conversing with Ray Thomas on various ocasions, I've been told that the question they get time and time again relates to their number, daytime occupations, and who they really are behind the scrim of the corporate veil. In this way they resist this singularization by the audience, and seek to keep the conceptual focus of the corporation central.
Another group that has been able to keep a group identity is the Critical Art Ensemble, with the most notable of the group being Steve Kurtz, and having included Faith Wilding, Paul Vanouse, and others. Even though CAE has notable characters in the credits, perhaps it is the definition of CAE as an 'ensemble' which keeps it going.
On the other hand, groups like the US Department of Art and Technology are subverting governmental bueaucratic social structures by creating a massive 'super-group' under Secretary Randall Packer. In cases like USDAT, the framework is such that directors can spearhead projects and participate as much as they want to, defining the amount of centrality they obtain.
Another thought is that there might be the possibility of coopting the coopters. What is preventing individuals from coopting Learningtoloveyoumore into a derivative piece of their own, therefor reframign the project uder their aegis.
One last question, and a rather hot one. IS Miranda July exploiting artists who want to be part aof a larger, successful project, or is she opening an umbrella under which numerous individuals can be seen? These are only two options, but something worth considering. Murakami probably engaged in minor exploitation in creating the Hiropon Factory, but many of these artists became part of the Superflat project/constructed movement, and artists like Yoshitomo Nara have become stars unto themselves.
I'm not going to answer the questions relating to collaboration, the politics of control and profit and the possibilities of exploitation. I'm goign to leave them up to you.
Patrick Lichty Two topics I'll cover here, likely in the same sentance. I ask what is the difference between Agrica De Cologne's curatorial work and Mitanda July? I think that Cologne is not claiming the 'piece' as his, but as a curatorial project. July seems to be claiming it as her own work, built from 'social clay'…
Another question and this comes back to the interloper question (which I still hold quite circumspect) is that if Miranda and her partner are exploiting people, then how can they be held accountable? This is a very thorny question.
Where are Patrick's posts that are being replied to… guess that's the distributed part? anyway, the exploitation question is a good one that has been argued a lot in the 90s, though i haven't seen it much in the context of new media. the whole "art in action" model (artists like suzanne lacy, daniel martinez, clegg and gutmann, andrea fraser) was critiqued by hal foster ("artist as ethnographer") and miwon kwon. these criticisms would apply aptly to a lot of harrell fletcher's ("softer"community-based art) work as well, i would think. and the project with july specifically, even though it is done as part of the DIY community that they are a part of. i think the difference with Cologne's project is that those are consciously curatorial invitations to artists, whereas "learning to love you more" seems to target the "outsider" as producer. in a sense, it seems to replay the conventions of an ethnographic documentary, only it asks those being documented to perform a script. in that respect, it's not unlike a lot of the new media projects based on communication networks (like all the SMS and wireless projects being developed, and sites like Rhizome that are meant to be projects of interaction within a frame) that require participation. are july/fletcher receiving credit for the work being done by participants? or for the creation of a "participatory" forum that looks at an "Other" through its participation? i would say the latter. i'm not sure if this makes it exploitive in a negative sense though. how they should be held accountable… that would be up to those that came to that conclusion, but using the project itself as a site of critique sounds promising. either way, i would hesitate to label "learning…" collaborative in the large sense (other than the 2 person relationship + web support). the outside participants are not collaborators like the members of rtmark, CAE, or fluxus, or even the anonymous sabateurs of the ELF. best, ryan
> Patrick Lichty > Two topics I'll cover here, likely in the same sentance. I ask what is > the difference between Agrica De Cologne's curatorial work and Mitanda > July? I think that Cologne is not claiming the 'piece' as his, but as > a curatorial project. July seems to be claiming it as her own work, > built from 'social clay'… > > Another question and this comes back to the interloper question (which > I still hold quite circumspect) is that if Miranda and her partner are > exploiting people, then how can they be held accountable? This is a > very thorny question.
Comments
Of course, tnis is a thorny proposition. As a member of a number of several collectives, this is something that I have had to negotiate quite rigorously.
There are many instances of how the collective approach works, but much of it retunrs to the deire for the 'genius', or the singular talent, quite similar to the need for news soundbytes in the US.
This could also be attributed to the idea of the heroic in ancient literature. Is it human nature to want to draw singular prototypes when considering ladership, talent, virtuosity?
I think that there is something to this; maybe it's the way we process information, maybe it's marketing (e.g. - the 80's rock band Scandal, which became 'featuring Patty Smythe').
For example, a particular interest of mine is the subversive corporation RTMark. They're anonymous, although artists like Natalie Bookchin have surfaced after leaving. However, in conversing with Ray Thomas on various ocasions, I've been told that the question they get time and time again relates to their number, daytime occupations, and who they really are behind the scrim of the corporate veil. In this way they resist this singularization by the audience, and seek to keep the conceptual focus of the corporation central.
Another group that has been able to keep a group identity is the Critical Art Ensemble, with the most notable of the group being Steve Kurtz, and having included Faith Wilding, Paul Vanouse, and others. Even though CAE has notable characters in the credits, perhaps it is the definition of CAE as an 'ensemble' which keeps it going.
On the other hand, groups like the US Department of Art and Technology are subverting governmental bueaucratic social structures by creating a massive 'super-group' under Secretary Randall Packer. In cases like USDAT, the framework is such that directors can spearhead projects and participate as much as they want to, defining the amount of centrality they obtain.
Another thought is that there might be the possibility of coopting the coopters. What is preventing individuals from coopting Learningtoloveyoumore into a derivative piece of their own, therefor reframign the project uder their aegis.
One last question, and a rather hot one. IS Miranda July exploiting artists who want to be part aof a larger, successful project, or is she opening an umbrella under which numerous individuals can be seen? These are only two options, but something worth considering. Murakami probably engaged in minor exploitation in creating the Hiropon Factory, but many of these artists became part of the Superflat project/constructed movement, and artists like Yoshitomo Nara have become stars unto themselves.
I'm not going to answer the questions relating to collaboration, the politics of control and profit and the possibilities of exploitation. I'm goign to leave them up to you.
Patrick,
This is a good question, cos it's the question that keeps on asking. George Maciunas did something similar when he founded Fluxus
Patrick Lichty
Two topics I'll cover here, likely in the same sentance. I ask what is the difference between Agrica De Cologne's curatorial work and Mitanda July? I think that Cologne is not claiming the 'piece' as his, but as a curatorial project. July seems to be claiming it as her own work, built from 'social clay'…
Another question and this comes back to the interloper question (which I still hold quite circumspect) is that if Miranda and her partner are exploiting people, then how can they be held accountable? This is a very thorny question.
Where are Patrick's posts that are being replied to… guess that's the distributed part?
anyway, the exploitation question is a good one that has been argued a lot in the 90s, though i haven't seen it much in the context of new media. the whole "art in action" model (artists like suzanne lacy, daniel martinez, clegg and gutmann, andrea fraser) was critiqued by hal foster ("artist as ethnographer") and miwon kwon. these criticisms would apply aptly to a lot of harrell fletcher's ("softer"community-based art) work as well, i would think. and the project with july specifically, even though it is done as part of the DIY community that they are a part of.
i think the difference with Cologne's project is that those are consciously curatorial invitations to artists, whereas "learning to love you more" seems to target the "outsider" as producer. in a sense, it seems to replay the conventions of an ethnographic documentary, only it asks those being documented to perform a script.
in that respect, it's not unlike a lot of the new media projects based on communication networks (like all the SMS and wireless projects being developed, and sites like Rhizome that are meant to be projects of interaction within a frame) that require participation. are july/fletcher receiving credit for the work being done by participants? or for the creation of a "participatory" forum that looks at an "Other" through its participation? i would say the latter. i'm not sure if this makes it exploitive in a negative sense though. how they should be held accountable… that would be up to those that came to that conclusion, but using the project itself as a site of critique sounds promising.
either way, i would hesitate to label "learning…" collaborative in the large sense (other than the 2 person relationship + web support). the outside participants are not collaborators like the members of rtmark, CAE, or fluxus, or even the anonymous sabateurs of the ELF.
best,
ryan
> Patrick Lichty
> Two topics I'll cover here, likely in the same sentance. I ask what is
> the difference between Agrica De Cologne's curatorial work and Mitanda
> July? I think that Cologne is not claiming the 'piece' as his, but as
> a curatorial project. July seems to be claiming it as her own work,
> built from 'social clay'…
>
> Another question and this comes back to the interloper question (which
> I still hold quite circumspect) is that if Miranda and her partner are
> exploiting people, then how can they be held accountable? This is a
> very thorny question.