freecooperation mailinglist
archive
< |
> |
Modes of authorshipsand collaboration.
Patrick Lichty
Dec 11, 2003 13:38 PST
|
hELLO, I'm going to write in two parts; first, on the collaboration in regards to indpendent curation, and the other in regards to social bonds in collaborations. If you do not want a lengthy contextualization of how I fit into my thoughts on collaboration and independent curation, please skip to the line of asteriisks. For Friendship and Collaboration, go to the positive signs. ---> BEGIN With the former, my position is rather unique in that I do not delineate my practice as tightly as most practitioners do, as I am an artist, activist, poet, writer, curator, critic, engineer, editor, videographer, musician, and so on - you name it. And these aren't weekend hobbies, either - I often blur between all of these disciplines on a regular basis. I mention this only in context to a conversation I had with Michele Thursz regarding the compartmentalization of practice and the stratification of power. First, Michele suggested that there is little difference when talking about Yes Men, or the Iconography show, or Intelligent Agent, or 8 Bits or Less, as they are all part of my practice. Yes, and no. First, I don't think that there are many people with a metastructural focus in their practice, and so this approach isn't well suited for many, if not most. It _is_ a real killer. Secondly, I do believe that there is a shift in power relation and social function with regard to they way they engage with the subject culturally. ******************************************************* What is it to be curator, and be curated? Is the curator merely a form of Beuysian 'social sculptor'? Is the curator just a metastructural artist? And what is the role of the curated in the exhibition? And, what are the shifts in the balances in power and collaborative agendas when performing these cultural events (i.e. indpendent, net, or institutional exhibitions)? These are things that I have a great curiousity in since I was in the Walker's Art Entertainment Network in (what? '98?) That show had a remarkable grass-roots feel to it, and was unlike anything I had taken part in before. Steve Dietz seemed to be far more accessible than most curators, and the artists themselves even had a larger communicative role amonst themselves, which is probably what made this show far ahead of its time. Since then, one of my major interests has been the role of curation in the emerging arts and the role of the curator and institution in this context. People like myself, Jima Andrews, Anne-Marie Schleiner, and Eryk Salvaggio have been putting together independent shows that challenge the role of the institution, commodity, scholarly production per se to name a few. My question relates to what the function is of these independent shows, the people who enter them, and the curators that construct them. How does this differ from the traditional institutional practice, although some of the answers are rather evident. Also, can the participants be called collaborators, making curation only another type of expression, going back to my conversation with Thursz? What is the difference between a show like my ICONography show *at* turbulence.org and Miranda July's learningtoloveyoumore, as well as Anne Marie Schleiner's Snow Blossom House? July's cynical pose is far removed from my more conventional approach, but in putting the ICON show together, I also consulted with entrants about suggestions about possible other additions, ways the works should be presented, etc. And in context with Schleiner, who curated SBH in a very ad hoc/emergent fashion, what is the continuum/matrix of practices that defines the current body of grass-roots curating (although this diverges from my question between indie and institution)? Can independent curatorial projects be considered metastructural artorks, and how? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FRIENDSHIP and COLLABORATION This is much more difficult for me to discuss with objectivity, as a significant part of my practice has been in collaborations under real and assumed names. Invariably there are issues relating to hierarchical issues, seniority, ego, work vs. recognition, intellectual property of the constituents, architectonics of social contracts, legitimacy, recognition of the individuals and so on, and I think most of the 'problems' have to do with issues of personal gain, legitimation, and status. For example, a concern in one collaborative that stratified the social order was that of potential commodification of the project and stipulations with foundation funding. I have seen some conflict within that group, and am unsure if maket forces letit inviable. In some cases, the breakdown of collaborations seems to be beneficial to the divorcee. The breaking off of Natalie Bookchin from RTMark did not exactly send shockwaves through the art world, but it is something that is not invisible on her pedigree, and is potentially benefical to her market perception. In many ways, the fissures of contemproary art groups are similar to those of rock bands; sometimes the solo artists do as well as the groups after departure. Then the question remains in this case, why do some groups stay together when they could do as well separately? As long as there is a willingness for compromise and largesse in a collaboration, there does not have to be heartbreak. I would love to discuss strategies for the preservation of collaborative unions, etc. This has been a little diffuse, but I hope it brings some issues to the table.
|
< |
> |