One need only look back at the history of the 20th century avant-garde: from the Surrealists to Fluxus to Chance to see the broad range of ways in which collaborative processes can be structured or not. There are no absolutes: rules or no rules, it depends on the context, the medium, the participants, a host of things, there are so many different ways to activate socially engaged DIWO systems of networked art-making. The Surrealists exquisite corpse is a case in point:
Exquisite corpse, also known as exquisite cadaver (from the original French term cadavre exquis) or rotating corpse, is a method by which a collection of words or images is collectively assembled. Each collaborator adds to a composition in sequence, either by following a rule (e.g. "The adjective <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective> noun <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun> adverb <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb> verb <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb> the adjective noun", as in "The green duck sweetly sang the dreadful dirge") or by being allowed to see only the end of what the previous person contributed. Wikipedia The DIWO concept has rich precedence, including the cutup technique practiced by William Burroughs and Bryon Gysin; the scripted events composed by Fluxus artists Yoko Ono, Dick Higgins, Lamont Young; the chance operations of John Cage, etc. There are a myriad of approaches to draw from and no single one is right or wrong it just depends on the needs of the community and the context. I am curious to know how previous DIWO actions manifested on this list and what made them successful? From: dave miller <dave.miller...@gmail.com> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:19 PM To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] DIWO Process I agree with these things, and I like the way last time we "ruined" each other's work. I found it quite shocking actually, when I spent ages carefully making a drawing then someone deliberately hacked it up. It took the preciousness out my work, which at the time was upsetting, but soon after I realised the new collaborative piece was often far more interesting and took on a new life. Richer in that others were part of it, and a privilege that they'd taken and used it. The shared energy and excitement creates much more than me sitting alone in a corner on a private creation. dave On 15 March 2015 at 09:12, isabel brison <ijayes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 15 March 2015 at 18:21, Randall Packer <rpac...@zakros.com> wrote: >> @Michael >>>>> "It also characterises much of my experience of lists from >> about 2000 onwards And to my dismay it doesn't seem to be happening here to >> anything like the extent I'd thought it might. And I wonder why.² >> >> So my conclusion here is that perhaps we need to propose new and evolving >> DIWO strategies if we really want to ³do it with others² via email lists in >> the age of overload. >> > > I'd say hustling for paid work may be the issue here more than information > overload, as that overload was already happening at the time of the last DIWO > on this list and that didn't seem to affect participation (though I must admit > to having passively spectated through that one but I was fairly new on the > list and still trying to get a feel for the conversation). > > That said, I'd still argue for no rules. Rules may be necessary in large > funded projects, as funding drives the need for results in our > productivity-obssessed age, but rules tend to bring hierarchical structure > with them. That goes against the best aspects of participatory work: > inclusiveness, the freedom to play when and if you want to, and the openness > and unpredictability of it all. Necessarily that means projects may fail to > deliver results, spin out of control or take unexpected turns, but surely > that's part of the fun of it? > > Also I think more than ever it's important to have spaces where we feel free > to remix, appropriate and play with other people's work. When artists are > being prosecuted left, right and center for things like doing a painting based > on someone else's photograph, just keeping that space open is a political > statement. And Netbehaviour has been doing a great job of that :-) > > -- > http://isabelbrison.com > > http://tellthemachines.com > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
