No subject
Tue Sep 18 10:10:38 UTC 2007
alternate forms of social exchange. Entertainment is a platform we use to
this effect. To further this practice, we investigate the efforts of other
artists and cultural producers who work in the field of relational art.
Many of these examples carry an imperative for the gesture to be repeated.
This is apparent either implicitly in the ideology and logic of the
activity, or explicitly in the form of instruction sets or public
presentation. As an extension of our own search for new tactics of
engagement and in order to evaluate these reproducible actions, we will
recreate a number of projects that attempt to foster social exchange through
entertainment.
Entertainment resides in a muddy space between the everyday and escape from
the everyday. It is a potential place for public/group exchange and
collaboration. For the conference we will initiate Field Test: A Peer
Review, to select from a range of artist projects that call to be
reproduced, and not only recreate these activities, but also open a dialogue
for conference participants to evaluate their effectiveness. Reproduction
and criticism are both essential to sustaining social/relational practices
and the communities that generate them. We believe the OPEN Engagement
conference will be a productive place to carry out these investigations."
At Open Engagement, HB reproduced N55's
Shop<http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/SHOP/SHOP.html>,
where the coordinators of the shop label objects as being free to take, use,
or, borrow. In representing these types of projects, they seek to open a
dialog about the success and failure of the original project, while
developing a toolbox of ways in which to potentially make the project more
successful next time around.
While at Open Engagement, their language made for a tension filled artist
talk. They were openly asking where their projects (and others) were
successful and where they failed. Charlie Roderick, one of the member of HB,
told me that he was curious why the social practices folk at Open Engagement
were so unwilling to confront those terms. Is it useful (I remember Darren
O'Donnell and Harrell Fletcher having particularly strong feelings one way
or the other)?
I am not quite sure where to go from here. We could, i imagine quite easily
open a forum for our questions of success and failure in public lectures,
but in practice would this be anything different than what occurs now within
the networks of our friends and peers whom we discuss these issues with
already?
Documentation of Hideous Beast's Field Test can be seen on Charlie's Flickr
here <http://www.flickr.com/photos/documentation/sets/72157602440217393/>.
best,
Katie
On Jan 21, 2008 5:51 PM, Sal Randolph <salrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Eric,
>
> Besides political failure, and a failure of good hosting, are there also
> aesthetic failures in social artworks? What about social artworks which are
> just plain bad art?). I'd be curious to know more about how you're thinking
> about these things.
>
> In any case, Kanarinka's questions have been rather haunting me since she
> wrote in.
>
> >>If an experiment fails, this is useful public knowledge. But most of the
> "art" structures aren't geared towards collectively reflecting on failure. I
> am thinking of artist talks, grants, and so on, where the main goal is to
> impress the audience and promote the project so you can get a few bucks to
> make the next version. But it seems like these projects would be much more
> interesting and might accomplish more if we could begin to publicly talk
> about their failures. >>
>
> I do think a lot of social artists see themselves a bit in the mode of
> researchers or experimenters, but if so, Kanarinka's right that we're
> missing out on a lot of the data. I've spent the last few days thinking
> quite a bit about the points of failure in my own projects and I can feel a
> simultaneous desire to talk about them more, and to hide them (it could be
> that failed social artworks generate keener feelings of embarrassment or
> shame than failed paintings or sculptures). But in their very awkwardness,
> those failures are also arguably the most generative parts of my practice --
> the uncomfortable realities and difficult feelings push things in new
> directions. I think this is exactly what Kanarinka was suggesting. But
> what kind of situations can we create (social inventors that we are) that
> might make open and specific discussion of our failures more possible?
>
> -- Sal
>
> On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:24 PM, Eric Steen wrote:
>
>
> Responding to: "Failure & reflection - Is it just me or do social art
> projects seem to have lots more failure involved than other art projects?"
>
> I may have missed something but I don't think I understand exactly what
> "failure" means in the context Kanarinka's post. As Sal suggests a defining
> of failure is important. It seems to me there are a couple different types
> of social projects. The more political ones attempt to present information
> and cause "participants" to reexamine their own social or political
> positions. In these the artist is often times hoping that a certain outcome
> will be attained and if it doesn't this could be a failure. Other projects,
> and I personally consider these the better projects, are more of a
> facilitation where participants become more than just something that is
> decentered (they are not objectified), instead these participants take on
> the responsibility of either carrying or not carrying the load given to them
> originally by the artist. In this way the artist gives up all hope of any
> set outcome and allows participants to sculpt the outcome according to their
> particular, or local needs or desires. In this sense failure for the artist
> would consist of bad moderating and facilitation of an event. There is more
> to say on this but for now that is all I will say.
>
> >
> > -eric
>
> --
> ericmsteen.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
>
> Sal Randolph
> salrandolph [at] gmail [dot] com
> http://salrandolph.com
>
>
>
>
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
>
> Sal Randolph
> salrandolph at gmail.com
> http://salrandolph.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Criticality mailing list
> Criticality at lists.socialarchitecture.org
>
> http://lists.socialarchitecture.org/listinfo.cgi/criticality-socialarchitecture.org
>
>
--
Katie Hargrave
http://www.katiehargrave.us
OPENSOURCE Art
http://opensource.boxwith.com
------=_Part_13086_9572689.1200968432530
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Sal, <br><br>Kanarinka's proposition is an interesting one, and I th=
ink that social practices is an interesting case for consideration. A=
s artists, criticism is something we have learned to do: critique our exper=
iences, our world, our peers, and supposedly our own production. For =
our own work, however, this is intended to occur in the pre-production and =
production stages so only complete, successful projects are presented to th=
e public. =20
<br><br>
For me, the moments where my actions do not butt up exactly with my
intentions often appear like failures initially, only to slowly reveal
themselves as probing deeper (more successful, surely not) than
projects that look the same on paper as they do in action. When we
propose a project to a space, a long negotiation commences between that
point and the projects completion.<br><br>As Sal has already pointed out, w=
eeding out projects that are not quite right is very simple for studio base=
d practices, but I have a hunch that social artists engage a similar editin=
g process (even if they fail publicly, as suggested).=20
<br><br>It is telling though, that we do not publicly discuss our failures =
and questions, when oftentimes, those failures present spaces for an increa=
sed discourse to occur. <br><br>This reminds me of <a href=3D"http://=
www.hideousbeast.com/">
Hideous Beast's</a> current project "Field Test: A Peer Review&quo=
t; (also presented at the Open Engagement conference). <br><br>From t=
he Open Engagement website: " Hideous Beast is invested in creating al=
ternate forms of social exchange. Entertainment is a platform we use =
to this effect. To further this practice, we investigate the efforts =
of other artists and cultural producers who work in the field of relational=
art. Many of these examples carry an imperative for the gesture to b=
e repeated. This is apparent either implicitly in the ideology and lo=
gic of the activity, or explicitly in the form of instruction sets or publi=
c presentation. As an extension of our own search for new tactics of =
engagement and in order to evaluate these reproducible actions, we will rec=
reate a number of projects that attempt to foster social exchange through e=
ntertainment.
<br><br>Entertainment resides in a muddy space between the everyday and esc=
ape from the everyday. It is a potential place for public/group excha=
nge and collaboration. For the conference we will initiate Field Test=
: A Peer Review, to select from a range of artist projects that call to be =
reproduced, and not only recreate these activities, but also open a dialogu=
e for conference participants to evaluate their effectiveness. Reprod=
uction and criticism are both essential to sustaining social/relational pra=
ctices and the communities that generate them. We believe the OPEN En=
gagement conference will be a productive place to carry out these investiga=
tions."
<br><br>At Open Engagement, HB reproduced <a href=3D"http://www.n55.dk/MANU=
ALS/SHOP/SHOP.html">N55's Shop</a>, where the coordinators of the shop =
label objects as being free to take, use, or, borrow. In representing these=
types of projects, they seek to open a dialog about the success and failur=
e of the original project, while developing a toolbox of ways in which to p=
otentially make the project more successful next time around.=20
<br><br>While at Open Engagement, their language made for a tension filled =
artist talk. They were openly asking where their projects (and others=
) were successful and where they failed. Charlie Roderick, one of the membe=
r of HB, told me that he was curious why the social practices folk at Open =
Engagement were so unwilling to confront those terms. Is it useful (I remem=
ber Darren O'Donnell and Harrell Fletcher having particularly strong fe=
elings one way or the other)?
<br><br>I am not quite sure where to go from here. We could, i imagin=
e quite easily open a forum for our questions of success and failure in pub=
lic lectures, but in practice would this be anything different than what oc=
curs now within the networks of our friends and peers whom we discuss these=
issues with already? =20
<br><br>Documentation of Hideous Beast's Field Test can be seen on <a h=
ref=3D"http://www.flickr.com/photos/documentation/sets/72157602440217393/">=
Charlie's Flickr here</a>. <br><br>best, <br>Katie<br><br><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
On Jan 21, 2008 5:51 PM, Sal Randolph <<a href=3D"mailto:salrandolph at gma=
il.com">salrandolph at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt =
0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style=3D"">
<div>Hey Eric,</div><div><br></div><div>Besides political failure, and a fa=
ilure of good hosting, are there also aesthetic failures in social artworks=
? What about social artworks which are just plain bad art?). I&=
#39;d be curious to know more about how you're thinking about these thi=
ngs.
</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, Kanarinka's questions have been =
rather haunting me since she wrote in.</div><div class=3D"Ih2E3d"><div><br>=
</div><div>>>If an experiment fails, this is useful public knowledge.=
But most of the "art" structures aren't geared towards colle=
ctively reflecting on failure. I am thinking of artist talks, grants, and s=
o on, where the main goal is to impress the audience and promote the projec=
t so you can get a few bucks to make the next version. But it seems like th=
ese projects would be much more interesting and might accomplish more if we=
could begin to publicly talk about their failures. >>
</div><div><br></div></div><div>I do think a lot of social artists see them=
selves a bit in the mode of researchers or experimenters, but if so, Kanari=
nka's right that we're missing out on a lot of the data. I=
9;ve spent the last few days thinking quite a bit about the points of failu=
re in my own projects and I can feel a simultaneous desire to talk about th=
em more, and to hide them (it could be that failed social artworks generate=
keener feelings of embarrassment or shame than failed paintings or sculptu=
res). But in their very awkwardness, those failures are also arguably=
the most generative parts of my practice -- the uncomfortable realities an=
d difficult feelings push things in new directions. I think this is e=
xactly what Kanarinka was suggesting. But what kind of situations can=
we create (social inventors that we are) that might make open and specific=
discussion of our failures more possible?
</div><div><br></div>-- Sal<div class=3D"Ih2E3d"><div><br></div><div><br><d=
iv><div>On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:24 PM, Eric Steen wrote:</div><br><blockquote=
type=3D"cite"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(102, 255, 153);"><br>Re=
sponding to: "Failure & reflection - Is it just me or do social ar=
t projects seem to have lots more failure involved than other art projects?=
"
</span><br><br>I may have missed something but I don't think I understa=
nd exactly what "failure" means in the context Kanarinka's po=
st. As Sal suggests a defining of failure is important. It seems to me ther=
e are a couple different types of social projects. The more political ones =
attempt to present information and cause "participants" to reexam=
ine their own social or political positions. In these the artist is often t=
imes hoping that a certain outcome will be attained and if it doesn't t=
his could be a failure. Other projects, and I personally consider these the=
better projects, are more of a facilitation where participants become more=
than just something that is decentered (they are not objectified), instead=
these participants take on the responsibility of either carrying or not ca=
rrying the load given to them originally by the artist. In this way the art=
ist gives up all hope of any set outcome and allows participants to sculpt =
the outcome according to their particular, or local needs or desires. In th=
is sense failure for the artist would consist of bad moderating and facilit=
ation of an event. There is more to say on this but for now that is all I w=
ill say.
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;"> <div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>-eric<br clear=
=3D"all">
<br>-- <br><a href=3D"http://ericmsteen.blogspot.com" target=3D"_blank">eri=
cmsteen.blogspot.com</a><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div><br><br> <=
/div><span style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-hei=
ght: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; w=
ord-spacing: 0px;">
<div style=3D"margin: 0px;">: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :</div><d=
iv style=3D"margin: 0px;"><br></div><div style=3D"margin: 0px;">Sal Randolp=
h</div><div style=3D"margin: 0px;">salrandolph [at] gmail [dot] com</div><d=
iv style=3D"margin: 0px;">
<a href=3D"http://salrandolph.com" target=3D"_blank">http://salrandolph.com=
</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></span> <br><div=
> <span style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb=
(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; fon=
t-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height=
: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word=
-spacing: 0px;">
<div style=3D"margin: 0px;">: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :</div><d=
iv class=3D"Ih2E3d"><div style=3D"margin: 0px;"><br></div><div style=3D"mar=
gin: 0px;">Sal Randolph</div><div style=3D"margin: 0px;"><a href=3D"mailto:=
salrandolph at gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">
salrandolph at gmail.com</a></div></div><div style=3D"margin: 0px;"><a href=3D=
"http://salrandolph.com" target=3D"_blank">http://salrandolph.com</a></div>=
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></span> </div><br></div><b=
r>
_______________________________________________<br>Criticality mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:Criticality at lists.socialarchitecture.org">Criticality=
@lists.socialarchitecture.org</a><br><a href=3D"http://lists.socialarchitec=
ture.org/listinfo.cgi/criticality-socialarchitecture.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>
http://lists.socialarchitecture.org/listinfo.cgi/criticality-socialarchitec=
ture.org</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Kat=
ie Hargrave<br><a href=3D"http://www.katiehargrave.us">http://www.katieharg=
rave.us
</a><br><br>OPENSOURCE Art<br><a href=3D"http://opensource.boxwith.com">htt=
p://opensource.boxwith.com</a>
------=_Part_13086_9572689.1200968432530--
More information about the iDC
mailing list