scott on October 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
let’s use this space for furthering the project!
(See: making room for redundancy)
scott on October 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
respond
You must be logged in to post a comment.
| issues | library | discussions | about | in |
let’s use this space for furthering the project!
(See: making room for redundancy)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
HOW DECISIONS WERE / ARE / WILL MAKE ROOM FOR REDUNDANCY’:
- Starting with the workshop, and until the opening, ideas could be proposed by any of the invited collaborators.
- Ideas brought up at the workshop, by invited collaborators were particularly weighted as a starting point & point of departure (as promised in the initial workshop invitation).
- During the week between workshop and opening, ideas could be discussed by all invited collaborators through “reply all” email.
- Implementing proposed ideas before the opening were decided by us (initiators) - Practical considerations were: time, budget, who offered to help us implement the proposed ideas, and how much the ideas were discussed.
- The final considerations of implementing proposed ideas in the space were reviewed by common room as hosting venue - considerations were: relationship between common-room as unauthorized exhibition space and other building tenants.
- As of the opening, a new platform was opened to others - so ideas can now be proposed, developments recommended, examples of redundancy pointed out, or ideas discussed by anyone through the website: aaaarg.org/category/redundancy
- Any further ideas must be discussed by the invited collaborators to be considered for implementation during the exhibition.
- Any further implementation during the 6-week exhibition will be decided through discussion between the invited collaborators, and by whoever offers to help actually implement the ideas on site, and finally we (initiators) will help coordinate with common room about what is viable in the space – and beyond.
- We propose a final summary event at the end of the 6-week period — to review what was carried-out, discussed, developed, what if anything was learned, and how this project may benefit future work. What do you all think about this?
- It’s now T-minus X weeks… what do you think we should do next?
November 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
This aaaarg board is then considered a board for a open development process.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Outline of Making Room for Redundancy (MRfR) Projects
Ideas that emerged during the Making Room for Redundancy workshop, post-workshop and post-opening processes:
o Closing event as a recap
o Elevator pitch
o The recipe box for unused ideas.
o The girl from ipanema DJ night (perhaps mixed with redun-dance workshop?)
o Apartment show
o Publication (kick-off for a MRfR publication)
o Janez Jansa & Janez Jansa & Janez Jansa (propoal from ‘outside’)
o Making Room for Redundancy (#3.1) at Basekamp space.
———————
Closing event as a recap
———————
A closing event as a recap (right now not much to re-cap!) a continuation of the discussion of redundancy (taking up issued introduced on the aaaarg board, some interesting comments there now) and kick-off for activity, projects and publication.
————
Elevator pitch
————
Similar to the common room exhibition the visual aspect of the show elevator pitch production is only the tip of the iceberg hinting at the many voices coming together to produce a seemingly irrelevant piece.
The pitch is mostly about collaborating on the notion of redundancy through a specific production - as was the process of the MRfR exhibition. The pitch forces us to narrow down (communicating) the notion of redundancy, and - as well - forcing the (maybe somewhat arty focus of redundancy to relate to concepts of redundancy in another fields also - relating the concept to a common / ‘non-art’ incidental audience that uses the elevator where the pitch is (imagined to be) ‘preformed’.
Idea:
Numerous similar elevator pitches are to be collected from and developed by participants and collaborators, so the "body" of the work is a collective effort.
Repeating the elevator pitch idea over and over again, however not the same pitch but a similar pitches contributed by participants (precisely what the redundancy event is addressing). Through the repetition the commercial power of the catch phrase value/sales pitch is invalidated.
The performance of the elevator pitch is recorded, preferably video, in a perfect set-up ie ‘studio’ (elevator sounds for context, good lighting, rhetorically skilled actor/presenter).
Content of ‘Pitch’:
Elevator Pitch; Scene Encountered (‘manuscripts’/text to be (co)produced):
Convince an (incidental) audience of the positive notion of redundancy - contextually relating it to the elevator pitch is (imagined) to be ‘performed’; relating to duration of elevator ride and (socio-political/institutional) context and situation.
Situation:
You are in an elevator (any elevator) going from the ground floor to the ?’th floor. In the elevator is an (imaginable) incidental and potential collaborator for your collaborative idea re ‘redundancy’. You have x sec to convince and get to engage.
When doing the pitch idea as a collective effort, the many voices coming together to produce a seemingly irrelevant piece, some contributors could write the ‘drama’/texts, some could collect elevator sounds, some could rehearse/perform the text pieces, some shoot the video/sound bits, etc. We could make a lot of small co-productions; contributing with various and different elements, materials and work. It really depends on the extent of what we want this to turn into, the possibilities are endless we (collectively) just have to decide how.
The recording(s) of the performance(s) is not published/displayed anywhere - at least not shown in the context of a redundancy event/exhibition - but kept as an archive; maybe, but only as an option, for a future audio or video publication.
Practicalities; a to do list:
1. Co-write one (or more) elevator pitch texts (together). The specific text has to relate to the context in where the elevator pitch is (imagined) to be ‘performed’.
2. One or more of us rehearse one (or more) elevator pitch(es) to perfection.
3. One or more of us video- and/or audio-record the pitch in the elevator re to the text, somewhere, anywhere, pitching it to nobody (audio with sliding-elevator-door-sound, etc. etc.).
4. Not display the recordings at common room or elsewhere, but archive them, and
6. Occasionally tell about the pitch(es), as (a) anecdote(s) of something once experienced.
7. Optional publication but not necessarily.
———
Recipe box
———
Idea:
Set up a lending library of artistic ideas; a series of small recipe boxes even - with other artist’s ideas so that people could borrow them - and perhaps also leave "recipes" behind.
Be ideas that someone never got around to trying or ideas they simply want to "share".
A performative aspect to the recipe box, which would work well as a small event; introduce the recipe box as an small event, and then leave the box at common room for the duration of the show and/or beyond. We would need a sign indicating all the "recipes" are Copy Left.
The recipe idea is not just about ‘unrealized ideas’ of which many exist, but about creating a circulation library of these for others to use. Unrealized projects are commonly used in architecture, and especially for city planning.
Practicalities; a to do list:
1. a small, black recipe box filled with index cards
2. each card is one "idea" for a (art)work/production
3. also leave "recipes" behind
4. set up a lending library of ideas
5. do a series of small recipe boxes even with other artist’s ideas so that people could borrow them.
——————————————————————–
The girl from ipanema DJ night (perhaps mixed with redun-dance workshop?)
——————————————————————–
(Idea of a ’DJ Night’ was brought up by Anton at the workshop)
Bringing together these various ideas may exemplify an overlap of ideas: "Redun-dance" hybridized with a music event in a hybrid approach.
Addressing music (no matter what else we do) is that copyright and ownership (of "trademarks", styles, ideas, and ultimately of identity and reputation) is a central component of why "redundancy" is such an important issue in the arts — and is nowhere more widely publicized and hotly contested than in popular music.
And music (and even better combined with dancing) is a way to "let people in". And can be a "creative" way to address issues of copyrighting creativity. In this case the "specialized" artists are the musicians — and the idea that "anyone can be an artist" comes into play with dancing (while sometimes a specialized art, it’s also in the case of club dancing, a very populist art).
Additional proposal from Didier (Basekamp resident who video-taped our workshop):
The idea stems from a collaborative dance video Didier have made were the same dance is ‘applied’ to difference music: He and friends have been working on dance videos, which in their minds can go with any music (and have added tracks, which the view can shift between, and dance seems to go along with nearly anything).
And the redun-dance — it’s an active way to address Anton’s suggestion about the girl from ipanema. Didier proposed a dance workshop, which I thought may make sense at common room, and kind of interesting to try to engage people in "nightclub" dancing during the day, with old people and kids.
Here’s Didiers proposal on ’Dance Workshop’:
1) Dancing on business time,
The actual club dance is associated to a nightlife (night club/ Saturday night…). The main idea is basically after a long and intense week of working (jobs/ offices/ classes/), people from the city "go out"… then they dance, just to relax, have fun, and forget the intense week…
What’s happening if we sweet the schedule, and instead of going to the office on Monday morning at 8am I go to dance?
2) dancers and sleepers.
The main idea as the proposal 1 is to assisted the dance party to the night life, which is also associated to our sleeping time… What’s happening if in the same space/ the same room some people will share experience of dancing and sleeping?
—————
Apartment show
—————
Referring to Olga’s workshop presentation on Apt Art and Sara’s proposal for a specifc Apartment show in New York.
—————
MRfR publication
—————
Texts/essays from workshop participants + other contributors (proposals?)
Versions of presentations of (reworked) workshop-version of transcript (maybe as trial with speech bubbles). Generally using all the workshop-transcripts as a setoff for qualifying the points made at the workshop. As such using (continuing) the workshop as a tool, and not just documenting it (which is impossible in the first place).
Each of the participants can include one contribution which goes unedited - blank pages for notes + contributions (only requirement is that it deals with redundancy as outlined at the workshop).
Print texts in mother tongue of contributor as well as English
We have discussed the publication with the local graphic designers dexter sinister (www.dextersinister.org) who are interested in working with us on the issue in a redundant way (because it relates the work they are currently doing). http://www.dot-dot-dot.us/index.html?id=33 http://www.dextersinister.org/library.html?id=91
We have a small but sufficient budget (not for stipend for writers, etc. though)
————————————————-
Making Room for Redundancy (#3.1) at Basekamp space
————————————————-
Proposed date: June 2008
We have discussed if we should maybe consider the current exhibition as an exhibition/workshop or ‘production concept’ for other ‘common rooms’ (and a exhibition space/gallery could be considered as a (very) specific ‘common room’).
This specifically because the current exhibition is very site specific; In this sense the establishing or production of ‘a next show’ need to work through similar processes a the current exhibition.
A ‘production concept’ should/can then – as a kind of research project - address the notion of redundancy from the perspectives of various localities (which was a stressed element in the application too). In the end – in a joint ‘archive’ or in a joint resource base - ‘the same’ is compared from different – local – perspectives. And we should maybe put some more effort in dialogues (symbolic and concrete) with ‘the common (wo)man’ in the various localities.
I think we should state such general idea of a ‘research & production concept’ when proposing that Making Room for Redundancy (#3) could migrate to the Basekamp space as a Making Room for Redundancy #3.1.
Developing a MRfR #3+ exhibition/production idea in the line of the above could generate a project/concept and form a project description for a project that we could finance through a co-funding from different local/national funds.
In general we still have a small amount left from the funding.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Dear all,
I read carefullly Kent’s statements and proposals, and I’m glad we have extended the project and we now have a deadline! Great! I would suggest to use this time to generate a little bit more content for a publication, using this online forum. I think last week exchange wasn’t bad, and I hope it will continue… We have a lot of bibliography, quotations, and publications to refer to, which is good. (By the way, the reference to Gregory Sholette is missing from the previous posting in relation to “Recipe box”.).. But we need to add more our own reflections on what we mean by redundancy, posting it to online discussion, and begin to structure it somehow keeping in mind the future printed version, thinking about chapters, and so on… Perhaps to invite more people to join it… It’s not clear for me what’s the ideal format for the publication (you mentioned some Dexter Sinister’s proposal, but I’m not sure if I understand what exactly it means). But I imagine, instead of (or besides) publishing the long texts, to have a collection of postings, revolving around the key topics (for example, “art as parody”, “recipe box”, “re-dancing,” etc.) united by the name of redundancy. As an example for a format relevant to our project, I have particularly in mind a few books edited by Jordan Crandall (”Interactions” and “Under Fire”): they are based on e-mail exchanges by the group of people, discussing the topic of image production in the time of war, etc. But we should discuss it more, of course.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:06 am
i had a similar thought about the publication format. i would like to see it as a continuation of the discussion. maybe picking up a method used in the most recent ‘an architektur’ issue we could use a dialectical approach to the content where it is a back and forth between various participants and invitees through email correspondences. from a brief look at the jordan crandall publications it seems there is a similar approach, but maybe (at least graphically) too much emphasis on the the discussion by email.
we could send out an invitation/introduction to the publication and ask a select few to respond to this (at length). included in the introduction as well as the responses could be images and reference texts or auxilliary texts by the participants themselves (such as stephen’s essay or olga’s presentation). these responses are cc’d to everyone in the group and responded to in return which will hopefully create cross over and redundancy.