Generous Practices

aka why (special issue #25)

Distributive Practices

Summary of key points from Yuill.

Generous Practices

Also in Floss+ART, alongside Yuill's Distributive Practices, Femke Snelting: Generous Practices (also here).

A fictional conversation, based on emails, physical encounters, IRC and a Skype session.

Based on citations from a number of influences, a "fictional conversation" that represents Snelting reflections and inspirations from colleagues inspired by models of Free Software working in the cultural / artistic work.

Conversational

Why this form?

• Example of Annemieke van der Hoek's Epicpedia... Exposing the wiki as conversation. A form Snelting would re-use in Conversations.
• Parallel with things like RFCs and discussions on mailinglists such as the proposal for an IMG tag.
• See also Conversations about Free Software.
• An example of form reflecting values.

A Cultural Ecosystem

LR: I'm not sure I would use the term ‘ecology’ literally, but we like to work with open source software for example, because it exposes a network of relations between communities, tools and audiences. Of course, these relations go much further than art, literature, theatre or dance. Culture is embedded in social, economical and technological structures.

GB: The interesting thing about a cultural ecosystem is the fact that it's not only about a literal exchange of information and products, but that the system also allows you to share behaviours, approaches, and working methods. The participation of the public also plays an important role.

Copyright alternative

LR: An author never has a neutral position; he or she is an active thinker and player. It's always interesting when creators use their position as an author to give others the opportunity to use their work, instead of protecting everything, but that's just one way of questioning the concept of ‘originality’, authority and the power an author can exercise.

...

We were often asked the same question when we organised CopyCult in 2000. At that time, you could really start to feel the impact of digital media, for example, in new distribution systems such as Napster and the issues it raised, but also in the work of artists such as Harun Farocki, Jean-Luc Godard or Chris Marker who were busy recycling existing images in an intelligent way. At what price can you re-use an image? That was and still is a very relevant question for artists.

On Collaboration

FS: You are all involved in collective practices. Why do you think these collaborations are so important in media art?

GB: A lot of media artists I work with were already experimenting with music in the early eighties, and via computer music and video they gradually moved over to media art. In music, you have this almost utopian optimistic attitude of ‘hey, let's play music together!’. Someone has an idea and that's how it starts. And the person who has the original idea doesn't feel misused or anything, on the contrary, he or she is charmed by the fact that others want to collaborate.

NG: We were planning to pull together all the half formed systems we were using, to get them to talk to each other. There was a lot of overlap because we kept on developing new software, hardware and equipment for specific purposes, so we needed a kind of connection kit. SutChwon is not really a tool as such, but it does have an effect on the way we design software and connect things together.

FS: So you’re developing a kind of technological Esperanto?

NG: It’s more a protocol than a language. Something like a plumber’s van full of gaffer tape. And the instructions are written in a dialect of Esperanto that looks suspiciously like the Perl programming language!

Software as instrument

GB: I like to compare it to playing an instrument. Musicians, no matter how much they practice, they can only reach a certain level. They are physically limited by their instrument. I started programming when I realised that I could suddenly expand my range of expressive operations that way.

FS: You mean that you started to create your own digital instruments?

GB: Exactly. The idea is that you can behave a bit like a clumsy inventor. With software you can really experiment. I’m not a programmer, but in order to go beyond the limits of standard software, you need to be able to perform a few basic interventions. I like to go as far as I can in changing all possible parameters in order to create my own sound. And to come back to your question about collaboration, the limit of your own technical abilities is no longer an issue, because there is always the possibility of collaborating with other people.

LR: For me, software is more an instrument in the metaphorical sense. By asking “who uses what, what for and with who?” it becomes a tool to help you think. I am interested in the fact that each programme also programmes in a figurative sense: it prescribes specific forms, sounds and images.

Why make Radio?

• How to give back to an audience?

• Idea to post recordings back to Radio Aporee, yes! Look into the community aspect.

notes

Reflections from Strasbourg Marie Verdeil's work: Low-tech magazine and Kris de Decker.

Becoming Sponge + Reparative Reading.

Return to Yuill's idea of distributive practice. (Example such as HAKMEM, and Scratch/Cardew). But... also Cardew's later regrets?