Research 2.0

File:Research 2.pdf

January 2015, Rotterdam

For me is clear now that the term open source is not the right way to say it, for what I’m looking for. When I use the term is also creates a discussion or debate about open source. I don’t want to critic open source or the art world in a political way. Off course I have a critic on the art world, but how I’m to say. I raider show a kind of tool, what can be used in the art world. To give a different take than the traditional way.

I have to be careful that I or the work don’t end up in a debate or discussion, that is not the point of the art that I make. The work of art is central, not the maker. But what kind of art would that be?

The work has to be on the move. My role as an artist is to start a work/frame so that the viewer can be involved, can collaborate, participate, you name it. The process, the ‘move’ of the work is the goal. It’s a never ending story, the work can be finish. I don’t want to be the director, but how to create a work that is open and free enough but still invites the viewer.

Is authorship still relevant in this research? I give up my authorship, but how cares if you see or experience the work? For me, I’m still interested to research authorship, but there are two separate things.

The biggest question is still; [ẀhY?]

Felix Gonzalez Torres is a America, Cuba-born artist. His is known of his minimal installations and sculptures in the mid 80’s. I’m naming him in my research because he made work what become famous because it was ‘removable’. Felix made called ‘process art’. In his installations process was the key feature to the installation. For example the could take a piece of the work with them, like the candy in the picture. In so doing, contribute to the show disappearance of the sculpture over the course of the exhibition. The possibility for endless reproducibility’s, the work is disseminated, to exist in multiple places at the same time and to be realized completely only through the participation of the viewer, which he described:

“One enormous collaboration with the public. The piece are like a virus.” - Felix Gonzalez Torres

Reference: Felix Gonzalez Torres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_Gonz%C3%A1lez-Torres

The work of Felix changes over time, but in the end it will be gone. So a process, I don’t see. I want the viewer to contribute and to create something with the work, than just take it with them. The viewer creates the process from the work, a work that’s never done, or finished. You need each other to create the work.

“These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users’ sake, but because they promote social solidarity that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as more and more of our culture and life activities are digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free software some increasingly to equate with freedom in general.” - Richard Stellmann

Reference: Metropolis M – 2009 Feb/Mrt. Remixologie. Over de bronnen van shareware. Page 52- 55

Art, therefore, should be free, in order to stimulate creativity, and this means that every individual is free to copy art, distribute it and modify it for personal, non – or commercial use. Other artist can turn them in new ways, stimulating creative practice.

Aaron Koblin created the work ‘the Sheep Market’. The sheep market is a collection of 10.000 sheep created by workers on Amazon’s-Mechanical Turk. (a website where you can place chores) Each worker was paid $.02 to draw a sheep facing left. But the ideology of bureaucratized systematized human labour is firmly established and has been maturing rapidly since the industrial revolution. Aaron’s work uses real-world and community generated date to reflect in cultural trends and the changing relationship between humans and the systems they create.

I give this work as an example for the ‘free’ interpretation what you have as a viewer. Draw a sheep is the assignment, so it’s not that free what I mean, but everybody draws a sheep differently. It is a specific task just what Miranda July did with here ‘Learn to Love you More’ project. What I like of these projects it’s the artist creates a movement. The works are a virus, a virus of sheep or assignments. They create a kind of frame and the viewer as to react between the framework. The assignments are very specific, I want to create a way that they are open and the viewer creates something without any framework. Without any assignment it’s hard to invite people to contributed to the work. So I’m going to looking for a middle road.

Reference: Aaron Koblin - http://www.thesheepmarket.com/ Miranda July - http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com/

Jeanne van Heeswijk is a ‘network’ artist form the Netherlands. I want to highlight her project Draw a Line (2000), based on an old Dutch territorial game. In collaboration with Rolf Engelen, she filled an area in the gallery 25 metres square with soil, a reference to the Dutch tradition of land reclamation. Besides forming the setting for a game, this square was also a flat, almost two-dimensional sculpture bearing a strong resemblance to the work of such Dutch Constructivists as Mondriaan and others.

The installation was a reworking of the traditional Dutch game of 'landjepik' ('land grab'), which centres on gaining and losing territory, land and space. A companion booklet lays out the rules of the game, which can be played in three variants: 'Wanna Play', Wanna Fight' and 'Wanna Act'. In the third variant, the objective is to create space for the opponent instead of taking space from him - an impossible task in a game of conquest. The game brings together competition and competence, and participants are invited to lay bare their deepest motives at the most basic level. The rules are simple: each player throws a knife into the ground, and the point where the knife lands forms the outer boundary of that player's new 'territory'. By altering one of the basic rules - how players take turns - the game never ends. This simple act draws the viewer's attention to the endless struggle over 'territory'.

Reference: Jeanne van Heeswijk - http://www.jeanneworks.net/

This way of a battle or game, is a good way to invited the viewer to play. But how much do you need to participate, to create a work? How to start with no direction, but with an [Open¬Frame‽]

The process of this tool what I’m creating could be explain in this image;

Cube one is your starting point, your frame. You can just easy copy it or you have the other options. Transform is reform you start point, looks like copying, but with something add on. Combine own input is almost creating something new but you still see where is comes from, the starting point. And create new is create totally something different.

By doing this method as a way of making, you stimulate creativity. Everyone can turn the work in something new, stimulating the creative practice. Your free to copy, distribute, modify it or even to create a new work out of it.

So I can say for myself now I found my ‘why’ and I have a clear thought how the ‘tool’ has to be used. Only now is the biggest question [hÒw¿?]