Generous Practices

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki

Disambiguation: Generous Practices, essay by Femke Snelting.

Notes on why we make radio, part of Special Issue 25: Protocols for Collective Performance.

Performativity and Notation

Some key points from Yuill.

  • Performative (open playing) as means, in both music and coding of sharing process, developing knowledge together (DIWO).
  • Examples of livecoding, hacklabs, in parallel with Cardew's scratch and
  • Importance of Notation

Liveness

...the thing gets done then and what you hear is the thing being done.

Ash Kilmartin, WORM radio manager and radio maker, interviewed by XPUB1 for Special Issue 22, talking about why radio making: https://pad.xpub.nl/p/radioworm-20231107

https://hub.xpub.nl/chopchop/worm/xpub/radioworm-20231107.ogg#t=01:04:20.551

this is the time. and this is the record of the time

From Laurie Anderson, From the Air https://genius.com/Laurie-anderson-from-the-air-lyrics

Distributive Practices

The practice itself is inherently distributive, for it integrates the distribution of knowledge on how to produce into that which it produces. While this allows for possibilities of collaborative production, it should be seen as distinct from collaboration in itself. For whereas a practice that is collaborative coheres the production of many under a single goal, thereby directing the disposition of their labour, a practice that is distributive enables the disposition of labour by others under their own direction. This is enabled in the output of production as notation, as code that not only creates a product, but enters into an active life beyond its initial implementation.

Resisting the acquisitive

The conflicts within the Scratch Orchestra and the conflicts between Free Software and Open Source illustrate the distinctions within forms of production between those that are collective and distributive, and those that are collaborative and acquisitive. A distributive practice enables the disposition of labour by others under their own direction, while an acquisitive one accumulates the labour of others without regard to their self-disposition. It also exposes the conflict that can emerge when a practice that has developed within a self-constituting community becomes subject to external forms of constitution and legitimation. Not all collaboration is inherently distributive, therefore. The nature of the power relations within it, and the disposition and legitimation of production they enable, may be subject to forces that operate in opposing ways.

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.

Sharing Knowledge

FS: Since 2004 Foam and OKNO have been working on X-med-K1, a series of workshops on the experimental use of new media. Constant is involved with Femmes et logiciels libres2, a project in which the participants themselves are responsible for the organisation of the learning process. Can you tell me something more about your interest in sharing knowledge and why it is important as artists to organize these workshops?

MK: That brings us back to the beginning of this conversation. It’s important to feed the ecology that keeps you going. We don’t consider our work to be the mere production of unique art works, but as the production of knowledge. If not shared through an educational process, be it a traditional workshop, a discussion or any form of exchange, this knowledge is reduced to superficial ‘information’.

Participatory models

FS: How do you deal with the hierarchical relationship between yourself and the one you are sharing knowledge with?

MK: In the beginning we used to work with workshop instructors who taught something to the group, but eventually we moved towards participatory models where instructors can become participants and vice versa and we find this method to be much more productive.

TL: It’s really great when you get this flow where others start to run wild with something you have instigated.

FS: If you want to share knowledge, experience, tools and/or a platform, the ‘opening’ of sources is just the beginning.

MK: Of course it doesn’t stop at the opening of source files. Hopefully, we can change our consumer’s society into a responsible participatory culture. One of the people we work with, pointed out that perhaps instead of cultural 'open source’, we should refer to it as 'ajar (half open) source', because it’s not about leaving the door wide open.

LR: It’s wrong to assume that all free software is automatically open. Because who really has the opportunity to participate? Who has time for it, who does it lend authority to and who gets into trouble by it?

MK: So much 'open source' media works and artistic software are being dumped online, which supposedly makes them 'open' but they are incomprehensible and undocumented, so they remain closed for most people. Participation is the key, and that means that not only the end result is shared, but the whole process.

Considerations for the course

Pad protocol? Use a pad to collect reflections on the following:

  • How do we consider practice not just product.
  • How do we share sources?
  • How do we share knowledge?
  • What networks do we interactive with / participate with.
  • How do we give back / participate in those networks (e.g. posting material to Radio Aporee?)
  • What stories/knowledge/perspectives aren't being heard / need to be heard?
  • What particular knowledge(s) do we (XPUB) bring?

Why make (WORM) Radio?

  • Who is the Radio WORM community?
  • What unique knowledge already exists in this community?
  • How do we participate in these specific networks?

Outputs

  • What should be on the website(s) hub and eventually here
  • What would making a podcast feed mean, not just technically, but editorially? Last year there was a podcast feed, but it was made after the fact, misses dates, content is chronological (not the norm for a podcast), the content isn't really accessible (the XML link should be used with a podcast reader only).
  • Do we want to participate in Radio WORM's mixcloud?
  • and... next question...

Planning the Event: Nov 20

  • What can be done here?
  • Rather than a presentation moment, how can we create an opportunity to share knowledge and also potentially learn from the particular public.
  • Need: Teaser text to start seeding interest, describing the public we anticipate / desire. (This can already be posted to the worm site as an event in the calendar - the text can be refined closer to the event).

Future weeks

notes/outtakes

  • Reflections from Strasbourg, Marie Verdeil's work: Low-tech magazine and Kris de Decker.
  • Becoming Sponge + Reparative Reading.
  • Returning to examples from Yuill's idea of distributive practice. (Example such as HAKMEM, and Scratch/Cardew). But... also Cardew's later regrets?
Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=Generous_Practices&oldid=276214"