I’ve just finished reading Edward de Bono’s book on the ideas or language, thinking, design and perception.
It has taken me some time to get through it.
In the process I have broken my washing machine and been to visit a victorian camera obscura.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/93784
On Thursday I will share my research with young people in the area as part of schools workshops at AUCB.
i took a break from this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dw5zr/East…
to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb802qDc0aU&feature…
it is probable that the way i perceived the short film by Marlon Griffith was effected by the experience and therefore my perception effected by the legendary soap opera famed from it’s overuse of violence; Eastenders.
To check the truth of a piece of text check for the adjectives used seems to be Edward de Bono’s tip.
When I watched the 5 minute film I was reminded of visiting lecturer Brian Caitlings comment about the difference between art and craft: craft wants to be loved; art doesn’t.
With this statement in mind is the piece by Marlon Griffith art or craft? It appears that is it is and does want to be loved, but it’s not really it’s purpose. It’s purpose is to begin a process of healing through an awareness of strength and fragility, temporary and permanent. It does it’s best to raise awareness of our perception of death by displaying metaphorical materials and processes.
Is this art or craft? Maybe it is loved, but can you descibe the feeling of love for the connection you may feel to this piece of work because it is about loss of love. It is about coping with loss and how could we love coping with loss. No, rather it is connected to people in such an abstract way we have no other word but love to give to it.
The material and space that has been created using metaphor to induce a metaphor in the persons experiencing the work that would form a metaphorical connection with the experience to their own personal loss. They are connected to in as a group of people with their own individual experience of loss which contribute to its wider perception.
Is this what Walter Benjamin talked about in art in the age of mechanical reproduction?
Collaborate
Working together, especially in a joint intellectual effort
Or
To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one’s country
The first definition seems so positive, altruistic; combining skills and knowledge to achieve greater things. Admirable!
The second seems nasty, weak, and sneaky; going along with ideas you believe to be wrong to save your own skin.
That is the surface – one word two perceptions. In reality how does this work?
I am a collaborator in both senses. I work together with other artists and other people in my community to achieve things we could not do alone.
I am also a collaborator as I live and work in a country that remains to some extent in forced occupation of my own country.
I want to examine this deeper. It seems that working together is a good way forward; each individual contributing his or her skills, time, knowledge and experience to make something happen. But in order for this to happen effectively there needs to be someone to facilitate this sharing. If not then those with the strongest views or the loudest voice, or the capital will make the decisions and others will slowly be squeezed out working for rather than working with.
This is my experience. Mostly there has not been a facilitator in collaborations but the group has fought its way back out with some advocating on behalf of others. Sometimes it has all gone wrong when the facilitator is part of the group and the position has not been clearly defined. Other times there is an acceptance that there is inequality in the collaboration and that some collaborators have less power over the project than others.
At the base of a successful collaboration is a good foundation. Not as concrete as a manifesto but some explanation of potential contributions and skills an understanding of the individuals we are working with and respect for them and their input.
But we are human and when we get close to the edge we take it out on those closest to us. In a joint project there is joint responsibility, joint authorship. The collaborators are dependent on each other to be fair and inclusive and to share the workload and decision making.
This is the problem with collaboration – how to come to a joint decision when there is no consensus and no facilitator. When it is a matter of a subjective decision how do we go forward? Do some relinquish their opinions in favour of a complete outcome or do we stop entirely and fight it out. Do we take a vote? Who decides how the decision making process is carried out.
I’m going to go back to the second definition of collaborate and its two meanings. There are many such words; Tear, this can be a noun meaning the salty bio fluid trickling down your face or the verb to pull apart by force. There are many more examples here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200901…
The second definition of collaborate; to cooperate with the enemy. In spite of knowing that the views of the enemy are opposed to yours, you allow things to happen. In defence of your life/lifestyle you go ahead with what you know is wrong.
DOUBLETHINK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Does collaborate then mean the same thing? When working with others we have to respect their decisions or go along with them with gritted teeth despite believing them to be opposed to our own for the sake of our reputation?
Or we can leave; leave the joint venture and allow a shared dream to wake up to the cold light of day and the reality that we don’t agree and draw a line under all that has been invested.
Do we make a stand; fight for our opinion, what we believe is true at the risk of ending the collaboration in conflict?
And so we come back to the option of going forward with the idea, with a learned respect; or a controlled and enforced respect for our collaborators. Is this any better than treason?
