[2007-04-05 09:58:35] magda: hello brendan
[2007-04-05 09:58:42] brendan: Helo Magda
[2007-04-05 09:58:47] magda: how are you?
[2007-04-05 09:59:03] magda: beautiful morning, isn't it;)
[2007-04-05 09:59:03] brendan: It was a bit late putting up the connection
[2007-04-05 09:59:24] magda: still on time
[2007-04-05 09:59:30] magda: where are you?
[2007-04-05 09:59:42] brendan: Yes I'm good and it is beautiful, we are
in Cinnamon Girl
[2007-04-05 09:59:47] magda: in your flat or at some other place with
internet connection?
[2007-04-05 09:59:52] magda: right, nice
[2007-04-05 10:00:01] brendan: How you?
[2007-04-05 10:00:05] Ana: Hello Magda
[2007-04-05 10:00:14] magda: hi ana
[2007-04-05 10:00:17] Ana: its time to start. shall we?
[2007-04-05 10:00:20] magda: you are well too?
[2007-04-05 10:00:35] magda: ok
[2007-04-05 10:00:42] Ana: yes. very well thank you.
[2007-04-05 10:00:59] Ana: would you like to start by introducing yourself?
[2007-04-05 10:01:12] magda: well, i would like to start with a question
[2007-04-05 10:01:19] Ana: ok.
[2007-04-05 10:01:19] magda: but first i will introduce myself
[2007-04-05 10:02:48] magda: my research interest is in the area of collaboration
and how it changes within the context of the network society
[2007-04-05 10:03:28] brendan: Hi Jem
[2007-04-05 10:03:34] jem: Hi y'all
[2007-04-05 10:03:47] magda: helo
[2007-04-05 10:03:51] Ana: and now your question (hi Jem!)
[2007-04-05 10:04:23] jem: As an overview how do you think it changes?
[2007-04-05 10:04:41] magda: because we are having this conversation within
the context of vj community
[2007-04-05 10:05:18] magda: i wanted to ask you about what are the modes
of collaboration which are employed within the context of vjing practice?
[2007-04-05 10:05:33] magda: i can answer to your question jem
[2007-04-05 10:06:41] magda: i think increasingly collaboration is not
about doing something together, united to achieve a common goal.
[2007-04-05 10:07:00] brendan: Strangely the most obvious 'collaboration'
is the vj 'battle'
[2007-04-05 10:07:01] jem: Is it Is uppose you could say you have the
battle of the VJs?
[2007-04-05 10:07:04] magda: like in the form of a strike, protest, demonstration
etc
[2007-04-05 10:07:27] magda: It is more about doing something together
to achieve particular, personal, independent goals.
[2007-04-05 10:08:10] brendan: NMore like the dj battle but it doesn't
have to be specific to vjing
[2007-04-05 10:08:13] magda: without judging better or worse then the
other. But that collaboration has changed and it is less concerned with
the common.
[2007-04-05 10:08:47] brendan: The terminology would suggest that
[2007-04-05 10:08:57] magda: i think it is interesting, that it takes
the form of a battle
[2007-04-05 10:09:16] brendan: but you can look at it differently
[2007-04-05 10:09:46] jem: The common goal being a performance
[2007-04-05 10:09:54] brendan: asa a way in which vjs come to perform
together, problematic though the concept is
[2007-04-05 10:10:38] magda: yes, but the performance is not specified
[2007-04-05 10:10:45] jem: It can be seen as a live narrative - a good
side and a bad side and how they play it out - who wins.
[2007-04-05 10:10:54] brendan: the vj is, in a sense already collaborating
with the producer of the sound
[2007-04-05 10:11:26] Ana: but in between, before the prize, is the show,
as good as it can go - since performer d their best.
[2007-04-05 10:11:51] magda: i think this is also quite interesting, that
the overall aim is quite losely specified
[2007-04-05 10:12:25] brendan: they don't, necessarilyy, have clear winners
and losers
[2007-04-05 10:12:33] magda: and what seems to me is especially important
is this individual need to engage in creative activity, do the good job
as well
[2007-04-05 10:13:00] brendan: it is, however, a pretty basic capatalist
model.
[2007-04-05 10:13:14] magda: For example we all who participate in this
chat do not share the common aim. We probably share interest in the subject
etc, how
[2007-04-05 10:13:35] magda: however with this chat we are not setting
to achieve one thing which has been decided by all of us. But we are engaged
in the f
[2007-04-05 10:13:43] magda: form of collaboration
[2007-04-05 10:14:15] jem: But just because people do things together
I wouldn't call that coolaboration
[2007-04-05 10:14:32] magda: to get out something that each of us decided
to get out,
[2007-04-05 10:14:53] jem: collaboration, surely, is to do with working
through decision-making processes together?
[2007-04-05 10:15:05] magda: to me, the context in which people do something
togeter is important
[2007-04-05 10:15:09] brendan: you might say that there is an implicit
common aim
[2007-04-05 10:15:17] Ana: what makes collaboration then Magda in your
views?
[2007-04-05 10:15:26] brendan: as Jem says
[2007-04-05 10:16:10] magda: i mean for example the activity of people
on youTube and similar environs
[2007-04-05 10:17:17] magda: i totaly agree with what jem said about decisions,
whe people involved in the activities are also involved in the decision
mak
[2007-04-05 10:17:21] jem: I think this chat could become a collaboration
if we discussed how to make it into something together perhaps?
[2007-04-05 10:17:56] magda: i think this is a very good example, jem
[2007-04-05 10:18:14] jem: It does exist however, because a number of
people (i.e. us) decided to do something together
[2007-04-05 10:18:34] Ana: bu the fact that we have a common interest
on the subject and we are willing to ear something from it, doesn't it
makes
[2007-04-05 10:18:55] magda: what i am reffering to in me previous post
is the collaboration and participation which are especially big words
in web 2.0 and
[2007-04-05 10:19:05] Ana: to learn something from it, doesn't itmake
it a little temporary collaboration?
[2007-04-05 10:19:17] magda: also in the network society,
[2007-04-05 10:19:37] brendan: as a process?
[2007-04-05 10:19:56] jem: I was interested in your original statement,
Magda, that maybe we can never escape collaboration at some level, now.
[2007-04-05 10:20:00] magda: post-industrial capitalism
[2007-04-05 10:20:28] magda: this is exactly what i mean
[2007-04-05 10:20:34] brendan: Also in the sense of 'free' labour
[2007-04-05 10:20:45] magda: when collaboration is used in the context
of neo-liberal rhetoric
[2007-04-05 10:20:59] jem: Collaboration definitely takes place at different
levels thst's for sure
[2007-04-05 10:21:01] magda: it takes on a different meaning
[2007-04-05 10:21:48] magda: so i wonder, do we collaborate because it
is natural way of working?
[2007-04-05 10:22:05] brendan: Does this change the functioning of commodity
form?
[2007-04-05 10:22:17] brendan: Natural?
[2007-04-05 10:22:37] magda: what Levi-Strauss said:
[2007-04-05 10:22:53] magda: “In order to progress, people have
to work together; and in the course of their collaboration, they gradually
become aware of a
[2007-04-05 10:23:09] magda: of an identification in their relationships
whose initial diversity was precisely what made their collaboration fruitful
and ne
[2007-04-05 10:23:19] magda: necessary
[2007-04-05 10:23:28] magda: ."
[2007-04-05 10:23:31] jem: I see collaboration a bit like the different
versions of creative commons copyright
[2007-04-05 10:23:49] jem: different participate at different levels of
it
[2007-04-05 10:24:13] jem: sorry different people participate at different
levels of it
[2007-04-05 10:24:22] magda: yes, brendan
[2007-04-05 10:24:34] magda: i think collaboration takes on value. becomes
a commodity
[2007-04-05 10:24:57] magda: it becomes an element of immaterial labour
[2007-04-05 10:24:57] jem: But to be meaningful dont you have to define
where collaboration becomes different to what is 'natural'
[2007-04-05 10:25:55] magda: absolutely.
[2007-04-05 10:26:51] magda: i think the assumed "naturality"
of collaboration is beeing used in the l
[2007-04-05 10:27:19] brendan: There is a debate in the open source community
about the labour which is 'spent' without economic reward
[2007-04-05 10:28:20] brendan: We should examine the cooked rather than
the raw in this context maybe?
[2007-04-05 10:29:12] magda: how do you decide then which collaboration
is valid?
[2007-04-05 10:29:22] magda: which one is cooked and raw?
[2007-04-05 10:29:49] Ana: (brendan will be away for 2 min)
[2007-04-05 10:30:09] jem: I think you need to define what you mean by
collaboration as it has many different flavours
[2007-04-05 10:30:19] magda: i think, this understanding of collaboration
is being lost
[2007-04-05 10:31:07] magda: well, i am trying to do that. and it is not
easy because of those different flavours, as you say.
[2007-04-05 10:31:10] Ana: Going back to the subject of realtime performance.
how about the audience as collaborators.
[2007-04-05 10:31:27] Ana: and I am aware that audience is not the right
word.
[2007-04-05 10:31:41] Ana: but my vocabolary is limited i this matter.
[2007-04-05 10:32:00] magda: well, what do you say about everyone who
puts their films and content on youTube and MySpace.
[2007-04-05 10:32:26] jem: surely the audience need to input into the
decision-making process in some way?
[2007-04-05 10:32:35] magda: what kind of collaboration is that?
[2007-04-05 10:32:42] brendan: I'm back
[2007-04-05 10:33:13] magda: One of the suggested conditions for the work
within the networks is proposed by German media critic Christoph Spehr
(2003)
[2007-04-05 10:33:21] magda: under the term free cooperation
[2007-04-05 10:33:36] magda: He defines free cooperation as oppositional
to forced cooperation which is predominant in capitalist society.
[2007-04-05 10:33:49] magda: He places this idea within the context of
political utopia which, as he suggests should be
[2007-04-05 10:34:06] magda: different from previous, modernist utopias,
as it should be non-elitist, non-prescriptive and non-hierarchical.
[2007-04-05 10:34:26] magda: He also defines three conditions which have
to be considered when discussing free cooperation.
[2007-04-05 10:34:43] magda: They are: questioning the rules of the cooperation
by everybody involved,
[2007-04-05 10:35:02] magda: refusal to cooperate used as a tool with
which to influence the rules
[2007-04-05 10:35:26] magda: and the last one is the condition that the
choice not to collaborate should be affordable and that “it’s
not a question of shee
[2007-04-05 10:35:45] magda: sheer existance to cooperate in this way
[2007-04-05 10:35:55] brendan: What happens when forces produce an illusion
of 'free' co-operation?
[2007-04-05 10:36:10] magda: Is it possible to establish and move towards
that prescribed cooperationl?
[2007-04-05 10:36:41] brendan: but those forces are in a kind of social
unconscious
[2007-04-05 10:36:58] magda: for that not to happen i see only that we
have to be very aware of what collaboration, cooperation and participation
is
[2007-04-05 10:37:14] magda: in the society as it is now
[2007-04-05 10:37:20] jem: Isnt co-operation alot more passive than collaboration?
[2007-04-05 10:38:00] jem: In co-operation you agree to go along with
someone else's ideas?
[2007-04-05 10:38:01] brendan: in which the participant feels they are
free but are influenced by an overdetermined body of force
[2007-04-05 10:38:09] magda: well, if it is done in the context described
by Spehr, I don't think it is then
[2007-04-05 10:38:31] brendan: in which awareness of the ability to question
is already hidden?
[2007-04-05 10:38:53] magda: but i do distinguish betewen collaboration
and cooperation in the same way you do it jem.
[2007-04-05 10:38:55] brendan: Sorry, weird question i know
[2007-04-05 10:39:53] brendan: and to participate is most active?
[2007-04-05 10:40:10] magda: and perhaps the engagement of people into
"youTube" phenomena i would consider to be cooperation rather.
however this one is
[2007-04-05 10:40:38] magda: not free.
[2007-04-05 10:41:00] magda: at least not in the context of "free
coopeartion" as defined above.
[2007-04-05 10:41:12] Ana: that makes a lot more sense to me. because
I don't seein you tube, or myspace, a goal or common objective.
[2007-04-05 10:41:15] brendan: There's maybe a clue in the 'you'
[2007-04-05 10:41:54] brendan: and we should start 'theirSpace'
[2007-04-05 10:41:57] magda: sorry brendan, i can't stick together all
your bits of question about participation
[2007-04-05 10:42:32] brendan: whoops, sorry, the last one was just a
joke
[2007-04-05 10:42:53] magda: i think i need to take it out and stick
togehter
[2007-04-05 10:43:14] magda: i mean the one before the their Tube ;)
[2007-04-05 10:44:13] brendan: The idea is similar to the clasiical idea
in Marx of commodity form
[2007-04-05 10:44:45] jem: I liked those three conditions, Magda, very
useful. Do you think they relate to the term of 'Produsers' looked at
by Axel Burns
[2007-04-05 10:45:31] jem: what's the commodity in Marxism, Brendan?
[2007-04-05 10:45:42] magda: i don't know that term by Axel Burns. so
i am not able to answer that.
[2007-04-05 10:45:55] brendan: He never defined it very well
[2007-04-05 10:46:09] jem: Sorry. It's a cross between PRODUCER and USER
[2007-04-05 10:46:21] magda: but in that context the term of "prosumer"
where consumer and producer
[2007-04-05 10:46:27] brendan: partly because it's about beingness
[2007-04-05 10:46:33] jem: The ones sending the message and the ones recieving
the message
[2007-04-05 10:46:53] magda: so the prosumer is a similar concept.
[2007-04-05 10:46:53] jem: prosumer is probably better you are right
[2007-04-05 10:46:53] jem: prosumer is probably better you are right
[2007-04-05 10:47:25] magda: however more emphasis put on the consumption
[2007-04-05 10:47:56] jem: In youTube it is about users doing it for themselves
rather than co-operating
[2007-04-05 10:48:15] brendan: again sending the self to the center of
capatalist beingness where the context is invisible?
[2007-04-05 10:48:39] magda: well, i think they do cooperate with those
who own the space.
[2007-04-05 10:48:58] magda: being aware or not, i am not sure about that.
probably would be interesting to ask about that.
[2007-04-05 10:49:08] jem: So Brandan, can you have a VJ event that is
not centralised at all?
[2007-04-05 10:50:02] brendan: Online video jamming peer to peer????
[2007-04-05 10:50:39] jem: I was going to say online would have to be
the arena for this
[2007-04-05 10:50:47] Ana: or interactive installation where the public
jams ather than the vj. maye?
[2007-04-05 10:50:47] magda: yes. that is an excellent example especially
in the context of vj performance
[2007-04-05 10:51:19] magda: because the authorship bit .
[2007-04-05 10:51:38] magda: i am sure you talked about it with MB yesterday
[2007-04-05 10:52:00] magda: but that is it. what do we get from collaboration?
[2007-04-05 10:52:19] jem: Ana, I have thought of setting up an open VJ
mixing desk at an event butthe trouble is that people don't know how to
use it
[2007-04-05 10:52:32] brendan: or maybe the spontaneous event? Geographically
in a space but like an eruption of collectivity?
[2007-04-05 10:52:56] Ana: Jem, depends on the interface. I did it a few
years ago and worked.
[2007-04-05 10:53:32] Ana: the only problem I had was with people trying
t figure out how it works and almost detroyed my installation in he process.
[2007-04-05 10:53:33] magda: satisfaction, fullfilment from being part
of the community etc. what it means?
[2007-04-05 10:54:11] jem: I think community is a big part of it
[2007-04-05 10:54:24] jem: and respect from a community
[2007-04-05 10:55:36] brendan: These are huge ideas, not surprised it's
so difficult to unpick, is there anything in Ranciere that might help????
[2007-04-05 10:55:45] magda: i think, perhaps these are the things we
should question when we engage in collaboration. question in the sense
[2007-04-05 10:56:06] magda: well, i think Ranciere is crucial
[2007-04-05 10:56:09] magda: here
[2007-04-05 10:56:23] brendan: The history of the ideas and terminology
are laden with almost religious meanings
[2007-04-05 10:56:49] brendan: sorry, in the sense?
[2007-04-05 10:57:27] magda: sorry, talking about Ranciere, and i managed
to spill my juice all over the carpet
[2007-04-05 10:58:12] magda: anyway
[2007-04-05 10:58:22] brendan: :biggrin:
[2007-04-05 10:59:27] jem: What does Ranciere say?
[2007-04-05 10:59:38] magda: in the sense...
[2007-04-05 11:00:20] brendan: Sorry folks, documentation stops in one
minutes time (or after you finish this point), yours, Stalin
[2007-04-05 11:01:43] magda: thank you all for participating or collaborating
or ....
[2007-04-05 11:01:52] jem: Well I need to go now. Take care. Thanks very
much Magda
[2007-04-05 11:01:57] brendan: It's a central element in 'On the Shores
of Politics'
[2007-04-05 11:02:04] magda: thank you.
[2007-04-05 11:02:13] Ana: Thank you Magda
[2007-04-05 11:02:22] brendan: In the movement to the middle
[2007-04-05 11:02:28] Ana: and thank you Jem and nko and Brendan
[2007-04-05 11:02:38] brendan: Cheers Jem
[2007-04-05 11:02:48] magda: Thank you ana and brendan for inviting me
to moderate this discussion
[2007-04-05 11:02:50] brendan: and everyone
[2007-04-05 11:02:59] magda: cheers.
[2007-04-05 11:03:07] Ana: this was a really good discussion
[2007-04-05 11:03:21] magda: isn't it funny, the whole business of sayin
buy in the online environment
[2007-04-05 11:03:22] Ana: and thers'a more later at 7 about narrative
[2007-04-05 11:03:36] magda: not buy, but good bye
[2007-04-05 11:03:37] brendan: We need to make the next chat at least
20 years rather than an hour, excellent chat cheers Magdsa |
