Map meeting

-- intro --

Some of the OpenMute^? skill requirements are (see WorkColabRequire^?) (a) wide experience of working with small/middle sized organizations in culture/arts and community sectors; (b) wide experience of online software tools and(or) experience of those that we offer. This is something that Lisa Haskel had with MAP projects over past years: not only that she experienced/practiced both sides of the use of online tools (institutional - work with ACE, and small/middle sized organizations - MAP projects like Tech-nicks and Tech_2), it's the approach to projects in this field, visible in the closing report to ACE (Oct 2000) that uncovers clarity of understanding of some issue that are crucial for sucess of OpenMute^? too.

Few points made in conclusions of MAP's report:

-- relationship between participants --

  "It was important to us to regard all of our participants as producers or potential producers,
   and to actively support people's ability to participate in cultural networks rather than simply
   to create a "public" interface for a normally hidden net-culture. We felt that unstructured time
   was required and appropriate for existing networks to meet to find new and enhanced areas of common
   interest, but set out to complement this with a structured programme would provide a navigable
   entrance point for people outside of the existing networks." 

toni's comment: this relationship between structured and unstructured is essential for possibility to "actively support people's(our clients) ability to participate" (in other projects and in OpenMute ) and produce too - however confusing that might sound at first read. In other words, traditional relationship of service_provider <--> client wouldn't bring much sucess to OpenMute . While this, more refined, model would be much more appropriate - considering the field we are in.

-- independent management of funding --

  "The independent management and funding of the project played out well, enabling quick and flexible
   response to the needs of the programme and its participants, and enabling an empowering relationship
   between the programme, its participants and the host venues through which some difficult questions
   could be asked and demands could be made. Though this led to tensions at times, we think that it
   contributed much to the depth of constructive dialogue that was achieved." 

toni's comment: let's try to think this way: our clients are participants and producers. They will participate in development of our approach to our offer of software tools, to our documentation and presentation of those, and to the way we deal with other participants. i.e. - to some extent - we jointly produce openmute, we collborate. think further, when they are "paying for service provided by us" they are actualy, by this different paradigm, funding us, so that we can survive, learn, improve and collaborate further with others. I have no conclusion to draw at this moment, but i sense that relationship between service_provider <--> client can be redefined on these, financial, lines too. Not sure how, but that's why we need input. Maybe, we could give opportunity to those with whome we collaborate closely, who allow us to continue work by providing significant fundings (usual boring lingo: paying for our services sums significant for our budget), to act as participants in our future work too (old boring lingo: siting on our advisory board). It is a matter of facts that those organizations will want us to continue with work (since new tools always need support, improvement, upgrades etc - provided that they found value in collaborating with us and wish to continue it), and that we want to be able to improve in what we do, based on those experiences of collaboration. Mutual interest seems clear to me. The question is: will those organizations have further time to invest, beyond funds; and will we have such time too. It's all about perception, we don't have to look at it as "having time", but about commiting ourselves to priorities. The real question here is: is it priority collaborating just to provide a service and then move on? Or is it priority having more lasting relationships instead? It would be easy to answer with the: "it's our finances that will determine that". I feel that asnwer isn't that simple. And if lost it a bit here ... that's because i sense the posibility that i can't clearly comprehend at this moment.

-- format: dialogue --

  "Tech_nicks was most successful when its programme was in contact with people who were already
   active in similar or related areas of production. The format did allow dialogue with such
   individuals, enabling increased awareness of each others work on both sides, and did provide
   some people with the means to persue ambitions in their own work that they had not been able
   to before. The demands for the practical workshops seem to indicate a need for this."

toni's comments: think this, maybe it's not talks, round tables, platforms and conferences that we need right now, maybe it's the dialogue with our collaborators (old boring lingo: client) first, and foremost. And out of these dialogues! and workshops!, we might arrive at the position of having round tables and platforms and conferences. In this scenario jointly organized with our collaborators, rather then on our own. Are they going to have such interests? I guess that depends on many circumstances, one of them certanly being the value that collaboration with us brings. Higher the value, higher the chances of founding the dialogue through praxis.

-- long term, ripple-effect --

  "We would like to think that a ripple-effect was generated that will be visible only over 
   time, and which will also spread into a wider field of cultural production than the
   domain of art. We believe that this is a significant achievement, although one that is
   not visible either immediately or within a single sector." 

toni's comments: openmute is partly built on this ripple effect foretold in Oct 2000, at least from where i look at it. Tech-nicks and Tech_2 (to make it clear: i participated in both, more actively in tech_2 - almost as a sort of co-organizer, not a very good one thou: too happy to hang out with fellow techs to take the full responsibility of organization) each took cultural practice a step further, in terms of principles of open collaboration based both on organizational practices and software tools. For example: budget was posted online, responsiblity for it delegated, documentation was done with open publishing, prior to the event participants used simple cms specialy commisioned for tech_2 to add details about themselves, out of the community news workshop came indymedia bristol (result of local people feeling free to take the intitiative and use tech_2 for they think would be best, at least that was my impression) etc.

-- strategies: curious, supportive, physycal movement, will to be challenged, explore and be open --

  "While this may be the "new audience" for electronic culture, the visibility of mischevious,
   radical, reflexive and inventive fringes of practice is minimal, far off the cultural map
   of people who might find some mutual interest and support there. Tech_nicks was only able
   to reach such a constituency at rare moments and through few individuals. However, some of
   its activities and strategies pointed clearly towards workable strategies, and some pointers
   emerged towards criteria that would make greater breadth achievable. Such strategies are far
   away from a normal "marketing" strategy based on printed and electronic publicity. They must
   be more engaging on an individual basis, and much more curious and supportive about other
   peoples practice than traditional gallery education or outreach work, and on this basis there
   has to be physical movement between the host institution and other spaces. To achieve this,
   all parties need to devote time and resources, but most of all must have the will to be
   challenged, to explore and expand their own ability to be open."

toni's comments: sorry about such a long quote, i tried cuting it, but it was loosing meaning. This quote speaks for itself. Everything that is in there, with some minor difference: tech-nicks beeing set of small events, openmute being provider of service (old boring lingo) can be applied. However, following the above logic, thinking different for a moment, almost the same thing can be said for openmute: it can be a set of small interventions (events). Collaborating can be less formal, but more useful, depending on who's involved in it. For example, for organizations that can take openmute as an experiment in providing services (some people might understand it that way too), workshops can be organized, instead of trainings on howto use tools. Presentations can too be turned into DIY short sessions (asking people what they would like to do, giving them tools to do it on the spot, leting them do it there, in our office - praxis & dialogue). But best to keep in mind above quote, it says it clearly, how a set of starting points (that one stick to later too) becomes a strategy.

-- final words: remain critical, suspicious and resistent of commercialising + culturally homogenising --

  "We feel that a contribution was made towards greater networking and greater levels of
   knowledge among practitioners, both inside and outside of institutions and existing networks.
   [...] We are pleased with all these outcomes, all being necessary for a lively electronic
   culture of knowledgeable, networked individuals that retain and spread a sense of possibility,
   and can remain intellectually and practically critical, suspicious and resistent of the
   commercialising trajectory and culturally homogenising tendency of old and new medias."

toni's comments: this has many converging points with openmute social contract^?, which just confirms further the relevance of the document, and its potential impact on openmute.

-- few actuall meeting notes --

well, without using exact words like in above quote, we discussed those issues. lisa and i discussed, and agreed that project like openmute needs to approach many issues - amongst them: roles in value exchange (client? collaborator? or partner?) relationships between people/groups, dealing with finances, "providing services", "marketing", strategy in general - in radicaly different ways then one might imagine.

-- closing words ... --

i believe that the word(concept) __open__ has to be embraced at the begining : through thinking, dialogue and most important through decisions about openmute's strategy and all those issues mentioned in here. lisa's experience and knowledge can be a significant contribution to it, and as openly as i can, looking foward to next week's work, i can't wait to hear other's impressions of all this.

craving for coffe, (run out of all, but decaff junk) cakes (and some sleep), after 19hrs on the go,

ToniPrug^?
to top