Notes from meeting between Manuela and Mary Anne re. ‘A Future Archive’

NB: Mary Anne was there both in her role as an invited participant in this project, and as a Critical Practice representative / mentor(?) for the project.

1. Quite a bit of discussion clarifying Mary Anne’s understanding of the process of making the ‘interview’. I now understand this as the following – infinitely extendible protocol, or method (the following has been edited a bit by Manuela, to clarify on some things)

• an interview-conversation constitutes a node to the future archive project, which makes a topology of agents of social/ political change. it can be held in public or private. the project generates material (interview footage, texts, audio, re-edits of these..) which is offered for development and use by anyone. hence, many different initiatives may evolve which respond to an existing interview (in any way) • the interviewees – the subjects in conversation / dialogue with an other – discuss a future scenario, which may at the same time look back to its past (i.e. ‘our’ present) • the recorded conversation is then edited (by Manuela or another, in a way they find appropriate); and is edited down to 15 minutes’ worth of clips, to make a summary that can be easily accessed on the website. The emphasis will be on a working towards a ‘recording’ of a ‘future’ conversation- on developing existing vocabularies. • This ‘text’ (I would not reduce the outcome to text necessarily- M) is then offered via a website / via people who might have been involved in its production – as the prompt for the similar processes / other uses.

2. MA then raised the question of the potentially different platforms given to the process and the product; the process – the entire unedited conversation – will be archived on the site; the product – the 15 minute of clips – will be radio broadcast and archived on the site. This means that people coming to the broadcast – perhaps without much of the ‘context’ – might, for a moment?! – think themselves to be transported to the future. (MA mentioned the radio broadcast of HG Wells’ ‘The War of the Worlds’). Is this ‘difference’ an issue for CP? Interesting issues of how the ‘conceit’ of the fictional scenario might be spoilt if too much was ‘given away’ i.e. the literary device demands a bit of un-openness.

3. We also had a discussion about ‘sustainability’ in terms of people’s involvement. This dovetailed a bit into the discussion about changing vocabulary at the ATP event i.e. how getting rid of the term ‘audience’ might be part and parcel of thinking the process of art from the other end- starting with its community or constituency. WE identified various strategies for sustaining the project:

- Linking people between the interviewed projects in various ways -Offering the material for further development, inviting for collaboration, and for engagement with existing material, a kind of recycling ecology emerges, by which the project will be sustained - Interviewing CP people about CP projects – e.g. ones they’re identified with

4.A bit of discussion about how the project is a ‘tool kit’ – MA wondered if it’s not strictly speaking, more of a resource – at least the website would be. Perhaps the tool kit bit is the idea of future-projection to reflect back, as this is a device that could be applied to many scenarios to think about change.

Mary Anne wondered in how far the archive was a resource, in how far a toolkit- Manuela answererd that on the level of language, the project definitely generates a toolkit, while on the level of networking and the online space, it might be more of a resource.

What is the toolkit aspect of the project concerned with? Manuela: Mainly the development of vocabularies/ language, whereby concepts and notions are jointly negotiated by two or more people, in relation to how they might exist in a “better” future. The idea is that language is practice, in the sense that by changing the way we speak/ think about things is prerequisite to material change. The developments realized in conversations can be taken up and further developed by anyone. Secondly, offering a topology of agents which will enable not only representation of initiatives and ideas that relate to social/ political change, but also facilitating a relation, and a loose network between these initiatives, enabling exchanges and collaborations between them.

5. Mary Anne said she could see a collaboration between the future archive and the project she is doing with students in Brighton, around the studio space. The "future" conversation infrastructure might enable them to develop a vocabulary in relation to the studio.. ..

Q: is it important that the interviews affect material change? Manuela thinks that changing vocabulary is material enough…

ACTION

- Suggested Manuela might want to think about reformatting the presentation of the text to address ‘research question’; ‘aims and objectives’; ‘method’ and ‘outputs’, while recognising that this is quite a formal matrix. But M was anxious that the proposal had become quite long. MA found it clear to read, but perhaps could be more concise for other people. We agreed it would be a good idea to be upfront and very direct about how CP could get involved. This should come first!

- Suggested Manuela should put in a budget that reflected all the expenditures for the project as CP can always refuse elements.

-MA suggested that M already propose the budget required to set up the site (3 days programming work) to CP now, so this could be started and in some way coincide with the projects current cryztallization points in Graz

- Suggested that M make a presentation about the project to the next ‘admin’ CP meeting (when?)

-

Last modified: 06.11.06 by manuela