Third Meeting Minutes
From Critical Practice Chelsea
Corrado, Jem, Cinzia, Michaela and Marsha in attendance
Marsha took minutes.
Synopsis: Another emotionally, intellectually and creatively intense meeting. High points included 1) articulating a research question; 2) distinguishing between the video and the forum; 3) deciding on a structure for the forum; 4) NOT overdetermining the video but committing to a high quality output; 5) raising questions around key terms; 6) committing to writing short histories of our engagement with the project; 7) thinking about the work's context, including its audience at the conference; 8) thinking about the video as (prosaic) text; 9) thinking about the role of text in the video; 10) what's the relationship between collaboration and ANT?/How does collaboration figure in this project? 11) thinking about ANT and ART (there's only one letter difference between these two words)
Corrado: Wants to know why he's here?
Cinzia: Reiterates what she said before = Others have found a space...
Jem: Not sure he's found his place...
Cor: What's the output?
Marsha: Are we making by thinking output? Doesn't that in turn condition the project?
Cor: Okay...but aren't we going to have five minutes each...I don't want to do something that's too...self-centred? I want something that makes us look great!
Michaela: I think of more as us delivering something to an audience. I want more info about who we're delivering to and why.
Cor: I would rather I step down...I want a research question.
Cin: Okay let's see if we can agree on a research question.
Jem: Corrado, what would you like to do? I can't give that you to you...You have to get it. We've all said what we want to get out of this process...As a games theorist...
Cor: It seems it's a literary medium.
Mich: Is it solely objective? Perhaps wrestling with contradictions is the interesting part...it's rich enough to function as grist to the mill...
Cin: We need to propose possible research questions...to get things going so that we can wrestle with it.
Mich: For coherence sake, the form of video should mirror the form of the presentation.
Jem: I think we should produce the narratives before we get them in dialogue.
Mich: ANT: What is it good for? This is a critical thing to ask within the context of this conference.
Cin: We are not sociologists: What is ANT good for? (Refinement of the question)
Mar: You talked about falling in love with ANT...what do you mean?
Mich: I find him irritating...because of the issue of objectivity... He's not objective at all
Cin: He's very pragmatic: What actually shapes research? Funding, deadlines...let's not make ourselves bigger than we are...But he does annoy me when he gets into wordplay...
Cor: There's a guy called Ian Bogos (?) who is a games theorist and he talks about lit. and he talks about the "unit operation" and it's a lot like BL's "mediator"
Cin: The point that he makes is that you don't choose your mediators in advance...the fun comes for me at the end of the chapter
Cor: I think the document of the process is the best way to do what we do...
Mar: What document(s)? I think we should distinguish between the video and the presentation.
Cor: I think we should just write a story from the points of the mediators...We should all write that text.
Mar: From different perspective...
Cin: If we try and unify the perspectives we will deny the various dynamics, the various perspectives...I don't think it would be very interesting for the people at the conference...rather, we should focus on what learn.
Jem: What I liked about the notebooks is that there are four different approaches to documenting the story and it seems to me we have five different approaches because we're five different people...My first reaction is to say, if we could get different perspectives we could easily edit them together.
Mar: We've established that it's not really about the market of ideas...
Cor: I didn't know it started at the market of ideas...
Jem: "You always start in the middle of things:
Cin: You're spot on! That's a Latour quote...
Mich: That's interesting...because you never start at the beginning
Cin: "Think about the notion of provisional origin and circulation is first" (p.196) So how do you suggest we'll inscribe and include the pub in a video?
Cor: I don't want to do that! I edit every single day of my life!
Cin: I don't think Latour says this is the network...
Mich: I think this becomes difficult to communicate to an audience...it seems...
Jem: We have an hour and quarter for the presentation...but what's been suggested that each presenter talk for a few minutes.
Mar: I think we should give an overview and then situate our positions
Cor: The time focus changes my relationship to what we're doing.
Mich: This runs parallel to the event. I like the idea of being along side something else...we're not a keynote...we just need to upfront about this...
Jem: We could think about our "audience" by looking at the other presentations that are having simultaneously.
Cin: I agree with Michaela...we want to offer something. In terms of structure, can we take different positions, can say I didn't find this satisfying...as a chair, Jem, you could faciliate this kind of discussion and it would be useful if you had two slots for presentation and...
Mich: We are modeling out different responses to ANT and this provides a model for the audience.
Jem: A key question in the conference is how you apply actor...
Cor: Are we functioning as artists are analysts? We could sit there and do "this."
Mar: How do we show the texture of collaboration that makes it relevant to an audience?
Mich: Doesn't BL say that we're constructing a text...I think within the context of the conference...
Cin: We don't want to it to be unified...we are constructing a story that sort of accommodates that...
Mar: I think we have to problematize the structure of the conference...
Jem: Michaela, are you interested in editing the video?
Mich: I am...but I wasn't there.
Cin: But that's really important because that's where a lot of people will be...
Jem: Are you saying that you definiately want to collaborate on the video...what's your definition of collaboration? What would make you happy?
Cin: I think we've had part of this conversation...what would make me really happy is not practical...so I've accepted collaboration as taking something out of a container and then put it back.
Cor: I suggest we write a 100 word history of what we've done...and post it on the forum. I think that might be more productive. So...Friday? I will write my fears.
Mar: Sure, Friday is good. But I think we should all agree on the word count. There's a tension between different times.
Cor: I feel more comfortable with the potential of dialogue. It's a text...
Mar: But let's just be clear: The structure of the forum will comprise of
1. An overview 2. We all articulate our positions in relation to the research question. 3. And then we have a discussion about it...
Working research question: What use is ANT if you're not a sociologist? Of what use of is ANT if you're an artist?
Cin: What sure we're artists is that we're doing practice-based PhDs in art departments.
Jem: As a chair, but question is: Why are we all here?
Cin: I would say that I felt for the excitement, the challenge of editing.
Jem: I think video is important.
Cin: I ask what is the purpose of the video?
Mich: It's complicated to negotiate that footage.
Jem: But for me, that's why I thought it was very rich subject matter to approach...I want to see the process. I want to see a text that says..."Festival of Europe" because you're qualifying that particular acting...
Cin: Assuming that everyone is saying something different...it looks to that we're making starts....we're going off into different...constellations...How to you envision the final output...the braiding together of different narratives.
Mar: Ahhh...
Jem: I image us each editing one another's footage. My position is that I'm interested in collaborative video...I'm interested in
Cor: How does it work on the screen? The artifact is what is bugging me!
Mar: I think there's a problem with us editing each other's stuff.
Jem: My interest is what use is ANT...the fact that we can produce a video from a discussion about the use of ANT.
Mich: I'm just wondering what the overlap is between ANT and (?)
Cin: I want to come from a very different angle. ANT looks at associations. If we don't look at collaboration too rigidly...we can collaboration as a way of coming together. I wanted to come back to the collaborative editing...because it has pragmatic consequences. The way I made that clip...it's already so full that I cannot imagine some else adding to it. I have this image...of seeing six fragments of five positions and one filler...where one of the fragments becomes big and carries the narrative...
Mich: Did you see the FandV show? The offcuts were the best! It's that kind of account....on the one hand, there's all that that goes right...on the other hand...there's this idea of giving an account...
Cin: The point of interest is the conference format...
Jem: I'm not interested in overlapping text...I didn't say anything inbedded text.
Mar: That was Corrado.
Cin: But being a good editor means you edit for a client. So...if we accept Jem's position: How do you make a conference video.
Jem: What is the use of ANT?
Cin: I understood that the focus of the video was...something that performs ANT.
Mich: Looking at the "unique adequacy"...what would our video be if it was uniquely adequate. It's practice-based research and a practice of indifference. What is the status of the text? Can I also propose that we have a think about "unique adequacy. "
Cin: I think we should highlight in the minutes that the focus of the video is to embody ANT or to...enact ANT...Is this agreed? That's our objective. Rather than explaining or illustrating.
All: AGREED!
Con: That's extremely difficult. But I don't care. It's an artwork.
Cin: We really need to make it happen visually.
Con: I would like to hear exactly what the rules are...the terms of engagement'.
All: Okay, let's determine the terms of engagement. How are we going to structure the video?
Mich: For coherence sake, the form of video should mirror the form of the presentation.
Jem: I think we should produce the narratives before we get them in dialogue.
Cin: I need to know if we're reworking one another's footage...because that will determine how I work.
Jem: The reason why I think reediting someone's footage because...it's about making things better...
Cin: We need to think in advance about output.
Jem: I don't work in that way...I look at the forces that produce that result. At this stage, I don't think we know how this will all work. I'd love to see a graphic diagram...animated, perhaps. They're good pointers towards this is ANT.
Mich: Increasingly interested in creating scripts...and the whole idea of script...
Jem: It's not just the editor who makes it.
Mich: I'm really interested in the idea of the text...it's interesting...
Cin: The individual is always a composite...In the logic of the video...I've developing the idea of a sequence...Exquisite Corpse...Responsive...
Jem: I think we should play to our strenghts...Charles Green talks about "The Third Hand"
Cor: I'm not going to edit it. I don't have time.
Cin: What I'm saying is that we want a video that does what we want it to do...I'm taking about how we're proceed.
Jem: Can I suggest something that may or may not be helpful. Cinzia has already produced something that might be a discussion starter.
At this point, Corrado's phone rang the spell was broken: We realized it was late and dispersed. Before doing so, however, we agreed to aggregate our edits on Jem's MAC account so we could see what everyone was doing. The process remains very fluid--emergent. We're committed to developing clips for assemblage.
