Artquest is hosting a one-day conference to discuss collaboration between designers, applied and fine artists and professionals from other disciplines. The event is designed to appeal to established practitioners who want to hear first-hand from their peers about the critical, conceptual and practical challenges that arise when working as collaborators in a variety of settings.
http://www.artquest.org.uk/intersection/
I went to this and generally it was a good event – the first I have been to where the nature of collaborative practice was actually analysed. We need more of this!
Some collated thoughts follow…
What is a collaboration?
Collaboration is when you can’t create/ can’t complete the project without the other person
A definition of collaboration was first given in this form by Rebecca Early, but it was repeatedly picked up and echoed by following speakers and in questions/comments from the audience throughout the rest of the event.
We needed a way of distinguishing between collaborators and people you just work with. Interdependency was a key feature in identifying collaborative relationships as opposed to working for, or working with, people. It was this idea that that when collaborators come together there is the creation of what was termed a “third space”; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Collaboration is not about one person servicing another: it is more than simply facilitation.
Why collaborate?
So, what is the value of collaborative working and why should we work this way?
Nipa Doshi acknowledged that her skills were severely lacking in certain areas (for example visualisation in 3 dimensions – something her design partner Jonathan Levien finds very easy). She and Early both seemed to view a benefit of collaborative working to be in its ability to allow you to build a custom team. For whatever project you are working on you can create your own chain of experts to allow you to go on and achieve your vision.
Doshi said that “you can’t always imagine all the things that you can do”. In addition to feeding creativity and invigorating individuals, working collaboratively can expand your awareness of what is possible.
For people working with few or no resources, it is simple: you need to collaborate to be able to produce.
A question from the audience went on to challenge exactly how you can prove that collaborative outputs are more valuable…
It was suggested that it is the thing that the collaboration produces, rather than the collaboration itself, that should be valued. I think the question has two aspects: value to the creative individuals and value to a wider community outside of the collaboration.
Terminology
Several people indicated that they found current terminology problematic and frequently inhibitive.
Dualistic concepts such as supply/demand, user/producer and professional/amateur were found to be particularly problematic.
The general feeling was that to view audiences as clients/users/consumers no longer adequately captures the relationship. Audiences no longer always want only to be audiences: people increasingly want to comment and contribute and this has implications for the priesthood of the knowledge hierarchy. The role of the professional won’t go away, but it will have to exist in a more complicated universe.
Is there a need for a new language?
Authorship and the moment of birth
The issue of authorship was one that the event specifically identified as one they wanted to address.
Leadbeater talked about how we traditionally associate creativity with a single moment of authorship: one second the idea is there but the previous second it was not. He contrasted this with the cumulative process of creativity within collaborations, suggesting that the role of collaborations was more architectural: the skill being in seeing how ideas that have been developed over a long period of time fit together.
Conversations
This is incorporated into the cumulative nature of collaborations, but was emphasised so often that I have given it its own section.
Conversations are critical to creativity.
again:
Conversations are critical to creativity.
Speakers indicated a need to just keep on talking. All the time.
Establish a policy for communication right from the outset.
It was recognised that a period of absorption is required before finalising the brief to be worked on.
Early described the process for one of the projects she worked on:
All the designers were given an initial brief and then went away to research this independently. They would then gather together for a period of brain-storming in the morning and then practical experimentation in the afternoon. This process was repeated for a period of 6 months before the final briefs were settled upon.
Doshi approached what I believe is the same issue, but from a slightly different angle. She stated that her best projects came from when you know what you want, rather than saying “Hey, let’s collaborate” and seeing what happens. Within a new collaboration you need this time to identify common aims and to find out about the mechanics of the working relationship.
As she went on to say later, “You need to spend time together. You can’t tell if the chemistry is there just from looking at their work”.
For collaborations no longer in the initial stages, regular scheduling of conversations can act to ease tensions because it provides a forum for airing grievances.
Leadbeater indicated that conversations take place in particular types of spaces and at particular types of times. I think there is more to this than policy-makers simply providing a “special place for special people to meet”. Probably something that needs to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.
Creative communities or Organisations make you irrational
Charles Leadbeater’s keynote speech was a great introduction to the nature of collaborations. He pointed out that organisations – these things that are supposed to epitomise the concept of collaboration – often make it difficult to work in partnership with others. His idea is that the competitive nature of working within an organisation generates a fear of sharing and kills off collaboration.
He points instead to examples of user-led collaboration: gamers generating extra items for The Sims; the collaboratively written wikipedia; and the development of the mountainbike by cycling enthusiasts. How can the huge power of user-led collaborations be harnessed? What would be the implications for Education or the Health Service if content was developed by the public?
Key features of creative communities were identified as being:
- Organised without having an organisation
- Distribution of cheap tools
- Easy entry into the community
- Strong element of peer review
- Guiding laws
- A critical kernel established by someone (kernels may be modular)
Two important issues that came out of this line of thinking were: just how big a threat this is to established corporations; and, wondering if societies who have not yet industrialised (for example, developing countries that function around villages and communities in the physical world) will be better at producing these creative communities.
Bad things can happen, and the importance of small print
Although collaborative relationships were generally presented in a positive manner, some references were made to the negative aspects and contractual side of things.
I don’t want anyone in my community to find fault with this book…
Does the need for the collaboration to be taken seriously from both sides force difficult compromises?
How do you split things such as power balance and workload? What happens when this doesn’t work out as agreed? Should both partners be accredited equally?
Most people said that contracts were a necessity and they should be agreed on right form the start. This is in part to ensure that collaboration does not turn into exploitation.
It was recommended that, at the beginning, both partners write statements of intent detailing what they want to achieve from the collaboration. Agree on the deal and know what you’re getting into.
This raises questions concerning how much you should define at the start, and how much you should leave open for development during the process of collaboration itself.
Conclusion
Although some of the presentations missed the target, others were spot-on! It was great to hear other people’s experiences (good and bad) of working collaboratively and several of the issues underlined trains of thought I’d already had in relation to the ISP residency. I guess I should address these directly in a follow-up post. Watch this space (but not for a day or two yet, eh?!)
