Some thoughts on collaboration

There are several different ways that artists collaborate. The most common is the type incorporated by Sol Lewitt or Matthew Richey who plan complex wall drawings and three dimensional installations and then call on other artists to contribute or take overall responsibility for the execution.

Another would be the explorations of Art & Language in the 1970's, which were the beginnings of conceptual art and the redefinition of the "object" in art. In London and New York these artists were collaborating in not only the theoretical precepts of their dialogs and methods of execution but also the media, materials, installations, etc. to promote their ideas as well as the marketability of some type and/or availability of artifact with which to advertise and at least live from the sale of their art. Taking out advertisements in newspapers, etc., using media outside those normally associated with the current institutions of art was a focus of their ideations, collaborations and installations that were offices and conference rooms, libraries, in other words places that collected words and language other than the traditional language of art. These collaborations were not just about doing but were genuinely collaborative, if only for a short while (New York and London).

As a part of our Mission discussions earlier this year I looked up "Colab," a New York based Artist's Collaborative originating in the mid seventies that included Kiki Smnith and Jenny Holzer. This is an interesting group with intriguing and controversial approaches to community challenges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colab

I would suggest that ours, like others, are a bit "of all of the above." My profession is inherently collaborative. I must work with photographers, illustrators, filmmakers, software designers, typographers, printers, web developers, writers and of course clients in achieving solutions and accomplishing goals.

Establishing goals, I would forward is the key component in designing a successful collaboration. This summer I read "Collaboration" by Morten T. Hansen (a guide to establish efficient collaborative environments in organizations and the barriers that stand in the way as well as the negotiation of those barriers). I also read both Harrison's Art & Language books as well as Siegelaub's book about publicity and conceptual art. Next on my list is "The Third Hand", Collaboration in Art from Conceptualism to Postmodernism.

The idea of defined goals is critical to success. If the goal is to raise awareness then that goal needs to be commodified: is the awareness a one-time event or a time-based campaign? What do we want to accomplish" Raise a little hell or get some permanent signage of some form in the community...which? I am not advocating either approach. I am only using this comparison to make the point that "awarness" is not quite a complete goal. What level of awareness and once raised then what? If we all agree on an ultimate goal, then the collaborative process of ideating strategies has a barometer with which to measure relevance, effectiveness and appropriateness

In jest I mentioned the SCAD QEP Program. What this entails is that you need students, professors and a third party to work together on a project. If the project is approved then space, students and professors will be provided to work with the third party. Suppose CFAC or the City (possibly an alternative we might suggest to the City once a certain level of awareness is accomplished) was the third party. Then the facilities of SCAD (Film, Sound, Industrial Design, Interactive Design, Service Design, Architecture, Urban Planning, etc) students might be involved depending on the goals of the proposal. If we become the third party, and have input, would collaborating with outside parties to achieve a greater goal than we can provide be a possibility? The answer to that question would be a result of measuring it against the defined goals.

The idea of a plan that evolves (CFAC and local artist's exhibitions, press, social media) makes a lot of sense to me. What doesn't make sense was the proposal that only those who want to be involved, be involved. If the group decides on a direction I would hope that as a commitment to collaboration and the Mission/Vision of CFAC, all participate.

Thanks for listening all...and looking forward to working together on this project, which to me is the reason I joined this group, to make a difference in the Community in which we live, work and love through our dedication and talents in art, design and communication.