| | | |
 |
|
19h22 From Nathan:
|
|
19h59 This is what happens when 'dialogue' is interpreted as
|
|
19h22
|
|
18h48 With the end of the show looming large, I'm entering a new phase of this whole experiment. I'm calling it the crisis of production. Even when the exhibition was still in planning stages (or in unplanning stages, as it were), I was very aware of the risks that would be involved. I wanted the show to evolve somewhat organically and be responsive to its environment. I wanted to subordinate all other concerns to dialogue (verbal, textual, visual/creative). The problems: (1) Deep down I was hoping for a specific range of outcomes. (2) I was hoping for some sort of tangible (or at least visible) product to legitimize my time and presence in this space. These desires, of course, don't really line up well with the idea of creative a responsive, organic show. Being responsive has meant interacting in much more verbal dialogue than written or visual. It has meant spending a lot of time simply explaining my purposes with the show, and less time actually advancing ideas and having continuous, growing discussions. It has meant the derailing of any attempt to be "productive." It has meant that control has been ripped from my hands at times, which, though it is what I intended, is extremely difficult to handle. To a certain degree, my perspective on the show has turned inside out, and I'm looking at it from angles that are challenging my original intent (not to mention my white-knuckled grip on a need to justify my existence through production). I'm far too entrenched in the experience to be able to look at it objectively right now, and I'm struggling to learn how to allow for the coexistence of failures and successes in this project. Is it progress or stasis when I don't have time to design (let alone write just a few paragraphs about my day)? One of today's conversations, with an international relations student, brought to light the necessity of sacrifice in dialogue. When multiple interests, perspectives, and concerns are in conflict, there has to be a sacrifice of some of them in order for progress to be possible. Where this gets muddy is with concerns of ethics and morality. Is it worth sacrificing your integrity as a designer and culture-producer to appease a difficult client? And besides, if you subordinate your own interests and cater to those of other participants in a dialogue, it's no longer a dialogue. Now it's a discourse, shaped by hierarchies. Tricky stuff. Then, of course, there's the fact that my show, for as "egalitarian" as I try to make it, is inherently discursive and hierarchical. I control the space, I sit at the computer, I provide the context for the discussion and expect others to interact in a situation that I created. And then there's the fact that I have a large wall behind me. Nothing says 'authority' like a wall. In short, I feel a bit like I'm verging on a sort of mental/psychological implosion. Or maybe I'm on the brink of extreme clarity, and I just can't see it yet. |
|
15h17 From Doug:
|
|
07h43 The mini zamboni is back. |
|
07h39 34 cities, 5 countries (now including the UK). Visits from Provo increased by nearly 200% yesterday. There was also an unconfirmed sneak attack from Zürich. |
