To coincide with The Economist Series exhibition at UICA, www.uica.org, we would like to engage a broader conversation about collaboration, in art and beyond. It seems that how we collaborate, might shed some interesting commentary on the economics of our lives. We will be posting topics of discussion weekly. We look forward to hearing your thoughts!
col·lab·o·rate
1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one’s country.
Origin: [1870-1875 - Late Latin collabrre, collabrt- : Latin com-, com- + Latin labrre, to work (from labor, toil).]
e·con·o·my
1. The ways in which people use their environment to meet their material needs.
2. The management of the resources of a community, country, etc., esp. with a view to its productivity.
]
Brion Gysin and William Burrough’s book “The Third Mind” (1978) describes a moment in collaboration when a new entity emerges that is a culmination of the energy between the collaborators.
While I applaud the successful and responsible Third Mind created here in The Economist Series, I am also wary of the many neurotic and dysfunctional Third Minds I have unintentionally created in my own collaborative efforts.
In order of regret, here are some personal typologies readers may identify with:
1. The Academic as Fascist
“Do it this way. Trust me ok? We don’t have time for you to fuck up two days before final critique. Seriously, now is NOT the time we need to discuss your creative needs.”
2. The Independent Artist as Anarchist
“It just HAS to be Ralph Lauren paint. Don’t use that generic stuff for the gallery walls please. I’ll die. I will JUST DIE.”
3. The Graphic Designer as Capitalist
“You can absolutely change the colors in the logo to neon purple. Let me just quickly adjust the pricing on your final invoice”
4. The Boyfriend as Socialist
Figure 1. “You used our joint account checking to pay for those shoes???”
Figure 2. “Well, it’s not like you’re not going to wear them sometimes too … …”
In all cases, these examples address the central questions of collaboration and economy The Economist Series blog raises this week – implementing any model can result in social economic and political consequences for both author(ship) and audience.
It is in the attempt to reconcile these consequences, beyond cooperative interaction, that hopefully keeps us all experimenting with healthy art-making practices and lifestyle choices.
Joel dear! Where do I begin? You so astutely addressed quite a few issues that are of great interest to us. The first, being a greater understanding of different methods of Negotiation. What does that entail and how do we negotiate and not sacrifice the integrity of the work or our individual ideals? Often Narine or I persist if we feel so strongly about a decision, and can’t see it otherwise, however, if there is any inkling of another possible resolution, or chance for further contemplation we continue to discuss and discuss and discuss and discuss until an answer is revealed. (The answer is not necessarily the one either of us anticipated or was lobbying for initially… This takes TIME. Not very economical.)
I love that you mention the “third mind”. It seems that in any given decision the “third mind” is not necessarily the same “third mind” with each decision or piece. That, to me, is of interest. What really constitutes this “third mind”? Looking at the “third mind” when looking at the total body of work, is also quite different than the “third mind” of any individual work or decision. Often, we bring to brief collaborations our transient moods, thoughts. It seems that with enough TIME and contemplation, the fight/ego/point of emphasis may not always be as potent and becomes a more circular conversation rather than linear. (This is less likely to work under a tight deadline for an installation.) However, I must agree that if any instinct prevails with TIME, it must not be sacrificed, and that is when one’s negotiation skills must be honed very well!
My response may more meander around yours, rather than directly address your examples. Thank you for spurring the dialogue!
When I was studying collaborative modes in grad school – a long long LONG time ago – we talked a lot about the Third Mind.
What you say is correct in terms of this ideology. It is simply a manner in which a group of people (in a collaborative) fine tunes the way they that work together and think together. The word you use is perfect – INSTINCT.
The Third Mind as you point out does get refined over time. And it helps with experience to meet the deadlines like an installation for an exhibition. Also – it is NOT a linear approach to making. It is definitely organic, process driven and circular – everything you describe in your own experience.
I like the way your answer meanders.
But here’s what I am really thinking about:
The Third Mind was formally addressed in 1978. It’s now 2009 – coming up on 2010 … …
Is the Third Mind still relevant to contemporary collaborative art making practices ?
You and I seem to think so – or at the very least, I personally believe that it is a very good place historically and critically to being assessing the kind of collaboration that a group might want to evolve … …
I also want to point out that I am sometimes a bigger fan – in more solitary dark moments – of this collaborative modality:
1. The artist sets up a system.
2. Viewers participate in the system.
3. The artist collects the data from the viewers and (re)presents it in documentary/installation/studio practices.
For want of a better word, we called this the top-down model. (As opposed to the side-by-side model The Economist Series employs)
Seriously – that’s what we named it in school. lol. (We didn’t have a lot of resources / texts on this then new practice)
In the top-down model – the Third Mind is also present – but not as contingent on instinct. The Third Mind can also refer to what the viewer brings to the collaboration – as in the case of this blog. And I really really heart this blog.
Joel, please forgive the lapse in response…as I was traveling and unplugged most of the time…thank you so much for writing! You’re my number one blogger!!!
The top-down model sounds very capitalistic…are we, in the age of “Creative Capital” artists, creating models that parallel corporate structures? Although these methods may “work” in the contemporary systems and engage others, are they sustainable long term, or is this about the necessity of temporality and portability that we find ourselves in….