Converge4. Participatory Media in HIE, the Deptford.TV seminars
- Beliefs, attitudes and intentions are as varied as the participants “...”. Nevertheless, they tell us that effective e-learners are generally positive about technology and are willing to engage with it, even when they do have some initial reservations. They have clear expectations on tutor involvement, hold strong views on how and why technology should be used, and most importantly, display very understandable emotional reactions to the technology and the way they’re expected to engage with it. (Creanor 2006)
I interviewed selected participants of the Deptford.TV seminars in regard to the use of Free and Opensource software to use as education within the context of Participatory Media Practices. The Interviewees: Janine Lãi, local resident (Peckham), film-maker and student at Goldsmiths who has personal experience of the regeneration process in her own area. Janine hopes that her experience and her personal project of documenting soon-to-be-gone areas of the city can be transferable in the context of the Deptford regeneration. Gordon Cooper, local resident (Deptford) since 1978 and film-maker, who has an interest both in the area of Deptford and in generating open-access and shared resources through the use of alternative litigation such as the Creative Commons. Elvira, local resident, student and film-maker. Bitnik media collective, based in Zurich (Switzerland). Bitnik produce artistic, social and collaborative work. They are concerned with open media practices and the production of tools that can facilitate such practices. They produce their own software systems which they are interested to make applicable in different contexts. Their goal is to merge platform and content, and involve the audiences as producers. Stephen Oldfield, local resident (New Cross, Bromley) since twenty years, sound artist. Camden McDonald, local resident (Deptford), performer, and initiator of the Mindsweeper project, a floating venue on a boat that hosts screenings and other small-scale events. Nikki Hilton, local resident (New Cross), architect, interested in the intersection between film and architecture. Nikki got involved in Deptford.TV in a conscious effort to work collaboratively, as this is not the case in his professional life as an architect. He has an interest in the local area and communities. James Stevens, initiator of the projects Boundless and Deckspace in South London (Deptford & Greenwich). James has a long history as the initiator of projects concerned with open spaces and public access media. His main aim is to facilitate people's access to technologies. Kieran McMillan & Rebecka, Chief Executives of the Raw Nerve design collective, based in Deptford. Raw Nerve are working on a number of community-focused projects and their aim is to build up the connectivity between different creative people in the area so as to come together and learn from each other. Amanda Egbe, film-maker and Goldsmiths student. Amanda is interested in the political and technical issues raised by practices of collaborative film-making. She is also interested in the social issues raised by processes of regeneration.
One of the aims of these interviews was to gain an insight into the complexities of producing collaborative work during those seminars within a creative context and the 'politics of sharing'. I asked these contributors what collaboration means to them. Also, judging from their own experience with Deptford.TV and other seminars, whether they think that collaborative approaches and practices enhance and/or suppress creativity within those seminars/education. As I'm not obliged to offer 'correct' answers in expectation of funding or other support, I aim to accommodate some raw, 'un-beautified' responses we might not often get to hear:
For Elvira, collaboration within the Deptford.TV seminars is about sharing. She considers it to be a complex process that takes time but is worth the investment. Elvira likes to collaborate in flexible schemes where roles shift and individual leadership is not considered necessary. Janine has similar feelings: she thinks that collaborative projects can be enjoyable but also complicated, since different people have different ideas and expectations from the same project. Janine also points out that collaborative processes require a bigger investment of time and energy than sole projects; nevertheless, she thinks that these are rich learning experiences that can have long-term outcomes. Janine reminds us that film-making is always a collaborative process. The difference is that in traditional film-making each contributor has a specific and fixed role within a hierarchical schema. When it comes to alternative collaboration scenarios though, this fixed hierarchy does not apply. In such practices, says Janine, it is important to share roles and shift the leadership, as well as investigate into new models of working together. She admits that this can be a challenging process.
Bitnik are a collective and thus collaboration is central in their professional practice. They point out that, particularly in the media and communication field, collaboration is necessary in terms of sharing skills and resources. Nevertheless, they too admit that this is never an easy process: problems always occur, which can lead to frustrations. Bitnik argue that through a process of discussion and negotiation they can reach a level of creativity that would be very difficult to reach as sole student. The danger they see in this process is that one can be submissive in order to facilitate the group processes, which can lead to personal frustration and conflicts. Another cause of frustration in those collaborative seminars are the group hierarchies that are often formed. Bitnik think that there are always people who need more time, are less confident, less articulate or cannot find a way to fit in. They believe that a community has to work on equally including all its members. They also point out that collaboration is a time-consuming process, but one worth investing in.
Raw Nerve are also a collective but, unlike Bitnik, they preserve some forms of leadership and hierarchy within their schema. Kieran and Rebecka think that collaboration is about sharing skills and knowledge among a big, diverse pull of people, thus collectively producing ideas that could not had been produced in isolation. Kieran sees these seminars as 'jamming together'; Rebecka as empowerment through the exchange of knowledge. They both think that collaboration can change the way one sees things. Nevertheless, they underline that collaboration can become problematic when it leads to formal and rigid systems such as committees. They also think that too many visions can unbalance collaborative practices and make things chaotic. Both Kieran and Rebecka believe that it is useful to define a structured vision and certain parameters as the basis of every collaboration.
Stephen believes that collaboration is about being open and willing to try new ideas. For this to happen one should be ready to abandon any predefined structures. Camden just sees it as working together in order to produce a joint outcome, whereas Nikki focuses on learning from each others differences. Amanda sees the collaborations initiated through these seminars as operating on different levels: social, political and artistic. In this context she understands collaboration as the process of helping people to express themselves by the use of means they maybe don't master, asking for help in return. Through this process of mutual support, everyone can give their best towards a joint project. Amanda believes that collaborative projects are the most effective way of approaching big social issues such as regeneration.
James defines collaboration as the process of 'reaching a consensus, together with others, to pursue a single or a collective aim'. He thinks that collaboration enriches creativity as it allows for diverse influences. Nevertheless, he also believes that collaborative projects are complex processes. His personal approach has been to provide a physical space where people can meet and exchange without the pressure of taking decisions and/or producing specific outcomes. He thinks that the possibility to share a physical space creates an informal collaboration environment that shifts the emphasis from the audience (and thus the outcome) to the process (and thus collaboration and the workshops/seminars itself). James, like all the other contributors, thinks that collaboration takes time; he warns that lack of time can lead to the emergence of formal and rigid systems which people consider as more time-efficient but can suppress creativity, individuality, and in-depth communication.
For Gordon, the most important thing in collaborative practices is working together on an equal footing. He thinks that it is important for people to be aware that, in such projects, everyone can contribute - but not everyone can contribute the same. Each participant should be encouraged to find his/her own level of work and contribution. Gordon thinks that collaborative practices are valuable as they encourage people to work in groups rather than in isolation. He believes that another important aspect of collaborations is finding the right balance between sharing and keeping private, public space and private space. For Gordon too, group hierarchies can be a cause of frustration in collaborative practices, that can lead to conflicts. He thinks that there are always people who can invest more time and energy in a joint project, and others who might lack in confidence or feel inhibited. Gordon thinks it is important that people within a seminar group grow comfortable with each other and the collaborative processes. Once people relax, says Gordon, 'anything can happen'. A way of avoiding conflicts in such contexts is by resisting predefined projects and setting up structures that people can use in their own way, for their own purposes. In the case of collaborative seminars that involve communities, it is important to encourage people to define their project for themselves. Gordon thinks that such seminars can only evolve organically.
The Author vs. the Collective I further asked the participants how they perceive the notion of authorship and to what extent this is important to them as contributors of either content or context. Do they consider personal attribution to be important within a collaborative project? How do they feel when their work is reused, re-mixed or re-edited - and thus re-authored? And how do they feel about the fact that their work can be reused for commercial purposes, or for purposes of ideological propaganda they do not necessarily endorse?
Every single contributor felt that personal attribution is important as it protects their identity as creators of either content or context, and allows them to track down their input as well as any 'transformations' their contribution might undergo through being reused, re-edited or remixed. Elvira points out that those workshops can fluctuate as a group, which is why it cannot be used as an umbrella. At the same time, Elvira feels that once her material goes on the public domain it belongs to whoever wants to watch and/or use it. She thinks that this process of sharing is there to enhance education as it reduces the limitations imposed by mainstream litigation. Stephen, like all the other contributors, is happy for his work to be reused. He sees that as a way of giving his group more exposure and hopes that it could lead to new collaborations. He, like Elvira, feels that once the work is 'out there' in the public domain it is no more his to keep.
Bitnik are quick to declare that they are not concerned with issues of authorship. They argue that allowing other people to use their work does not threaten their authorship: they might cease to be the sole authors of the work, but they will always be the first authors. They believe that the decision to share work enhances learning in many ways, by liberating content and practices. Bitnik also argue that we are all, already, making use of shared resources such as folk stories or common cultural references for anything we study, thus our outcomes are not 'new'. What an author really does, Bitnik explain, is form, identify, make emerge, and/or attribute specific meaning to something that is already there – rather than producing something 'new' out of nothing. Thus, this outcome should belong to the community rather than the single author. Through their own practice, Bitnik try to open things up and make them accessible and reusable.
James believes that there is a lot of confusion and contradictions around issues of authorship. He argues that whereas many authors would be happy to make their work freely available, when it comes to collaborative projects people get more skeptical because they are not familiar with such practices. James explains that, in terms of copyrights, the new alternative licenses attempt to map the 'open space' around media production and usage, and support a policy of 'restrictive openness'. Nevertheless, James considers these licensing systems to be extremely complex. He personally believes that people who wish to make use of alternative licenses should be prepared to stand up for themselves when they feel that their work is being misused or that they,b as creators, are being misrepresented. He thinks that this will unavoidably happen in the future through the exploitation of such licenses.
Nikki is also happy for his work to be reused; his motto is: 'if you don't give, you don't get'. Like Bitnik, Nikki argues that everything that is being produced is based on things that already exist - 'nothing is new'. When it comes to his own architectural practice he is happy for his ideas to be dissipated, explored and developed, and for his materials to be re-used. He explains that it is common practice for an architect to hand over his work to someone else for a small fee. Since this is an applied art, an architect also has to adapt his/her vision in order to accommodate the clients' needs – in that sense, Nikki considers architecture to be a collaborative practice.
Gordon wants part of his work to be open for other people to use. He draws our attention to the importance of following a correct procedure in both the opening-up and the usage of the work which, he believes, alternative licenses ensure. He insists that people who reuse material need to attribute authorship. Gordon believes that opening up a piece of work always carries the risk of the author losing control over its consequent uses; nevertheless, he considers this a risk one has to take. The only other option, Gordon argues, is 'to hide away with your work and keep it all to yourself'. He is clear that is not an option though; for him the aim is to open things up and allow greater access to content and information for educational purposes.