How do media practices beyond the single screen imagine new ecologies to propel collaborative and co-creative modes in exhibition? How do these practices dispense with a romanticized auteurism, inadequate for multiscalar environmental and political issues that require many different perspectives and strategies? How do these new screen ecologies practices dispense with causal, character-driven linear storytelling? Can theorizations of co-creation move beyond production modalities into rethinking distribution, exhibition, and spectatorship/community/audiences? Can a collaborative polyphony of living, embodied ecologies of co-creative practices be enacted? IMAGE 1. Installation view of Vertigo Sea (2015) by John Akomfrah; courtesy the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University; photograph by Simon Wheeler. In Fall 2018, Alexandra Juhasz and Alisa Lebow launched an ambitious online participatory project in the online journal World Records entitled “Beyond Story: An Online Community-Based Manifesto.” It invites readers to contribute short articles about a wide range of documentary practices beyond long-form narrative story structures. They argue that documentary entails a great range of forms and practices beyond the “constricting contours” of a “one-size-fits all framework that is built to neatly hold a compelling cast of characters in their coherent world.”1 Juhasz and Lebow contend that long-form narrative mainstream documentaries use a small number of characters, depend on identification and empathy, arrange actions through “a set of recognizable spatial temporal templates that cohere only nominally to lived reality,”2 and adhere to a cause-and-effect logic. Festivals, theatrical exhibitions, broadcasters, streamers, and funders favor this form partially …
{"title":"Polyphony and the Emerging Collaborative Ecologies of Documentary Media Exhibition","authors":"P. Zimmermann","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471011","url":null,"abstract":"How do media practices beyond the single screen imagine new ecologies to propel collaborative and co-creative modes in exhibition? How do these practices dispense with a romanticized auteurism, inadequate for multiscalar environmental and political issues that require many different perspectives and strategies? How do these new screen ecologies practices dispense with causal, character-driven linear storytelling? Can theorizations of co-creation move beyond production modalities into rethinking distribution, exhibition, and spectatorship/community/audiences? Can a collaborative polyphony of living, embodied ecologies of co-creative practices be enacted?\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000IMAGE 1. \u0000Installation view of Vertigo Sea (2015) by John Akomfrah; courtesy the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University; photograph by Simon Wheeler.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000In Fall 2018, Alexandra Juhasz and Alisa Lebow launched an ambitious online participatory project in the online journal World Records entitled “Beyond Story: An Online Community-Based Manifesto.” It invites readers to contribute short articles about a wide range of documentary practices beyond long-form narrative story structures. They argue that documentary entails a great range of forms and practices beyond the “constricting contours” of a “one-size-fits all framework that is built to neatly hold a compelling cast of characters in their coherent world.”1\u0000\u0000Juhasz and Lebow contend that long-form narrative mainstream documentaries use a small number of characters, depend on identification and empathy, arrange actions through “a set of recognizable spatial temporal templates that cohere only nominally to lived reality,”2 and adhere to a cause-and-effect logic. Festivals, theatrical exhibitions, broadcasters, streamers, and funders favor this form partially …","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128661482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review: Global Digital Cultures: Perspectives from South Asia, edited by Aswin Punathambekar and Sriram Mohan","authors":"Laboni Bhattacharya","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129616864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One of the first moves Senior Curator Candice Hopkins and her team made for the Toronto Biennial of Arts inaugural edition was to commission a document by performance artist Ange Loft titled the Toronto Indigenous Context Brief . The document offers an attempt by the biennial's curators to orient the exhibition in its history and geography, and in doing so, to pay respect to Indigenous land. This sort of document, in a similar vein to the land acknowledgements spoken before cultural events that have been increasingly common especially in Canada since 2008's Truth and Reconciliation Act, is an effort at centralizing Indigenous communities into cultural conversations. Loft's Brief raises the question “What does it mean to be in relation?”—which the Biennial asked its exhibiting artists to consider. Accordingly, I will ground my critique of the first Toronto Biennial with an attempt at a response. To begin, there's the relation between land and capital. The theme of this biennial was “The Shoreline Dilemma,” which explains its two main exhibition sites, located along Lake Ontario, rather remote from the city's core. Toronto, as Hopkins told ArtNews , is a “city with its back to the water.”1 While Loft's Brief outlines about one thousand years of activity by Indigenous communities along the water, Lake Ontario's recent history is mostly comprised of urban pollution and exploitation. Certain city developments exemplify this lack of care for the lake, such as focusing city planning further north, and building the Gardiner Expressway, a highway that runs along the lakeshore and makes access to the water difficult. Situating the Biennial's two main sites along the lakeshore, one in a former Volvo dealership, and the second in the Small Arms Inspection Building in Mississauga, a neighboring municipality swallowed into the Greater Toronto Area, is, I suppose, a way …
高级策展人Candice Hopkins和她的团队为多伦多艺术双年展首期所做的第一步是委托行为艺术家Ange Loft制作一份名为《多伦多土著背景简报》的文件。该文件提供了双年展策展人在历史和地理上定位展览的尝试，这样做是为了尊重土著土地。这类文件类似于文化活动前的土地确认，尤其自2008年《真相与和解法案》(Truth and Reconciliation Act)以来，在加拿大越来越普遍，这是一种将土著社区集中到文化对话中的努力。Loft的Brief提出了一个问题:“处于关系中意味着什么?”——双年展要求参展艺术家考虑这个问题。因此，我将把我对第一届多伦多双年展的评论作为一个回应。首先是土地和资本之间的关系。这次双年展的主题是“海岸线的困境”，这解释了它的两个主要展览地点，位于安大略湖沿岸，远离城市的核心。正如霍普金斯告诉ArtNews的那样，多伦多是一个“背对水的城市”。虽然Loft的简报概述了沿水边的土著社区大约一千年的活动，但安大略湖的近代史主要由城市污染和开发组成。某些城市的发展体现了这种对湖泊缺乏关心，例如将城市规划的重点放在更北的地方，并建造了加德纳高速公路，这是一条沿着湖岸运行的高速公路，使通往湖水变得困难。我想，把双年展的两个主要地点设在湖边，一个在以前的沃尔沃经销店里，另一个在密西沙加的轻武器检查大楼里，密西沙加是邻近的一个被大多伦多地区吞并的城市，这是一种……
{"title":"Toronto Biennial of Art","authors":"Chelsea Rozansky","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471003","url":null,"abstract":"One of the first moves Senior Curator Candice Hopkins and her team made for the Toronto Biennial of Arts inaugural edition was to commission a document by performance artist Ange Loft titled the Toronto Indigenous Context Brief . The document offers an attempt by the biennial's curators to orient the exhibition in its history and geography, and in doing so, to pay respect to Indigenous land. This sort of document, in a similar vein to the land acknowledgements spoken before cultural events that have been increasingly common especially in Canada since 2008's Truth and Reconciliation Act, is an effort at centralizing Indigenous communities into cultural conversations. Loft's Brief raises the question “What does it mean to be in relation?”—which the Biennial asked its exhibiting artists to consider. Accordingly, I will ground my critique of the first Toronto Biennial with an attempt at a response.\u0000\u0000To begin, there's the relation between land and capital. The theme of this biennial was “The Shoreline Dilemma,” which explains its two main exhibition sites, located along Lake Ontario, rather remote from the city's core. Toronto, as Hopkins told ArtNews , is a “city with its back to the water.”1 While Loft's Brief outlines about one thousand years of activity by Indigenous communities along the water, Lake Ontario's recent history is mostly comprised of urban pollution and exploitation. Certain city developments exemplify this lack of care for the lake, such as focusing city planning further north, and building the Gardiner Expressway, a highway that runs along the lakeshore and makes access to the water difficult. Situating the Biennial's two main sites along the lakeshore, one in a former Volvo dealership, and the second in the Small Arms Inspection Building in Mississauga, a neighboring municipality swallowed into the Greater Toronto Area, is, I suppose, a way …","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127590080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review: DesignInquiry: Futurespective","authors":"Arzu Ozkal","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"66 7-8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120896705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reece Auguiste, Helen De Michiel, Brenda Longfellow, D. Naaman, P. Zimmermann
{"title":"Co-creation in Documentary","authors":"Reece Auguiste, Helen De Michiel, Brenda Longfellow, D. Naaman, P. Zimmermann","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"244 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120892884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Private Lives of Documentary","authors":"Helen De Michiel","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"259 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122552490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review: Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse?, by McKenzie Wark","authors":"Madeleine Collier","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127608677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the early stages of production of the participatory interactive documentary Jerusalem, We Are Here (2016), I described the process I had envisioned to a curator friend. She listened intently and then said, “I think you can pull it off, because you don't have an artist's ego.” I wasn't sure whether this was a compliment, but I recalled this statement recently, when I was asked about my position as an Israeli making a project with and about Palestinians, and a metaphor emerged. “I am the central nervous system of this project,” I replied. “But its heart is entirely Palestinian.” As an Israeli showcasing an actively obfuscated Palestinian past, and as a documentary filmmaker working with non-professionals, I knew from the get-go that I have a lot of structural power: professionally I knew what makes for a good story, and how to go about it. As an Israeli, I also had unparalleled access to archives and libraries and current Israeli residents and realtors, and was thus well situated to obtain information Palestinians are mostly unable to access. I also knew that the stories revealed in the process of our interactions were impacted by my subject position as an Israeli and a Canadian citizen. And I knew that I had (and still have) many blind spots. The question of how to work ethically within this structural imbalance of power occupied me from the beginning. The first …
{"title":"When is Co-creation Possible?","authors":"D. Naaman","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471008","url":null,"abstract":"In the early stages of production of the participatory interactive documentary Jerusalem, We Are Here (2016), I described the process I had envisioned to a curator friend. She listened intently and then said, “I think you can pull it off, because you don't have an artist's ego.” I wasn't sure whether this was a compliment, but I recalled this statement recently, when I was asked about my position as an Israeli making a project with and about Palestinians, and a metaphor emerged. “I am the central nervous system of this project,” I replied. “But its heart is entirely Palestinian.”\u0000\u0000As an Israeli showcasing an actively obfuscated Palestinian past, and as a documentary filmmaker working with non-professionals, I knew from the get-go that I have a lot of structural power: professionally I knew what makes for a good story, and how to go about it. As an Israeli, I also had unparalleled access to archives and libraries and current Israeli residents and realtors, and was thus well situated to obtain information Palestinians are mostly unable to access. I also knew that the stories revealed in the process of our interactions were impacted by my subject position as an Israeli and a Canadian citizen. And I knew that I had (and still have) many blind spots.\u0000\u0000The question of how to work ethically within this structural imbalance of power occupied me from the beginning. The first …","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125657970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since , I have been developing a series of documentary projects on women and incarceration that embeds co-creation into its core methodological and political frame. This work is a collaboration between the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, British Columbia) and the Immersive Storylab at York University (Toronto), co-directed by my research partner, Brenda Morrison, and myself. From the beginning, we understood that because of the very complex histories and unique social vulnerabilities of the women we would be working with, our process had to be deeply relational, networked, and organically collaborative, particularly as a substantial percentage of the women would be Indigenous. In Canada, although Indigenous women account for less than percent of the female population, they make up percent of women in federal institutions and – percent of women in some provincial, territorial, and remand centers. As criminologist Lisa Monchalin (Algonquin, Métis) argues, Canada’s criminal justice system is “rooted in Euro-Canadian colonialism [and] fuels injustice that is directed specifically against Indigenous peoples.” With our limited funding, we were not ready to initiate the rigorous bureaucratic and unpredictable process of requesting security clearances and access to currently incarcerated women. We felt that listening to formerly incarcerated women’s stories would thus provide crucial immersion to help us design the “real” project we would propose in writing our grant applications. We launched a call on social media. For our first circle in September , nine women showed up to the tiny cramped quarters of a woman’s center in East Vancouver. Since then, our circle has grown to include a lively group of Indigenous (multiple nations) and nonIndigenous women. Our collaborators invite others. We continue to post photos and news of our circle on Facebook, a critical site and much loved platform for formerly incarcerated women who were once exiled from social and worldly connections. Indigenous elders or community members facilitate these circles. The talking circle is a dynamic and profoundly nonhierarchical process that has been central to Indigenous community life for millennia. Restorative justice and social justice
{"title":"Co-creation Is Not for the Faint of Heart","authors":"Brenda Longfellow","doi":"10.1525/aft.2020.471010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2020.471010","url":null,"abstract":"Since , I have been developing a series of documentary projects on women and incarceration that embeds co-creation into its core methodological and political frame. This work is a collaboration between the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, British Columbia) and the Immersive Storylab at York University (Toronto), co-directed by my research partner, Brenda Morrison, and myself. From the beginning, we understood that because of the very complex histories and unique social vulnerabilities of the women we would be working with, our process had to be deeply relational, networked, and organically collaborative, particularly as a substantial percentage of the women would be Indigenous. In Canada, although Indigenous women account for less than percent of the female population, they make up percent of women in federal institutions and – percent of women in some provincial, territorial, and remand centers. As criminologist Lisa Monchalin (Algonquin, Métis) argues, Canada’s criminal justice system is “rooted in Euro-Canadian colonialism [and] fuels injustice that is directed specifically against Indigenous peoples.” With our limited funding, we were not ready to initiate the rigorous bureaucratic and unpredictable process of requesting security clearances and access to currently incarcerated women. We felt that listening to formerly incarcerated women’s stories would thus provide crucial immersion to help us design the “real” project we would propose in writing our grant applications. We launched a call on social media. For our first circle in September , nine women showed up to the tiny cramped quarters of a woman’s center in East Vancouver. Since then, our circle has grown to include a lively group of Indigenous (multiple nations) and nonIndigenous women. Our collaborators invite others. We continue to post photos and news of our circle on Facebook, a critical site and much loved platform for formerly incarcerated women who were once exiled from social and worldly connections. Indigenous elders or community members facilitate these circles. The talking circle is a dynamic and profoundly nonhierarchical process that has been central to Indigenous community life for millennia. Restorative justice and social justice","PeriodicalId":443446,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Technology Transfer and Society","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115097179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：