||1 year ago|
|making-markers||1 year ago|
|xdex@0b76ffb150||1 year ago|
|.gitignore.txt||1 year ago|
|README.md||1 year ago|
Handle number 1: on the systematics of working together at a time (a temporary togetherness):
- What are/imply the systematics of working together that need to be established before a process is even set in motion (like the boot system in Linux)?
- How does the temporality/chronological evolution of a process have a role in establishing befores, durings and afters for a groupal endeavor? How do durabilities, recursions, circularities, persistences, repetitions and legacies affect the systematics of the process themselves? How does recursiveness, feedbacklooping and crooked circularity of collective practices become systematic, in order to hand over of problematics, sensibilities, methods, tools etc.?
Handle number 2: on the value and problematization of using the pronoun "we" while inhabiting shared structures:
- Enmeshed and engaged: What if the we can mean **a bigger **we than the people we actually know? Is the problematization of the rigid use of "we"s a cultural generation, as well as the potential of situated revisable collective declarations of being implicated, enmeshed or engaged? What are the implications of limiting the use of "we" in collaborative processes?
- If the entanglement of persons, collectives, infrastructures, institutions and geopgraphies produce temporary structures for work, what are the degrees of freedom of such structures? (in other words: does this affirmation apply?: "it can not be that when one person is missing the whole system collapses"
- Did Iterations provoke a comment/render/actualisation on the notion of the tyranny of structurelessness proposed years ago by Jo Freeman? https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Handle number 3: material conditions of possibility (on how matters of measurement, situatedness, location, age, social class, funding, geopolitics, linguistics, communication skills, queerness, racialization, ability, sustainability and/or any differential degree in relation to the "normal" -not necessarily from an identitarist lens- affect collective works):
- On engagement, affordances and material conditions of possibility: Who can afford what, where, why and for how long? what is it that makes certain works -and not others- materially possible?
- What are the **units of measurement for a **successful entanglement? And how to not read this question with a *goodist/*benevolent tone? // this one would require a playful/creative problematisation of the notion of "sucess" to then stay with it for a consideration of its indicators and/or units of measurements at a collective scale (knowing that this collectivity will for sure be mutant, changing sizes-places and also never taken for granted)
- "How to co-exist, basically" How could explicit or implicit how-to's that were unfolded during all the meetings, exchanges and inbetweens be shared for others to try and/or modify? // this one comes with a focus on formats.
Handle number 4: on the moments of transformation, change and mutation: handing over, transitional zones, trouble making, etc.
- generative troublematics: how to make of trouble a generative force? // this option would imply to both provisionally define/understand what troble is (or not) in cultural creations, and to list and unfold its generative forces/potential.
- transitional zones: there have been lots of iterations before the project, and hence this one happens as one more transitional zone // What does ot mean, to put the focus on the transitional momentum of cultural practices, extitutions, the landscape of contemporary collaboration with the subjectivities and projectualities that emerged with the combination of EU projects and low cost travelling... and so on and so forth?
- handover hanging: "you should take it but you don't have to use it": what is to handover? Are there any thoughts provoked when considering the practice of collective response-ability?
- partial reparation: what are the needed transformations to change, mutate, let go and/or transition by making troubles in order to partially repaire the micro, meso and macro structures that produce our "we"s?
<<iterations documentation from where the contributions were extracted>handles> annotation tools <contributions<handles>>
*4 visual traces
first, making markers:
- curves: What curves are used in this contribution to engage with *1?
- colors: What colors/color-combinations are used in this contribution to engage with *2?
- text: Which anecdotes OR questions OR vocabulary/glossary OR tags in this contribution engage with *3?
- visual traces: Which visual traces can we "cut out" from this contribution, that engage with *4?
then, annotate: insert/inject markers throughout the publication