Winter Camp Discussion on Skopje/Sao Paulo Process

From Develop

WORKSHOP, 2ND ROUND / WORKSHOP SPACE : COOPERATION: Skopje Evaluation / Sao Paulo 2010 (Moderator: Cveta - Remote guests: Yael, Nathaniel, Martha)

[edit] Cveta gives an overview of Chain Reaction

• Only 20% of the network did not participate
• Focus on Balkan partners
• Chain reaction was based on a partnership: Berlin, Belgrade, Sofia, Istanbul, Skopje.
• 4 Months of preparation
• The theme came out of the organizing “sub-network”
• The collab was successful

Management:

• Boston, New York, Paris, Munich, Vancouver, Sao Paulo – a second layer of collaboration
• The hosts were strengthened by the collaboration
• Cveta: “The management should be opened, unlike in Oklahoma City”, “openness is a guarentee for success”
• The list – is not functional as a collaboration tool (people are too busy)
• “We need one-to-one collabs”
• Thousands of Skype meetings with curatorial committees and so on...

External project communication:

• The project was not communicated externally well – outside of the network, Didn't get the visibility it deserved
• The team was too overloaded with work to promote it on an international level
• “How can Upgrade be recognized if it has no external echo”
• On this issue the network has to help!
• Locally there was a lot of media. They were satisfied with the attention they received
• Jo: “We are perceived as a closed network.”
• Kyd: “Are we trying to make another Transmediale”?
• “It's a question of identity”
• Ela: “There was a focus on getting attention to Skopje” - which did not really get the effect it needed.

Artistic program:

• Educational: We received a huge amount of lectures/workshops proposals.
• The educational part was not planned – it was a response to the proposals from the network
• “We are a very 'educational' network”
• Elena: “We need to be aware of our creative capacity”
• Anik: “We made a workshop that went on every day, and we lost the whole event”
• The focus on presentations/workshops are not a bad thing, only something to take into account in advance... on a space and equipment sense.
• Elena: “The form sent to the nodes have formulated the event” (for better or worse)
• Cveta: “We kept the autonomy of the nodes, they proposed, and we fit it in a 4 day format.”

Morning Sessions:

• Cveta: “These meetings are very important for the network.”

Benefits / Goals:

• We want to spread the network locally in the Balkans.
• This is the future of the network – to work regionally.

[edit] Skopje in comparison to Sao Paulo

• Sao Paulo is currently not a partner based project
• Martha is lonely there
• We asked her to do it “because we wanted to go to Sao-Paulo”
• It's great to do it there but there are challenges...
• program committee – locals & network
• exhibition committee – locals & network
• organization committee – locals only
• With Skopje nothing was local in the organization
• Martha: “Each node should fundraise for its travel expenses”
• Cveta: “This would be a huge problem. It will not happen and would be a huge problem.”
• “...fundraising for Chain Reaction was very hard. For Sao Paulo it will be harder.”
• “How do we share resources?” “If America for example, got X amount how much of it should be shared?”
• Brazil is a focus country in Europe, so there might be funding from the British Council and other European funds
• Does Martha have the the access to funding?
• Maybe tying with the biennial in Skopje can open access to fundings
• Basak: “Maybe we should also discuss a tighter curatorial work – a good small exhibition rather than a big one.”
• Leah: “We need to focus on the conceptual / thematic issue”
• Cveta: “Martha is doing it by her self”
• Upgrade as an NGO – really complex for the legal overhead.
• Joe: “Martha said that the purpose of 'her event' was to expose the network to the rest of the art-world. This might have been a requirement that came from the local level.”
• Cveta: “We had 5 partners locally, they did not have input on the program.”
• Basak: “Can we still have a group organizing nodes?”
• Rene: “Maybe we should look at the ISEA model as a traveling festival”
• Cveta: “My point is that we have to start helping Martha now!”
• Basak: “We should really think of working with the Biennial”
• Elena: “It was postponed one year, it will be in 2011”
• Mushon: “Maybe this is a good enough reason to wait to 2011”
• Jo: “Do we want to have a formula for these events?”
• Basak: “I believe a committee of organizing nodes is the way to go. It really worked.”
• Mushon: “The representation of 5 nodes is strong, even if the decisions are not winning the network's consensus”
• Jo: “Do you all need to be in geographic proximity to each other?”
• Basak: “It helps.”
• Jo: “This will be a problem in this case”
• Basak: “We should send Kyd to Sao Paulo”
• Jo: “We need to know, she never organized an event before. We need to be more proactive, as she doesn't have the experience we have”.
• Mushon: “We should really ask ourselves if this is something we can do. We might decide that we cannot do this right now”.

[edit] Cooperation

What can we learn from CR about cooperation:

• The Chain Reaction cooperation model was based on three things:
• Partnership – 5 node team
• Trust – trusting the nodes, distributing curatorial process
• Solidarity – help from each node
• Cveta says she feels obliged to help Martha, as the network helped her.
• Some nodes were passive, but others were very active, so most of the nodes did participate.
• The host has the main role.
• Horst: “There should be a legal basis for distributing responsibility, if not all of the responsibility is on the organizer node.”
• Kyd: “The local organizations (universities) provide legal framework”
• Mushon: “There are more responsibilities to share before going legal”
• Cveta: “An example to distributing responsibilities is – breaking missions to nodes. Like if one nodes takes care of all the publication, from fund raising to production that will be a real fundamental help.”
• Ela: “We as different nodes have legal bodies to work with.”
• Mushon: “We have resources in the network that we have not learned to apply.”
• What would be the motivation for people from the nodes to help us?
• We need an open mailinglist

Martha is reached on skype, we plan to discuss cooperation and next UP gathering in San Paolo, Sept 2010.

We want to help, have several issues we have raised but no conclusion.

Mushon sent notes of discussion in the early part of afternoon.

Cveta sums up main points: We are interested in the resources she has in Sao Paolo:

What are biggest troubles she is facing at the moment. How can we be effective and helpful, thoughts, how can network be involved.

Her last email: the curatorial practice and the three committees. Local and international. Have impression that in the planning, the local people will have a lot of influence, meaning the partners. Will they interfere in programming and creating the meeting. Or, will international team have most of this control.

1- how can we help 2- what are biggest problems 3- what are resources for funding 4- how will she resolve the local and international context of committees and event, what will prevail?

The connection is not working, she will answer them by email.

Collaboration/cooperation:

Mushon: cooperation is already taking place on big scale, and cooperation should be happening, we talk but nothing happens.

Kyd: what about the networks within networks that are invisible on large scale. But, they are not called Upgrade collaborations even if we do them with more energy and work.

Who is we, ‘organizers’? Is the ‘we’ too minimal?

‘We’ works when the issue is curatorial not when someone is trying to revamp site, and ends up doing it by themself.

Kyd means when collaboration takes place but in another form.

Cveta: Mushon situation and Martha’s situation is not disconnected. You ask for help and then end up doing it alone. And these are huge projects.

Basak: what level do we want to help. Martha is already in contact with her supporting institutions. So we need to make this clear now so that Martha can already put this on the table with these institutions.

Marika: universities can also be a base to organize next meeting, the other nodes with connections to universities can also make connections.

Mushon: maybe exchange scholars and resources.

Marika: universities also need connections, also need to enter into networks and create structures.

Basak: Erasmus in Europe is a good source of support, but what about inter-continental. University in Turkey supports resources but no money.

Marika: can imagine more possible bridges, through streamings for example.

Basak: seminar for students for which they would have to pay. Workshops for international students; this would mean more tasks, and another project, maybe just an idea.

Mushon: we already do workshops – what would we get from it besides money?

Basak: could still be a source of money.

Kyd: would it be enough money, is it worth it. Would be really expensive… Maybe the money would go to professors…

Basak: no, we would give the workshops.