After the morning mapping session led by the Social Space research group on the second day of The Future of the Lab, we had 3 short case study presentations to inspire working group discussions on the themes of the afternoon: New conditions (with a presentation by Eva De Groote from Timelab in Ghent), From knowledge exchange to knowledge production (with a presentation by Irene Hediger from the Swiss Artists in Labs program) and Opening up (with a presentation by Marcos Garcia from Medialab Prado). The working groups then delved further into these topics and were moderated by Melinda Rackham (RMIT University), Angela Plohman (BALTAN) and Anne Nigten (The Patchingzone).
CASE STUDIES
Eva De Groote was asked to address the question “What challenges and new conditions do future labs need to respond to?” In her presentation she presented a series of statements (a more detailed overview can be found on Timelab’s blog) – “Future labs don’t have to be (very) technical, lab-inhabitants have to be omni-interested”. “A lab is not a mini-fort”. It was great to have this theme addressed from the perspective of a lab that is just starting its activities.
Irene Hediger explored the issue of fostering knowledge transfer between peers, disciplines and sectors. She presented a number of cases from the Swiss artists in labs program and how artists and scientists have been working together, positing the notion of a ‘3rd culture’, that of artists and scientists working together on something that isn’t necessarily either.
Marcos Garcia’s presentation framed the notion of openness. How open can future labs be? Beyond open source, open software, open hardware, how can future labs approach openness? Through a number of examples from Medialab Prado, Marcos explored how openness can be fostered, through collaboration for example. How do we as cultural mediators create a space where openness can thrive? As Marcos well stated, “open doesn’t always mean accessible”.
WORKING GROUPS
After the case study presentations we broke into working groups for more in-depth discussions.
The group moderated by Melinda Rackham brought out three main issues after their discussions: position, profile and passing on.
Position:
The strength of media labs lies in their otherness, their difference, their complex ecology and diversity of ecologies, their variety and differences. This diversity ensures we have the ability to provide an alternative to the currently accepted notions of what art research is, and to challenge the parameters of the research paradigm itself .
Profile:
Is the term ‘media lab’ still relevant today?
Does the name validate the unique spaces we provide to persue new forms of artistic research?
Should we validate our influence through joint advocacy?
How do we go about accessing new audiences/different audiences rather than merely preaching to the converted?
Passing On:
Knowledge mobility, exchange and sharing is dependent on finished documentation of projects and processes, otherwise it is useless.
Acknowledging the validity of short term, mobile or temporary projects that can form themselves to investigate specific knowledge/skills, rather than always upholding the fixed institutional model.
How do we address/ embrace anti-technology threat of the new arts and crafts movement?
The group moderated by Anne Nigten went so far as to imagine the lab in 2030. They took on the notion of the lab in a broad sense to keep the discussion open, rather than refer to a media lab or a materials lab, etc. For this group, the lab of the future should be part of an ecology of laboratories that is both formally and informally structured. Labs can use this platform for exchanging their ideas, works, expertise, tools and presentations.
A future model of the lab was discussed as a service structure, offering facilities to artists but also providing the service of exchange or interaction between specialists and audience, translating specialist activities towards a broader audience so that the audience can also reflect and give input. Teaching and education were also mentioned as part of this service model.
They concluded that a lab should have the right to have a limited lifespan. The ecology of labs could serve as a platform to keep documentation and knowledge alive after the lab ceases its activities. In terms of funding, they also concluded that a mixed model would serve best to give enough freedom to do things that do not fit funding regulations or conditions. These could include commissions, exchange culture, bartering, or donations.
The group moderated by Angela Plohman devoted all of its time to the issue of openness. Ppenness as a concept is extremely complex and that there are many layers that can be addressed in the lab context: open processes, open code, self-reflection and sharing of knowledge, tools, documentation. In terms of documentation and knowledge transfer, being open requires work and full commitment – how to do you find the resources to be open? Openness also requires responsibility, which relates very much to the idea of commitment. If we say we are open we have to take that on and support it by sharing experiences, failures, knowledge that comes out of daily experiences.
The group also discussed something as basic as opening your door – what does that mean? Just the act of doing that – is that enough? How do you mediate what comes through your door? What do you want to offer people who come in? To whom are we sharing this knowledge that we are opening up? Taking lab productions out for the general public was also brought up as a way to be open – taking the lab outside instead of constantly bringing people in. Public space can be used more, making media art (a debated term in all of the working groups) more present and accessible.
It was suggested that media art also be considered as an interface for knowledge. It’s ok to show prototypes and experiences and processes that went into building something. However a solid discourse around that needs to be created and made understandable, creating a context for imperfection.
To listen to and see the summaries of the working groups on Day 2, check out this video:
View on Vimeo.
Tags: collaboration, future, laboratory, research
