I've attached a copy here of the online forum, given an initial edit by Russell and myself.
First I have to apologise to Ariane and Lee Wen, who it seems have fallen through the gaps of the communication about the fact that this forum was going to be printed in the catalogue for the exhibition. I hope this doesn't come as too much of a shock for you both, and that you'll let us keep your contributions in the final printed discussion, because I think they are valuable to it.
The original discussion in it's entirety has been cut down to less than half it's length here, and this is what we did to arrive at it:
- Deleted the intitial introductions of ourselves to the group (as this information will be covered in biographies etc elsewhere in the catalogue)
- Deleted most discussion of how we will approach the public programs, etc
- Took out most of the discussion about judging art
- Changed the 'From' line to show the artist's full name (eg 'Simon Barney' instead of 'Briefmail')
- Deleted the 'sign-off' lines - Took out the 'TEST' writing, keeping it's web address
- Corrected typos and spelling
With this last bit, the correcting of typos and spelling, I didn't want to alter the original 'voice' of the contributor, so I've tried to correct only glaring errors in order that the text is more readable.
I know everyone's busy, (and it is still quite a long text to get through), but if everyone could check at least their own sections within the text, that would be great.
I think it's important that if there's something you've said in here that you don't want printed, you indicate that it be taken out - however, I don't think it's a good idea to completely rewrite sections (or even sentences), because it's important to keep the conversational tone of the email format in here, and keep the style consistent throughout everyone's contributions. If you feel that something you said has been edited in a way that changes your original meaning, let me know and we can go back to the original text.
It would also be good to know what people think of the text in it's entirety...it's been difficult to take one contribution out without it affecting a whole thread of conversation, and there may still be some references that don't make sense...so let me know if so. And any other ideas you may have regarding the editing.
Oh, and could you return your thoughts/corrections etc by the 1st of April? Thanks. I hope that's not too big an ask.
> I've attached a copy here of the online forum, given an initial edit by
> Russell and myself.
> First I have to apologise to Ariane and Lee Wen, who it seems have fallen
> through the gaps of the communication about the fact that this forum was
> going to be printed in the catalogue for the exhibition. I hope this doesn't
> come as too much of a shock for you both, and that you'll let us keep your
> contributions in the final printed discussion, because I think they are
> valuable to it.
> The original discussion in it's entirety has been cut down to less than half
> it's length here, and this is what we did to arrive at it:
> - Deleted the intitial introductions of ourselves to the group (as this
> information will be covered in biographies etc elsewhere in the catalogue)
> - Deleted most discussion of how we will approach the public programs, etc
> - Took out most of the discussion about judging art
> - Changed the 'From' line to show the artist's full name (eg 'Simon Barney'
> instead of 'Briefmail')
> - Deleted the 'sign-off' lines
> - Took out the 'TEST' writing, keeping it's web address
> - Corrected typos and spelling
> With this last bit, the correcting of typos and spelling, I didn't want to
> alter the original 'voice' of the contributor, so I've tried to correct only
> glaring errors in order that the text is more readable.
> I know everyone's busy, (and it is still quite a long text to get through),
> but if everyone could check at least their own sections within the text, that
> would be great.
> I think it's important that if there's something you've said in here that you
> don't want printed, you indicate that it be taken out - however, I don't
> think it's a good idea to completely rewrite sections (or even sentences),
> because it's important to keep the conversational tone of the email format in
> here, and keep the style consistent throughout everyone's contributions. If
> you feel that something you said has been edited in a way that changes your
> original meaning, let me know and we can go back to the original text.
> It would also be good to know what people think of the text in it's
> entirety...it's been difficult to take one contribution out without it
> affecting a whole thread of conversation, and there may still be some
> references that don't make sense...so let me know if so. And any other ideas
> you may have regarding the editing.
> Oh, and could you return your thoughts/corrections etc by the 1st of April?
> Thanks. I hope that's not too big an ask.
Thanks for sending the edited discussion out for us to check out. I think it's
been edited really well into an extremely cohesive text and it's interesting
and valuable to read people's comments second time around.
I do have a small misgiving about the reevaluation and selection process,
however. To me it seems to turn what was a 'warts and all' dialogue, complete
with boring bits, repetitions and objections on the form of the forum, into a
very different form.
Of course it was always planned that it would be edited to make it into a more
readable text (which it definetly is). But there's something about this shift
that I find a bit worrying, it seems to me to have a hint of some sort of
misrepresentation. I'm not sure if I'm articulating what I mean very well. Does
anyone else feel this way about it?
> I've attached a copy here of the online forum, given an initial edit by
> Russell and myself.
> First I have to apologise to Ariane and Lee Wen, who it seems have fallen
> through the gaps of the communication about the fact that this forum was
> going to be printed in the catalogue for the exhibition. I hope this doesn't
> come as too much of a shock for you both, and that you'll let us keep your
> contributions in the final printed discussion, because I think they are
> valuable to it.
> The original discussion in it's entirety has been cut down to less than half
> it's length here, and this is what we did to arrive at it:
> - Deleted the intitial introductions of ourselves to the group (as this
> information will be covered in biographies etc elsewhere in the catalogue)
> - Deleted most discussion of how we will approach the public programs, etc
> - Took out most of the discussion about judging art
> - Changed the 'From' line to show the artist's full name (eg 'Simon Barney'
> instead of 'Briefmail')
> - Deleted the 'sign-off' lines
> - Took out the 'TEST' writing, keeping it's web address
> - Corrected typos and spelling
> With this last bit, the correcting of typos and spelling, I didn't want to
> alter the original 'voice' of the contributor, so I've tried to correct only
> glaring errors in order that the text is more readable.
> I know everyone's busy, (and it is still quite a long text to get through),
> but if everyone could check at least their own sections within the text, that
> would be great.
> I think it's important that if there's something you've said in here that you
> don't want printed, you indicate that it be taken out - however, I don't
> think it's a good idea to completely rewrite sections (or even sentences),
> because it's important to keep the conversational tone of the email format in
> here, and keep the style consistent throughout everyone's contributions. If
> you feel that something you said has been edited in a way that changes your
> original meaning, let me know and we can go back to the original text.
> It would also be good to know what people think of the text in it's
> entirety...it's been difficult to take one contribution out without it
> affecting a whole thread of conversation, and there may still be some
> references that don't make sense...so let me know if so. And any other ideas
> you may have regarding the editing.
> Oh, and could you return your thoughts/corrections etc by the 1st of April?
> Thanks. I hope that's not too big an ask.
I've just ploughed through the forum edit & agree it makes for good reading, but can see Anne's point about it seeming 'cleansed'. I can see this is a tricky thing to do, as it's already running at 17 pages, but I also think it's a bit of a shame to lose some of the strong self-referentiality that the discussion had. Things like people's misgivings about the email format (which seem to have been removed entirely, except for an isolated reference or two that crop up & don't make sense anymore). This is my interpretation of Anne's idea of misrepresentation, it's turning it into something else... this is unavoidable really, but maybe it would be a nice way to close the edited version, to include our thoughts here about this shift, maintain some of the referentiality?
I also think it's a terrible shame to lose all the ideas about public programs, particularly as that has been the main active point of connection and pontential that the forum provided... but I know there's no way to include everything, editing is a ruthless business! I think a good way to combat this is by including a full, unedited version of the forum material within the resource area of the exhibition... either via a computer with an internet connection to the Google group site (the computer being perfect for accessing online sites and resources of all the included projects as well as other localised artist spaces and resources), or else as a print out copy.
I chatted about this idea with Liz - would others be into it?
Plus I think it would be good to disclose in the catalogue that the forum discussion is an edited version, it will make sense of some of the jumps.
And are there any ideas on how to format it textually/visually? I'm not sure if the intention is to include the email header as a format, but I think this has been done A LOT in catalogues and can be quite off-putting, for all the same reasons that people griped about, having the appearance of reams of emails. It will be interesting to see how the designer interprets it, but I think it could work well as a more flowing, conversational document, using colour/fonts/symbols to discern the different voices....
Just some ideas, but thanks heaps Liz & Russell for your work wrestling with the 17 page monster so far!
Yeah, I definetly appreciate the huge job it must have been for Liz and Russell
to get it down to this version, and how difficult the choices must be, but I
agree with Lisa about maybe having these sorts of comments at the end if that's
possible, and on having a version on-line or in print within the show. Ditto
about the other ideas for having links to ari's etc.
> I've just ploughed through the forum edit & agree it makes for good reading,
> but can see Anne's point about it seeming 'cleansed'. I can see this is a
> tricky thing to do, as it's already running at 17 pages, but I also think
> it's a bit of a shame to lose some of the strong self-referentiality that
> the discussion had. Things like people's misgivings about the email format
> (which seem to have been removed entirely, except for an isolated reference
> or two that crop up & don't make sense anymore). This is my interpretation
> of Anne's idea of misrepresentation, it's turning it into something else...
> this is unavoidable really, but maybe it would be a nice way to close the
> edited version, to include our thoughts here about this shift, maintain some
> of the referentiality?
> I also think it's a terrible shame to lose all the ideas about public
> programs, particularly as that has been the main active point of connection
> and pontential that the forum provided... but I know there's no way to
> include everything, editing is a ruthless business! I think a good way to
> combat this is by including a full, unedited version of the forum material
> within the resource area of the exhibition... either via a computer with an
> internet connection to the Google group site (the computer being perfect for
> accessing online sites and resources of all the included projects as well as
> other localised artist spaces and resources), or else as a print out copy.
> I chatted about this idea with Liz - would others be into it?
> Plus I think it would be good to disclose in the catalogue that the forum
> discussion is an edited version, it will make sense of some of the jumps.
> And are there any ideas on how to format it textually/visually? I'm not
> sure if the intention is to include the email header as a format, but I
> think this has been done A LOT in catalogues and can be quite off-putting,
> for all the same reasons that people griped about, having the appearance of
> reams of emails. It will be interesting to see how the designer interprets
> it, but I think it could work well as a more flowing, conversational
> document, using colour/fonts/symbols to discern the different voices....
> Just some ideas, but thanks heaps Liz & Russell for your work wrestling with
> the 17 page monster so far!
I'd have preferred leaving the whole thing online and having seventeen pages of pictures in the catalogue but I know I lost that one a long time ago. Though I'd be happy to see it cut further I agree with the concerns about the flow of the thing. I've asked for a few bracketed words to be added to one of my posts as it refers to a slab of the discussion that has been removed. If this is not possible perhaps some graphic indication could be made of cuts throughout, eg. dots/dashes or maybe a solid horizontal line for each cut post or ' two postings cut here' etc . I don't want colour coding. I don't want online access in the gallery. At the MCA meeting one of the arguments advanced for putting the discussion in the catalogue was that printed, it would be easier to read. So why not just print out the lot and put it in the reading area? I don't see the need while in the exhibition to look at previous work by artists who have websites. If somebody wants web access as part of the work they are doing for the show then that's their call. simon
I like the idea of putting the whole discussion, printed, in the gallery on the archive table/area, because I like to read conversations in their entirety, with even irrelevant bits in. The page numbers constraint means we can't put the whole thing in the catalogue, and any editing will cause problems in a conversation where people are referring back to past posts, and to pull one bit out is like pulling one thread out of a knitted scarf...
When I checked, the only glaring bit I could find was the part Simon has referred to, where he quoted a bit from Lisa that isn't in there any more. I sort of wondered if we could get away with it, but Simon's come up with a way of explaining it and making it make sense.
I quite like texts printed straight up, so I'm not into the colour coding idea. I'm not troubled by the From: Subject: Date: lines, I haven't seen it used that much in publications, I must be missing out on something...
I think that's all I have to say in response to everything...the text may still be a bit long for a reader to get into, (judging by the reactions of some of my friends), but I personally find it interesting enough to keep reading. I don't think it's going to appeal to everyone as a readable text, but should interest a certain subset of people who are into such discussions. Hopefully.
----- Original Message ----- From: <briefm...@gmail.com>
To: <Situation@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: the forum edited
> I'd have preferred leaving the whole thing online and having seventeen
> pages of pictures in the catalogue but I know I lost that one a long
> time ago.
> Though I'd be happy to see it cut further I agree with the concerns
> about the flow of the thing. I've asked for a few bracketed words to be
> added to one of my posts as it refers to a slab of the discussion that
> has been removed. If this is not possible perhaps some graphic
> indication could be made of cuts throughout, eg. dots/dashes or maybe a
> solid horizontal line for each cut post or ' two postings cut here' etc
> .
> I don't want colour coding.
> I don't want online access in the gallery. At the MCA meeting one of
> the arguments advanced for putting the discussion in the catalogue was
> that printed, it would be easier to read. So why not just print out the
> lot and put it in the reading area?
> I don't see the need while in the exhibition to look at previous work
> by artists who have websites. If somebody wants web access as part of
> the work they are doing for the show then that's their call.
> simon
Elizabeth - actually that wasn't what I was referring
to (I don't think) It was the one where I had all
those anti-inflammatory things to say about being ' up
semantic creek' . Just about everything I referred to
there is gone - so maybe mine should be cut too?
Otherwise it needs some indication of what's missing.
simon
I agree that a full printout of the discussion on the archive table is a
great idea. I don't think we need to put a monitor with computer in the
gallery - these are very tricky to manage, and don't look so good. There
are also already a lot of screens throughout the show! We can put
internet links on our website for relevant sites, please feel free to
suggest links and we can collate them for the site.
I think retaining the 'from: Date: etc' keeps the email format of it
quite clear and while it can be predictable, has worked well in the
publications I've seen it in. We would definitely state that this is an
edited version, I don't know though if it needs indications as to where
things were removed, or colour coding.
It is something for a fairly specialised readership, but I think it's a
very interesting and highly readable discussion, that really opens out
some of the questions about working in different ways and contexts, and
how people feel about their work/practice/career as artists (quite
differently!). I think it's a great addition to the catalogue.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Pulie [mailto:pu...@tpg.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2005 7:29 AM
To: Situation@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: the forum edited
I like the idea of putting the whole discussion, printed, in the gallery
on the archive table/area, because I like to read conversations in their
entirety, with even irrelevant bits in. The page numbers constraint
means we can't put the whole thing in the catalogue, and any editing
will cause problems in a conversation where people are referring back to
past posts, and to pull one bit out is like pulling one thread out of a
knitted scarf...
When I checked, the only glaring bit I could find was the part Simon has
referred to, where he quoted a bit from Lisa that isn't in there any
more. I sort of wondered if we could get away with it, but Simon's come up
with a way of explaining it and making it make sense.
I quite like texts printed straight up, so I'm not into the colour
coding idea. I'm not troubled by the From: Subject: Date: lines, I
haven't seen it used that much in publications, I must be missing out on
something...
I think that's all I have to say in response to everything...the text
may still be a bit long for a reader to get into, (judging by the
reactions of some of my friends), but I personally find it interesting
enough to keep reading. I don't think it's going to appeal to everyone
as a readable text, but should interest a certain subset of people who
are into such discussions. Hopefully.
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: <briefm...@gmail.com>
To: <Situation@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: the forum edited
> I'd have preferred leaving the whole thing online and having seventeen
> pages of pictures in the catalogue but I know I lost that one a long
> time ago.
> Though I'd be happy to see it cut further I agree with the concerns
> about the flow of the thing. I've asked for a few bracketed words to
be
> added to one of my posts as it refers to a slab of the discussion that
> has been removed. If this is not possible perhaps some graphic
> indication could be made of cuts throughout, eg. dots/dashes or maybe
a
> solid horizontal line for each cut post or ' two postings cut here'
etc
> .
> I don't want colour coding.
> I don't want online access in the gallery. At the MCA meeting one of
> the arguments advanced for putting the discussion in the catalogue
was
> that printed, it would be easier to read. So why not just print out
the
> lot and put it in the reading area?
> I don't see the need while in the exhibition to look at previous work
> by artists who have websites. If somebody wants web access as part of
> the work they are doing for the show then that's their call.
> simon
| MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART | Autumn Season |
| MONA HATOUM: Over My Dead Body | 23 March - 29 May 2005 |
| the unquiet landscapes of Rosemary Laing | 23 March - 5 June 2005 |
IMPORTANT: 1. Contents of this email and its attachments are confidential and privileged. Unauthorised use of content is expressly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. 2. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. 3. Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attachment/s. 4. The Museum of Contemporary Art collects personal information to provide and market our services.
|
