Network Lab/Collaborative production of art and technology

A first approximation to think the concept of collaborative production in the field of artistic practices can be found in the discussion held by Couchot on the presence of technology in art. (Couchot, 2003) According to the French author, since the '50s you can see two trends in the relationship between art and technology: on the one hand, an attempt to make the viewer participate in the "proper preparation of the work under the cybernetic feedback mode, thereby modifying both the status of the work as that of the author. "(Couchot, 2003, p. 103) And another trend that focuses more on production, trying to deconstruct the process of artistic creation, to unveil the inner structure of this process, which would take the opportunity to change the mode of operation of the rules of cooperation and of programming codes.

While it might be objected that long before 50 years of the twentieth century could already be talking about collaborative art practices, I take that first approach here, based on the concepts that highlights trends Couchot nominated: viewer participation and the notion of the artistic process component to which attention should be given paramount. From these two parameters, we seek to establish here a series of scenarios related to the production possibilities in collaborative works of art that use socio-technical networks. Together with the analysis of Couchot will be used concepts derived from Manovich proposals related to new media and software studies. " In Manovich interesting to investigate the formal analysis of the characteristics of new media and software studies, think about your emphasis on the codes as cultural elements, and make it as a process open to all interactors who wish to participate, considering different levels of participation. Accordingly, a first warning is necessary: the collaborative processes are not thought of as processes that autonomy leads to a lack of decision-making centers, or even non-existence of some kind of hierarchy. What seems different here is that all the rules that determine the mode of operation of the collaborative process are open to discussion and modification of all members.

Couchot relates his thinking to all issues or challenges that information technology and communication for the present field of art, hence the importance of his thinking to think collaborative production in this area. If art is related to the type of sensitive support upon which and with which materializes the art object, nothing more pertinent to examine the socio-technical networks as a central support in current artistic practices. The question that arises, then, seems to be: if the networks can be understood as a support and as part of the process itself and whether such networks based on its operating structure at the fact permit and require contact between the poles composing them, is the process of contact between these poles that becomes the focus of investigation of artistic practices in the field. Accordingly, when Couchot highlights the importance of the viewer's perception that the work is complete, either mentally or physically, seems to be playing at a point similar to that indicated above. There is not necessarily an ontological change in what is called perception of the art object in its essence, since any interpretive process considers the role of observer as part of the work becomes. However, with automation of the techniques of representation, with the possibility of such techniques become increasingly available to the casual observer, it is clear the possibility of interference of the same observer not only mentally but physically, in the mode of existence of the works. Herein lies a key to understand the collaborative process in its relation to works of media art, art that is evolving socio-technical networks, which is precisely the immersion in the physical structure of works as part of the game with them.

In the history of the passage of the art technology to virtual art, Frank Popper lists a number of practical and artistic projects whose focus is no longer the final product, but in the aesthetic processes that may encourage such works, whether the environment in the viewer and also with Regarding the type of material used in technological art, which presents itself as being composed of an increasing instability. One way to highlight this concern, according Couchot, is to provoke the viewer to participate in the work itself, which can be seen in performances, installations and on various projects throughout the second half of the twentieth century. It's like telling the audience: what is before your eyes is a coded structure and unstable, and not a finished structure, it is something in process, and their perception is part of that process. With the technology, and the possibility of providing access to their own mode of operation of the work is given the opening to think about art projects based on collaboration, since the beginning of the project.

Along with the trend indicated by Couchot, the author also highlights another artistic movement that will turn their attention to "the conceptual elaboration, the idea that presides over the creation, the procedures under which the works are organized." (Couchot, 2003 p. 117) And when I say together is because the two trends appear contaminated with each other, because the viewer participation leads one to consider what levels the viewer can participate, and it is precisely the automation process and its consequent objectification of programmable structures that will encourage and enable an increasing degree of attention to such issues. It is as if a feedback mechanism: the artistic processes become more open and therefore allow the entry of the viewer. And the call for greater participation of this interactor is leading the creation of more open processes.

The work is then no longer understood from the result, but as an event, an open process and reprogrammed, as the possibility of production possibilities. (Santos, 2003) This is a view similar to that discussed by the aesthetics of reception, when he says the text as an event, it is also similar to the notion advocated by cybertext Aarseth, when he says that cybertext communication is a characteristic of dynamic text. The allusion to the plot of an electronic literature is made here to also discuss to what extent this is not a land already contaminated by non-specificity of the material, ie the notion that if there is any literary materiality in art production in the electronic media, it is directed to the text while productivity, and not to the text as a product. (Barthes, 2004) What emerges as a characteristic of artistic production in relation to technology seems to be a poetics of programming, a poetry of the software, combined with a poetic collaboration. It is from this point of view that we discuss here the collaborative practices in the field of art and technology, specifically in the area of art media.

The contemporary media art technology present themselves as supporters programmable, modular and defined by their structural instability, it seems. Can we speak of structures with varying levels of openness, which would allow differential graded stakes nature, whose grades are based on how collaboration takes place. Possible degree of collaboration will be defined here from the following categorization: the level of access that the interactant has the structure of the work (access from the framework is still in a pre-figured and add new data, even the simple structure visualization already done, without being able to see how it was organized, ie, his pre-figured), the possibility of changing the rules of the body or change the programming code (since the maximum possible changes to the simple visualization of the program code or the rules that underpin the art object), the possibility of changing structures derived from the participation of other interactors in relation to the artistic object (since the change of interference already conducted in other art object, not to view other changes made to the object). The above categorization is also based on the notion of procedure that accompanies the discussion of art objects made in networks and hypermedia, hence the idea of a gradation of modes of cooperation, without necessarily want to appreciate the works here in terms of how it to permit the collaboration of the interactors.