Nip/Tuck main opening sequence - Digial Kitchen
The method of the two moderators of this episode involves a mapping of the abyssal character of discourse. They work to reveal certain ins and outs of its features by modeling the dynamics belonging to the intertwinement of content and form, to consider the close relation with the act of failure.
This episode introduces the use of Delicious.com by Session 18. In a network composed by followers and following people, Session 18 chose this service after the mi-season break in the aim of sharing some links to the main notions they would unfold in the upcoming episodes: Modeling, Mapping and Simulation.
This episode was elaborated over several encounters. The first series, itself split in two parts, is composed by two interviews [FR]. One has been led by Diane Pigeau through a video Skype exchange on Wednesday, April 8th, with Emilie Pischedda and Valentin Souquet, two members of Projet Diligence. The second interview has been realized on Thursday 17th April, during a meeting in Grenoble with the collective zoOM.
Following the first encounter with Projet Diligence, the Session 18 group is brought together in order to react and interact with it and in regards to its relation to modeling. Nevertheless, during the preparation of this group discussion as well as after it, it is possible to observe a parallel ongoing dialog between the two involved moderators. In a certain way, their observations correspond with a discourse inside of itself as a kind of conscious distancing.
Episode 07 was moderated by Diane Pigeau and Marlène Perronet.
Session 18 on Delicious
|Interview with Projet Diligence||Interview with zoOM|
|Dialog between the moderators||Conclusion|
Apr – 08 2009
First of all, to open this new phase of our group discussion, we made an interview with the collective Projet Diligence, discussing their practice and the way we can ﬁgure out some overlaps with our own project inside both Session 18 and Season 18. Based on this interview, which should be followed by one with the collective of architects, zoOM, the object of this group discussion is to share together our reactions, especially on the notion of modeling. We can understand the modeling in different kinds of acceptations. Modeling is a form, a structure or a sculpture produced by molding in a smaller size than the original one. In the ﬁeld of science, modeling designates and analyzes a mathematical representation of a system to study the effect of changes to system variables. In this aim it implies quite often the use of mappings, diagrams or 3D representations. In both our Session and Season 18’s experience, this notion of modeling which deals with the one of dynamic and movement, was and is still a part of the curatorial and educational processes. So I would like you to react on the interview you saw about Projet Diligence and how from your point of view it crosses our modeling representation as a dynamic form always in play in our curatorial project both from an educational and processing aspect.
I would like to address this question to Marianna and Yun In. In the beginning of the interview, the members of Projet Diligence tell the history of the project, its twists and turns, without leaving behind the failures. At first, they wanted to leave Nice but this wish had been thwarted by getting a residency there. They then had to consider the ways to go while staying within the same walls and so they started to build the “bus”, a realization of a scale 1:1 model and composed inside of that. They invited some guests from the outside to make interventions there and each time had to modify the engine that would display the projects. This long process became eventually the main project. Could we build a bridge between their position – stuck in Nice – and ours (let’s say yours), forced to leave?
Yun In Kim
First of all I’d like to tell you my opinion about the Projet Diligence. This project is related in space not only to a physical space but to a virtual one, as a plan of their project. For example I’m very interested in the 3D pictures as a plan of their project. I think that is a different way of ‘planning’ such like a mapping. I was thinking about the possibility to make an imagination mapping but of course it is in order to make a realization part. Even if I have no concrete methodology and material but I think concept of 3D is able to adopt for our discussion and realization project.
I understand you are referring to Yun In and me because we are physically going to be far from Grenoble, but related to our projects? Just to clarify: how it recalls to the position of Projet Diligence who actually being in Nice through the project and ideas they were able to provide the movement and development, to be present and be participant in other places, ideas and so on?
Yes. I meant to tell this state of our situation at first.
The idea I really find interesting is the notion “to do with…” as it can be a process of elaboration. The construction of the structure can provide both from the outside context and then to the inside group. As if the limits were very porous with the external situation. I feel that the construction of our collective work is a projective situation of the external reality, deﬁned as framework in a constant movement, created through the paradoxes.
How do contents and context(s) interact?
Of course the context influences the work itself and the work is placed within a context: it is a constant feedback. I don’t know if you want me to draw a parallel between the working methodology of Projet Diligence with our case or if their work can be somehow adapted to our final proposition? If we draw a parallel between the way they work and our situation, I believe it is hardly comparable, as they have a core of people working together by choice and not by default and they can actually work with it, eventually by making collaborations with people from outside.
What I can add is that what is interesting in the Projet Diligence story is that they were taking their situation (being in Nice not able for 3 years to move etc etc) in order to build their concept, method and to fulfill their wish to move by constructing and making a network. So if I make parallels with our situation, I can say the question should be first the wish from us, our main framework, as always trying to build a framework, a model or a structure through the process and movement. I see the departure of Yun In and myself as another modiﬁcation of the whole process which we have experienced here. But now I think the question is how to come to the very practical realization points.
I think that modeling a project is more focused on the realization of a real construction, including space and time whereas 3D pictures - which possibility aim to lead to a “real” construction - are closer to imagination. Even if I can not take part to the project, in physical space and at the same time than you (because of the jet lag), I think now about a virtual modeling of our group working.
How can we figure out all together this notion of modeling? I would like to bring back one input introduced by Elodie and which we didn’t bounce around. It was this notion of “to do with” quoted from the Projet Diligence’s interview as a way to do with contexts, collaboration and geopolitics, notion of the audience and “to do for”, a process. How in our case are we also taking up this “to do with” in an educational framework and in the creation of a project. How do we use different tools to model it?
How this notion of “to do with” takes in consideration for example the gap between theory and practice. How does it react in regards of the work in progress? What is the place and the importance of adaptability in that case?
The modeling is in our situation, refers to the methodology and on the constant move – as Tolga mentioned, this is the specificity of the group. What I find interesting is that the modeling is connected to the method, how it most of the time transfers and modifies. For instance, talking from this position, the two others parts (Mapping and Simulation) are somehow involved in it, in modeling. Mapping and Simulation are mostly a part during any modeling. How we are trying to model and figure out the project part, the realization part and what kind of tools we are using which could refer again to the simulation, we can go back to the fiction or real and so on. I mean these two or three double situations and identities.
And the modeling part in our realization has to deal with how and why we need to investigate a physical space for our final project - how to express this need? What could it bring? We modeled a kind of movement and displacement inside our researches, both physical and mental. Now, the point is how to invite an audience to have a displacement inside the space and also inside the ideas we bring with our proposition? Why to go from the Internet to the physical space?
It seems to me, that is more the collective notion than to conceive a common realization. That could be an answer to the question of modeling. We could have done one project from one idea we would have chosen from our individual material. But we decided, inside of the structure to figure out all our different voices. It is a position to the model question as a structure, which is as well an issue. We will face this difficulty till the end because we don’t share a common representation of the collective idea. So why and how can we do something together but not as a collective that I would define as a common model? The modeling is not the space but the dynamic of the situation and it’s a live structure defined by its non determined format.
Any model? I was thinking that actually what we have at some point (I agree with you) that we always have like small and moving, different connections/combinations that you called “dynamic of the situation or the group” . Actually what we are going to do in the three parts (i.e. exhibition /, Internet space and events part) is another presentation of the whole process. Again, having different things and even inside of the exhibition place, for this stage again, it will be like very small combinations, very thin zones either by chance or decided before, I don’t know, because till now we have separate projects and this is the reality, and maximum you Elodie and Tolga will relate to each other. Even the question of our having to leave and that we can not now make the final transformation easily is just another modification, another representation. The whole project and the context are not something fragmented but it is something like the only thing we share, the common situation.
I am not totally agreeing on two details, and I would like to be more precise with them. I agree that inside of this educational frame, there are some requests but I think we were clear from the beginning, when we wondered if we wanted an exhibition to happen at the end of the year, we were all in agreement, there was a common desire for this experimentation. From our process to the realization there is an interesting movement and issues for display. What are our main materials? Interviews, network projects, artworks based on video games, etc… They are mainly immaterial ones. So how do we operate this passage, this movement to reality? There is a need to have it on the physical space.
But to me, it is not that it couldn’t happen, but it is that it is difficult because the only common representation of the group is this physical place. Our exhibition could be on Second Life, as well as the conferences and so on… we could experiment as well the life there, experiment and model it.
I don’t think it is only about a common desire. I think it is about marking a territory. This territory belongs to us and we decided to make it a part of our project. We have one territory and six aims. But we are not able to share this common territory, as we articulate different aims in one common purpose yet. This is of course blocking the construction of a model now.
I’m sending you back to the image earlier quoted. This image of architecture inside the architecture, an abyss which has got a potential to link this movement from a mental walk to a physical one but by keeping a window opened onto another reality. We can imagine the exhibition as an avatar formulation of our peregrinations in the virtual space in order to catch issues of our contemporary world with its conflict zones and the contradiction of the failure of information by over-wealth.
Once again, it is the same problem that we face all the time - too many possibilities, projections, etc. It is not a matter of “we can do this” and “we can do that” anymore. As they say, “we cannot do what we want but we always do what we can”. Even though we can’t agree on what we can do, and this is a kind of a symptomatic situation in our session, we are trying to take decisions. We know it is going to be very difficult and we still try to do it rather than trying to find a solution to the problem which is generating this situation. At some point, we have to be realistic about what we can do. Next week, we will only be four people left in Grenoble – we should keep this in mind as well!
No I guess everyone first appreciates the material (s)he has and on the other hand the reality, the practical part, and the realization part, even the deadlines are coming so fast!
Now here is the real context: we are here for ten months, there are two months left, we have a certain amount of space, a certain amount of money and different intellectual abilities… Of course this creates different relations, but we cannot pretend to be more than what we are.
Sure! It is even not the good moment.
For me, this word doesn’t fit. It has got a kind of pejorative meaning. What we can is always a restriction for what we are able to. It puts an emphasis on the possibility (capacity), implies limits but also alters the question of energy, potential and desire.
We all have limits, that is it. Every thing has a certain limit. We cannot pretend to go further because some of them don’t even depend on us, they are facts and you know this is real life, it is as it is.
There is a game in play. How to transform weakness into strength? We always try to explore this notion of failure, in the archive part, in the borders’ part, how to explore the failures? How to use them? And I guess we will work with these till the end.