Collaboration: Any Thoughts?

[cheesepaws]

Fellow creators like musicians and filmmakers often must work collaboratively to see their visions realized. In the process of sharing ideas the individual artist must relinquish some control and allow for multiple egos/ideas to flourish in the creation of a shared final product/experience. Visual artists often (but not always) are, perhaps romantically, loners. Do you ever crave the energy of a collaborative partnership? Could you yield your creativity or ownership of a sculpture with the goal of creating something that is imbued with the signature of a creative think-tank? Do you suspect the collaborations are over rated? Have you already had a collaborative experience on a sculpture (beyond working with someone technically – say to cast your work) and what was that experience positive or negative? Can you imagine working with a fellow forum member collaboratively?

[grommet]

It really depends on the people. I have worked in collaborative situations producing things that while not art, were very creative in nature. Some people grub and claw their way to the top regardless of the collaboration concept. While I may have strong opinions about some things, I'm very good at sharing, discussing & compromise. However, if I have to work collaboratively with another manipulative person who doesn't understand the spirit of collaboation in my lifetime ... well let's just say I'll be buying stock in the canned whup-ass industry.
I still believe it's possible.

[jOe~]

Fellow creators like musicians and filmmakers often must work collaboratively to see their visions realizedIts different for those folks. As an artist you don't need to be that tight with people like musicians do. The really good band that pass through town are the ones that have been touring together in closes quarters for a long time. Artists don't have the same life style.

Do you ever crave the energy of a collaborative partnership?Only sexual ones. And even then, I think I'm getting old.
Can you imagine working with a fellow forum member collaboratively?On a minimal basis. Like, can I borrow some of those stationary tools in your shop and if you want to voice an opinion that's ok. And if you don't want to let me use them piss off. Or, if you want my feedback that's fine, but I'm not gonna do the hard work for you. I can't imagine needing an other person's visions to get something made. But that would be ok for other people.

[GlennT]

I had a very positive experience over the last couple of years collaborating with a mosaic artist friend. In fact, it was three way collaboration. The Church of Saint Michael, in Saint Michael, Minnesota, designed in a Russian Orthodox style, commissioned a very talented stained-glass artist named Nick Markell to do the windows in their new church, and he also created the designs for the 14 stations of the cross. These designs were then beautifully interpreted into mosiac by my friend Christine Carlyle and her team of helpers. My job was to design and create the bronze frames for them. Each one was hand done including the lettering.

I did not get very good photos of them yet, but here are a couple. Much of the detail is not visible. There is an odd lighting effect at the top of the mosaic where the reflection from the gold tiles appears to cut into the bronze arch shape. In fact the keystone of the arch connects with the curved portion to flow as a continuous unbroken line in the arch.

Both Christine and I worked long hours on these pieces, and would install two or three every few months. The church members and Father Michael were very supportive. I decided that my role was to showcase Christine's mosaics by creating frames worthy of her art, but not to upstage the mosaics by getting too fancy thereby calling more attention to the frames than needed.
Those involved are quite pleased with the results.

I second Grommet's comments about the give and take nature of a collaboration. If you share a vision of what you want to accomplish, then you work together as a team to do so, trusting yourself and the others to do their best. You offer and accept criticism not as a matter of ego assertion, but in a sincere effort to make give the project the best possible outcome. Liking your collaborators and having a good sense of humor helps too. Our installations were done when the church was mostly empty, and our occaisonal boisterous laughter would echo through the space without disrupting anyone. (Fortunately, Father Michael has a good sense of humor as well.)

[Duck]

Yeah, I “collaborated” with a sixty yr. old mfa degreed French artist earlier this yr. What interested me about this project was more Him than the commission. (6wk. deal)..Anyway, He’s just come to me again this week with a big project that is a mix of core-ten and s/s …

I gotta think it’s my sweet submissive nature is the reason he’s back

[evaldart]

In the finest of "Fine" Art situations there can be no collaberation...there should be no such desire, even, by the creatively forward individual. Its a regular thing we do all day and night, trying to co-exist. We compromise, sacrifice, bend, succumb, relent, and generally assume alternate personas that do nothing but allow us to sustain amongst our co-dependent masses. Its a rare thing, REALLY creating, and its the only thing that separates the artist from everyone else. If you find that you are sharing common goals with others, realize that this is only in the interest of drab sustenance. Reserve ALL your true efforts for your personal advancement. As it is, you wont be able to pursue this nearly as much as you should. Collaberate in the kitchen, for fuel, or in the yard...I mow, you prune...etc.

[grommet]

Collaberate in the kitchen, for fuel, or in the yard...I mow, you prune...etc.
some of what you describe here I don't consider collaboration, but a 'divide and conquer' tactic to getting something done. Collaboration involves an exchange of ideas, a progressive story that is changed by interaction; something that could not be produced by just one of the people because it involved the hopelessly subjective notions of two separate people willing to have an open mind --for the moment. Can you feel the tension and anticipation yet?

[merelees]

I just had a conversation about this recently with a fellow sculptor, and I agree with Evaldart. If I have an idea for a piece, and I let someone else in on it, the outcome is no longer my original idea.

I can see using help for a technical aspect, like, getting a man to cut pipes and help me build an armature. Or a tedious project that multiple people can labor on to save time. But the creative aspect has to be all from one artist.

I think films just prove my point. I can't tell you how many times I went to see what could have been a good movie-but they have to sneak in a love story (gag) and mini-plots that are obviously not part of the original idea. They use the ideas of several people, trying to come up with a movie that has guns for the masculine, love for the feminine, comedy for the lighthearted, something for the scholarly... The unique idea is gone, trying to entice a broader audience.

Nothing is more annoying than those people that think they can "help" by giving you suggestions on how you could improve your work. I'm not out to please the general public, and I don't want anyone's hands or minds in my work.

[StevenW]

Camaraderie and collaborative trust bespeak the finest traditions in art and I wouldn't be doing any of this today if my old friend had told me not to touch his work or help him out with an idea. (he was actually just helping me out by asking for my help, but that's complicated).. "Go ahead, just do it,.. bang away".. And the first time I struck Yule marble with a hammer and chisel and saw a wimpy little fleck of rock go flying off I was hooked.

The finest of the fine? Hmm.. I would agree Matt, that too many cooks can spoil the broth and too many minds or ego's can run afoul what could have been a great entity done by one alone. The other consideration being that one artist far surpasses the skills/talents of the other and the resulting lopsided work demonstrates it. This could cause problems as well... On the other hand, for me at least,.. Working collaboratively has taught me as much as years of soloing combined and made me realize that I still have so many questions.

[GlennT]

I guess by evaldart's definition, the Parthenon frieze is no longer a work of art, since many sculptors were involved. But then it was eliminated from competition by his earlier belief that if it serves a function (architectural decoration) it is not art. On the other hand, I have in my studio a plaster cast of one horseman from that frieze. It was probably sculpted by just one artist. So it might be a work of art. It is also detached from its context, so it squeaks by rule #2 as well. This is getting confusing. It's almost enough to propel one into jOe's "no rules for art" camp.

Before our brains interpret, there is consciousness. Light and intelligence exists outside of our human minds, even if it seems like most of it is inside mine:D. So why is it difficult to conceive that two or more people who share a similar outlook and openness to recieving inspiration from a higher source outside of themselves yet connected to themselves as receptors, are able to combine efforts and apply their gifts and talents towards jointing creating a work of art?

Or, to get less esoteric, suppose two people like working together as artists. Maybe one of them gets an idea, and their friend who is in synch with the others's perspective likes the idea very much. Friend 1 sketches the idea, friend 2 says, " what if you extended the arm this way..." , friend sketches the sugggestion and thinks that improves the composition, and then they both get to work sculpting it. Friend 1 is better at doing faces and friend 2 is good at hands and arms, so the labor is divided up accordingly.
Is there a good reason at the end of the day why the result of their efforts should not be considered fine art? I'm guessing that if no one knew it was the product of two artists at work, the piece itself would give no such indication.

Thus, I think that the idea of collaboration not resulting in fine art is a mental construct due to a personal bias rather than a truth.

[Duck]

In the finest of "Fine" Art situations there can be no collaberation...there should be no such desire, even, by the creatively forward individual. Its a regular thing we do all day and night, trying to co-exist. We compromise, sacrifice, bend, succumb, relent, and generally assume alternate personas that do nothing but allow us to sustain amongst our co-dependent masses. Its a rare thing, REALLY creating, and its the only thing that separates the artist from everyone else. If you find that you are sharing common goals with others, realize that this is only in the interest of drab sustenance. Reserve ALL your true efforts for your personal advancement. As it is, you wont be able to pursue this nearly as much as you should. Collaberate in the kitchen, for fuel, or in the yard...I mow, you prune...etc.

Well, I agree…sorta…

If i keep working for and with other people, there’s no time left for the art that’s important to me…The problem I have with telling people NO, is not so much my ego, but that little whore in me is STILL tempted by the big price tag

[cheesepaws]

I just had a conversation about this recently with a fellow sculptor, and I agree with Evaldart. If I have an idea for a piece, and I let someone else in on it, the outcome is no longer my original idea.

Original idea? Perhaps you yield a kind of ownership over your ideas, but working collaborative may also give you a more unique (original) product. After all, the more input the stranger the hybrid and the less likely it is that the particular result of your collaboration will have been done before.

While I appreciate eval's assertion of individuality, I disagree with his suggestion that – “In the finest of "Fine" Art situations there can be no collaboration..” I simply see no evidence that this is true. There are a great number of collaborative efforts (Mike Kelly and Paul McCarthy, Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the Starn Twins, etc..) that are wholly embraced by the fine arts establishment. The individual matters much less than the identity of the maker. In some cases multiple persons define that “identity”.

And while it might not be my particular bag – I can even understand how some might see their studio efforts as “collaborations” with abstract ideas like memories or a higher power.

If you are inspired by a rockin' tune - is that a kind of collaboration? Likewise, if one directly responds to another artist's efforts - is that too a collaboration of sorts?

I have always been intrigued by the possibilities of a collaborative project. I imagine it is a bit like the energy you get when you show in a group exhibition and how sometimes the work reacts to each other in amazing and unexpected ways. Could be fun and push one further on individual projects down the road.

[evaldart]

Becoming embraced by a fine-arts establishment, is absolutely not a validator of the "fine" art achieved by an artist or creative entity. Cheese, you are mistaking the object, the produced piece of physicality, for the actual "Art". The Art is the claimed advancement, the rush of furtherence, the well-fed wonder. The act and the artifact that caused this uniquely individual sensation are only the markers or evidence that it occured.

Environment and evolution has decided for us that we all pretty much look and operate similarly, but disrobed of our physicality we are not necessarily even of the same species. While the efforts and actions of our encounterings direct most of our thinking, there is to be gained a thinking that has nothing to do with all that...THAT is the "finest of fine"...not Mary Boone nor Sonnabend.

And if you're aiming for Mary Boone or Sonnabend, well, then thats what you'll get at best. But if you're against yourself, you're own achived efforts, pushing against THOSE wild walls, your much more likely to confirm to yourself that you are indeed sufficiently challenged (as opposed to distracted...again). The enriching of your personal experience gives comfort and optimism YOU the conscious singularity.

This is not to say that there is nothing to be gained by working with another on a creative effort...but again, just be aware of WHAT it is you are accomplishing. It will be another kind of experience, another thing, yet another kind of possible reward. ONE of you will like it better than the other...and the poor other...he might have wasted his time.

And when it comes to putting eggs on the breakfast table, I'm not at all against joining forces with a respected comerade...it can be fun too. We'll make it fun. But I wouldn't compare it to the untainted thrashings that SOMETIMES yield my best work.

[StevenW]

ONE of you will like it better than the other...and the poor other... she might have wasted her time..

Well, that about sums up my sex life.. :rolleyes:

Given the choice though, I'd still take the collaboration in that particular art form.. :)

[cheesepaws]

Eval, I am doing my best to hack through the overgrowth of grandiose language and empty poetics here....forgive me if I have completely missed your points. :)

(I actually quite like the way you write and enjoy reading your posts - they make you dig. That said, one can get lost from time to time trying to work out just what you are saying.)

Becoming embraced by a fine-arts establishment, is absolutely not a validator of the "fine" art achieved by an artist or creative entity. Cheese, you are mistaking the object, the produced piece of physicality, for the actual "Art". The Art is the claimed advancement, the rush of furtherence, the well-fed wonder. The act and the artifact that caused this uniquely individual sensation are only the markers or evidence that it occured.

You make a pretty big assumption that the “thrashings” of a collaboration need be any different than the thrashings of an individual. That’s just ego. Why should your suggestion that, "The Art is the claimed advancement, the rush of furtherence, the well-fed wonder”, not equally apply to a group effort? Again, I think you are over stressing the importance of the individual in the process. Again..ego?

Environment and evolution has decided for us that we all pretty much look and operate similarly, but disrobed of our physicality we are not necessarily even of the same species. While the efforts and actions of our encounterings direct most of our thinking, there is to be gained a thinking that has nothing to do with all that...THAT is the "finest of fine"...not Mary Boone nor Sonnabend.

Mary Boone or Sonnabend (or the somewhat updated Gagosian and Matthew Marks) can be the collateral benefit of “The Art” without diluting the experience for either maker or viewer. In fact, I would wager that this is more often the case than not and thus I am comfortable in re-asserting that the opinion of the art establishment (gallerists, curators, art historians, as well as the whim of the collector) is a fair marker of worthy efforts.

Galleries aside, the artist collaborations I mentioned in my last post have made some amazing work. I am sure THEY feel like they have experienced "The Art" ...and in looking at their work I feel like I have experienced "The Art"....so it seems to me that collaborators can just as easily make "The Art" as the individual.

The enriching of your personal experience gives comfort and optimism YOU the conscious singularity.

What? ***can't get the pull cord on the "poetry whacker" to start the damn thing*** What??

This is not to say that there is nothing to be gained by working with another on a creative effort...but again, just be aware of WHAT it is you are accomplishing. It will be another kind of experience, another thing, yet another kind of possible reward.

Ah, see here, we agree. Perhaps there is still hope....!?

ONE of you will like it better than the other...and the poor other...he might have wasted his time.

Ah, I guess not. Why is this the case? We are not talking about two people executing one person's idea but a true collaboration. It should be easily balanced and productive. Nobody need be "the loser".

[StevenW]

That's twice this week someone has put down poetry; "boring" and "empty".. :mad:

Poetry seeks to condense as much meaning as possible in as few words as necessary, Prose seeks to expand meaning in an opposite direction and without the same restrictions.

He uses prose. :)


"Nobody need be "the loser".

Ahh, the perfect world.. (kicks rock).. :rolleyes:

[cheesepaws]

That's twice this week someone has put down poetry; "boring" and "empty".. :mad:

Poetry seeks to condense as much meaning as possible in as few words as necessary, Prose seeks to expand meaning in an opposite direction and without the same restrictions.

No put down at all! I love poetry - as long as it IS poetry and not just some words gussied up in the guise of poetry. Also, prose and poetry are not mutually exclusive. The ideas that art can convey share something with poetry - discussion those attributes through prose can make it all so muddled.

[GlennT]

Maybe, evaldart, you are afraid of other people? Or of working with them?
So, since you are involved with the idea of grappling, wrestling, struggling, and emerging through an art process in order to push you and your art to a greater height, perhaps you need to grapple, wrestle, and struggle with your preconcieved idea about collaboration, give it a try, and emerge victorious with a work of art. And if you end up liking the piece, please don't pressure the collaborator to like it less. They might enjoy it just as well.

[GlennT]

gussied up in the guise

Now there's a poetic phrase!

[StevenW]

discussion those attributes through prose can make it all so muddled.

Well okay, then I agree with you then, but I still kinda like all the muddle, especially when I'm eating my pancakes. :)

How bout you send me one of those autocad lookin-flatty wall base thingamajigs and I'll chuck a big, fat rock on top of it. :p

It is almost friday isn't it? :rolleyes:

[cheesepaws]

How bout you send me one of those autocad lookin-flatty wall base thingamajigs and I'll chuck a big, fat rock on top of it. :p :

Hmm, interesting. Are you leaning toward a collaborative name of Stevenpaws or CheeseW...or, do we dare....Stevencheese!!

Hey...I never really thought about those "flatty" works I am making in relation to autocad. I might borrow that bit-o-comparison.

[jOe~]

There's really two aspects this on going discussion. One is that of the viewer who I doubt gives a rat's patooty about how the thing of wonder was conceived first and fore most. First is the "this is cool" emotions, then later come the questions about the second order issues. The other perspective is that of the maker(s). We are mostly talking about the maker here and not the viewer. So whatever one says about collaboration is correct for them--absolutely.

[evaldart]

Well, we should all be perturbed by the crushing limitations of words inasmuch as we should should be embittered by the ceaseless preoccupation with communication. The best messages will work on the edges of comprehensibility - the best sentences will be allocating new responsibilities to old words, the best words will grab a suffix from another one that hates it. It aint poetry but, believe it or not, the point does get accross (and sometimes not getting it accross is the point).

Cheese, the success or failure of an artwork at the highest level need ONLY be decided by its effects and ramifications upon its maker. There are things we will do alone in the name of Art that cannot be dissuaded by anyones's good sense. They are absurdities that give clarity or obviousnesses that bring haze...you pick. The "art-buddy" will never be privy to the oddnesses in your head and the common ground necessary to function together will bring the product, magnificent and heralded as it may seem, down a notch or two. You just wont get as much out of it.

[cheesepaws]

Cheese, the success or failure of an artwork at the highest level need ONLY be decided by its effects and ramifications upon its maker. There are things we will do alone in the name of Art that cannot be dissuaded by anyones's good sense. They are absurdities that give clarity or obviousnesses that bring haze...you pick. The "art-buddy" will never be privy to the oddnesses in your head and the common ground necessary to function together will bring the product, magnificent and heralded as it may seem, down a notch or two. You just wont get as much out of it.

Well, I think we've been down this road before with my opinion at the other end of the spectrum - empowering the viewer and not the maker when it comes to the success and failure of a work of art. It really doesn't matter much (different strokes and all). Perhaps you can see however, that my take - one that does not rely so much on the individual artist or their personal creative experience - might be more conducive to a meaningful collaborative endeavor.

[Giotto]

Gustav Klimt has been a long time hero of mine. At one early point in his life he went into depression and seclusion.

A friend wrote at the time:
"He feels he can do more. He feels that he has never really given himself and that he has only painted in a foreign language..He can bear it no more. Only now does he realize what makes an artist...the power to show his own unique inner world, which has never existed before him and will not exist after him. "

He went through this personal crises until he extracted everything alien from his work and became his own artist. Anyway, if you want to get to know him look at his paintings... there you can see his critical insights into reality

So I would make the point that "Fine art" is not (normally) a collaboration

G

PS He also wore a Caftan, no underwear ...In many of the pictures of him he is shown in it.

[cheesepaws]

He went through this personal crises until he extracted everything alien from his work and became his own artist.

What does this mean? Does being one's "own artist" mean rejecting everything that we "acquire" from shared experiences? If so, how is that possible? I am sure I missed your point. That second beer just kicked in - me slow. Can you spell this out for me?

[Giotto]

It's so easy to get lost in definitions and I'm not sure if I really have a point.

I just think there is a type of art...call it fine or slow or whatever...where the artist is a unique channel into reality..the results are spiritual in nature..there can be no rejecting of shared experiences because they are us...What Klimpt meant (I think)_ was that his work was indeed from and only from him, not from him and a few other guys.......just as the work you posted, Dear Cheesepaws, is from you and is unique.
G

[StevenW]

I'm gettin all excited about the group art myself, thinkin back to rome and all the uninhibited fun those guys had and the 60's and free love and all that (I am roughly 6 or 7% hippy after all).. :)

Bring on the grapes and wave those palm leaves over me and get plenty of naked super-models to sculpt. :D

CheeseW will suffice, I'm not greedy. It's all about the experience, the doing, who really cares what anybody see's after that?

[evaldart]

I love Klimpt, and I I am delighted to be able to participate in just one percent of whatever he took for himself from the making of his own work. The same is true for all the best stuff, as a rule. The artist best empowers his viewers by taking maximum benefits for himself. As soon as the anonymous "other", who might take a 2 1/2 second glance at the work (or even BUY it and take many 2 1/2 second glances), gets into the maker's head the piece is ruined. Ruined because it did not become a rung, or a stone or a step. So while its fabulousness may have survived, the stomach-knotting wonder and awe never happened. For anyone.

When I connect with a work like that I am stopped dead in my tracks and I am lost in the mapping of that piece coming to be. I am allowed a portion of the leftovers, the overspill, and the emanations of this excess from a work of art IS the thing it gives to the viewer - what else do you want? moal direction, political encouragement, answers to the questions of oblivion...it aint never gonna be there... Rothko ate all the fried chicken, you cant even have the bones, but the grease...thats some wonderful grease.
Thank God:D I'm an artist myself and I have the priveledge of cooking-up the occasional heaping helping, all for me, fresh from the pan.

[GlennT]

Sometimes I'm right there with you, and other times I have no idea where you're coming from , such as:

As soon as the anonymous "other", who might take a 2 1/2 second glance at the work (or even BUY it and take many 2 1/2 second glances), gets into the maker's head the piece is ruined. Ruined because it did not become a rung, or a stone or a step. So while its fabulousness may have survived, the stomach-knotting wonder and awe never happened. For anyone.


Are you saying that an artist's ego is too fragile to endure the exposure to a thought outside of themselves?

Or are you saying that no one but the artist who made a work of art is capable of appreciating it?

Or are you saying that snog fromp gleppers nixshnuggy?

What?:confused:what?:confused:what?:confused:

[Ries]

Eval, you are SUCH a romantic.
And I mean that in the Charles Bukowski way, not the Bridges of Madison County way.

But all of what you say, even if it is 100% true inside your own head, is not necessarily true once we venture outside of that sacred realm.
Maybe once we get out, we can think more clearly, as the beer fumes in there are kind of overpowering...

Anyway, I would advance, as a great counterexample, my friends the Art Guys. They have been collaborating for nigh on 25 years now, and they spend much more than 2 1/2 seconds considering each others ideas- in fact, they can finish each other's sentances. Their collaborative work, by their own standards, is BETTER than their previous, individual work.
http://www.theartguys.com/
Now, admittedly, their style of art does not fit into your macho, bang your head against the world template- but I know them, and I can assure you they are a lot like you in many ways, and you would thoroughly enjoy a beer with them- they IZ real artists.

Another example of a real art collaboration I know of was Ed Kienholz and Nancy Reddin Kienholz- believe me, she was not just a pretty face who got her name on the wall tag because Ed liked her- she can weld, nail, paint, drink, fight, or bullshit you, me, or anybody else under the table, and she participated 100% in the conception and fabrication of all the work they did together.

If you are open to the idea of collaboration, and are willing to beat back your own ego enough to actually listen and work with the other artist, greater, not lesser, results can occur. I know several other artist teams who consistently make real art, together. Synergy man- its not just a drink in the health food section.

[grommet]

http://www.theartguys.com/
Now, admittedly, their style of art does not fit into your macho, bang your head against the world template- but I know them, and I can assure you they are a lot like you in many ways, and you would thoroughly enjoy a beer with them- they IZ real artists.

That definitely fulfilled my folly craving, thanks!:) Now that's what I'm talkin' about... plays well with others. Some o' y'all need a kindergarten refresher.:rolleyes:

Matt, you think a stray thought of another person will distill your energy and delay you from your goals. Where you goin' in such a hurry? Maybe that moment's detour was the lesson you needed to reach the next level.

[StevenW]

Ries, I like your post, but think it's too easy to dismiss it as "ego". Some people like to play in a band and are great that way and others like Segovia are the band. There was no ego involved, he just didn't need or want anyone else and that's great.

Tough thing about collaboration is, there's a lot more musicians with similar styles and tastes then there are sculptors. If I knew another sculptor in my neighborhood I would do some work with them, even if it was just for camaraderie's sake.

Joe, it's interesting how you picked up on two underlying currents here, very astute way of looking at it.

Oh, I have a big print of The Kiss in my bedroom, gotta love Gustov..

[evaldart]

Yeah Ries, I know Mickael and Jack from the houston scene in the eighties. We walked in many of the same circles ...but I was a mere painter then, a child, only beginning to understand the power of REAL Art. Yeah, they're real funny and clever dudes...damn sure made something of themselves didn'they - you must have seen their Tacoma show...hah, they indeed turn every venue into a museum of them. Their theatre even yields some very nice and unusual objects - as hardcore sculpture goes, But you think they're good beer drinkers? maybe where you live....even collaberating they'd add up to a lightweight by Texas standards. You can't act that:D. But maybe they got better at it.

And I'll have you know that I reserve the head-banging for WORTHY rock n roll, and the occasional H-beam (if both fists are otherwise occupied with a cold one).

All the poor collaberators, as individuals, are missing some very unique rewards. They are the masses or Everyman, in their microcosm of two, they are the "other half" or the co-dependent. All that "sharing" and togetherness... Sorry, not for me. When its GO-time, I dont want to see another meat-spaz anywhere in my periphery.

[Mr. Malloy]

great topic! As far as collaboration goes; I has been one of the most difficult things for me to experiment with (must be my own self-centered/self-righteous
ideas) but when it works it is GREAT!! I was told in Art school that in today's age, the idea of doing everything on your own is over. We must learn to collaborate and that artists tend to not want to.

[Mr. Malloy]

Rise, I forgot to say I liked the artguys. I am through saying "its not my style" about anything. that is still placing me as the reference point/focal etc. I say, if its good its good. whether i would a work like it or not is irrelevant ?? am I wrong? I like to be corrected.

[StevenW]

I like to be corrected.

I didn't spend much time looking, but I felt like I was in a coastal tourist trap.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Collaboration seems like an illusion, like everything else. A team effort is only as good as the individual efforts of the team players. Collaboration is just taking turns or working as individuals side by side. Any way you look at it, an artist must take total responsibility for their own actions in the present. There really is no other way. Yes, dialogs happen but no one can opperate your hands but you.

One artist per body.

[grommet]

Collaboration seems like an illusion, like everything else. A team effort is only as good as the individual efforts of the team players. Collaboration is just taking turns or working as individuals side by side. Any way you look at it, an artist must take total responsibility for their own actions in the present. There really is no other way. Yes, dialogs happen but no one can opperate your hands but you.

One artist per body.

Seems like you're ready for a collaboration because of your understanding of your own responsibilities. Now all you need is someone else with an equal sense of responsibility whose conversation & art you appreciate but that has a slightly different vantagepoint on the world.

[grommet]

Sorry, not for me. When its GO-time, I dont want to see another meat-spaz anywhere in my periphery.

Evaldart, you afraid you'll go Hulk all over someone?;)

[GlennT]

I was told in Art school that in today's age, the idea of doing everything on your own is over. We must learn to collaborate

Okay. So are we all supposed to surrender, and turn ourselves in to the neighborhood art collective?

Further proof of the value of an art education at the Ministry of Art, Propoganda, and Lies.

[evaldart]

Evaldart, you afraid you'll go Hulk all over someone?;)


No rage at all here...but its true that I attempt to become a tornado of hammers, wrenches, torches and cheater-bars when I'm in the zone. Could result in a trip to the dentist for my poor art-buddy.

[Scout]

I like control of my work as much as anyone. I think in the actual creation of a piece, it is mine. But I have accumulated a life time of experiences and advice and it can not help but filter into my work. Anyone that thinks their work is unique hasn't searched around the internet. EVERYONE is influenced by others. But I'm thinking collaboration here means actually working on a physical piece together. This is different from brainstorming.

Brainstorming is actually building on every idea that pops up until you don't know who said what but you have built a vision. This is the time for sitting around a big fire and just talking with like minds. We have a saying in my circle, "whoever does it, gets to choose". Sometimes we brainstorm about what they are into and sometimes what we are into. Everything builds.

My best brainstorming buddy died this year and I feel a bit unraveled but I still have her inside my head, talking to me. I don't talk a lot here but I follow you. Phew, sometimes you give me a headache but mostly you inspire me. You give me things to think about. I love it when there is a good conversation going. Scout

[jOe~]

To collaborate you have to have a significant meeting of the minds. For some, meeting your own minds intimately and thoroughly is rich beyond belief....like who needs more minds and all their interfering weirdnesses?

[StevenW]

To collaborate you have to have a significant meeting of the minds. For some, meeting your own minds intimately and thoroughly is rich beyond belief....like who needs more minds and all their interfering weirdnesses?

I can see that Joe, but sometimes art just happens, no planning or limited anyway, few rules, spontaneity, feeling as opposed to thought, process as opposed to planning or design, the simple act of doing. More minds can interfere, or contribute.. I suppose it is all about how you look at it. I was overjoyed to work with another member here this year and I think it's turning out quite nicely. Albeit a little late. uhmhm. :)

Oh, I suppose it's safe to mention that it can be hard enough to trust yourself to do something you're going to be pleased with, nevermind trusting someone else, but there's a magic in it that you won't find soloing, like opening a christmas present and seeing what's inside. Whether you like the present or not isn't really the point in this kind of excercise, it's analogous to christmas in that it's about sharing.

[Giotto]

"Painters are not in any way unsociable through pride, but either because they find few pursuits equal to painting, or in order not to corrupt themselves with conversation and so debase the imaginings in which they are absorbed." (Michelangelo)

G

PS It has been said he worked 16-20 hours a day because he believed only he could create the detail and nuance of his best work. He once fell asleep while working on a sculpture...an apprentice took the hammer from his hand and some of his skin came off with it. So he did collaborate but only to the extent he had to to accomplish his goals.

Helas quelle dolour –voici quelle joie! (Alas what pain – behold what joy!)

[jOe~]

I can see that Joe, but sometimes art just happens, no planning or limited anyway, few rules, spontaneity, feeling as opposed to thought, process as opposed to planning or design, the simple act of doing.Of course that's the way it is...if you don't confuse my use of the word mind with thinking. When you see the beauty in being alive, art can and does happen anywhere without provocation. There is a difference between self expression as an internal art activity and creating for the joy, or job, of making something for art's sake or commission gathering.

[underfoot]

just getting away from the philosophy of collaboration,
In the mid 50's a group of artists got together in saskatchewan and made stuff together. As far as I know it is still going, (Emma Lake Project)
through visiting artists, the concept evolved and spread like a virus worldwide.
I go to one in New Zealand every second year (CollaboratioNZ) and it's about as much fun as you can have.

50-60 artists from all over the world,sculptors,painters metalheads,glass, ceramics,jewellers, multimedia etc, etc , even had a neon artist and upholstery artist,
just about every thing is supplied by the organisers and local artists, forges, foundry, glass kilns, wood machinery,paints ,tools and a huge pile of resource (junk) materials.
There is no agenda, no rules,and no ego's, just combine materials, tools, artists and stir,
all pieces get auctioned at the end to help fund the next one.
and, most importantly,its not about the ART. or the finished object,
it's about the making

[underfoot]

a couple more pics

[underfoot]

just getting away from the philosophy of collaboration,
In the mid 50's a group of artists got together in saskatchewan and made stuff together. As far as I know it is still going, (Emma Lake Project)
through visiting artists, the concept evolved and spread like a virus worldwide.
I go to one in New Zealand every second year (CollaboratioNZ) and it's about as much fun as you can have.

50-60 artists from all over the world,sculptors,painters metalheads,glass, ceramics,jewellers, multimedia etc, etc , even had a neon artist and upholstery artist,
just about every thing is supplied by the organisers and local artists, forges, foundry, glass kilns, wood machinery,paints ,tools and a huge pile of resource (junk) materials.
There is no agenda, no rules,and no ego's, just combine materials, tools, artists and stir,
all pieces get auctioned at the end to help fund the next one.
and, most importantly,its not about the ART. or the finished object,
it's about the making

[furby]

Yeah i had a painter who does similar figurative work but in 2d, & 2 sculptors who do totally abstract work ask me to collaborate. I can't for the life of me work out how the hell it would be able to occur.

The painter, i like his work, and he seems a nice guy, i will try to do something with him maybe. i still have no idea how. but i guess you just let it happen, why not.

The 2 sculptors - yeah, no. abstract work - i can't figure why they would want my figures in their totally different work unless they just wanted some actual "life" involved in order to attempt to be more saleable. One of them wanted some figures that he could mould & then use over & over & change them. i don't like that idea at all, not in the slightest.... he would pay me a small amount (doesn't want to actually pay me much of course) for a couple of bodies & then reuse them over & over forever. I think that stinks, quite frankly.

also if you're a sculptor, bloody make your own figures, far out!

;)

[ironman]

hi, I've never collaborated with anyone but myself!
The only person with whom I'd like to collaborate with is my younger brother. He's more creative than me but not at all driven to make art. He also defers to me, his older brother on most things and I fear I'd take over the project or else I'd check my ego at the door, defer to him and lose myself in the process. I do think that we could out Chapman the Chapman brothers but it'll probably never happen.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[evaldart]

I'd love to collaberate with my brother, but on music...but he'd never have me...I'm too crappy a player.

[furby]

i guess we can console ourselves that we're awesome sculptors & thats why we never had time to learn to play music...

[Blacksun]

I have an upcoming 2 person museum exhibition with a photographer. I know his work, and he knows mine... He told me what he was exhibiting, including some new formats and combination imagery...that sparked an idea with me and I'm combining some of my more traditional stone pieces with some wood assemblage.... Not a collaboration on an individual piece, but on an entire exhibit....

[suburbanartists]

I have an upcoming 2 person museum exhibition with a photographer. I know his work, and he knows mine... He told me what he was exhibiting, including some new formats and combination imagery...that sparked an idea with me and I'm combining some of my more traditional stone pieces with some wood assemblage.... Not a collaboration on an individual piece, but on an entire exhibit....

I like collaboration in this way. Collaboration like in the style of the "schools" of old (Hudson river, early impressionists etc.) To me a small group can inspire and push each other to much further places than they would go on their own. Yet here they still maintain their individual voices.

Collaboration used to go farther, not to compromised and be held back.

Inspiration much like what's going on in the olympics now with the swim team. If they can do the seemingly impossible than so can I.