This part of the site is in development. LAB participant/ documenter Amy Cox will be working on collected responses to the following questions and making adjustments and additions to this page in the coming weeks. In addition, participant Wolfgang Reitberger may be invited to share some observations from his studies in human-computer interface design.


Post-COLLAB Questions:

Analysis of working together:

  • How did you experience the process of collaborating in your group and how far was it different to the first groups of the lab or previous collaborations you were involved in?
  • What are for you the differences, the advantages and/ or disadvantages of working alone opposed to collaborating in a group?
  • When and why were you departing from your group's first ideas? Was it easy or difficult for you to drop some ideas?

Analysis of work made (your project):

  • What were your initial questions and interests that brought up the project you created?
  • How does the material you came up with (use of space, performer, audience, set-up, visual media/textĚ.) relate to each other?
    • What are the specific qualities of the project you are working on? (looking at size constellation, and position of the material and the bodies)
    • What are the qualities of the images and sounds you chose? content, position and size?
    • What are the connections between the qualities of A & B?

Analysis of work made (other projects):

  • Drawing on the above questions, comment on what you experienced and/ or saw in the other projects.

Analysis of structure of the lab:

  • Comment on the organization of the event in terms of supporting the making process: what worked for you and what didn't; under what conditions did you feel most creative, etc.

Post-COLLAB Notes


AMY: With new media and interactivity, there is a shift in the relationship between performer and audience. I am curious about this desire to bring an audience into newly mediated territory. What happens to illusion in these new spaces? to magic? What, if anything, replaces the virtuosic performer?

KATRINA BROWN: I notice more and more the differences between myself as a performer and as an artist/maker. In a more recognizable performance set-up I can clearly negotiate and recognize the two roles with their different spaces , needs and egos. In more interactive situations I still do not know ho to negotiate the dialogue between these two roles. Less sure where to place myself as a performer. I love performing...kick...ego...maybe, but also art in itself and in interactive set-ups, whether as partaker or audience, I do sometimes miss the performer. But some other dynamic is present which also fascinates me, but fascinates more the maker in me. Also as an audience I am fascinated how a more interactive piece can involve me and touch me in a very real way. Has the possibility to enter into my more normal life situation. But there again, indeed, where is the illusion and magic, and the need for these things...are they less now? The need and desire for virtuosity remains....

Collaboration and Final Projects:Melissa/Nicola

MELISSA COLEMAN: As a teenager I did theatre workshops and through these I developed a liking for improvisation. Whatever pops into your head is the idea that you're going to develop. I have found that the results are often surprising and interesting. You're forced to see possibilities and work with simplicity. For this reason I prefer the quick process for working creatively.

The longer process was enjoyable because it took away the pressure of having to present all the time. I worked with Neda, Lara, Phil and every so often Katrina. Although I liked the small intimate space that we made, I think it was mostly an experiment in form. Normally I work very conceptually. My basic interest lies in what a participant may experience in an installation. What feelings/social processes am I trying to tap into? What symbols am I using? We didn't really discuss these things in our collaboration, we just made things. This was for me a different way of working than what I'm used to. We didn't really drop many ideas, we just tried different things.

We focused on views of the body, seen from the intimate space that we built. Digital bodies that look like real bodies. Real bodies that manipulate digital images. Images of real bodies that are being manipulated by digital space. I love bodies, so I enjoyed that. We had live input that was manipulated through Isadora and a 3D movie made in Poser. Another thing we played with were different experiences for being on your back and looking up at a projected ceiling - I remember a field of seventies dots & a moving starry sky. I also remember a moment where I was in the box and Phil pushed his head and his hand against the standing projection screen (which was a wall in the intimate space). This made an isolated abstracted image of his face and hand. We communicated through this. I think that, looking back, that was to me the most interesting image and experience of that project.

I don't think the collab experience really changed much in how I approach my work. It was however very inspiring to work with so many talented and passionate people. I also got to work with some software that I wasn't aware of before the collab, which may be useful in future projects. The focus that is asked for during such a week, the great amount of audio-visual input and ideas and the playful atmosphere really reconnected me to my senses. In the week after I remember seeing beauty everywhere that would probably have gone unnoticed had I done something different that week. This was nice, because generally speaking I'm not a very visually oriented person.

About the collaboration in the collab. I found that people very easily adopted and extended eachother's ideas. I didn't ever feel like one person or another dominated the process. The only problem that I had is that I'm more productive when I work by myself. I think it would have been beneficial if I'd had a laptop with me that week. I think the presentations that we had to do at the end of most days were very helpful, as it forces you to define what it is that you've made.

NICOLA HEPP: The groups I took part in during the Collab all had in common that the idea for the project seemed to come from all of us. There were no preconceived ideas about what something would be like. In that sense we contributed equally to the project. but it also felt less precious, it's a project you make together but because the whole idea of the collab was to collaborate and learn from the process, I felt that for me the actual result was of less importance.

When I collaborate with people in my own work I have a different role because we work from a concept that stems from me. Even though this can change in interacting with my collaborators, it is still my project. I would find it interesting to really develop a project from scratch together with someone else - but I think it would have to be someone you have affinity with for it to really feel like your work. So far I haven't found that or those persons, although a few people I have been or are collaborating with could be candidates for the future.

My experience with the collab was good. I enjoyed the working process with the others, actually in each group I was in, we had an interesting working period, however short. On my part there was even a quite immediate outcome from the Collab - I have since collaborated with both Anne Gentenaar and Anne Parlevliet, both of whom worked with Chris and myself in the final groups.