ANne Nigten
V2 Lab, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
with Cãlin Dan (Romania/the Netherlands) and Thecla Schiphorst, Simon Fraser University (Canada)

As a guideline for this chapter I consider it important to provide some information about the domain to which I refer. In the digital art domain, several types of electronic arts can be distinguished, such as:

1. Digitised art works; digitalisation of works that have been created in the analogue domain. This is usually done for archiving, documentation or publication purposes; I will not refer to this category in this essay.
2. Static artworks produced with software tools in the digital domain. These tools are commercially or non-commercially available to create and to distribute work, e.g. prints, digital paintings etc. I will not refer to this category either.
3. Dynamic and interactive artworks produced with software tools in the digital domain. There is a whole range of works that should be included here as time-based media productions both linear and non-linear. Moreover, interactive productions can also include linear video and audio productions, as audio-visual elements of interactive pieces, performing arts etc.
4. Code-based art works 1 where software and/or hardware are the primary part of the art work.

I will emphasise the last two categories: “dynamic and interactive artworks” and “code-based artworks”.

The shift in production team constellations that is currently taking place in the electronic arts, will be elaborated. One can see a shift from projects developed from a single discipline to multi-disciplinary and/or mixed-discipline projects. When referring to the code-based artworks category, however, several references will occur to dynamic and interactive artworks produced with software tools as well as video and audio productions in interactive pieces.

This text forms part of a survey into ways of working and profiles of those involved in the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration process within the electronic arts. This research contains several observations from work developed in the V2_Lab, in the period from 1998 until the present (mid 2002). I will mainly refer to observations from work developed in the V2_Lab2 and works that have been presented at V2_ 3 The Happy Doomsday! project by Cãlin Dan and the whisper project described by Thecla Schiphorst are included as two case studies.

This essay concentrates on the roles of people in development teams and the position of the artist in different kinds of work processes. From experience of working in the V2_Lab, it appeared logical to examine ways in which artists work in different team constellations, rather than to base profiles on the kinds of work created. The purpose of the study is to understand more about the process of making work and what this can eventually contribute to proposing models for collaboration between art and science in the field of design, soft- and hardware research, development and production processes. The aim is to discover commonalities, parallels or contradicting insights among different ways of working in the research and development area. The results should allow for a more detailed analysis of team constellations and ways of working together in the field of art, engineering and computer science. The hope is that this can contribute to a better understanding of the work methods in this field, and provide information that could be of benefit to other sectors, such as computer science. Several issues that are only briefly touched upon here are dealt with in more detail in other chapters or will be the subject of future study.

Artists have reacted in different ways to the tremendous impact of technology on our daily lives. The fact that these technologies are still in a developmental stage only serves to reinforce this diversity. Some artists reflect upon media from the periphery or through using traditional materials. Others go a step further and build their own media technology, and transform or design it for entirely different purposes, beyond the remit of pure comfort- or functionality-driven design. Underlying my motivation to describe or propose models for interdisciplinary collaboration is a firm belief that the design of media technology (and technology in general) should no longer be regarded as a purely technical issue. The impact of media technology on our cultural and social life means that collaboration in the design process is not only found in creating tools, nor for exclusively artistic purposes. Even “useless” concepts can be of cultural importance, and concepts or experiences are an important approach to perceiving technology and its role.

Outside my daily work environment, representatives from other fields also seem to experience the collaboration process as a complexity of unexpected collisions between partners from different backgrounds. My observations turned out to be as relevant for scientists as for artists and engineers. Looking into the reports of different collaborators in the fields of art, science and engineering, they showed astonishing parallels with obstacles I observed and outline later. Several issues mentioned, such as different work methods and misunderstandings caused by different vocabularies, could be the result of divergent expectations. Unexpected obstacles can arise when one member of the team takes an interdisciplinary collaboration approach as a point of departure, while the other partners use a multidisciplinary collaboration model. V2_Lab is mainly involved in software/hardware-based art and software to support artistic development, following two collaboration models, based respectively on a multidisciplinary approach and an interdisciplinary approach. Although “multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” are often used synonymously, I refer here to the definition of these terms provided by the dictionary:4 “multi” is defined as “many” and “inter” as “between, among, mutually, reciprocally”.

In this short discussion I’ll elaborate on the work methods that seem to apply to the multidisciplinary and the interdisciplinary processes, in an attempt to provide more insight and understanding of the aims, the goals and the difficulties one can encounter. I refer to these two approaches and not to the outcomes of the processes, since different artistic qualities derive from both approaches, and these work process are referred to as indicators of quality or importance. It should be emphasised that a mix of these approaches is common and comes about in different parts of the work, and in different phases of one single artistic research and development project. The distinction made here between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary is meant to provide more understanding of the way things are developed in the contemporary electronic arts and code-based art productions.

In multidisciplinary projects the artist(s) brings in knowledge from other, non-technical or less technically oriented areas; existing technical applications and research are re-used or combined in other constellations or for other purposes.

The collaboration model has several parallels to audio-visual or movie productions. The input of the team depends a great deal on the freedom provided by the artist, who is usually the team director. This artist-led work model can be found in several other art disciplines outside media practice. In general, an artist-directed team realises an art project after the initial artistic concept. The professions represented in these teams vary according to the skills of the artist and the project requirements, e.g. project manager, visual/audio designer, hard-/software programmers, interaction designer, guest researchers etc. The backgrounds of the people involved in the development of the project, and their technical, engineering jargon, is usually rather remote from the language spoken or used by the artist/director. Often an interpreter or mediator (usually the project manager or the coordinator) plays a key role in translating these different working methods and the jargon used, and interpreting text and communication using specialist knowledge. The graphical user interface (GUI) can be looked upon as a metaphor for the communication between all the disciplines involved; the iconography in storyboards, software architecture drawings and flow charts all have a role to play in communicating the remote backgrounds and vocabularies. It is interesting to note that many multidisciplinary projects have a strong focus on the GUI.

On some occasions the need for non-existing soft- or hardware becomes apparent during the creation process. In the event of repeated requests or a common need, new development trajectories start up either in laboratories or by individuals working in the art and engineering field.

Multi-tasking as a phenomenon – in the sense of one person carrying out several tasks simultaneously – is as common to the electronic arts scene as to any field in the media world these days. In multidisciplinary collaboration projects the role generally played by artists, besides being the conceptual motor and director, is often the one of (co-) producer and (co-) organiser, sometimes also audio or visual designer.

Below, Cãlin Dan describes the project Happy Doomsday!, developed when he was an artist in residence at the V2_Lab in 1998. Besides being an artist, Dan currently works as an art director for a multimedia production company in the Netherlands.

The audience testing of HD! took place during the Ars Electronica Festival 6 in Linz (2000), where a single fitness machine was installed with the work in progress. The second presentation, with two machines, took place during the Dutch Electronic Arts Festival7 in Rotterdam. Besides a lot of impressive visualisations of cultural importance, the HD! installation also provided a set of insights into ways of encouraging audience participation. This drew partly on lessons learned from gaming, but without the competitive element.

The team working on Happy Doomsday! consisted of soft- and hardware developers, an interaction designer, 2D and 3D visual designers, a sound designer, graffiti artists and a production manager.

Dan had the role of director, and designed the overall concept. He also pre-designed all the visuals and prepared all action scripts in collaboration with the interaction designer. His presence during the process was important, ensuring feedback and the reinforcement of the concept throughout the whole process. As happens in a lot of experimental art pieces, some of his visions turned out to be based on future technology, some of which was realised by smart, small innovations by the team, and some had to be left out.

My observations in the V2_Lab over the past few years indicate that artists involved in a multidisciplinary work process fit into an (updated) profile matching single or multi-discipline oriented engineers and scientists. All the team members bring in their specialist expertise, which often results in re-purposing or building on existing software and/or hardware and the creation of new or other functionality for soft-/hardware and research. This work often creates a new context for research or soft-/hardware, which includes a critical reflection on the daily use of technology, mentioned above. This usually involves an exchange on the conceptual level in terms of ideas, expertise and aesthetics. This exchange seems to be a key factor in these works, and is often the main contribution of an artist. It could be argued that in multidisciplinary collaborations the artistic concept functions as a connection machine, combining ideas and work from different fields in a new context and raising awareness or stimulating reflection.

Further more, a general observation is that a multidisciplinary approach often uses existing software tools and pre-developed software, as well as audiovisual productions (with or without interactive elements) embedded in the artwork. The various elements are usually combined and connected as a total entity. The way most multidisciplinary projects are constructed is comparable to a combination of finished research, whether this is created by third parties or by project sub teams. In Science in Action, Bruno Latour8 refers to this within a scientific research trajectory as “black boxed”, or ready-made science. The scientists or engineers involved in multidisciplinary projects, who have excess to the ‘black boxes’, adjust their work according the needs and ideas generated in the artistic process. Thus the new or innovative work generated in multidisciplinary collaboration is mostly brought back to the members’ original discipline. The discourse used to describe the work often has different versions according the audience and the team member representing the work, the artist’s description is often based in art and (media) culture vocabulary.

Over the last few decades an increasing number of artists have taken the step of learning (formally or informally) programming skills, in order to avoid the tedious aspects of multidisciplinary collaboration, such as misunderstandings and dependency. This often results in an entirely different form of collaboration, which could be classified as interdisciplinary. A truly interdisciplinary approach involves the artists not only working with a team, but also participating in a collective process. The artist-director’s role here is different from the one in multidisciplinary collaborations. As well as being a conceptual supervisor, the artist involved in interdisciplinary projects often participate “hands-on” in the creation process. The feel of the material, the personal touch of the programmed parts, or the need to understand the technological matter can be crucial elements. Like in other art disciplines this academism has been subject of discussion among artists working with technology and technicians for many years, to cut this discussion short it can be stated that a certain understanding of technological development on the artists’ side and a certain understanding of artistic practice on the technicians and scientists’ side is very useful. A desire to explore, design or understand contemporary or future technology or technology concepts is often just as important as the conceptualisation process.

The jargon used by artists working in interdisciplinary collaborations is often a mixture of art and technological vocabulary. The collective creation process often includes input and collaborative problem-solving or creative innovation by the team. Usually the artistic concept and the code are intertwined; the technique becomes an important element of the concept and the concept is the drive to develop or adjust the technology. Software- or hardware-based artworks are usually developed as a team effort where the artist works together with the technicians, designers and researchers. This requires a more prominent conceptual role on the part of the team members: not only do they bring in expertise, they become actively involved in the conceptual design and development.

The professions represented in these teams vary according to the work and most people have several tasks, e.g. project management, visual/audio design and programming, hard-/ software design and programming, interaction design, research etc. This results in a shift in the profile of the artist as well as the profile of the engineers and scientists. All the team members must be able to speak different languages or jargons; they have to be open to the need to understand the others, and be motivated to work according to unfamiliar methods derived from another discipline(s). This also requires the willingness and patience to invest time in something from which the outcome is not entirely predictable, and the openness to deal with unexpected “accidents” because the team is co-constructing crucial conceptual elements throughout the work process.

Below, Thecla Schiphorst (Canada) describes the whisper project which she is developing with Susan Kozel, Kristina Anderson, Julie Tolmie, Norm Jaffe, Sang Mah, Jan Erkke, Andruid Kerne, Stock, V2_Lab and others). I use this to illustrate the interdisciplinary work method as a case study. Schiphorst is a Vancouver-based media artist and Associate Professor in the Computer Arts and Design Sciences Programme at Simon Fraser University. Her formal education and training in computing science and dance form the interdisciplinary basis of her work, which integrates models of scientific representation with experiential physical practices and methodologies.

As reflected in her text, Schiphorst’s multi-tasking role is rooted in different areas of expertise all brought together in the project. She is part of the conceptual motor, assembling different research areas, while simultaneously she is involved in the technical development, and she brings in her own research trajectory.

In comparison with multidisciplinary collaborations, the development of interdisciplinary works tends to be more process-based and less predefined. Interdisciplinary collaborations often have the need to use parts, or adjust software to create a new work rather then to repurpose software or combine existing software. The use of non- “black boxed” software is preferable in these situations. “Open source” and “free” software should, in this context, be considered as “open box” software and are especially interesting for interdisciplinary collaborations. Not only can one delve back into the history of existing open source software to better understand it, but the developed software also provides possibilities for new software development directions, maybe even ending in a hybrid area between art, engineering, and computer science. In addition, open source- or freesoftware – as well as other open concepts – brings about interesting intersections showing the added value of the combined effort created by artist involvement in the field of creative technological development. The dis-functionality or other insights provided by interdisciplinary projects could in this way enter the technological field and technical science could impinge upon the art world.

Once informed about the different ways people operate in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations, there is an awareness of the confusion and misunderstandings that might arise. Most commonly these obstacles are overcome by means of human “bridge builders”. Here I refer to people, working in mixed research and development teams, who are able and willing to put effort in the communication using different vocabularies, or who are motivated to establish fruitful exchange and collaboration between people from different domains. It turns out that a key person (usually the project manager or the coordinator) performs this role in multidisciplinary collaborations, such as Robert Schroter10, professor of the department of Bioengineering at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London (UK). Schroter is involved in the research and development of zero gravity experiments11 with the French choreographer Kitsou Dubois.12 He acknowledges the importance of art as one of the “fuzzy areas” that contextualise scientific research through offering it more unexpected angles. For him, the process of making art matches his way of working, which appears unconventional. The effort he puts into the art-science projects in which he is involved reflects his belief in the value art can bring to science and vice versa.

Besides project managers and bridge builders such as Schroter, I have observed another group of bridge builders in the field of art, engineering and science who often perform this role in interdisciplinary collaborations. Earlier I briefly mentioned the changing profile of the artists, engineers, and computer scientists involved in interdisciplinary collaboration to create artworks. A growing number of artists are working in a mixed field combining art, engineering and/or computer science. This significant shift seems obvious in a technology-driven age. It is manifested in an artist profile different from those we are familiar with from regular or traditional (fine) arts.

There are several questions attached to this shift: is it caused by the high profile or status of science, or is it the lack of interest from the scientific community in collaborating with media artists (or a lack of interest on the part of artists in widening their scope), or the lack of direct commercial value? I would argue that all of these factors are relevant and that it is difficult to pinpoint a single underlying cause. Looking into the (short) history of media art, several artistengineers- scientists have performed dual roles in the technology field, such as Dick Raaijmakers13 (the Netherlands), Dan Sandin14 (United States), and Nell Tenhaaf (Canada). I have worked with a number of artists who have shown an impressive combined profile as artist-researcher, artist-scientist or artist-engineer, if not several of these embodied in one person.

These combined professions are becoming an important bridge between art, engineering and science. Peter Weibel has phrased this in art@science15 as : “The question how much art and science are approaching each other must therefore be answered on the level of methodology If we could imagine an individuum, intelligent enough and comprehensively educated, this individuum could move in both universes freely.” It is important to note that he takes the view that art and science are methods. Although I’m not sure whether (all) the artists, researchers and engineers I refer to in this text are the Star Trek characters Weibel is hoping for, it is worth paying attention to these multi-taskers, both in practice and in the art and science theoretical discourses.

These artists-researchers-engineers seem to be able to function in at least two different disciplines, not only by reflecting on the fields they are involved in, but also by contributing to the interdisciplinary art, engineering and technical science theory and practice. This should not only be considered of (future) interest for artistic research and development; these people also work as mediators for (computer) science in artistic developments and visa versa. This task should not be underestimated in the light of the increasingly dominant role of technology in our daily lives. The art and cultural experience will be more and more mediated and this requires insight into other fields and working methods, other goals and other target groups than those with which most technical researchers are currently familiar.

Special thanks to all contributors, my V2_ colleagues, Cathy Brickwood16 and Prof. Lynda Hardman.17

Please note corrections were made to the footnotes on 27th June 2005

1.  More details on this can be found in the essay 'Code based art' I wrote for the catalogue of 'transmediale.00', international media art festival, Berlin
2.  V2_Lab, international lab for the unstable media is the aRt&D department of V2_ in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, www.v2.nl and www.v2.nl/V2_Lab
3.  Most project descriptions can be found at our websitewww.v2.nl
4.  source: Oxford handy
5.  Section of the text by Cãlin Dan published in 'The art of the accident' V2_Organisation, editor in chief: Joke Brouwer, published by Nai Publishers. Happy Doomsday by Cãlin Dan, is produced in 1998 in the V2_Lab, in co-operation with Ars Electronica Centre, Linz, Austria. Info on the project can be found at: http://archive.v2.nl/
6.  The Ars Electronica Festival is organised by the Ars Electronica Centre in Linz, Austria www.aec.at
7.  The Dutch Electronic Art Festival is organised by V2_Organisation in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, www.v2.nl
8.  Bruno Latour, Science in action, published by Harvard University press, Cambridge Massachusetts
9.  Information on the work of Thecla Schiphorst can be found at http://whisper.surrey.sfu.ca/who.html
10.  http://www.bg.ic.ac.uk/staff/rcschroter/
11.  http://www.ic.ac.uk/templates/text_3.asp?P=2521
12.  Information on Kitsou Dubois' work can be found at http://www.ic.ac.uk/templates/text_3.asp?P=2521
13.  Several texts and publications by Dick Raaijmakers can be found at http://www.v2.nl/
14.  Information on work by Dan Sandin can be found at http://www.evl.uic.edu/dan/
15.  Art@science edited by Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau, published by Springer Verlag Wien
16.  Thanks to Cathy Brickwood for grammar and English checks
17.  Prof. dr. Lynda Hardman, Group head Multimedia and Human-Computer Interaction, CWI, Member of the Information Systems group at the Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands http://www.cwi.nl/~lynda

    - continue to CH 8 - Collaborative Working Methods: The Banff Method

    - return to the table of contents

     

    © ANne Nigten 2004. The right of ANne Nigten to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

    All material supplied via the Arts and Humanities Data Service is protected by copyright, and duplication or sale of all or any part of it is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your personal research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. Permission for any other use must be obtained from the Arts and Humanities Data Service.

    Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise, to any third party.