Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ict_art_connect [2014-05-12 10:15] – nik
+++ ict_art_connect_2014 [2014-05-12 11:30] – nik
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Maja Kuzmanovic from FoAM
-Transcript of the talk on [[foam at ict art connect]].
+Transcript of the talk on [[foam_at_ict_art_connect]].
 Svetlana from Black Cube collective
@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
   * what is the dialogue about giving away personal data
   * 'consent' - 'the rhythm of life' the photon multiplier - why do you emit photons? + looking at metadata
-  * www.dataethics.org
+  * http://www.dataethics.org
 Hacking choreography 2.0
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
   * IOT - sensors separate from visualisation
-crowd control
+KrowdKontrol
   * improv, creating decisions in the moment
   * crowds - how can you interact with the performance
@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
+Dr Camille Baker Brunel University
+Summary of the project
+  * different matchmaking events, with different audiences and approaches
+Themes that emerged from the project:
+  * need for infrastructure to support ICT&Art collaborations (collaborative centres, sustainable platforms, hubs, matchmaking events
+  * funding - more diversified and flexible
+  * open ended projects (as opposed to working towards a particular outcome)
+  * need for access - funding, domain specific information, networking…
+  * sustainability and dissemination
+  * training
+  * communication & support
+  * transparency
+  * collaboration, collaboration, collaboration
+Lucas Evers Waag Society
+Process, challenges and recommendations
+  * process from open calls to pilot projects
+  * diversity of projects
+  * challenges: time, developing confidence, learning the methodologies and language, financial restrictions, personalities, managing expectations
+  * recommendations: more time, but ultra-short term models work as well, more financial support (on different levels, better economies of art-science collaboration!, mentoring, documentation & dissemination, more diverse modes of involving artists as experts, bring different stakeholders together based on crucial challenges (like privacy, biodiversity…), rather than creating large platforms for collaboration that no one can find.
+Marta Antonioni (Sigma Orionis), Svetlana Kondakova (Black Cube Collective), Michela Magas (Stromatolite)
+Recommendations and legacy of the project
+  * engage artists in the whole process: art interrogating research questions
+  * frameworks to involve a large number of different stakeholders
+  * education
+  * identifying relevant meeting spots
+  * regional diversity…
+  * mentoring with mentors external to the project
+  * matchmaking worked very well, should continue. perhaps more targeted and have other disciplines except art & ICT
+  * languages: it is necessary to keep specialist languages (scientists must have a way to talk about deep details, artists look more at horizontal scanning, both need to find a way to talk to citizens)
+  * large mission - easy to get lost in, scientists can help with methodological rigour. the artists provide a large, long term vision that scientists might not dare to propose - a way not to stick to the brief. there should be an artist in every scientific project
+Roger Torrenti (moderating a discussion)
+  * FP7: Creativity unit in CONNECT
+  * bringing engineers (and engineering to art schools
+  * how to bring the kind of thinking developed in art&science projects and bring it to out domains
+=== misc. & various ===
+  * [[wp>The Two Cultures]] and [[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5353/992|The Third Culture]]
+  * http://malina.diatrope.com/2013/05/19/a-history-of-the-leonardo-journal-on-the-100th-anniversary-of-the-birth-of-its-founder-frank-j-malina/