Seeking out for information using push und pull mechanisms to be „up-to-date“. The push describes getting information being pushed to us by trusted and reliable sources, multiple curators or editors who already filtered topic related information or knowledge. Pulling means that you actively look out for or discover new sources of information which could be potentially interesting for the research topic.
Sensing is the mechanism that follows the aggregation of information. Reflect on the gathered information, sort out or prioritize, contextualize and connect it to pre-existing information or knowledge and finally embed it into the own model of thinking.
Sharing is not meant to be only redirecting, reposting or retweeting information that you find, but rather prepare it for the future to reference it to a specific group or person where the resource might fit.
So when I find an interesting talk, I can put it into context and make it efficient to use as a resource for another person. I already spend the time collecting specific information that fit my interests, why should someone also spend the same amount of time in the first place. If it resonates with the person they are still able to watch it in full length. So this becomes a more collaborative process of sharing, not the source that I found, but the work I already put in to make it available to others.
So what differentiates the shareable knowledge from the blog?
The blog is helping for the overall reflection of the accumulated information and also a way of storytelling while I am in the process of doing the actual work.
This is what bugs me the most about the media art projects I am currently doing. The process of learning isn’t communicated but for myself it is always the most valuable part. So I created more process-based works, which are able to change or get released in sequences or chapters. That process of production gives me the freedom of trying different approaches to the same work of art while actually producing it. But the learning process is still not included, it only enables change through time in form of iterations which is the first step of narrowing the circle of research and production.
When I started with filmmaking 8 years ago, I was always against having a static and pre-developed screenplay. I was more of a guerrilla filmmaking type of guy. Using only available resources, filming with a low budge camera with almost no additional gear and especially no film crew. With this approach you can change almost everything at anytime because you didn’t invested a lot of money for resources that can get eliminated through the process, you didn’t spend a lot of time pre-defining it and even more significant communicating it, syncing the whole team for this one vision. That traditional way, filmmaking becomes a pure act of managing and not creating and testing and dealing with the environment and circumstances in that specific moment.
That opportunity of making changes on the fly I also see when I work as a media trainer in filmmaking projects with kids and teenagers. There is only a short time for creating ideas and planning the shot. But this is also an advantage, because the participants get really fast into the making, all having a rough vision of what we are going to make. In the process we tend to sit down in two or three sessions to validate the story again and what has to be done to complete it.
This experience also translates back into the work I am currently doing: learning out load, sharing knowledge and ideas within a team or a community to create shorter feedback loops and increase the opportunity of new ideas along the process.
When I reflect my work in university I sometimes forget about the process of creation, where I got my knowledge from, what and how I learned and what decision I made. So when the project is ready for an exhibition, the text writing part, articulating the message or idea, gets really difficult. It is not a skill that we getting taught, every discipline handles it different with the different focuses and approaches from the professors. But also the personal preferences and intents of the students differ. Some works are focused on visuals, others tent to be more conceptual. Some are sharing consistently their work on Social Media or online portfolios, some do it just on the request to do so. I was on the request side, mainly because the more conceptual the project gets the more explanation is needed to fully communicate the depth of the project because the visual part is only one of the two.
For me personally, by shifting the intent of doing conceptual media art to doing art-based research, the artwork transforms into a byproduct of creating knowledge. It is a further resource with its own style or code of readability which always makes it harder for referencing it. But that is a problem I see in every kind of knowledge creating field that gets to a certain level of depth, complexity and abstraction. But this approach leads to a focus on a more text-based documentation of the process and creates a useful resource for like-minded people or researchers in other disciplines.
And this is commit #8!