October 30, 2007
October 29, 2007
After our meeting, The M mustered his courage to write the final draft. This is what was sent to the people at Das Arts this morning regarding our thoughts on humor in the arts, and how we, The MOST, might approach a curriculum in this vein:
The Spirit of Humor
The aim of humor is discovery, and the province of humor is human nature. Humor is a vessel that slyly conveys themes and ideas, even when those themes and ideas are difficult, serious, or frightening. Laughing out loud can lead to serious trouble, wile being too serious can be funny business.
Humor and Process
Humor is largely a side effect of process. Humor requires the setting of a context and the surprising or insightful alteration of that context. Context evolves from the development of processes: patterns, narratives, or reliances on expectations.
Vulnerability in Humor
Humor is learned through practice, but often the failure of the intention is what meets the goal: trying to be funny is sometimes harder than being accidentally funny. For the practitioner, setting out to discover humor makes a person vulnerable and requires courage. In order to explore it, parameters of emotional safety have to be set and gentleness implemented. Working collaboratively in a safe situation allows for failure without losing faith. The ability to tell the same joke again and again until someone laughs at it is valuable.
There Are Mentors, and There Are Experts
The M.O.S.T. recognizes that although humor is an integral part of their artistic output, they are not experts on the subject. The members of the M.O.S.T. see themselves as facilitators for artistic and humorous discovery, rather than experts on the subjects. Visiting guests are the source of expertise.
Collectivity and Collaboration
Mystical/Poetic Research and Action
At our weekly meeting last night, The MOST talked about our writing efforts of the last week. We had discussions about how the writing as it stands feels like food with too much salt, or like something you'd eat that needs an ingredient you can't quite put your finger on.
We also talked a lot about how we are being asked to write about humor and create a curriculum about humor, but that we don't necessarily see ourselves or Mostlandia as something that strives to be humorous.
We talked about how people in Mostlandia might approach being told that they must have some deep insights into humor. We think that Mostlandics might not be able to see what is so funny about their lives. As such, they would likely form a committee to explore whether or not that assumption is true, and to what extent. It may be that Mostlandia, at its most mundane, might actually be humorous to Citizens of Other Places, and the committee would be responsible for discovering what that is about.
We spent a lot of time discussing acronyms for this committee. Humorous Extension on Living Protocols/Projects. Huge Exploration of Laughter/Lost/Projects. Discovery of Everyday Situations Klub. Thoughtful Entertainment and Everyday Situations....
We eventually settled on: The Group for Aesthetics and Silliness in Everyday Situations (GASES)
Jen, the S of the MOST, and I also sat down to further suss out the curriculum structure at Khris's bequest. He was confused about how it tied into the humor part of the writing. We had a long discussion about how detailed or general this needed to be. I also had a lot of questions about what Jen meant from the previous version. After our conversation, I tried my hand at making the curriculum structure writing more fluid. It might be that I just have a different writing style than Jen.
We're still working out this idea, and so the writing reflects two people trying to wordsmith four people's ideas. I think it comes out as a little confusing, or dense, but later posts will hopefully clarify. Think of this as a work in progress.
Here's what came of that:
In approaching the structure of this block, we have identified 3 working principles that we see feeding into how we want to relate to the students and to the activities we will provide. These principles are: individuality, collectivism and mystical/poetic research and action.
As a group, the MOST wrestles with the dynamic of being strongly independent individuals and artists yet having a commitment to a true collaborative working practice. This dynamic requires focused listening, respect for the creative process and believing in the value of working together, and would be reflected clearly in our approach to being facilitators for the Humor block. Our relationship to the participants is really about us desiring to be partners in the manifestation of projects or practices that are initiated by the group or the students. We intend to honor the existing practices and processes of the individual and engage with students in a way that honors their needs and desires.
Additionally, we are interested in initiating dynamics of collective camaraderie between block participants. In light of our desire to allow students to retain individuality, we hope to engage students through directed group activities that reflect some of our working processes. The types of activities we would offer are based in things we have explored together as a group, such as walks and adventures to explore the city, and workshops ranging from consensus building to planning large scale frameworks for working towards desired outcomes. We feel that one of our strengths as a group is that we are able to navigate the territory between the needs of the individual and the individual’s desires to connect with others and participate in collective activities similar to those listed above.
Finally, we are interested in designing a structure that will allow for what we describe as mystical or poetic research and activity. This is the place that would allow for unexpected or surreal events to become fun and playful activities. We are interested in exploring and enthusiastically acting upon absurd actions, fantastical suggestions, unexplained insights, and non-linear readings of the linear or concrete world. We see this aspect of our block manifesting in yet-to-be named events that have the possibility for becoming micro-themes or adventures within the block. For the sake of example (but not as an exact plan), we would suggest that participants might want to research “blue” for the whole 10 weeks, or to write a play for 10 minutes every day of the block and act out 10 weeks of plays in one day at the end.
As a continuation of the freewrites from the previous week, The S took a stab at writing a structure for a curriculum The MOST could use in approaching humor. I took a stab at combining our various humor thoughts into something coherent. It came out like this:
In "Modern English Useage", H.W. Fowler describes humor saying that its aim is discovery and its province is human nature. Humor is tied to the everyday and at the same time, it can be a vessel for the conveyance of more serious or threatening themes and ideas. It can breach political and sometimes even frightening ideas and topics by referencing them in a light way. Laughing out loud can cause serious trouble and being too serious is funny business.
Humor is largely a side effect of process. Humor is the methane released by the cow while it digests its food. Humor requires the setting of a context and the surprising or insightful alteration of that context. Context evolves from the development of processes: patterns, narratives, or reliance on expectations.
Humor is learned through practice, but often the failure of the intention is what meets the goal: trying to be funny is sometimes harder than being accidentally funny. For the practitioner, setting out to discover humor makes you vulnerable and requires courage. In order to explore it, parameters of emotional safety have to be set and gentleness enforced within the audience. Working collaboratively provides the best kind of audience, allowing for failure without losing face. It allows us to tell the same bad joke again and again and again until someday people actually laugh at it.
We are interested in humor in life more than humor in art. For us what seems most interesting is to find out what I, you, we care about, deeply, and then to have fun working on projects together. We have fun by taking our wildest dreams and fantastic proposals and making them as real as we can. The absurdity of this can be surreal, fun and sometimes even funny, and this is where we will begin our search.
Freewrite on Structure:
One- Individuality. While we may not always succeed, individuality, individual expression and respect for the individual is an internal value we hold. This would then be one way we would contribute to the design of the block, the choice of visiting artists and how we would bring respect to each student within the block. Meaning, we would each be bringing our perspectives and suggestions to the whole of the design. For example, in our meeting tonight we aimed for each person bringing their perspective to the agenda items and discussion process. Student projects, either collective or individual, would be initiated based on the desire of the student. We would be partners in the unrolling or manifesting of the projects but they would be initiated by the group and/or the student.
Two- Helpful Anarchy. While as individuals or as a collective the MOST may not describe ourselves or identify with being anarchists, the cultural and collective nature of anarchist sensibility is infused into out process and projects and the design work of building a block for humor would naturally have this sensibility as well. Some of these characteristics are: freedom of expression, collective or participatory process, fun and play, and nonhierarchical relationships. I believe we would see ourselves as partners to the students in finding humor, creating humor…? These characteristics would be a natural part of the design process as well as part of the content or experience of the block (not the whole of content and experience but would be a prominent flavor)
Three- Mystical (Poetical?) research and action. This is the place where unexplained insight, Non-linear practices and absurdist or fantastical actions, moves, suggestions, readings of the linear or concrete plane. This would be the background of the possibility of non-artists or unexpected visiting artists may come into play. It also would provide a quality to possible mincro-themes or adventures within the structure of the block (ie Foggy Mondays- I’m not saying here we would have/do foggy Mondays I’m saying something about the kind of themes or possible actions that could occur based on desire and the fantastic- does someone want to research “blue” for the whole ten weeks? Does someone want to write a play every day at 3:10-3:20 and then act our the whole 10 weeks worth of plays in one day at then end?) I don’t know. Hey, maybe I want to do that.
Collective coherence- This might the aspect where we able to bring some kind of Camaraderie to the experience- this could be through morning exercise class, tools for consensus building, how to build frameworks or large (and small?) scale intentions and strategies for working toward desired outcomes. I don’t know how yet to connect this one to humor …. Just of the top of my head at the moment it seems like the CONTENT of the visiting artists would be quite directly humor oriented. Hmmm.
October 23, 2007
The MOST has been trying to write about our philosophy of "Humor in Art." I thought that I might post some information here about our current process is for developing a "group" philosophy.
We usually discuss first whether we are interested in doing the project. We've decided that this will be an interesting exercise, and are now working on some freewrite exercises. We each agreed at our last meeting to take 10-30 minutes writing about our philosophy on humor and how it relates to the MOST. These freewrites are not edited for clarity or coherence. They are just about getting something out on to the page fresh from the brain.
We later decide how to put them together in a coherent fashion that includes everyone's input in a meaningful way. I'll put that version up later.
Below are the freewrites of M, O and a PDF of Rudy, The T of the MOST's, drawing as freewrite. The shapes you see are little talking maps of Mostlandia.
humor takes courage
it requires emotional safety to explore
it requires initial failures (see courage, above)
it requires a the setting of a context and the surprising/insightful alteration of that context
context comes from development of a pattern, or narrative, or reliance on expectations
We set our pattern via meetings. we created emotional safety out of trying to work together and sometimes failing and continuing past that. We found our context (place and bureaucracy) by surprise by investigating our friend's floor, and by listening to one another's interests and quirks.
We have developed a narrative that we sometimes break, and we make one another laugh by continuing to tell the story that has to be told.
working collaboratively with people you trust allows for failure without losing face
it allows you to tell the same bad joke again and again and again until someday people actually laugh at it.
and i think what we're proposing requires a certain amount of gentleness and precision at the same time. by precision i mean adherence to some sort of regular patterns, or regular activities, or continually showing up for work.
and humor isn't in high art. it's not even really jeff koons. it's more vulnerable. it kind of hides in peoples weaknesses. and some people can't laugh at their weaknesses, but those who can have found some kind of gem.
Each consensus workshop is sort of "bookended" by something called a focused conversation. These conversations are meant to get people thinking about what they're about to do, or where they've just been - focusing them on what the intents, outcomes and future work of the workshop is going to be.
I'll put the content of the two focused conversations I lead for the consensus workshop below.
I spent a lot of time thinking about how to start our work on this project. Initially I was trying to decide between starting by discussing what kind of ideas we have for the show, or how we wanted to structure the show, but realized that these approaches would be kind of jumping the gun. With the help of Jen, the S of the MOST, I decided to start our group process with a discussion of our desired outcomes for the show. Jen helped me see that we should have an agreed upon destination in mind before setting out together on the endeavor of deciding content.
Intro Focused Conversation:
Topic: Focusing the group for a consensus workshop about the "Art Takes Place" request for proposals
Rational Aim: To refresh the memory of the group about the content of the RFP, and to gain facts from the RFP (provide copies of RFP for participants to have in hand while doing this)
Experiential Aim: To have participants be excited for the project, and to feel connected and involved in it
Opening: In order to focus for this workshop, let's have a quick conversation about both some of the facts we know about the RFP as well as take a look at our own ideas about it.
Objective Level Questions: (intent for this level: get attention of the group with easy questions, invite participation and recall facts/phrases from the RFP)
Reflective Level Questions: (intents for this level: evoke the use of imagination, reflect on themes , personally engage participants)
Interpretive Level Questions: (intents for this level: connect the RFP to the group, empower group to identify with others, help participants internalize the challenge ahead)
Decisional Level Questions: (intent for this level: deepen sense of ownership over this project)
Closing: It seems like we have generated some really insightful (or fill in blank here) comments and thoughts about this project. As part of the consensus workshop, we will need to answer a workshop question. I've thought about this question quite a bit, and would like to propose the following:
"What are our desired outcomes for this project?"
The reasons I chose this question are: That we should make sure we have the same shared goals before setting out on the project, that this will help us to develop our vision/scope of the project. Can I get some head nods if you are willing to accept this question as a starting point for this workshop? Does anyone have questions about it?
Post question on wall.
Closing Focused Conversation
Topic: Evaluating the product of our consensus workshop - prioritizing
Rational Aim: To move from meaning to action, to develop action steps
Experiential Aim: To feel complete, ready to move forward
Opening: We have a lot of information here. Let's try and prioritize the results of this workshop.
Objective Level Questions:
Reflective Level Questions:
Interpretive Level Questions:
Closing: Thank you. See you at x date for continuation of this.
Posted by Katy Asher at Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Here's an email I sent to the SP people prior to the consensus workshop. I spent a long time working on it, so I figured that instead of replicating it, I could put it here for those who are interested in what we're doing:
As we're getting closer to this Consensus Workshop on Tuesday, I figured it might be helpful to send a little bit of information about the process I'm planning to use and some of the ideas behind it.
My request of you guys is that you show up as much on time as possible, and that you plan to stick it out until the end. I can't just add you in in the middle, and it will be hard for you to weave your opinion into the group decision if you don't attend. If you're late, we'll wait for 5 minutes max, but then have to go on.
This is kind of like baking a cake - if you're the eggs or vanilla or oil, we can't just add you after the cake comes out of the oven, and things have to take place in a particular order in order for the chemistry to happen.
I will do my best to make the process last between 30-60 minutes, and to really have everyone's input included in whatever our decision is.
I can't say that we'll have our show completely planned out by the end of this, but we should all have an idea about what we want from it for ourselves and our audience. I think if we can get this sort of basic "value" question answered, we will be greasing the wheels for the logistics part of the work.
It might be that we do another round of this, or it might be that just some people decide to move forward with the logistics after we agree on this part. We'll see. It does take time, but it should be time that means we're organized and saves us time dealing with confusion down the road.
I remember taking a class in undergrad where we had to develop a socially interactive public art piece where everyone was held accountable for some aspect of it. Oh, and we had no guidance, facilitation or input from the instructor on how to do this. I think he would just leave the room when it was time to work on it. I have to say that it was one of the most excruciating and least fulfilling waste-of-time kind of experiences of my adult life. Actually, I think that that was my main impetus for learning about facilitating. I just remember thinking that it was such a shame that all of these really creative capable people spent 3 months arguing, feeling put off, and feeling completely paralyzed when they could have been making interesting things happen.
So, let's try to bypass the arguing and paralysis and make something interesting happen!
This part might be confusing to just read - it will make more sense when we do it. It's here for any of you who really really want to know what we're going to do. Feel free to browse and/or just wait for Tuesday.
The process I will be using was developed by an organization called the Institute for Cultural Affairs in order to "help groups think, talk and work together by providing facilitators with structured methods to:
- Recognize & honor the contributions of all
- Let a group deal with more data in less time
- Pool individual contributions into larger, more informative and inclusive patterns
- Welcome diversity while minimizing polarization and conflict"(The Institute of Cultural Affairs, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000)
I don't know if this sounds like a bunch of managerial mumbo-jumbo to you guys (it did to me when I first started learning about it), but the idea here is that there are scientifically proven processes that can help groups of people get a bunch of information out on the table and organize it efficiently, without it having to be a hierarchically driven, conflict laden or extremely laborious process.
The method we'll use looks a little like this:
1. Context: I do a little work to set the stage, clarify the question we're trying to answer, outline the processes and time frame, and lead the group in talking about the topic for a few minutes.
2. Brainstorm: Generate new ideas. Participants individually list answers to the workshop question. They divide into teams, select important ideas and write them on 3x5 cards. They pass up the first round of cards to me.
3. Cluster: Forming new relationships. I put the cards on the wall, and we form 4-6 pairs of cards that clearly go together. I ask for cards that are different than the ones on the board, and add those to the existing pairs as possible, forming "clusters". Once the cards are up, the group tries to quickly give each cluster a 1-2 word name tag. We mark the remaining cards with a tag and pass to the front.
4. Name: Discerning the Consensus. We talk about the largest cluster first. We give this cluster a 3-5 word name or title which answers the workshop question and describes the cards. Repeat with remaining clusters.
5. Resolve: Confirm the resolve. We read all of the title cards. We discuss the significance of the Consensus. We create a chart or some kind of visual image, or outline to use in moving forward with the consensus. We discuss next steps.
Thanks for your time in reading (or at least browsing through this), and thanks for letting me try this process out. I hope it makes our time together feel purposeful and ultimately meaningful.
Posted by Katy Asher at Tuesday, October 23, 2007
October 17, 2007
I've spent the last week preparing for a Consensus Workshop with the Social Practice (SP) people. We are all working on a proposal for a public art opportunity available in the Tri-Valley area of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore in California.
I spent probably 6 hours preparing for the first workshop - reviewing my training workbook, preparing materials for use during the workshop, and writing and re-writing the intro and ending focused conversations that would bookend the workshop to give it depth and meaning.
Funny thing is that after the first Workshop, the group wanted another one, the very next day, and one the day after that. So, when I'm not working, sleeping or eating during the last 3 days, I've spent my time trying to figure out the proper context for the next conversation to lead with the group. How do I find a way to talk about where we're coming to with our next conversation without limiting it or directing it beyond where the group has already agreed to go?
I am getting a lot of positive feedback, and so I think what I'll do is write up the focused conversations I've lead, as well as the outcomes in my following blogs - once I have time to stop writing focused conversations and leading consensus workshops.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
What I've noticed so far is that this group has a lot of energy and that they are good listeners. No one seems to need to have their own way at the expense of everyone else, and that's encouraging.
Posted by Katy Asher at Wednesday, October 17, 2007
October 7, 2007
Earlier in the week, the SP group had a meeting in which Harrell asked whether we wanted to vote or to gain consensus. We then had to discuss what consensus means. I have a great packet from my facilitation class on the subject that I will copy and place in the office library for anyone who is interested in the idea.
A key phrase from this packet is:
Don't ask: "Do we all agree?" or "Is everyone happy?"
Instead ask: " Have we got a well-thought-out solution that we can all live with and commit to implementing?"
One thing that I've learned about the value of consensus is that it can be invaluable in situations where one or more individuals routinely disagree (ie the MOST). If voting is used in these cases, the people who disagree lose the vote and then are able to later say that they weren't in agreement (as in, I told you so!). This divides the group, allows the people who disagreed to remain entrenched in their positions, and also absolves them of any responsibility for the outcome decided by the group. Reaching consensus takes more time, and I think it takes great skill and patience to really reach, but it can lead to more invested action later on the down the road.
Posted by Katy Asher at Sunday, October 07, 2007
In 2003, I took a graduate level course in Facilitative Leadership. Over the quarter, I learned a series of techniques developed by the Institute for Cultural Affairs (ICA) for guiding group dialogue towards meaningful consensus and action. Three methods covered in the class were: Focused Conversation, Consensus Workshop, and Action Planning. Each one builds on the previous one, so the Consensus Workshop includes a couple of focused conversations as part of its structure, and Action Planning involves both focused conversations and consensus activities.
Someday, I think I would really like to become an agile facilitator, and to be able to lead these three types of group activities with skill. In the meantime, I would like to start practicing at the basic level - I want to begin leading Focused Conversations between the people in the SP group.
To give a little background, the ICA describes the Focused Conversation Method as such:
"The ...Focused Conversation Method provides a setting and a context for meaningful communication. It is used to facilitate group conversations and discussions which allow members of the group to share diverse perspectives in a non-confrontational manner. Using this method can help people in a group share insights and creativity around a common topic, issue or experiences. It creates an opportunity for people to broaden their perspectives. It may also reveal the existing level of consensus within the group." The Technology of Participation Group Facilitation Methods Manual, The Institute of Cultural Affairs, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000.
This conversation method can be used in almost every type of conversation, from deciding what recent policy decisions mean for artists to speculation on what to do if a purely fictitious dragon moved into the house next door.
I can think of several applications for this method in our group, and this week hope try and direct a conversation between Avalon and Eric about "how can we exorcise the demon of originality," and to use it to work with the entire SP Group to reflect on our recent trip to City Hall.
Posted by Katy Asher at Sunday, October 07, 2007
October 1, 2007
For our first Post- Monday Night Lecture Series dinner, I made volumes of salad and some ice creams. I feel like I never eat enough friuts and vegetables, so this was a good excuse to spend a lot of time preparing some. Ice Cream is a Mostlandian delicacy, and so I tried a couple of recipes. One of my favorites to make is Earl Gray, and for the other one, instead of buying everyone beers, I decided to put beer in the ice cream. I thought that baked apples would go well with the sort of bitterness of the beer ice cream, and I wanted to have something in my meal that was fall-like without being squash.
Here's a link to the place where I got the Guinness ice cream recipe:
Posted by Katy Asher at Monday, October 01, 2007
I received an email from PSU and forwarded it along to The MOST as an example of bureaucracy at its finest. Looking at the two, it's hard to tell which one was built off of the other.
To all LFI On-matrix adjusticators:
In order to provide you with more meaningful emotional information in Statiscatron, Sorting and Compiling will begin assessing all surveys directly to departmental indexes, for surveys with Statiscatron transaction dates starting October 1st . (LFI kiosks and neighborhood results will continue to be rated out using the present method.)
Since these surveys will now be assessed directly on your index, you will need to approve the surveys (and associated tabulated data) in Statiscatron. Surveys for LFI projects can be identified by a officiating mark located in the project field (i.e. Emotional year 08 work request numbers: 09-xxxx). LFI surveys are most often entered by the following users: AFKAJT, ELKHARTM, STILSONO, BLACKBREADS.
Officiating mark can be queried in Statiscatron at DORPROJ-Project Validation. (DORPROJ, enter, F7, enter work request number, F8) The Project Validation screen will provide a brief description of the official requested.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you to create and maintain our attractive Mostlandic atmosphere. Thank you for helping your project succeed by reviewing and approving tabulated data and surveys entered into Statiscatron for you by LFI staff.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Oswald Wilkes (ext K-8979, email@example.com) or myself.
----- Forwarded message from -----
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:00:21 -0700
From: FAP Fiscal Coordinator
Subject: New FAP Billing Process-Oct 1st
To all FAP On-campus customers:
In order to provide you with more meaningful financial information in Banner, Facilities and Planning will begin billing all invoices directly to departmental indexes, for invoices with Banner transaction dates starting October 1st . (FAP labor and stores' sales will continue to be billed out using the present method.)
Since these invoices will now be paid directly on your index, you will need to approve the invoices (and associated purchase orders) in Banner. Invoices for FAP projects can be identified by a work order number located in the project field (i.e. Fiscal year 08 work request numbers:
08-xxxxx). FAP invoices are most often entered by the following users: BERTOLIA, FLOCKM, HUYENT, REV.
Work request numbers can be queried in Banner at FTVPROJ-Project Validation. (FTVPROJ, enter, F7, enter work request number, F8) The Project Validation screen will provide a brief description of the work requested.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you to create and maintain our attractive campus atmosphere. Thank you for helping your project succeed by reviewing and approving purchase orders and invoices entered into Banner for you by FAP staff.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Vickie Ellig (ext 5-XXXX, XX@pdx.edu) or myself.
Facilities and Planning
Portland State University
Posted by Katy Asher at Monday, October 01, 2007
via conference call 7-9 PM, 9/30/2007
O - Wants to start a dialogue with Sam Adams' office - in re: friendship city options, why would PDX want to do that with us, why would we do that with them, what would that look like, what is at stake - Why was it so easy for us to get recognition by L. Mayor John So, vs. the government in our home city? It would be great if the city would recognize us, but what would that look like?
S - Maybe they'd recognize a city/town of Mostlandia, not the MOST, what is at stake for them is their official relationship between a city and a group of artists, vs. between the city and another place.
O- How would we approach them? Initial contact is important. Do we contact as Ambassadors, artists, residents...
M - Feels confident we could figure out how to approach them.
S - It would be different if a group of Mostlandian citizens approached them vs. a letter from inside of Mostlandia, vs artists...maybe it would be a mix of these things.
O - Would like to make the official first contact by December, well, end of November.
S - We would have to have conversations about the connection between relationships to the city and/or the SWaterfront area and/or MOST.
M - The whole idea of Mostlandia as a specific place is hard. Doesn't like being reduced to being from a "fake city". It would be hurting ourselves to limit what we are and do to that. Doesn't want to be pigeonholed.
S - Agrees with that.
M - Contacting the city as Mostlandian friendship city is difficult. Makes it harder for M to get to Mostlandia when thinking about it. There are 2 Mostlandias. One has the Flatirons, Mounts MOST, the Staticsphere, make believe. Then there's the real Mostlandia, the place not place place. Its the "New Vocabulary Mostlandia". Place by experience vs. place by location
S - An activity/action to do this fall. We should go to SWaterfront and open a portal and find out information inside of the portal, figure out if there's a relationship with the city that's not based in "micronations". There could be an experience related to Portland in the portal.
M - We have a lot of tools to make it easy to accomplish starting a relationship with the city. If other members of the group want to do it, he'll go along.
S - Doesn't want it to have to be as complex, but it is. Especially if we do poetic actions like if we do different kinds of performances . That adds to her desire to not solidify as a micronation.
M - SWaterfront asked us to do stuff, and we have our own ideas about how to do it. Do they expect us to be a service bureau? Thinking about how artists are asked to do gallery shows with old stuff instead of current stuff. We are so dynamic and wants to do dynamic work.
S - We can use this show to explicitly explore new work.
M - Likes the phrase poetic actions.
O - Would want it to be dynamic, not pigeonholed. Thinks that M is smart and clear thinking in how he doesn't want to limit us by creating a relationship wtih the city, and not wanting to be a micronation. Would want anything we do in creating a relationship to the City to accurately reflect Mostlandia as a place by experience rather than location. It would be interesting to see if there was a way to weave something poetic into the existing bureaucratic structure of the City. It seems like that would be in our vernacular. Would like to use the City as a medium for our work.
M - We could attend a City Hall meeting and announce our intentions publicly.
M - Close to end of the meeting. 2 hours.
Has 2 ideas, wild fantasies. no budget, but what if we had a 3 day Mostlandia Heritage Festival. All Mostlandian bands and artists could come out for it. Some of our citizens could help curate small shows.
S - People could wear traditional attire.
M - Ceremonial beards. We can do it in 2015, or the year after the helicopter gets fixed.