{hhr, 191216} (notes from before our meeting.) I think an interesting and challenging aspect of the last steps was the development of "segmentary spaces" of the answers and responses. What we did is to copy over from the former to the latter, and now an important next step is that we pay attention to those spaces from the other participants, to look at and listen to those responses. I would say, both where they relate to your own questions, but also to those of the others. So we have the asynchronous negotiation or conversation.

Also I noticed that Daniele added a page of notes ("pin") independent from the responses page. So there is another space to observe, perhaps it's an example we can all follow.

For the next iteration, I propose a mixture between keeping the conversation, so that there is a mixture between "new questions" (free standing) and reponse-questions, so statements, sounds etc. that are responses to the responses, and again address the others. Perhaps this "Notes - poz" space is a space for Daniele to develop things that do not require immediate responses from us, in contrast to the "Responses - poz".

{author: HHR, keywords: [segments, space, answer, responses]}

Preparing the next step (191216)

all four of us via jitsi after the first round of responses had been created.

please add your notes and thoughts!

{hhr, 191216}

My summary points from our meeting today:

  • Daniele asks whether we should pick a number of topics now?
  • Ji said she was confused by the fact that although each of us formulated questions/statements, these were only addressed to the others and not to ourselves. We discussed whether we should, as a next step, include our own answers. However, Ji said that because she now dealt with the other reactions, her focus shifted partly away from the initial questions.
  • There was a mutual uncomfortableness between David and Hanns Holger, in the sense that HH felt the statements that David put out were not really open for the development by others but mostly reflected his opinion on the various topics, so it became difficult to "answer" to these except to agree or skip, in particular where there is disagreement affecting the ensemble (the communication between layers); likewise David felt that the formulation in HH's responses was not productive or helpful for him, because it would at times take his statements out of context, and he could not relate to what was written. Underlying in my (HH) opinion is a different understanding of the function and address of the questions/responses. We will probably set this aside for now, and try to be more careful in the following steps.
  • New ideas have come up, possibly from our (re)interpretation of questions; in particular that the "bridges" as a concept for connecting the layers could indeed be temporary instead of permanent, and they could be built from the "receiving" side.
  • Ji noticed that the way we use the RC resembles a scrum board, in the sense that it creates a narrative of a temporal development.
  • We will do another iteration until the beginning of January. For this, we will create again four new sub-spaces in which we now take existing threads/responses and again respond to them or expand on them, with the liberty to introduce also new topics and questions as they arise. Comments (also reactions to reactions) can be left in any page, as long as they are marked with the initials of the person writing; if the comments become longer elaborations, it's probably best to copy the source to which they are referring over to the new page.
  • David will make field recordings in Kunsthaus in the coming weeks and incorporate them both in the RC, and put the sound files on the IEM cloud. The impulse response recordings will probably happen in January.
{author: HHR, keywords: [disposition, summary, meeting, planning, project]}

meta: true
persons: [HHR, POZ, DP, JYK]
function: report
origin: videocall
date: 191216
author: HHR
artwork: ThroughSegments
keywords: [report, methodology, collaborative]