Greg Ulmer wrote:
The possibility of experimenting with the format should be attempted, or at least we should discuss ways and means here. Here are some of the ingredients to take into account:
1) the work being done already by the participants (your current state of research).
2) the central organizing project pursued long-term by the FRE (the EmerAgency consultancy, the choral method, imaging place, the Ka-Ching).
3) connecting #1 with #2 (the conference).
I will have some things to say about #2. Meanwhile, we may clarify the purpose of this conference. My interest in it is the possibility that we would collaborate on one large-scale group project. The immediate caveat is that such a project requires some commitment of time and energy, and takes the place of some part of one's invidivual work. We could assume that anyone attending the conference has some interest in principle in a group collaboration, although there is no obligation. Post-conference we will sort out who (if anyone) is still interested. The conference itself could involve defining the details of such a collaboration.
John (Craig) Freeman wrote:
Here are some of my thoughts on how the Invent_L Conference might differ. These are only my thoughts and I am flexible with all of it.
First of all the group should stay small and manageable. Everyone who attends should participate (make a presentation), so that everyone has an active roll to play. No passive observers. We should have no competing tracks. Only one thing going on at a time. Reading papers should be discouraged. Although we have to use a formal tone on the web site and in peer review of abstracts, the meeting itself should be informal.
Kate Casey-Sawicki wrote:
this looks good so far. the graduate rhet/comp theory group here at uf has a few organizational ideas as well we discussed earlier in the semester.
thurs: we do indeed have a cocktail/reception type evening budgeted (although not yet funded...we're in wait and see time now) and it will be at the WARPhaus.
the grads here at uf have discussed hosting a film screening as part of the introduction. the FRE panel would be a nice cap to that. all of this will work to set up imaging place and give an orientation to the conference as a whole.
fri: we do have breakfast budgeted as well. however, it is more of a bagels and muffins while we work kind of affair--not a sit down thing. as far as dinner goes, this might be reservations at a local restaurant w/ pay your own way; we're still looking into funding a dinner. not sure if that is going to happen though.
overall, i think we need to think about a bit more about how we can construct this confernce in such a way that it will help us to, as Ulmer suggests, "collaborate on one large-scale group project." the band method might help here--grad students, professors, artists, techies, etc all working together in smaller groups to think through a piece of this puzzle. if we create cells w/in the larger conference structure, it might help us to create more cohesive relationships that will bridge the gaps that sometimes open in telecollaboration. while individual presentations are certainly essential, perhaps as smaller groups we can discuss the connections between the projects and then present, as a band, what we see happening? actually, one idea we grads had was that dinner might be organized according to the bands--each band goes out together, discusses what they heard throughout the day, what we might want to continue with, etc. saturday morning, then, could begin with band meetings/breakfast and then roundtable discussions between bands. this would then lead us more directly towards project planning.
i recall that there was also some talk of creating an emblem on saturday...that might be an excellent final micro-project that the bands could have in mind through their discussions. the emblem is the end of the conference that is the beginning of our larger collaboration?
just some thoughts.
Greg Ulmer wrote:
This outline looks good. With a framework such as this one in mind, we could do some preliminary thinking via this list between now and then.
Here is a starting point, brief outline, of a way to proceed.
The individual presentations could be made with two goals in mind:
a) to catch us up on the current state of your work;
b) to speculate on how that work might contribute to a group project. In other words, the presentation would already be oriented towards foregrounding the strands of connectivity inherent within the work up until now.
Between now and then we may clarify the framework of our possible collaboration. That framework in the most basic terms is the EmerAgency, as an internet consultancy, and specifically the purpose of consulting on public policy formation in your region.
The question of collaboration then becomes: how does my current work relate to the work of inventional (vs conventional) consulting? The point would not be that you should stop what you are doing and start doing something else entirely, but to consider whether and in what way your work could function as consulting (if it isn't already apparent).
"Consulting" itself requires some clarification.
Collaboration at this minimal level may be quite loose, a matter of beginning to coordinate our experiments on how our specialized research in electrate form/media addresses the issue of how our communities make collective decisions. A goal is to deconstruct the opposition between theoretical and practical reason (pure and applied research).
A second approach is to make explicit what is meant by "imaging place." I will make opening remarks on that question as well. Both lines of approach are open for discussion (and further lines are welcome).