|
LITTLE BUBBLE OF LAUGHTER
MANIFESTO |
| Counterpart to the modern, capitalist notion of competition is co-operation, a form of human co-action that involves mutual dependence, benefits, shared goals, mutual learning, the common production of new reality, mutual responsibility and a high degree of networked, interconnected activity (Fuchs 2003). |
| WHO ARE WE? …WHO IS ‘WE’? This question often comes up, unsurprisingly considering the morphing nature of our collaborational assemblies as well as the fact that we greatly value invisibility.Sheding some light below are some extracts from Crissalida’s study for Managing the Arts in The 21st Century: Cultural Policy, Planning and Theory 2005, for Birkbeck University of London, tittled‘WHO IS INVOLVED? Interactive Creative Practice; Technology, Cultural Diversity and Preservation of Expression’.The study aims to define the habitus of interactive creative practice in relation to the field of culture in which it plays, as well as its applications and values. It is based upon Little Bubble of Laughter as case study and its perspectives. The study also points precisely at the importance of understanding who exactly is involved in a practice that sits on eggshells, that is wholly dependent on the basis of open-resources, human potential and inter-connectivity, as well as and why we do it. It examines this through the fore mentioned three infrastructural elements of Technology, Diversity and Preservation of Expression. If you fancy reading the extended version, check out the full paper. Otherwise, read on. This is ‘us’ littlebubbles…everywhere. |
| LITTLE BUBBLE OF LAUGHTERLittle Bubble Of Laughter (LBOL) is a project-specific assembly of independent collaborators who share skills, knowledge, resources, passion, and above all creative abilities.LBOL’s interactive creative practice explores fine arts and new media in convergence with history and mythology, for the creation of site-specific and event-specific live and televisual multimedia productions.
LBOL’s research goals are diverse cultures worldwide in real locations with particular regard to its indigenous components, that is research-in-practice. The aim being one of fully uniting both practices in platforms of interaction for concept-specific cultural exchange. LBOL practices creative interaction and develops cross-cultural processes through: � dialogue: through inter-connectivity. Most of us interactive creative practitioners are uniquely cross-skilled with areas of expertise vastly covering the arts, crafts, media, science, electronics and IT, as well as environmental, spiritual and health issues, and further hybrid new spheres such as ‘arti-tecture’ and ‘techno-philosophy’ . Our skills are our primary wealth, we have the know-how and the know-what, motivation and energy to invest. In relation to the ‘Gods of Management’ models (Handy 2000), I can say that we are mostly Dionysian structures within which everyone is an Apollo. Dyonisian structures are independent relational networks that form and morph in collaborative enterprises and partnerships. These relational networks are clustered about in assorted formations which include members from art organisations, private companies, research centres, associations, co-operatives, artist collectives and individuals. Many of us are pocketed in East-London, multitudes worldwide, expanding from local to global in fluid manner. This networks conglomerate inter-connected dissident movements, alternative and creative undercurrents at the cutting-edge of practice. Our economies are neither fragile nor solid but mostly self-sustained. We have learned not to depend upon external sources to finance our developments. We may lack resources but have no economic pressure to perform. When attractive ideas emerge, those interested support it with any means. A project is born and commitment is then negotiated under no guarantee. Survival of continuity is dependent on a certain consistency in belief, generally instigated by the project’s creator. Advocacy and perseverance become the foundation pillars of the initiave. More frequently, projects start as mere proposals which develop an ad hoc life of their own through multiple input and outflux in intercultural platforms. These co-creations are inherently of shared authorship or non-authorship. How do we manage ourselves? By consent of course and by consensus in as much as the particular initiative allows. Any of us would clarify a particular manager’s approach beautifully pinned by Charles Handy thus, ‘You cannot tell me to do something’, one would explain gently, ‘you can only ask me. On the other hand,’ rubbing salt into a wound, ‘I don’t ask you if I’m going to do something, I tell you.’ (page 195 Gods of Management. Handy 2000). Most of our practice is self-funded in an altruistic manner. No, we are not particularly radical nor against funds, corporate, public or otherwise, we are against domination. Freedom to create is not for sale. We evolve through independent channels if we must. There is a big difference between imposition and offer. Yes, creations may be capitalized with consent, but to ensure against exploitation, a clause for re-negotiation becomes rather useful so that we may continue to trust in the creative processes. Money is no target, but we do believe it should flow through to procure the path. Financial rewards are the ultimate blessing of recognition and are welcome indeed, but the practice is rather more focused on a journey of self discovery. It is a trip of continuos professional development but within pressure free environments, where creative abilities are tested to the extreme, limited only by self-morals. Entrust the practice and you entrust your own sector, as well as yourself. Let us know about yourself. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Little Bubble of Laughter 