Connect the Dots Questionnaire:
Unrealised Projects
Sam Ely and Lynn Harris
London
1. Problem or Question.
Q: Do you have an idea for a work that you've not realised? We'd like to present a description of it.
We've conceived a project that requires a response to this proposition in order to be visible: The outward thinking of a question rather than the inward thinking of a problem.
We're interested in tapping into the potential of a reflective, relational and discursive state that the notion of the unrealised projects offers. And how it acts as a tool for housing several disparate ethos, strategies and ways of making which alludes to an experimentation with ideas.
We've gathered these ideas and presented them on a website.
2. Hypothesis.
As Unrealised Projects is not about establishing a finality, we assert that a community of makers exist that is concerned with openly sharing ideas as a means to create culture.
Our intentions were to create a conceptual structure that allows each participant space to experiment with their own work while staying within the confines of our own requirements.
We've also used the project as a tool to exercise some of our own interests of ideas over object, and how conversational strategies beget an empowering accumulation of knowledge.
As we are authors of the project in as far as we've conceived the conceptual structure, we do not claim to be 'rule makers'. The rules of the art market, social life and strategising at large were in place before we came along, we're just appropriate these exchange tendencies.
3. Materials & Resources.
Participants who were/are willing to share. A good web programmer.
4. Procedure.
First we spent a long time talking about the possibilities and difficulties of such a project.
Once we decided it was a good idea, we created a printed Call For Submissions and handed it out to a small group of colleagues. We had lots of conversation with them about our intentions and the potential of a collection of ideas and resources that could exist under the umbrella of the unrealised project.
We then slowly received proposals at individual pace, using deadlines as goals.
We developed the project to a state where we thought it was relevant to collate and present works on a website. We built a website.
Then we sought support from gallery in London for a one-night launch event in order to celebrate existing participant's projects and to promote future participation.
We're now asking all participants if they have any further resource material in the form of live links they would like to add to their own project pages or to the 'thoughts' page of the website. We'd like to create a type of open source/resource centre that is built from diverse and personal experiences.
5. Data. www.unrealisedprojects.org
Chris Aldgate and Lee Johnson - artists
Centre of Attention - artists/directors, Centre of Attention gallery, London
Martin Clark -curator, Kent Institute of Art and Design
Denise Harywsio - artist/curator
Per Huttner - artist/curator
Dave Jones - artist
Miranda Lapotkin - artist
Lisa Lefeuvre - curator, Photographer's Gallery, London/lecturer, Goldsmith's College, London
Simon Morris - artist/curator
Dan Mort - artist
James Porter - artist
Pia Richter - designer/architect
Sebastian Roach - writer
Hayley Skipper - artist
Heidi Stokes - artist
Markus Vater - artist
Launch Event on Sept. 17 2004 at
1 000 000mph Project Space
59 Old Bethnal Green Road
London
E2 6QA
6. Results.
See projects.
7. Conclusions.
We're learning about a practice that uses the management of many contributors as a tool to get through to something. It's been fascinating to recognize the plethora of diverse frameworks used by different makers and to work with the constraints produced because of these differences. And in that, we've had to negotiate our own desires of an end result while remaining conscientious to recognize each member's contribution appropriately.
We've continually posed questions not as antagonists, but as a practice searching for ways to understand, relate to and create communal knowledge and culture. We hope that the nature of this project represents a space where participant/viewer/originator share in the creation of the overall and final product, where interpretation from all is required to be fully realised, a kind of disparate consensus.
2004