Production Project: 21 Tags

What can a group do that an individual can’t?

The answer could not be simply about scale or scope, because with enough time and resources an individual can compensate. The project had to engage with the specific advantages of having a large body of diverse individuals all working together to generate a whole larger than the sum of its parts. How do we properly capitalize on our strengths as a group operating together and not simply pound out a greater number of collective hours as a workforce?

Conceptual Origins:

We started with the idea of simultaneity. A group scattered geographically could document from a multiplicity of contemporaneous perspectives that would be impossible for an individual. We decided to look into Toronto Island because it was a clearly prescribed geographic area with both a varied and coherent identity. Additionally, the CMWC bike messenger race was happening during our production timeframe, and the structure of a race foregrounds the importance of simultaneity (i.e. different things of great importance happening at very specific moments in time and space). We would attempt to emphasize our simultaneous advantage through live updates to a collective database to illustrate a dataset being constructed in motion.

After a fruitful scouting mission we decided to reframe the project.

Morris: Hello? Yeah, the Internet? You want to start working now or what?

When in Rome go to the beach.

Collaborative dispute resolution.

A Shift in Direction:

1) We could not do real-time uploading due to a lack of internet connection on most of the island. What network access was available was so limited and unwieldy that the effect of time would have been lost.

2) We reconsidered what kind of material would be generated. Would the time-based database generated by this really be that compelling? Would this take the best advantage of the expert photography skills within the group?

With no ability to upload effectively in real-time, we abandoned the time emphasis of the project. As a group we searched for a different way to create a “narrative spine” for the project. We attempted to agree on a New Media “container” or “framework” that would strike an appropriate balance of individual authorship within coherent collective bounds. Minor tension arose here as we struggled to find a framework that was free of individual authorship. We reached resolution when we generated an extremely neutral, but still conceptually strong, database context.

We found our final direction when we decided to foreground the disruption of individual authorial identity that had been driving this project. We needed a distinctive group articulation to emerge in which individual utterances could be heard. Not only would we push back the authorial origin of the photographs, but we would also challenge their interpretive bounds further by aligning them randomly with captions from other authors. We now had our project: 7 perspectives on 21 “tags” organized into 2 randomly juxtaposed datasets: one photographic and one textual.

Tagging. Commenting. Interactive Narratives. Database Generation. Collective Authorship. Real-world Gaming. Social Media. Simultaneity. Geotagging. The project had become a kind of super-heated New Media monster, and the task became to unite all these threads in a way that made the project as instantly accessible and immediate as possible. We were constantly striving for an elegance of expression for this complex collage of ideas, and I feel the almost deceptive simplicity of our execution is testament to the strength of our concept and our collaborative process. The best part is that it was genuinely fun to create the databases and watch the juxtapositions come together in interesting ways. I hope the user experience brings out the authorial playfulness at the heart of the project.

Outcome vs. Expectation:

I feel that the outcome aligns extremely closely with my expectations for the final form of the project. The tags would be interpreted both literally and metaphorically. Some interpretations would be shared among members (even to the point of producing nearly identical images and captions), while others would be wildly divergent. Some captions would correspond to a wider variety of pictures just as some pictures would lend themselves to more fruitful pairings with captions. To some degree individual authorship would be inevitably reasserted into the databases through stylistic choices. There would be technical hurdles in bringing together a complex project like this with limited website building experience among group members.

Explanation of Outcome:

The close alignment of expectation and outcome speaks to the usefulness of preproduction work done to foresee challenges and possibilities of the project. The project was clear enough in its early iterations that difficulties could be foreseen and addressed before critical production stages took place. Expectation and outcome are aligned because the conceptual foundation was strong and clearly defined. This allowed us to have a vivid sense of how the project would operate in its final form and proceed accordingly.

Lessons Learned:

The most important lessons learned all relate to reconciling impulses toward individual authorship and expression with collaborative group statements. While a strongly defined collective framework is absolutely vital, individual group members must be given satisfying outlets for expression. Individual expression is a great asset to the generation of content, but it cannot be allowed to assert itself in overarching structures within which the expression should be taking place. The group must come to a clear consensus about this as early in the process as possible, or the project risks being derailed by voices competing for hierarchical dominance. Creativity and authorship go at the bottom, consensus and collaboration go at the top.

A good collective framework should spur creativity and productivity, not stifle it.

A more minor lesson involves a reassessment about the optimism of web2.0 and accessibility. Despite a great deal of hard work, we discovered the tools simply do not exist (in a satisfactory form at least) to facilitate many of the functions we desired for our project. For any type of remotely sophisticated web-based project, specialized coding skills and deep technical knowledge still remain an absolutely indispensable asset.

What Could Be Done Differently:

Although it should be self-evident, a group involved in a collaborative project must consist of members who genuinely desire to work collaboratively. Useful collaboration can never be forced, coerced or demanded, and thus it is a suitable production environment only for individuals who already value and respect its potential. There must be a shared sense of vision and cohesive desire to reach it collectively, and while our group ended up on this path, there were moments for concern.

Collaborative approaches are advantageous when they are capable of achieving ends impossible within rigid hierarchies and certain industrial frameworks. There needs to be a strong early consensus that inappropriate hierarchies are detrimental to the results of collaborative work, and that it is not in the collective interest (or the individual interest that is codependent on collective outcome) to allow these to emerge. Like other democratic systems, there needs to be a formal or informal understanding of the bounds of individual influence and action. Some kind of formal or informal group “constitution” might be helpful.

It would have been helpful to have a stronger agreement on the kind of captions and pictures that would yield the most compelling set of juxtapositions. Generally, the captions could have been slightly more generalized and pictures a little less literal. Pictures taken in the same aspect ratio would have added to aesthetic coherence.

A better technical knowledge of web programming and coding would have made for a more elegant interface and fulfilling user experience. It would also decrease the need for intensive labour and elaborate technical problem solving. For example, I would have liked to see the databases randomized each time a tag page was accessed, but despite great effort, this was beyond our technical capabilities. I would have also preferred greater interactivity and integration of the map element, but frankly, I’m happy we even managed to embed it. It would also have been nice to open the databases up to the universe of social media users so that outside participants could contribute to an endlessly expanding dataset. This too was outside our expertise and would have shifted our particular conception of 7 views on one place at one time.

As noted in the critique, we opted not to include an “about” page. For me, the appeal of the project is strongly tied to a sense of user discovery and surprise. I generally resist overtly literal explanations of artworks because I feel it detracts from the cohesiveness and user experience of the piece. However, I do feel that an “about” element would have made the context of our experiment more clear. It would have made the impulse for the user to guess at authorship more rewarding to explain there were only and always the same 7 authors operating in a very specific production context.

Also, there was some interest in seeing how each author contributed to the dataset. I personally feel the project is stronger for resisting the restoration of authorship. But in the wake of the project, I’ve included my own contributions in my flickr account on the sidebar for those interested.

Impact of New Media on Practice:

Collaboration is not easy, and indeed, it’s not always appropriate or the best configuration to structure a group with a total lack of hierarchy. Established hiearchies can be more efficient and effective depending on the members involved, skills and resources available, and the demands of task at hand. Supporting a strong individual vision represents the best strategy in certain scenarios. It takes experience, foresight, and probably trial and error to understand what degree of hierarchy is most appropriate.

I believe all projects will fall somewhere on the hierarchy-democracy spectrum, their specific location depending on the variables involved. Projects should assume a hybrid of approaches tailored to the unique demands. Whatever the task, certain considerations remain constant. At the very least, production groups should strive for:

1) A shared vision and interdependence of fate.

2) A sense of meaningful contribution and the possession of a legitimate voice.

3) Use of individual strengths and assets of the particular group configuration.

4) Neutral frameworks in which individual contribution can take place.

5) Openness of process and genuine possibility of adaptation to changing circumstance.

6) Subversion of ego to group demands, regardless of place in hierarchal structure.

For early project descriptions and process you can see our group blog

The project: 21 Tags