Ideas in the Making - Oxford University Natural History Museum: Collaboration?
Being in the city is of itself uplifting. A whole day of discussing creativity wow! Some of the ideas were an education, others I disagreed with. Always good to sieve through. A word that concerned me was the use of collaboration. Claims were made that the speakers collaborated in one way or another in their work, for me if a work is a truly collaborative one then the outcome is in the ownership of all collaborators whether a joint name as in the 'Beatles' mentioned yesterday, or as Jack j, Mary S, Ash W as in a journal paper. So I am not talking of thanking and naming the "collaborators' by the lead owner as in a film award presentation.If one person has ownership of the end creation, then to my mind its not a collaboration that has occurred rather a series of consultations and engagements given with the goodwill of the those consulted and engaged with, isnt it? A welcome one.
In my work such as in Skulls, I enter many different spheres of expertise looking for engagement and assistance, those I work with in this way are giving, sharing people to who I owe many of my pieces. Their interest and support enables my work. I do give recognition to the people I work with, I am wondering if I give enough, but I have not considered the works as collaborations. Not least of all as I looked on and read of all the artist who are collaborating I felt I was lacking something and that I had not raised my game to reach a point where I could claim collaboration.
A recent funding application to explore Alzheimer's was one that would have seen me as a collaborator, with a fellow artist and neuroscientist, or would it? How much of the final artistic output would be the area of the scientist, would it not be the case that we two artists, in collaboration, would have absirbed, taken up the knowledge of the scientist and translated it using our expertise. Is that collaboration? WE didnt get the funding!! (THIS TIME)