|
50%
August 12 – September 1, 2008
Grupa Ee
Ajdin Bašić, Damjan Ilić, Ivian Kan
Mujezinović, Žiga Testen, Mina Žabnikar
Sindikat
Delta Nu, CASIOp, Dečko z vlečko, Emulgator!
We kindly invite you to
the closing of an exhibition on Monday, September
1st at 8 pm
at Škuc Gallery.
- In
the last century, the division of labour became a de
facto standard system of production and way of thinking
and acting in almost all segments of our lives.
- In
the service sector, which includes graphic design, printing,
advertising and related activities, this type of thinking
has resulted in the division of authorship.
-
In July 1980, in a letter addressed to the
editorial board of Plan newspaper, Muriel Cooper identified
at least three co-authors. In such a specialised form of
printing, the author of content is author, the author
of form designer, and the author of the artefact
(craft) a typesetter/printer.
- In
its implementation, the division of labour presupposes the
isolation of individual workers as the key to success of the
whole system; however, what needs highlighting here is that
the worker need not be aware of the comprehensiveness of the
system in which he/she is actively involved.
-
What is more, it is believed that any
knowledge of the comprehensiveness of the system and its
inner workings would diminish the worker's specialisation
and, consequently, reduce the productivity and efficiency of
the whole system.
- Such
specialisation of production results in inherent inequality
in the ranking of work, which implies that some occupations
are worth more than others.
- If
we were to transpose this logic to the production of graphic
design, the conclusion would be that some authors are more
important than others.
-
Muriel Cooper's letter implies that only the
author of content is the real author, while all other
authors in the production chain (from the concept to the
finished product) are less important, i.e. they are viewed
as sub-authors, sub-sub-authors, etc.
- The
system of sequential authorship, which resembles a
production line, results in a cheaper end-product, assembled
in less time.
- As
a side-effect of this process emerges the generic quality of
the end-product, which lacks any individual characteristics
of its authors.
Our project in Škuc Gallery will be a minor
experiment aimed at highlighting three key issues:
1. The issue of authorship
- In this case, designers will create both content and form
and, which would render them the authors of the
end-product. A printing machine will be installed in the
Gallery, enabling designers to print and bind their own
catalogues.
· I
-
We also seek to examine what this kind of
authorship means in today's business and legal relations,
and how similar cases have been defined and organised. This
will be presented through lectures, which will form part of
the project.
·
2. The equality issue
· -
We realise that the manufacture of quality end-products is a
complex process, irrespective of the technological
innovations which make it a seemingly simple task. As such,
the effectiveness of the process is measured by the
effectiveness of its weakest link (the author?). Likewise,
the quality of a product is determined by the weakest link
in the production chain (e.g. despite excellent print
quality, poor binding job, paper selection and trimming may
cause the product to be labelled as bad).
- As a counterpoint to the sequencing
process, we confront it with a simultaneous process in
which all authors are perceived as equal, and communicate
with each other throughout the duration of the process.
·
- Such a process relies on highly educated
individuals who can enhance the quality of the end-product
through their expertise, so that the product, in its final
version, reflects the input of all its authors.
·
3. The networking issue (new New
Collectivism?)
· -
We have noticed that the desire for combining people with
specific know-how into collectives has become vital to
production outside agencies and the system they constitute.
-
We wonder whether this model of linking into
authors' networks is an alternative to present market
relations.
·
Match
the questions with the answers below:
A
Is time our main asset?
B
Are fetishist iconographies of mass culture paradigms which
form the
basis of everyday life in the society of the
spectacle?
C
How can we control these systems back?
D
Signature, event or context?
E
YouTube, MySpace, Facebook?
F
Is an insight into the reality of fiction a reflection of a
disturbance in the
stable and clearly structured system of the
everyday environment?
G
Why is it that at first glance an explication of a cliché
fascinates rather
than informs?
H
Death of the author?
I
How does one achieve freedom in a utopian effort by
attempting to
transcend the limitations of space and time?
J
(De)coding through a metaphor of the spectacle?
K
Does the desire to create ties and be equal
become central to the user's identification?
1
By worshipping the cult of youth!
2
By all means, as they emphasise the levels of medium
suggestion, which are based on patriarchal structures of
power!
3
Through simplification and idealisation it is
established as a representative fetish!
4
Because they enable the creation of networks,
which are real-time communication and existential zones!
5
Addiction to the media which provide everyday
information by idealising reality!
6
Yes, just like the Syndicate!
7
It symbolises the expansive force of a medium which explodes
outside its frame!
8
It is an insight into the (dys)functional structures of the
Panopticon!
9
No, its birth!!!
10
Because it idealises our technological existence and speaks
persuasively through its omnipresence!
11
By means of constructed invisible control!
Supported by:
Printing house of University
of Ljubljana
Printing
machine in the gallery Adast Adamov
Dominant 714
|
