maybe obvious stuff..but must finally pipe in...
Seems as if the easiest way for a collaboration to
self-destroy is in fact through disagreements over
language: Simply, sadly, what you called that thing
we did is different from what I called that thing we
did.
the wording of what we call it; collaboration,
cooperation, free (?!whatever!) etc is part of the
agreement of those working together. (In fact, perhaps
‘working together’ is the least nuanced, most active?)
Is this one distinction of cooperation/collaboration
—that there is an inside and an outside, each with
their possibilities of naming? I mean, were Nazi
collaborators in France calling themselves that? in
fact their form and cohesiveness was likely more
defined and named (with the disdain we are familiar
with) from the outside, rather than the ‘inside.')
While on the subject of language--
I wondered if anyone has strong reactions, negative
or positive, to the word ‘group?’
Does group imply lack of 'free' engagement somehow?

----
hello to the list people. I'm artist who has
collaborated alot, and a bit of a lurker in this forum
so far-
I'm interested in sustainability as a kind of umbrella
study; what sustainability means, as time, as social
organization, as techologies, etc.
In my current project, Eccentric Domain, I am
researching exceptions to the rule of private property
(land, or 'real estate' in particular). -- Regarding
this, would very much like to hear about any
interesting examples for me to pursue, if anyone on
the list knows of anything.
Credential-wise, I have an MFA from UC San Diego
Visual Arts program and have taught in San Francisco
State University’s Information Arts (digital) program.

=====
Sarah Augusta Lewison
http://visarts.ucsd.edu/~slewison