Gerhard Fischer,
University of New South Wales (Convenor) in co-operation with Sabine Rossbach (University of
Adelaide), Klaus R. Scherpe (Humboldt-University Berlin) and Florian Vassen (Leibniz-University Hannover)
The Sydney German Studies Symposium 2009 is part of a series of scholarly conferences sponsored by the Department of German Studies at the University of New South Wales since 1980. The symposia are international, interdisciplinary academic conferences devoted to current issues in literary and cultural studies, with a focus on - but not exclusively restricted to – contemporary German literature and culture. Recent symposia have addressed themes such as ‘Writing since The Fall of the Wall’, ‘Adventures of Identity’, ‘The Play within the Play’ or ‘W.G. Sebald and Expatriate Writing’; others were dedicated to a critical analysis of aspects of the work of Walter Benjamin, Hans Magnus Enzensberger or Heiner Müller.
The symposium is traditionally held bi-annually on the last weekend in July and organized in co-operation with the Goethe Institute Sydney which also offers the venue for the event. In 2009, the topic of he Symposium will be ‘Collective Creativity’.
1. Preamble
Is there such a thing as ‘collective creativity? --- Two radical answers seem possible:
YES. All creativity is collective. No creative person exists in isolation; all human beings, artists and scientists in particular, depend in their work and in their creative self-expression on the contribution of others. The original Western philosophical model of creative enquiry is the Socratic Dialogue: without question no answer (which in turn provides a new question). For philosophers like Martin Buber, the creative dimension arises from what lies between I and Thou. In Mikhail Bakhtin’s literary theory, too, the creation of meaning can only proceed in dialogic interaction. Furthermore, all artistic creation aims at outside presentation and recognition in a process of collective reception.
NO. Creativity is always individual. While the social dimension of the Artist’s and the scientist’s work is undeniable, it must nevertheless be stated that the original creative impulse, the intellectual spark that leads to innovation, can only ever be found in the individual mind. The original aesthetic model of this concept is the Romantic Poet: alone and at one with nature. While artists may be surrounded by collaborators and while the technology of some artistic or scientific production requires a highly complex team effort, the final work is always recognizable by the expression that an individual personality has stamped upon it.
2. What do we understand by collective creativity? Does a dialogic process always already imply a collective creation? Does the connection between art and ritual suggest an a priori dimension of collectivity? Can we speak of the notion of Gesamtkunstwerk in terms of collective creation? Does it make sense to discuss certain forms of hybridity (as in recent discussions on postcolonial theory) in terms of collective artistic experiences? In what way do contemporary insights into psychological or neurological aspects of creativity support or dismiss claims of collective influences on individual creative development? Similarly, what can we learn from recent theories of memory (e.g. Maurice Halbwachs and the notion of ‘collective memory’)? Rather than focussing on seemingly irreconcilable concepts phrased in terms of traditional binary opposites, a contemporary discourse on creativity might be more productive if it searches out and questions the borders, intersections or interfaces of artistic, scientific and cultural practice where the individual and the collective merge, come together or confront each other. A central issue of this debate might be the question of whether a collective creative enterprise can deliver an aesthetic or artistic surplus that exceeds an individual effort. How and where can such a creative surplus be located?
3. Thus, it seems possible to think of a multitude of answers which could apply to various forms of collaborative ventures and relationships: artistic or scientific partnerships, ensembles, Dichterkreise (poetic circles) and/or Dichterschulen, collaborative friendships, artists’ colonies, master workshops, teams, ensembles, etc. One could mention as examples the collectives of muralists (Mexico) or the experiments in communal performances characteristic of the 1960s. Indeed, there seem to be particular historical sites for collective creativity which may offer instances of paradigmatic case studies: Weimar and Jena of German Classicism, Vienna at the turn of the 20th century, Paris of the Surrealists, the Frankfurt School of the 1920s and 30s, the Living Theatre in the 1960s, the ‘Theatre of Development’ of P. Freire or the theatre of Augusto Boal .
4. Historically, the transitional period around 1800 may be of special importance: it is here that we witness the breakthrough of the concept of the modern individual. The disappearance of the old, feudal, rigidly structured society (Ständegesellschaft) gives way to a bourgeois, libertarian society in which a radical new experience of the Self becomes possible. The distinction between collective and individual creativity thus seems a characteristic feature of modernity, and it clearly reflects its historical dialectic: the disappearance of the communal bonds of old and of the coercive tradition of a divine absolute leads to a liberating experience of the Self, yet also brings about new forms of social division, isolation, dissociation and individualism along with the desire for new forms of collective experiences, solidarity, class consciousness, communal and social collectivism. New forms of a secular absolute (nation, class, race) and their respective moral and political legitimation emerge alongside attempts to formulate radical positions of an aesthetic opposition in which moral concept and argument are replaced in favour of an absolute of artistic creation.
5. In the different arts and academic disciplines, the question of collective creativity needs to be considered according to the specificities of the particular media. While it is common to identify collective efforts in areas such as the performing arts, in theatre/opera or film/tv production, and in some sciences (empirical or applied natural sciences, social sciences), it is much less commonly found in areas such the visual arts or in traditional forms of writing, whether scholarly or creative. Is there a “collective novel” or can we speak of “collective writing” in general? Are there “collective musical compositions”? In scholarly writing, are collective research productions more than the sum of individual contributions? How do such collective enterprises function? How do they come about? Where is the collective aspect located? Can collective creativity generate an aesthetic or scientific “surplus” that goes beyond an individual effort?
6. The very notion of collectivity is very often seen as a political/ideological issue, with collectivity assigned to the Left (see for example the 2005 exhibition in the Kunsthalle Friedericianum Kassel, entitled ‘Collective Creativity: Common Ideas for Life and Politics’ which heavily favoured a political notion of collective artistic endeavour as resistance against dominant capitalist art forms and as performative critique of social institutions and political structures). On the other hand, the primacy of the individual is claimed as a domain by the liberal/conservative Right. But are these distinctions necessarily meaningful, particularly in view of the disappearing relevance of traditional systems of political fractionalism in a postmodern cultural environment? More recently, as the first Yearbook for Cultural Studies and Aesthetic Practice (published by the Department of Cultural Studies and Aesthetic Communication at Hildesheim University, Germany) suggests, scholars in cultural studies – at Hildesheim and elsewhere – have focussed on a concept of creative collectivity as an overriding principle of organisation beyond the limiting socio-political perimeters of 20th century discourses. Taking as a cue the “explosive expansion of computer networks” made possible by digital technologies and the internet, the editors of the yearbook note the increasing interest in networking systems on the basis of which “‘individuals‘,‘groups‘,‘projects‘,‘enterprises‘,‘masses‘ and ‘societies‘ organise their thinking and learning as well as their [aesthetic as much as social and cultural] practice”. (Porombka, Stephan, Wolfgang Schneider and Volker Wortmann, eds., “Vorwort der Herausgeber”, Kollektive Kreativität [Jahrbuch für Kulturwissenschaft und ästhetische Praxis, 1. Jg, 2006], Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2007, pp. 7,9; trans. G.F.).
7. The idea of collective artistic creation invariably raises a number of other questions, equally ethical and political, relating for example to problems of ownership, recognition and acknowledgement, hierarchy and control. Are the notions of collectivity and hierarchy incompatible? Does collective creation always imply democratic participation? Who owns a work of art created by a collective? Is there an inherent contradiction between individual ownership and collective imagination (e.g. in Aboriginal art)? In traditional communal societies the idea of individual artistic creation or authorship may largely be irrelevant; yet the production of such art today must take account of the existing mechanisms of a market economy.
8. How do recent developments in media theory and practice impact on the question of individual versus collective creativity? In what way are modernist concepts such as the ideas of Benjamin (Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit) or Brecht (Radio-Theorie) relevant in an age of digital creativity? Who owns a work of art created for the internet? Is digital art or writing inherently monologic or dialogic? How do digital innovations (hypertext, chatting, virtual environments) contribute to the creation of collective consciousness? The openness of the internet seems to transcend in principle the idea of a work of art anchored in artistic individuality. But can participation in internet sites generate a sense of collectivity that transcends the isolation of the individual Self in front of the computer monitor, or does it only create an illusion of communal identity?
9. In contemporary academic work, there seems to be a paradigm change away from individual research to team projects which are often favoured in grant competitions. Similarly, recent academic discourses clearly favour notions such as interculturalism or multiculturalism, interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, which per se appear to require forms of collective practice. Again one could ask where is the surplus generated by such collective enterprises? And why is it that the idea of ‘collective creativity’ does not seem particularly fashionable nor at the forefront of current discourses on today’s creative or artistic avantgardes?
CALL FOR PAPERS.
Offers of papers that address the issues and
questions suggested above are invited. Papers are to be 30 minutes in length
(20 minutes presentation and 10 minutes discussion).
The deadline for submission of proposals is 30 September 2008.
Please send title and a one page abstract (MS-Word) to G.Fischer@unsw.edu.au and Florian.Vassen@germanistik.uni-hannover.de.
FASS UNSW Sydney 2052, Australia Tel:(International)+61 2 9385 2289 Email: arts@unsw.edu.au
ABN 57 195 873 179 CRICOS Provider Code 00098G, Copyright & Disclaimer, UNSW Privacy Policy
Authorised by Dean, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, ©Copyright 2004–2008,
Last Updated: May 28, 2008
