*PROTOTYPE FOR AN EXPERIMENT ABOUT WORK, 
*WORKING, AND SHARING IN BRUSSELS
         

> WHY
 
Dissatisfaction with present conditions for work and sharing of work and knowledge
 
Competitive, commercial, success and efficiency driven modes of assessing human activities have become so widespread and matter of fact that their influence can even be felt within the working practices of those who are the most fervent critiques of the neoliberal trends.
 
A large part of our work as progressive artists and arts practitioners aims in one way or another to challenge the capitalist and neoliberal status quo of our present days societies.  
 
The modes and conditions for the production of such art work should be the first place in which alternatives to the dominant model are developed and implemented.  
 
Yet, we too, as artists and arts practitioners seem to have unlearned to work, share, think and organise ourselves outside of the capitalist paradigm of individual success, financial independence, and market driven competition.
 
We feel the need to collectively reeducate ourselves towards more content- and sharing-driven practices and more sustainable senses of achievement.
 
WHY INVESTIGATE WORKING:
 
> It’s hard to recognise ourselves (artists and art workers, producers of thoughts) in the working collectivity currently offered (capitalist, over-achieving, fragmented). 
> The actual working paradigm (conditions?) for the immaterial makers/producers is mostly unsustainable (24/7, non regulated, precarious) but above all is isolated. 
> Isolation causes impossibility to evaluate and generate collectively recognised sustainable and positive working conditions (and outcomes?  - I wonder whether it is just the conditions at stake. If the conditions are no longer collectively recognised, how can outcomes stay something that we collectively connect to?) for those busy with knowledge, art, thinking as products of their labour and time. 
 
Is it possible to re-think and re-structure the values of achievement, success, competition?Is it possible to re-invent labour through sharing our time?
 
WHY INVESTIGATING SHARING TIME AND SPACE: 
*>>> DEFINE <<<
*Care
*Why do we presuppose what people need?
*Opposition to regulation
*Accent on establishing collective practice and re-activation of public decision-making 
*Responsibility 
*Comfort VS Discomfort 
*Producing care by caring
*A practice of hospitality as an example of free incalculable effort outside the capitalistic system

WHY INVESTIGATING PUBLIC SPACE / PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY:
*>>> DEFINE <<<
Stressing the topic of responsibility of users: investigation of the meaning of commons, shared risks, shared values. 
Questioning the regulation that public space requires: are rules the only way?
 
WHY A GIFT FROM AN INSTITUTION:
 
As a way if reclaiming a space for the community around the existing institution: would it be possible to activate a non-hierarchical and non-regulated system inside a vertical power structure? What if this could become a model for future practices of public decision making?
 
 
       

 
 
> WHAT
 
This is an experiment on work and sharing within a anti-normative setting. 
We come together to determine our conditions of work and to question our ways of working. 
We set up an anti-normative framework to challenge collective thinking and ways of sharing space.
*>>> DEFINE <<<
*What does it mean anti-normative?
*What does it mean collective thinking?
 
The co-working space is the medium for the investigation - an embodied investigation of work, achievement and collectivity.
Learning to work, share and assess differently requires reflection, but it can only be achieved through practice. The scope of the undertaking thus reaches beyond a theoretical investigation of the question towards an embodied experiment in work, achievement and collectivity. It is about defining new working conditions for ourselves and experiencing the effects of these new conditions upon our practices and between them.
  
Co-working - shared space & time as the framework for (both collectively and individually) practicing new relationships of work and achievement.
 
More than providing the most optimal condition for our existing work, this co-working space aims to seek for possible conditions which could affect the nature of our work itself, thus possibly also changing it.
 
Commoning rather than competing
Advancement of contents and practices rather than individual success
 
Tweaking the parameters, forcing the conditions, pushing the limits of the existing "normality".
 
It is inspired by nature and wild camping. 
It is triggered by inefficiency.
 
*
 
The space is offered free of charge to the users and hosted by a public institution.
 
Since it is a gift to the users-community the institution is responsible for making it possible and legally accessible. 
The users-community in its wider sense (those initiating the experiment and those joining its development) is the only responsible for the activation of the experiment. 
*>>> DEFINE <<<
*Which kind of institution?
There is a beginning in which the space opens and proposals for activation are made. 
It will then develop thanks to the collection of people who will grow practices.
 
 
THE SPACE:
 
The space hosting this experiment should have both indoor and outdoor space, it has to be full of light. 
The indoor space should have at least two separate rooms and be equipped with internet, heating and functioning toilets. 
It should be easily accessible and big enough to host public events for 100 standing people, eg 300-400 sqm
 
 
 
 
>WHEN
 
 A FIXED TERM EXPERIMENT  2, 3 OR 4 YEARS:
 
> With the possibility to renew it 
OR
> Without the possibility to continue
 
WHY A FIXED TIME FRAME:
*>>> DEFINE <<<
 

 
> WHO
 
EVERYONE INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK TOGETHER
AND / OR
EVERYONE READY TO MAKE A LOVE DECLARATION TO THE SPACE
* Consider: 
*        accessibility
*        who are the people concerned
*   flow vs. sedimentation
*        minority practices / transdisciplinarity
 
 
 
> HOW
  
CORE PRINCIPLES 
 
*- AS INVITATIONS 
*- AS PROVOCATIONS TO DEVELOP NEW PRACTICES
*- AS CONTRADICTONS AND CONNUNDRUMS THAT ENERGISE
*- TO STIMULATE CONDITIONS FOR SURPRISE 
 
This is space dedicated to experimenting on work and sharing.
 
Be responsible for your own happiness - (no compromise).
Everyone is responsible for its own happiness and satisfaction: if everyone speaks up their concern the general framework has to move along with diversions >>> make no compromise. 
 
Be generous.
Care / generosity / sharing of results & outcomes.
 
Zero waste + leave traces. 
+
Your traces are for others.
We are invited to leave material and immaterial traces of our practice is order to accumulate knowledge, pick up what’s left, share materials, enrich the space (copy-left policy + peer to peer production).
 
Transparency (of decisions, of changes, of proposals). 
 
Openness / hospitality.
Always make it possible for newcomers to access what is happening. 
 
No pre-emptive fixed rules / no pre-established norm to conform oneself to.
(Avoid written rules and paper signs on walls)
 
Written principles VS. unwritten rules = responsive / negotiated.
 
Bear with the thing until you know it.
(Comfort / discomfort and new territory)
 
Evaluation.
Regular re-assessment / 'bear with the thing' principle.
*How to articulate evaluation? Not a set method but strong principle / invitation.
Sharing of risk & responsibility. 
Take risks.
   
No service provided, but quality to be cultivated.
 
The doer decides.
 
It is always possible to leave or withdraw. 
 
Those in are those who care (who love it).
 
*ATTEMPT AT INTERDICTIONS:
*No compromises.
*No service provided.
*ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE EXCEPT: 
*> based on practical conditions and common sense (!!!)
*> privatization
*> meetings or activities dedicated to promoting xenophobia, homophobia, racism and fascism in all its dark shapes
*> fundamental structural changes (architecture and number of toilets and stairs)
 
 
*‘Principles’ notes in progress:
*> anti normative collectivity
*> unforeseen encounters
*> productive clashes
*            > public component
*> nexus of individual and shared risks / stakes / involvements / needs
*> importance of the existence of a stake for each participant, 
*not forcefully the same, but of similar importance, or intensity, 
*or perhaps not even, just the importance of a stake, of something to lose.
*> keywords:
*core conditions / flow regeneration / fragility / shared responsibility / adrenaline, thrills / 
*challenge / shared risk / impact - provocation - experiment / constantly squatted - fragile, open future / 
*self organisation / transparency / experiment / public space /  public impact /
 
 
 
 
EXAMPLES OF TOOLS & PRACTICES: 
(APPLYING THE CORE PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE)
* Are any of these preset conditions? Or are they all proposed by users?
FUNCTIONS
There are set functions in the space (a silent room and a library).
OR
The need for silence and calmness is not imposed, users claim it when is needed.
 
EVALUATION
There is no pre-set evaluation practice - it will come from the users but a principle states its importance.
 
INVITATION DEPENDING ON COMMUNICATION
New people come in every two months >> initiated by call out communication.
OR
New people come in constantly, whenever.
 
PARTICIPATION (possibilities without formal membership)
Love declaration is asked.
Presence is the only requirement.
A facilitators group.
Invite to invite.
Free labour exchanges.
 
OPENING HOURS
Access 24/7 or open when someone needs it.
Access through a concierge sleeping there.
Access through a key hidden in the city.
Access through a system proposed to the users (at least one has to be there for the space to be open > co-hosts).
Access always possible because the door is always open.
Access pre-set 10am - 7pm. 
 
ACTIVITIES
Playing work >> performing work (the moment you enter you are working).
Scores for the day.
Daily schedule.
Oral constitution.
Blackboard at the entrance.
Core-group forces the culture.
Zero waste.
Cleaning rituals.
Recipe book of practices.
Obligation to organise workshops open to the wider general public. > does it mean people not interested in experimenting work and sharing?
+ + + + + +
 
 
COMMUNICATION / ACCESSIBILITY:
 
The existence and opening of the space itself is: 
 
Scenario 1: PROMOTED 
The initiators group launches a promotional campaign declaring the opening and the beginning of the experiment through the standard channels (institutional brochure, newspapers, internet).  
The experiment’s communication is discussed beforehand and mainly in charge of the initiators group. 
It follows the path of a standard artistic project (flyers, mailing lists, brief presentation statement, opening day). 
 
There is a web-site communicating:
-   address
-   leading principles
-   calendar of activities
 
There is a public interface (on the street) communicating:
-   leading principles
 
Scenario 2: NOT PROMOTED / WHISPERING
There is no initial promotion of the space and the initiators group starts to inhabit the space on the first day. 
The communication is left to word of mouth with the intent of developing a spiral of interested people. 
 
There is a web-site communicating:
-   address
-   leading principles
-   calendar of activities
 
There is a public interface (on the street) communicating:
-   leading principles
 
The activities of the users are promoted according to the needs of each activity by the users themselves. 
Activities become accessible in different ways according to what’s going on.