TABLE OF CONTENT: https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/jftr-toc

*Retreat

Agenda

*Day 1



*Day 2



*Friday morning accounting 
- PV signing (original?) + sending
- accounting session editing and jacques payement



Conversation notes

=== 1st of May 2019 ===
First tracks

Toolkit, spellbook, recipes, scores



find a way to introduce and talk about that



===18th of June 2020===
space/architecture >> https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/jftr-architecture-namur

Nourishing weeds in the brutalist neutrality of online spaces


With the shift from web 1.0 to web 2.0 at the end of the 1990s, publishing on the internet became more accessible, with the possibility for more people to add contents to websites and blogs in a much easier way than before, when you needed important programming skills. Wikipedia is quite representative of this new landscape — participative, plural and community-based. However, community based and plural does not mean ever-flexible, or ever-changing.

intro neutrality in writing tools / wikipedia

It is interesting to observe a platform like Wikipedia as a public space. Just like in a public space there is a 
In a disballance between who makes it and the people who experience it.
> re-invest public space (see up there)
Depicting the landscape

The value of neutrality is reenforced by the democratic concept of transparency. Some public spaces are created to debate around the construction of one page (construction of a commun idea/concept?). But neither transparency nor neutrality concept fix the existing disballance of the conversation.
The myth of neutrality on collaborative spaces

How does one deconstruct the protected concept of neutrality on online knowledge platforms? 
Let's start by trying to visualise the landscape of its power structures inherited from tools to collectively re-write history: 
The tools created public writing rooms for every topic, but there are rules and conventions for how different groups of people inhabit public space. The tools gave everyone authorship, but there are long cultural traditions of how and who we write history for and with. Without taking these disparaties into account the pillars of writing from a neutral point of view was raised, and in the end the tool was more promising than the reality it existed in.

In these new public spaces the argument "this is how we have always done it" was used without reflection of which "we" it referred to. Some wikipedians seem to think that the "we" is Wikipedia (from 2001) not taking in that these structures and power dynamics are inherited from the past.
How to deconstruct the this is how “everybody” has always done it

contextualisation (removal/recontextualisation of statues glorifying colonial past)

---------------


How can we imagine a way of writing history that lives up to the potential of collective writing tools and wikis? Is it a new platform or is it a protocol for how to use the existing ones better? And what would such a protocol look like? We could be gardeners, noursihing weeds and enouraging plant diversity, or explorers finding a new forest.


-----------------------





Method





WEBSITE WORK


*WISHES FOR FUTURE SESSIONS


*LIST

Check in our own computers

Mia

https://jftr.hotglue.me/
The Architecture of Collective Writing https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/jftr-architecture-namur

Namur application: interesting to look at what we wanted to do at the begining
https://safe.justfortherecord.space/f/1635

The architecture of collective writing, as performed at DIVersions
http://justfortherecord.space/architecture-collective-writing.html

Praxis
https://safe.justfortherecord.space/f/1086

In 2017-06-06-atelier_web-feminisme-light
https://safe.justfortherecord.space/apps/files/?dir=/presentations&fileid=224#pdfviewer
*

*


While all those events were always infused with our artistic background, they were mostly fueled by a sense of urgency and a need for direct feminist activism. We are now in a phase in which we would like to take time to reflect and turn all the richness of the materials, knowledges and expertise that we’ve encountered andbuilt so far, into an artistic project.Re-centering ourselves on our respective practices as artists and designers, we are very much interested in how to spatialize the experience of collective writing and editing, how to make both the processes and the digital interfaces more tangible, through physical objects, in dialog with digital ones from a feminist perspective.For the speculative design residency we would like to develop a multi-media installation that would crystallize those ideas.


We would like to build upon our past experiences and interrogate how space and objects are influencing the way we access and produce contents.


*