class: top, middle, contain # Make Friends Not Art ### Mapping Law, Power and Participation in Designing an Online Platform during *documenta fifteen* .caption[Roel Roscam Abbing, Malmö University &<br> <br> Ann Light, Sussex University / Malmö University] ??? hello my name is Roel Roscam Abbing. I'm a doctoral student of interaction design. I'm very grateful to be able to share this specific research made with Ann Light here at PDC in Malaysia because it is so informed by the work, efforts, concepts and people from South East Asia and I hope the paper will be useful for those of you here. I come at this paper from the position of European academic and thus I acknowledge the views and interpretations are my own as I don't have the voices of others participants on stage here, even though we checked and corroborated this interpretation with them multiple times. --- class: constrained, middle, center  .caption["Make Friends Not Art", Baan Norg collective, 2022] ??? In this paper we reflect on an instance of participatory design work that happened in the context of a large scale arts festival in Germany. The curators, an indonesian arts collective, were invited to to become artistic directors and **revitalize** the european festival. --- class: constrained, middle, center  .caption["Make Friends Not Art", Baan Norg collective, 2022] ??? Our paper is a story of how I designed an online platform in the context of that festival but found the process frustrated as both festival’s production company and the media in germany drew on specific legal frameworks to shape and constrain both the nature of the platform and the wider festival. In other words, it is a story of how capitalist and colonial dynamics can seep in to such projects and the specific ways that can happen. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern3.png) # Introduction 1. ## Context *documenta fifteen* & ruangrupa 2. ## Data collection & methodology 3. ## Legal encounters while designing a platform 4. ## Discussion and conclusions ??? In this talk I will highlight some aspects of the paper. In that I necessarily lose detail and context in the interest of time. However, I discuss how the legal circumstances became an unexpected but major factor in shaping participation. I will give two examples of how the law and various actors exploiting or threatening to exploit its protective intention became unanticipated actors influencing the platform and the perception of the festival. Finally, I will discuss how Ann and me drew on actor network theory to map these forces in an attempt to understand the ways they had influence and what that could mean for future participatory design projects. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern4.png) # background to the festival ??? documenta is a large arts festival which happens in kassel germany every five years since the 1950s. The festival was started as an effort to reintroduce the avant garde works banned by the nazis to post-war west germany, and also to **renew** Germany's reputation in the world. The festival itself lasts 100 days but the lead up takes several years. For the last edition, an Indonesian arts collective was asked to be the artistic director. Choosing a collective as the artistic director was a first, and it was only the second time for documenta that an artistic director from the global south was appointed. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern4.png) # background to the festival * ### ruangrupa, nongkrong and the lumbung ??? The collective to become artistic director was the jakarta-based collective called ruangrupa, which means visual space in bahasa indonesia. Their work is characterized by making spaces for art in the city and taking an approach where existing initiatives and other people are invited in to co-create these spaces. One of the signature methods they use is that of nongkrong, slang from **Java island** for hanging out and chatting. To them, it is a way to learn about others and their motivations and to generate ideas together. For documenta fifteen they proposed to extend their method of commoning, which they had already practiced for some years. --- class: contain, bottom background-image: url(lumbung.jpg) .caption[Iswanto Hartono (ruangrupa), lumbung drawing, 2020] ??? That method was based on the lumbung, a traditional system of resource managment that villagers could depend on in times of scarcity and would contribute to in times of plenty. As a local form of commoning it became the central concept for ruangrupa's artistic direction of documenta fifteen. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern4.png) # background to the festival * ### curators and the lumbung * ### the curatorial approach, festival as a shared resource ??? Drawing on the lumbung as a cooperative model, they considered the festival and the resources it would entail, in terms of money, production help, media attention and status as a resource to be shared. -- * * ### curatorial principle of extending the invitation ??? They worked with a system of recursive invitations, inviting collectives and artist similar to them who would in turn be asked to invite others. Together they would decide on the festival's programme, activities and budget in a participatory manner. -- * * ### invest in festival, but also in the future of the network ??? Crucially, the festival resources were not only considered as something to make successful festival with. Instead, the process of making the festival was a way to mobilize these resources in order to develop and sustain a new network of collectives and their practices beyond documenta fifteen. Leading to the informal slogan of make friends, not art. I became part of one working group created by the collectives to make an online platform, called lumbung.space --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern5.png) # data collection & methodology ??? There are some specificities to how I got involved and how we worked together that I want to highlight. -- * ### invited into an existing process ??? I found myself in the position of a researcher being invited to join a process. By the time I joined, the proces was already a year underway and I was asked to help facilitate the design and making of a prototype. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern5.png) # data collection & methodology * ### invited into an existing process * ### PAR approach to development of platform prototype * ### Unanticipated research questions, analysis with Ann Light ??? I took a participatory research action approach, prioritizing and following the groups' research agenda and needs. However, at the same time, I also conducted my own lines of inquiry trying to understand how institutional relations would play out in the design of this platform. Most of the data for this paper comes from participant observation, conversations and my personal notes and reflections. However, in performing action research, events during the process which were impossible to ignore lead to aditional research that I conducted in close collaboration with Ann Light, and which is the subject of this paper. And so, reflecting on the process we ask -- * * ### "What had the power to open or constrain the design of the platform?" * * ### "What had the power to motivate or discourage involvement in designing the platform together?" --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern4.png) # Cultural differences between Artistic Team and DgGmbh * ### lumbung as *practice* vs lumbung as *aesthetic concept* * ### transformative process vs exhibition theme * ### small and slow vs large and spectacular * ### trusting the process vs anxiety whether there will be exhibition at all ??? The entire festival was marked by cultural differences between the artistic team and the production company. The first saw lumbung as practice with transformative implications for the exhibition format as well as the relations between artists, visitors and the hosting institution. The production company on the other hand, saw it as an aesthetic concept, to be applied to a large scale festival the way exhibition concepts are always applied. To make the lumbung process work, the artistic team started small, and chose to move slowly and carefully wanting to extending trust to new partners as they came in to view. The production company wanted to create a large scale exhibition as always, looking for spectacular pieces, publicity and press releases. this became a tension between trusting the process, that something good and different would come and the anxieties of the prodution company whether any work would be on exhibition at all --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern4.png) # Consequences of cultural differences * ### subsequent rounds of recursive invitations, 1500 artists eventually * ### *"from full lumbung to gado gado (a dish with a bit of everything)"* (ruangrupa and Artistic Team, 2022) * ### additional challenge for lumbung.space design, who is the "we"? ??? These differences would have consequences on the larger festival. They eventually lead to more artists being invited, totalling 1500 at the end of the festival. This made the original concept harder to achieve, a process described in the exhibition reader as going from full lumbung to gado gado, a dish with a bith of everything. It created difficulties for prototyping the platform as well, as the user group was bounded in theory, but unbounded in practice. There was always a reference to a larger collective-of-collectives but frequently changing representatives, collaborators, interested parties made it hard to establish who the "we" of the project was. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern2.png) # Legal encounters while designing a platform * ## threat of copyright trolls as institutional concern ??? Eventually the legal team would have a pronouced influence on the design of the platform. Altough we the paper reports on many subtle dynamics, in the interest of time I highlight one. Specifically the worries of the legal team that our prototype would make the production company vulnerable to actions from copy right trolls, as the production company would be liable for what was published using our prototype. documenta had been the target of copy right trolls in the past, which cost the company large sums in damages to these companies. They are considered trolls because they exploit intellectual property law and are only interested in the payment of damages, acting for commercial gain rather than an interest protecting authors. Given the national scandal about budget overruns and deficits that characterized the previous edition of the documenta, this was a priority to the production company. -- * * ### limiting participation as preventative measure * * * ### only artists under contract * * * ### disabling federation with third parties ??? This meant that the to make the process go forward we had to limit participation only to artists and collectives under contract of D15. On top of that, we would have to disable the possibility of the tools to federate with third parties, making the platform less lively and less valuable for the artitsts, and making it harder to argue in favor for it. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern2.png) # Legal encounters during the Design process * ## impacts of legal encounters * * ### Time and effort lost to legal matters * * ### Foreclosure of core participatory questions * * ### Restrictions on who could join and what could be shared * ### Engaging with this was way forward, and things could be fixed later... ??? Eventually these legal encounters had a big effect on shaping participation. Yet, engaging with these matters was a way for us to move the process forward, and it also happened in a collegial atmosphere as the documenta legal team was trying hard to make the platform work within the organization's constraints. In that spirit, we modified to the open source software to accomodate these concerns, which was part of our intended multistakeholder process. While it cost time and effort to meet these demands, the team considered we could rebalance later, during the 100 days of the festival, when in person meetings would make that more likely. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern8.2.png) # Antisemitism controversy and its origins * #### 2017 adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism by DE government * #### 2019 anti-Boycot-Divest-Sanction(BDS) resolution adopted in DE parliament * * #### Not legally binding, but normative and carried in to policy and affecting cultural institutions * * #### *“invoking this resolution, accusations of antisemitism are being misused to push aside important voices and to distort critical positions”* (gg 5.3. weltoffenheit, 2020) ??? However, in the beginning of 2022 a large controversy erupted around the issue of antisemitism that would eventually work to prevent that. This controversy was based in the 2017 adoption of International Holocaust Remembrane Alliance definition of antisemitism. A definition criticized for precluding criticism of the policies of the state of Israel. In addition, in 2019 a parliamentary resolution explicitly preventing public bodies from supporting organizations involved in BDS was adopted. While the resolution was not legally binding, and even later declared unconstitutional by the parliament's legal council, it was normative. Already in 2020 prominent German cultural institutions wrote an open letter highlighting the risk of this resolution silencing cultural expressions. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern8.png) # Antisemitism controversy and its origins * #### Palestinian artists participated and many shared sympathies for Palestinian cause * #### DgGmbh at the same time not sufficiently prepared for safeguarding the plurality of perspectives it invited * #### Unfounded accusations of antisemitism on internet in early 2022 quickly became media frenzy * * #### Followed by burglaries, vandalism, intimidation of venue by Palestinian artists prior to festival opening ??? Some of the invited participants were Palestinian. And, partly because of identification with shared histories of opression and colonialism, many of the artists shared sympathies for the palestinian cause. At the same time, the production comapny was insufficiently prepared to safeguard the plurality and diversity it invited. When in early 2022 unfounded accusations online linked Palestinian artists to antisemitism and by extension the curators and the festival, this resulted in a spate of intimidations and attacks on venues as well as media frenzy. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern8.png) # Antisemitism controversy and its origins * #### During opening, large piece by Taring Padi *The People's Justice* found to contain antisemitic caricatures, adding fuel to already raging fire * #### "No one would disagree that it should never have been exhibited" (de Bruyn 2023) * #### Eventual step down of director DgGmbH, ruangrupa summoned to a parliamentary hearing ??? To make matters worse, during the opening one of the main pieces was found to contain undeniably antisemitic caricatures. There was a retraction and apologies were made by those involved, as well as attempts to stage public discussions about it, but the controversy was now cemented and large gestures were forced on the production company and artistic team. Ultimately the director of documenta was made to resign and ruangrupa was summoned to a parliamentary hearing. --- # Fallout of controversy * #### DgGmbh braced for threats from IP claims, not consequences of political pluralism * #### Failed to anticipate not only controversy around antisemitism * * #### Queer collective ceased activities due to unsafety and lack of support * #### further development of platform postponed until after festival ??? the controversy would have a severe impact on individuals, organisations and collectives involved in the exhibition. That it could be allowed to happen was surprising, given precedent in germany, but it seems the production company did not sufficiently consider the consequences of diversity. Something that was ultimately evidenced more broadly during the festival as when for example a delhi-based queer collective withdrew due to feeling unsafe and unsuported in the city. For our the platform it meant those working with us had to step away and a decision was made to postpone all work until after the festival. It meant important discussions could not happen and these only recently started again. --- class: full-image, middle, center  ??? Reflecting on this project that took such unexpected turns, Ann and I worked to make an actor network map in order to understand which pressures were involved. Mapping all the actors and actants in several iterations, starting with partners in the design, moving to the organisers and their institutional concerns to more general actors setting the social context. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern2.png) # Conclusion * ### Laws intended to protect creators and persecuted groups, wielded to stifle creation and persecute groups * * ### dis/affordences of F/LOSS software caught all the legal scrutiny and steered the participatory process * * ### These dynamics are insufficiently considered in F/LOSS development ??? Based on this iterative mapping we discuss several larger patterns in the paper. However, I discuss only one here, namely that laws intended to protect creators and persecuted groups, were wielded to stifle creation and persecute groups. For design it is relevant to note that this dynamic intersected in particular ways with the open source software tools we worked with. Tools chosen for their functionality as well as the values they embodied. However, how these values were expressed in the software quickly caught the eye of the legal team. Default settings and assumptions about use in F/LOSS often do not account for the breadth of use contexts, and in our case this resulted in having to make extensive modifications to accomodate institutional concerns in order to use the software we wanted to work with. --- background-image: url(lumbung.space.pattern2.png) # Conclusion * ### Laws intended to protect creators and persecuted groups, wielded to stifle creation and persecute groups. * * #### Existing and coming platform regulations can exacerbate this dynamic * * * #### GDPR (2018), DMA/DSA (2024), TERREG (coming?) * * #### law needs not to directly apply to influence actors * #### F/LOSS software was not ready for such legal interactions, let alone the exploitation ??? However, the issue exists more broadly. There is a host of existing and coming legistlation, for example in the EU,¹ a new regulation concerning terrorist activity on line. This kind of legistlation covers online platforms, big and small, and has protective intentions. However, when that legistlation is insufficiently considered by software makers, it could expose software users to new challenges and forms of exploitation. Curcially for PD, as our example of the German parliament BDS resolution shows, laws do not need to directly apply to a situation in order to influence risk-averse stakeholders or opportunistic actors. --- class: full-image, middle, center  .caption[Possible space for anticipatory PD research] ??? This brings us back to the map. Where, in addition to mapping actors and influences we made three groupings, the PD process we thought would happen, the one that actually happened, and one which could be considered an *anticipatory* research agenda for PD. An agenda that works to identify and resolve key issues on the intersection of new protective laws and open source software and its values, in order to resolve specific tensions before they emerge in traditional PD settings and work to deflect away from participant concerns as it has with us. The type of influences we describe in our paper mean that ultimately individual design teams can do little mitigate them. Yet that should not mean we should lower the ambition for PD, as working in these kinds of non-ideal conditions are often the only way for groups like ruangrupa to do the work they want to do. Thus, while this mapping was too little and to late in the case of documenta, we hope that our paper's analysis of the specific ways capitalism and colonialism became actors in such a process can be of use to others in future encounters. --- class: bottom, middle # Thank you! * ### roel.roscam-abbing@mau.se (mail) / @rra@post.lurk.org (mastodon) * ### ann.light@sussex.ac.uk (mail) .left[Roel Roscam Abbing, dept. of Interaction Design, K3, Malmö University &] .left[prof. Ann Light, University of Sussex / Malmö University]