The text suggests that there must be room for maneuver and collaboration, as well as giving credit where it is due. The installation/experimental ethnography should not be seen as complete projects, but as always changing and open to revision. This is particularly useful for thinking about the work that we do on PECE. Perhaps the text encourages us to see our work as contributing to the general scientific body of knowledge, and thus there should be more openness regarding remixing and reuse. Perhaps it asks us to think about past installations and experimental works: are they finished and done with, or do we continue to build upon them, not only individually but collectively? How might we engage in a more open form of collaboration around installations?
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On