Upgrade

URL = http://theupgrde.net/

Description

Niels Kerssens:

"‘Upgrade! is an ever-growing network, upwards of 30 nodes at present time, started in 1999 in NYC’. All these nodes share a same interest, uniting art, technology and a shared commitment to the bridging of cultural divides, for which the regular organization of local events is one of their main activities. The nodes are widely spread across the globe, resulting in numerous geographical boundaries. On this first day of Winter Camp, an international group of node representatives gathered at Studio K to discuss some important issues relating to their network structure. All topics of discussion were on forehand cleverly organized in a Wiki, starting with questions of network identity.

The Upgrade! network consists of two network structures. First there is the international network of nodes, of which some representatives - largely curators - are present in the Winter Camp group. And second there are the individual nodes that also form their own local network, mostly consisting of curators and artists from the local community. Both levels struggle with questions of identity, but as the discussion revealed, it’s primarily on the local level that a lot of issues pop-up. What became clear in the discussion is that every individual node has to deal with its own specific local reality, resulting in multiple local identities. Not every network shares the same amount of activity. The organization of events, and internal gatherings follow a very irregular schedule amongst the different nodes. Some of the nodes even had, or are still in, a mode of hibernation, in which they don’t organize events at all. A serious lack of budget seems to be an overall issue, affecting every individual node in the network. With no financials to pay yourself, or the exhibiting artists, persevering in Upgrade! looks like a constant funding struggle. Logically this financial issue relates to matters of motivation, as money still is a powerful motivator.

But the motivation issue isn’t much of a topic for the individuals in the Winter Camp group itself, as each of them seems to have their own strong motivation to keep the network functioning, for which it’s important that each of them knows each other in person, and they thus already form a strong group that keeps motivation intact. The issue is rather how to spread their motivation to the actors, mostly artists, which are active in the individual nodes. And following, making these artists aware of the international Upgrade! structure without forcing them to be part of an international institution. Again this issue denotes a tension that exists between the International structure of the Upgrade! network and their individual nodes.

At present it looks like the individual Upgrade! nodes don’t share a collective identity, as the local identity of the individual nodes seems to be incompatible with the international Upgrade! network that is far more homogeneous. The nodes are spread across the globe, and thus facing a lot of geographical boundaries that don’t only problematize communication amongst the nodes, but also complicate setting up a general and coherent identity, and spreading that within the local setting.

It seems the International level is working, question is how to get the local nodes working as well. So what can the International structure bring to the local? The Wiki that is shared amongst the nodes seems to be a useful step in sharing, and collecting information that can contribute to the functioning of every node. Maybe it can be a shared resource, and help the network to come-up with some ideas and models that in general can be organized amongst the nodes." (http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/wintercamp/2009/03/04/questions-of-identity-in-upgrade/)

Discussion

Governance issues

Liliana Bounegru:

"Upgrade! defines itself as a decentralized, non-hierarchical network of currently thirty local nodes, which started in 1999 in New York City. It seems to me rather that the network has a distributed structure, considering that all the locally defined nodes are equal and autonomous. The network structure fundamentally defines the decision making process. While the network maintained a quite democratic mode of organization and decision making so far, this model has its weaknesses as well. Not all the members felt motivated to contribute in the decision making process by voting at the right time. A potential solution that has been discussed during the group meeting today was voting versus mandate, or a combination of the two, according to the various circumstances. In situations which require higher effectiveness over a short period of time, the democratic procedure would be ‘sacrificed’ in order to meet deadlines and objectives, and the decision power would be delegated to a smaller representative group. As a matter a fact, working in smaller groups has proven to be an effective method to reach results.

A vulnerable point with which the network seems to be confronting at this moment is the decision making process, reason for which changing the currently used collaborative tools: mailing list, wiki, website, has been considered. There seemed to be an oscillation between working in a democratic manner, and giving people clear responsibilities and mandates to work on.

An important value for a distributed network like Upgrade! is transparency. Introducing a wiki as communication platform is a way to achieve transparency and avoid isolation of the local nodes.

The growing number of group members might also turn into a vulnerability of the network unless the mode of organization is adapted. An important point of discussion of Upgrade! at Winter Camp was precisely how the growth of the network should be approached and how membership should be defined. Since the network does not impose constraints of activity on its nodes, each of the nodes has the freedom to be active or passive. The nodes may be inactive until an activity of local interest determines the engagement of the node and consequently the network’s support. The weakness of this approach is that it is difficult to distinguish between temporarily idle nodes and ‘retired’ nodes, therefore it is difficult for the network to have an account of who it can count on.

The local nodes are connected in an online global network that meets twice a year. The question arose of how to activate the nodes and make them more efficient without imposing constraints on them. The network does not seem to have a set of predefined norms to regulate the interaction between nodes. The conditions of participation in local events are established ad hoc and depend on the circumstances of each event and the needs of the local host, as it had been evident from the discussion regarding the organization of their upcoming event in Sao Paolo.

The group also noticed a difference of involvement between generations of nodes. The old nodes seemed to be more involved and dedicated than the new ones. This situation may be connected with the fact that an important value on which the foundation of the network was based, and which guided their relations was friendship. Now that the network is growing and more nodes are being attached, the strategy of accepting new members might change from friendship to more formal criteria." (http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/wintercamp/2009/03/06/upgrade-decision-making-in-a-distributed-network/)