Procedure

Items coming in from Agent G were sent to Agent B after processing, and items coming in from Agent B were sent to Agent G, unless reasons of content, communication or intuition dictated otherwise. Criteria of this nature were rarely lacking, and so the default procedure was almost never followed. Reasons of content included such decisions as passing an item that Agent G would see as significant to Agent B who would not recognize the item, so that when the item reached G, the message of content from S to G was both mitigated and enhanced by input from B. Reasons of communication included such decisions as returning an item directly to Agent B, after modifications, in order that B would see the modification without the mitigation of influence from G. This type of decision was usually made in the service of mild humour or teasing. The third type of reasons, those of intuition, included such decisions as “I have a feeling Agent G will find this item interesting.”

Observations

I retired two pieces as art early in the experiment. As the process continued, I became more demanding and did not declare any further pieces as finished artworks.

As the experiment continued, I began to feel frustrated in my (our) attempt to create art. Our self-imposed lack of communication was an impediment, in that we were unable to break into new or more challenging art territory without the collaborative sparks and imaginative leaps that might have come from revisiting the process and assessing the items themselves. At one point I created an Item that was not an object, nor was it inside a ziplock bag. It was a Quicktime video and the URL was written on the item in the bag. I felt a relief of tension once I had done this, although strictly speaking I was operating outside of the agreed upon procedure.

Nonetheless, I was very engaged with the process. Receiving a package of Black Box items from my fellow Agents was exciting, and I was always impatient and eager to look at the new items and see what had transpired. The fact that I was often unable to discern which Agent had produced which effects was intriguing. There was interesting tension and content in the dynamic between the three Agents, but I did feel that the items themselves were mostly uninteresting outside of this tight network of non-verbal communication. Sometimes I felt that content was being erased rather than inserted. In an attempt to test this, I inserted some items of sentimental value, items that were difficult for me to part with. The act of tossing keepsakes into the Black Box was cathartic, and seeing them again was somewhat disappointing. Not that they were transformed, but rather that they were still the same items and still part of my life. There was one exception: a treasured clay bead. This item came back from Agent B encased in some sort of yellowish goo. I found myself somewhat shocked and mildly offended, as if this was an affront, though of course B had no knowledge that the item was of particular value to me, and there was no intention on B’s part to offend.

The Black Box process was very interesting and at moments exciting and illuminating. When it ended, and we revealed the items in their final states, I felt deflated. The process itself was so much more engaging than the objects. However, when we put all of our records together and began to retrace and document the steps of each item, the process was brought to life again, and as we developed a visual network to display the history of the Black Box, the process became transparent and communicable and I was invigorated with the feeling that perhaps we had succeeded in creating a work with the potential to engage the imagination and interest of someone other than myself and my fellow agents.

Conclusions

I do not feel that any of the items we generated were successful as artworks. The final installation may or may not stand as a successful artwork. I do think that the final installation will be an exposition of three artists at work.

Sally McKay, September 17, 2005