As Kaitlyn and Isabelle write in their annotations, dynamic publishing makes us think about the kind of choices we must make when "opening up" our work together: figuring out authorship when possibilities of revisions and revisitations multiply, grappling with privacy of our data while seeking collaboration and feedback. They also note that this changes how we view an installation in a gallery space: what would an open installation mean?
As the authors present questions we must ask when we shift from conventional to dynamic publication modes, they contrast affordances of print and digital media. When shifting our work from the digital PECE platform to a gallery space, materiality has to be reckoned with again. The back-end work of installations would be digital (like this annotation) and constantly changing, and if this dynamic/collaborative back-end work is what constitutes new ways of creating and communicating content, how do we demonstrate that in a gallery space? What expectations would we have from visitors, and how do we graft that back on our digital workflow?
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?
How can experimental and installation ethnography tell stories? How might experimental and installation ethnography aid us in interpreting anew the signs of particular events so as to grasp them and present them, particularly to get to the "ghost story," the likes of which may be embedded in the flickering of a moment? How might we get at the "profane illumination," the kind of conjuring that "iniatiates" because it tells us "something important that we had not known; because it is leading us somewhere, or elsewhere?" (205) How might such in turn engage the sensuous knowledge of spectators, and encourage them to see place and toxicity differently? How might it get them to engage in a double-take, questioning their ways of knowing and seeing the world?
What are the politics of place at play in installation ethnography? How has collaboration and experimental ethnography pushed new conceptions of place?
In terms of experimental and installation ethnography, this text encourages a dynamic approach to research dissemination. Thinking in these terms, then, how could our installation be constantly changing? How much of the process are we willing to reveal publicly? With their conversation on social networking systems, these authors seem to prioritize conversation with different groups of people. This could help us think of different iterations of the same project. Who’s our audience? Do we have multiple audiences? How could they be in conversation with each other? Thinking about feedback, then, who could we expand our networks to include?