tenantspin – simple complexity
On
the morning of Monday 13th January 2003, the tenantspin Superchannel
held a meeting in its studio on the second floor of the Cunard Building on
Liverpool’s waterfront. It was both an occasion to catch up after Christmas and
a chance to continue preparation for the studio’s move to the FACT Centre[1].
Despite five apologies, ten other tenants took part in the meeting. Five men.
Five women. Aged 49 to 84. Two tenants were attending a tenantspin meeting for
the very first time and six in attendance had been involved with the first ever
tenantspin webcast in 2000.
The
tenantspin Superchannel has been hugely successful and gained respect from many
artistic and social agencies. In is first two years the project webcast 158
live shows on subjects as diverse as E-Democracy, green homes, Elvis, tenants’
rights, anti-social behaviour, Bill Drummond, the Zappatistas and demolitions.
It has involved members of the community over a lengthy period of time and
consistently unearthed and drawn in new participants. It has collaborated with
major cultural figures and created some extraordinary opportunities for
participants.
Slowly
evolving out of the first experimental Superchannel commission in 1999, the
tenantspin experience does however ask numerous critical questions on the
manners in which an arts agency, a community and a Government body can
collaborate and the boundaries of contemporary UK streaming. In 1999 Danish
artists group Superflex[2]
along with programmer Sean Treadway introduced the Superchannel project to the
UK. Initially a six-month experimental commission by the FACT to work with
elderly tenants living in Liverpool’s oldest tower block, the Superchannel live
interactive webcasting system would be an attempt at creating new dialogues and
rejuvenating community activism.
It
is important to understand the full social context of tenantspin and the
Superchannel in Liverpool. The ground-breaking UK Superchannel was housed in a
modest community flat (sharing with a hairdressers salon and Tenants’
Association office) in the Coronation Court tower block. Built in the
mid-fifties, the ten-storey block stood eight miles from Liverpool city centre
and in 1999 around half of its community was aged over 70. It was proposed that
the Superchannel, as an unmediated channel for community generated content that
combined streaming technology with a simultaneous chat function, could become a
means for the isolated Coronation Court tenants to create new networks and
explore the possibilities of a new electronic democracy.
Using
the RealProducer software, audio and video signals from a video camera are
encoded, sent to a server in Copenhagen and then streamed out over the
Internet. Upon visiting www.superchannel.org
during a live show, viewers follow a smallish picture (depending on Internet
connection) on the left-hand side of the screen. On the right, viewers are
invited to log into a chat room to type comments that are fed directly to the
live studio, thus creating the opportunity to influence and more actively
participate in what one is watching.
Superflex's
practice as artists takes them around the world setting up new ventures.
Reality deems that artists traditionally move on after initiation of projects but
crucial to the sustainability of the Superchannel project in Liverpool has been
the continuing dialogue with Sueprflex (they come over to see the tenants
around twice a year) but also FACT’s commitment to bringing new artists into
the project to work with tenants at keeping it relevant and fresh.
Six
years earlier Coronation Court had been one of 67 high-rise properties taken
over for redevelopment and regeneration by Government agency Liverpool Housing
Action Trust (HAT). With a remit to improve tenant participation in democratic
decision-making processes, HAT warmly embraced FACT’s proposal to experiment
with the Superchannel system. A studio was established in Coronation Court with
an encoding PC, digital video camera, VCR, mixing desk and microphones.
Superflex came and met with the tenants and FACT appointed a part-time
facilitator to develop awareness and understanding of the technologies
involved.
There
was an initial excitement over the new technology (and “the fact that these
young artists from Denmark were interested in us”) for a group of people who had no previous access to or
awareness of such possibilities. Yet as with many such ventures, it was left to
a few to actually carry the baton for a supposed new democratic tool.
Interactive TV researcher Stuart Nolan makes the interesting point that “you can
throw as much technology as you want at a community but if they do not have an
existing context of communication and participation in democracy they will not
participate electronically[3]”.
The ageing population perhaps understood the relevance of the new Superchannel
but when they did contribute to decisions affecting their future it was through
the long established culture of voting for a representative (“someone more
confident, more articulate”) to attend lengthy centralised meetings in their
place.
Coronation
Court webcast frequently but irregularly. Thirty-eight shows were produced in
total with the content ranging from the building itself, including an interview
with the original architect, to a series of one-to-one interviews with tenants
about their lives. It was then announced that the proposed major refurbishment
of Coronation Court, with award-winning designs from Rotterdam-based Biq
Architects, would not be happening after all and the building was to be
demolished. This announcement should have been the catalyst that drew people to
the Superchannel as a means of communal demonstration, communication or at the
very least a challenging of the decision. Instead it knocked the wind out of
even the most active of activists.
The
emotional legacy of the Coronation Court turnaround continues today and the
decision taken at the time, based on the enthusiasm of a few who could still
see the Superchannel’s potential, was to pack up the pieces, retreat and devise
a new, more solid tack.
It
is from this context that the tenantspin Superchannel emerged. It would base
itself on a wider support network and strive to see the larger city-wide
picture. It would be managed and overseen by The High Rise Tenants Group (HRTG)
– the group of around 40 people, two representatives from each geographical
grouping of tower blocks, annually elected by the wider high-rise population.
tenantspin
would thus encompass 67 tower blocks with a population of around 2,500 (of whom
around 70% were over 60) – isolated communities facing either demolitions or
refurbishments. Post-Coronation Court, it would respect and work with the
established methods of contributing to decisions but try to introduce streaming
technology into those processes, rather than vice versa. Crucially, it would
also look forwards rather than backwards. The content would not be nostalgic –
the channel would enable individuals’ contributions to tomorrow’s situations to
be heard. FACT would continue working with the tenants, commissioning artists
and writers to find fresh avenues of discourse and participation. After four
months of test broadcasts in a new studio in the Cunard Building, tenantspin
was officially launched in March 2001.
Almost
two years on, has tenantspin prevented further Coronation Court scenarios?
Directly – no. Indirectly – perhaps. By encompassing 67 rather than 1 tower
block, the possibilities of affecting direct change had in fact reduced. The
sheer amount of information and delicate consultation involved for each site
was at times far too much for the HRTG meeting room, let alone weekly one-hour
webcasts. If affecting real political decisions is the sole basis on which
tenantspin is judged, then it has been a failed experiment. At least so
far.
At
a February 2003 Steering Group meeting, the main agenda item is the creation of
a new part-time post to further focus and develop the channel’s political and
social aspirations. Amongst some tenants, the possibility of affecting real
change remains. They may speak of bad timing – no HAT blocks have ADSL and
Liverpool as a city awaits good quality and affordable broadband. Or they may
point out the fact that the only reason the tenantspin studio was housed in the
Cunard Building was that the same building housed the HAT administration
headquarters just along the corridor. To some tenants, this sent out the wrong
signals about a project that would potentially challenge HAT decisions.
The
project hopes that the new post and a home in the more ‘neutral’ FACT Centre
will further increase the opportunities for tenantspin to become a true,
respected and listened-to channel for those needing to speak. The work of
course will lie as much with those that need to listen as with those that have
more to say than they realise. The continued energy and belief in the
Superchannel system (and its original aims in Liverpool) amongst tenants stems
not from the channel’s failed political agenda but in its extraordinary
development of more basic human needs.
tenantspin
has worked hard at engaging and involving a wider audience. Its editorial policy alternates between
social housing issues – such as monthly HRTG updates - and the creative
programme. In 2002, around 200 tenants were involved in researching, presenting
and producing shows. Participants have gained a new confidence from delivering
weekly live shows and being invited abroad to offer inspiration to other
community groups.
As
one tenant commented, “the next time that person has to talk to a landlord,
architect or politician, they have that added experience and confidence from
doing live tenantspin shows.” The project has seen great changes in some of the
participants. Amongst the current group, there are not two people who knew each
other prior to involvement in the project – they come from all parts of the city.
A tenant once said to me “the fear of isolation is far greater than any fear of
technology”. These people are not necessarily HRTG reps but have created a new
citywide tenant grouping. tenantspin is not eradicating isolation but slowly
eating into it. Beyond the 200 tenants directly involved last year, a further
eighty responded creatively to a questionnaire sent out as part of the
SuperBlock Radio 3 commission. From this group, a few have since joined the
core production teams.
Key
to this approach is communication and collaboration. Given its target
constituency, tenantspin cannot be touted solely as a cutting-edge webcasting
channel that combines streaming technology with a simultaneous chat function.
Fear of technology. The challenge is to describe its potential in a language
that attracts those that have something to offer on more human levels.
And
that language and process of communication is not only grammatical but economic
and inclusive. The BBC questionnaire crucially arrived through letterboxes with
pre-paid return envelopes. Travel expenses are paid to all tenants attending
meetings or live shows. This greatly encourages participation. When searching
for a tenant to meet Nick Richmond, the Sean Connery lookalike, it later
transpired that the tenant who interviewed Nick live on tenantspin had not left
her flat before that day for almost two years.
Linguistically,
FACT has also experimented with quizzes rather than questionnaires as means of
evaluating progress amongst tenants learning the streaming process. The
publication of The Chat Files in 2002 – edited excerpts from the weekly online
chat during tenantspin – illustrates the project’s potential as potently as
previous verbal attempts at explaining what a chatroom could or can be used for.
Where possible, all documents relating to tenantspin are produced at 13pt size.
Which brings us onto the arts agency’s
particular role in tenantspin. While the social housing agencies also attempt
to create new networks, offer travel expenses and take great care in their use
of language, it tends to be the existing activists that are worked with, those
that enjoy attending numerous boardroom meetings. The decision-makers find the
activists. The creative programme, a series of respectful collaborations
between tenants and artists, has begun to seriously challenge and reverse this
process. The point hits home on those occasions when the project is approached
by a tenant who is interested in one of the shows and later reveals that they
had no inclination that their home was part of a bigger Government regeneration
programme. Some of these people have since become politically aware and
actively involved in their local situation.
The
creative strands, managed by FACT’s Collaboration Programme, investigate basic
human conditions. It is ‘aspirational’ in that it consistently challenges
tenants to push themselves.
A
CD project involved around 15 tenants, ten of whom had no previous engagement
with FACT or HAT, and six of whom are still actively involved with tenantspin.
New tenants were found to interview Bill Drummond and to travel to New York as
part of ‘Open_Source_Art_Hack’ at NMCA on Broadway and to Wiesbaden for the ’40
Years Of Fluxus’ exhibition. Participation based on musical talent, a curiosity
about contemporary art or an interest in meeting groups from other locations.
Five tenants worked with Brookside scriptwriter Maurice Bessman on a one-hour
webcast as part of the Writing on the Wall Festival, developing a 20-minute
drama about lifts. Two tenants worked with artists Phil Collins and Luchezar
Boyadjiev during the Crossing Over Micro Film Festival on short films dealing
with immigration and hobbies. Tenants also interviewed and were interviewed by
Will Self, Margi Clarke, Ricardo Dominguez of the Electronic Disturbance
Theatre and curator Rene Block.
Manchester-based
artist Graham Parker developed an extraordinary show with three tenants, a
hand-held GPS machine, mobiles, co-ordinated taxis, Sefton Park, hands-free
telephone, two tales from opposite ends of the city and an A-Z. Amsterdam-based
Otto Berchem is currently developing a webcast that links the channel to the
BBC’s Kilroy Show in an investigation of presentation skills, The Frequency
Clock project approached tenantspin regarding a joint venture to re-animate the
158-show archive in a series of late-night rebroadcasts and Alfons Schilling,
one of the earliest pioneers of creative uses of technology, visited recently
to discuss possible future collaborations around issues of visual perception
and sight.
Another
unexpected development of these commissions has been the nurturing of the
existing activists as well as new participants. Particularly SuperBlock, an
80-minute audio work with Liverpool writer Jeff Young commissioned by BBC Radio
3, yielded some powerful creative input from four highly active HRTG reps.
Deliberately set in the year 2040 when all the demolished towers are rebuilt on
top of each other, SuperBlock demanded a whole new thinking process when
reflecting on high-rise living.
tenantspin
operates on quality rather than quantity. When approached by major cable and
satellite companies offering to “buy the content and roll it out to millions”
the project has consistently declined. Its political agenda may yet to be
fulfilled but tenantspin is aware of its weaknesses. It doesn’t count the
inability to reach thousands or millions as a fault.
The
TVmeetstheWeb seminar[4]
proposed that the future of interactive TV lies in gambling and quiz shows.
That is, a form of button-pressing passive interaction. Tenantspin strives for
a more active interaction and believes that such a relationship can only evolve
over time. There have been numerous streaming projects in the UK that have been
short-lived and of the 29 current Superchannels across the globe, only 8 are
still broadcasting. The BBC’s recent ‘Great Britain’ debate, acclaimed as an
innovative Interactive media event, enticed 1.5 million people to vote. The
average duration of interaction was at the most minutes.
tenantspin
believes that, given time, people can develop more meaningful relationships
with other people and new ideas. Its live audiences are closer to 30 than
1,500,000. Its participants are drawn in for their personal qualities and
gradually become aware of potential relationships between the processes behind
creativity and local politics. The interaction is sometimes messy, sometimes
thrilling and occasionally difficult. But it is long-term and human.
And
it is in this approach that the disparate objectives of a Government body, a
cutting edge arts agency and a community can/have come together to create
something that has sustainability and integrity.
[1] FACT, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology, is a Liverpool-based agency founded in 1988 to promote, support and develop moving image based projects
[2] Jacob Fenger, Bjornstjerne Christiansen and Rasmus Nielsen
[3] presentation at “England’s Streaming” conference, Liverpool, 2002
[4] Amsterdam, 2002