Node forms of creative production.

I have been contemplating the phrase: "node forms of production"
 refers to certain types of artistic practices. I thought of it after listening to a very interesting presentation on "distributed methods of production"; referring to collaborative works in architecture.

I think distributed production or collaboration is of great value, but, I do not think it is the end all and be all. In all complex living systems, there are places of concentration, where a presence will emerge in a relatively coherent field of activity, and act as a magnetic catalyst. Soon, the quiet field is disrupted, as the weaker entities, move towards the unknown, volatile force. In certain forms of computer programming, this is called a "strange attractor". 

There is an interesting, very simple example of this. You can write a program in just a few short lines of code to see it in action. It is based on the Malthusian population equation, written in 1798:

y = x + k*x*(1-x)

This is a simple Javascript version I wrote, if you want to try it:

function initialize(){
k=1.5;
x=0.2;
count=0;

new_string =new MFString('start');
}

function isActive(){

for (newnum=0; newnum<6; ){
y =x + k * x  * (1 – x );
count++;
newnum++;
new_string[0]= count;
new_string[newnum]= y;
x=y;
}
}

This program is like a little machine. It has an input and an output. You put a number in, and spits out a new number, using that output as its next input; feeding on it's own output. Doing so has odd consequences, and produces the strange attractor, "the presence in the field". If the number input, (K), is in the lowest range, after a certain number of iterations, or cycles of running the program, the output will become 1, and there will be no change. There will be a burst of random numbers, that soon all change to 1 and the program "looks" like it has come to a halt.

If you then change K to a slightly higher range, (from 1.5-2.56), after a certain number of cycles, the output starts toggling, back and forth, between 2 numbers, forever. They call this the "region of bifurcation".

And finally, if K is above 2.56, the output appears random. It is likely not random, and a pattern could be seen if you had a large enough display to observe the output from all the cycles, and recognize a pattern. But few have this kind of perspective.

This brings me back to node forms of creative production.

In the code above, the input number, or K, changed the output, or landscape that could be observed. It was a single number. It was a node, or location, that contained meaning, and fell within the structure of the whole. It was not a set of numbers, it needed to be a single number, which could change over time.

I think, within creative production, there is a need for individual, concentrated production, as well as collaborative distributed production. I like calling this "node production". The individual, creates the K (or constant), which changes the output or landscape of cultural production.  Just as in the program above, the field might end up with an even, toggling of opposites, a flat singular plane, or a rocky random terrain. But the input of an individual value, provides this "meaning". It is different from distributed production where groups or committees provide a value. Distributed production is more about consensus building. It is more about maintaining the status quo. It can produce engaging results. But it is not often, about change.