To Team or Not To Team

 

After only a couple weeks in this class, I knew that I wanted to work independently.  Given the choice, I usually choose to work alone over a group.  In some classes, I may choose to work in a group, but in those cases I am very familiar or already have a relationship with the individuals.  I am pretty shy, especially at school, which is a contributing factor.  I also value my independence and have carried that characteristic throughout my life.  When I was younger, I always insisted on doing things myself and not getting help, and I still often refuse help.  This is not always wise, and lately I have learned how important it is to learn from others.   This does not change my decision to work alone, but it has taught me to be more receptive and less stubborn.   I am no longer opposed to working with others, but I am still shy and less likely to.  One part is that I do not like confrontation or arguing.  I may share my opinion, but I will not fight for it.  In this way if I work alone, I ensure that my idea is the one chosen as the final decision. 

When we did the Lost at Sea activity, my decision to work alone was fortified.  Both my individual and team scores were great, but my individual one was better.  I did enjoy hearing the input of the other girls in my group and chatting with them, but we also got very off-topic.  While working in a group can be more fun, I find that it is not as efficient with all the talking.  With the time it takes to talk and figure out who does what, a lot of work could have been done.  When working as an individual, there is much less deliberation.

When I analyzed one of my peers’ social media platforms, I was interested in her life but realized how different we are.  It can be hard to work with someone whose narrative is not the same as yours.  As with the other activity, it can be more interesting to include input from various sources, but that does not mean that the product of lone work is worse.  Different elements can create a beautiful and better product, but the challenge presented by diverse elements must also be accounted for.  This brought to mind the article “Of rabbit holes and aquamarines (cabbages and kings)” in which author Krell describes her elevated experiences with collaboration.  I appreciate her conclusions on the power of vulnerability and openness, but I also question how realistic this view is.  I think an environment like the one created in her symposium does not quite translate to the classroom or this project.  Similarly, the article “Collective action: Collaboration, rebellion, creative dialogue: Surrealism as ideological defiance” describes the experience of a specific group of artists and may not be practical in my work.  It worked for them as they are all artists, markedly creative minds, while I may not have that same opportunity for collaborators in the classroom.  However, I did gain a lot from the article, such as drawing on history and past work.  The article states “ [Keiller’s] fastidious and quietly intuitive approach…led her also to collect contextual material acknowledging Surrealism's literary origins; books, periodicals, catalogues and manuscripts, together with paintings and objects. The selection from Keiller's collection and archive, bequeathed in its entirety to the SNGMA in 1995, reveals a fertile, imaginative ground of Surrealist ideas” (Coburn, 2016).  In this way the author, Coburn, showed me that, while I may not be working in a group, I am still in collaboration by being inspired by various sources.   I can examine from where my work is derived- from all that I have learned.  

The above image represents my decision in that I am collaborating with books, history, and other inspirations rather than my peers.