Often, when I begin an essay, I go to the writings of philosophers as a source, as a way to startcall it research. The words of these thinkers read to me sometimes as a poetry, other times I experience them as a wall of logic that is firm in its incompressibility. Yet I continue to read for the pleasure that arrives when you become a part of discovery, when your limits are vanquished and, in the process, a new world of inclusion appears that upsets the powers that be, breaks habits, produces tears, or traces possibilitiesa metamorphosis that accompanies the making of meaning and adds to a culture of knowledge. This brief story is an example of an individual's process of working. Yet how does an arts community process experiences and make meaningmake new worlds of inclusion? How does one work with and for the aspiration of a community and a responsibility for tomorrow? In many ways this latter question was central to the Estate Project's Experience Exchange and the rich dialogue it produced on preservation, the practice of archiving and definitions of cultural value.

During the fall of 2000, I worked with the Estate Project's Director, Patrick Moore, on a series of meetings with artists and arts professionals held in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. At the time, I was the director of the National Association of Artists' Organizations (NAAO), which is actively involved in the work of convening around art issues. The Estate Project, a member of NAAO, approached me to work with them on Experience Exchange. The goal of Experience Exchange, as stated by Patrick, is "to share experiences and the commonality of artists whose work may be endangered by factors ranging from illness and economics to geography and ethnicity, among others." We began the project by identify artists and arts professional to invite to these meetingsindividuals whose experience as artists, curators, scholars, foundation officers or advocates have given them a valued depth of knowledge that has informed their actions as leaders.

At each session the participants were asked to discuss the following questions:

• What are the issues that artists with HIV/AIDS and other communities of under-recognized artist share?
• What are the models of preservation created during the AIDS crisis that might be shared with other communities of artists?
• Beyond the AIDS community, what other programs exists that document the legacy of "noncertified" artists?
• What value do artists bring to their communities, regardless of the "excellence" of their work?

Each session began with an overview of the Estate Project's preservation programs, particularly its digital archive, the Virtual Collection. My role was to facilitate the conversation as it unfolded and to be a scribe. At our first meeting in New York, we stated our hope that these sessions were not just meant to be just think-tank sessions but also action-tank sessions. What follows is an overview of some of the significant issues the group discussed.

A key component of the Estate Project's success has been its ability to experiment with new technologies as preservation tools. There was much animated conversation about how the participating organizations might replicate these particular programs. Small and mid size arts organizations are often undercapitalized organizations that understand the importance of preservation but lack the resources for preservation programs. These conversations about resources also became a conversation about the cultural haves and have-nots, of an official and unofficial art, a conversation about power. Where the Estate Project exists as a model for others is its success at working with the different power dynamics associated with the missions of various organizations, whether it is an artist-centered organization such as Visual AIDS, an ethnic-specific organization like El Mueso del Barrio or large institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art, the Getty, the Guggenheim or the New York Public Library. Patrick spoke of the necessity of accepting the different missions of these partners and stated that the role of museums was to exclude as they make aesthetics distinction in their collecting whereas libraries tend to include when collecting.

The discussion of power dynamics in partnerships is always a charged topic. This was particularly true during Experience Exchange as the majority of those invited to the meetings were people of color. The Estate Project invited these individuals because of their desire to share their knowledge with others who, for a variety of reasons, have experienced some degree of social marginalization. Most of the participants work with the practices of exclusion and inclusion and know well the paradoxical nature of cultural democracy.

To quote the political philosopher Chantel Mouffe, "The main question of democratic politics becomes then not how to eliminate power, but how to constitute forms of power which are compatible with democratic values." I refer to this quote so as not to go on about concepts of democracy but to speak about a unity among the participants, whose cultural activism proposes a society that challenges a fixed notion of democracy, a fixed definition of the public that produces systems or acts of subordination. They are instead engaged in the work of finding the "compatible" that doesn't erase difference.

The compatible deals with the politics of high and low ideas of art, notions of elites and pluralism, the digital haves and have not, and the various social ideologies that artists and arts organizations bring to the public. Inevitably the conversation turned to a discussion of how the Estate Project becomes a model of how to preserve not just the legacy of artists with AIDS but also the ideologies of an artists' community.

The Estate Project is a by-product of the AIDS activist movement of the late 80s and early 90s. It is also part of a larger social movement that is associated with the emancipation movements of the 70s-90s: feminism, multiculturalism, the gay and lesbian movement, and the art movement of self-determination which lead to the development of alternative arts spaces and community based arts organizations. The art produced by these social movements (and I don't believe these movements exist in the past tense) speaks to the aspirations of marginalized communities.

Part of the legacy of many artist-centered and ethnic arts organization that give voice to the excluded is a critique of institutions of power. This brings up the issue of how one maintains a sense of autonomy in partnership with these institutions who may provide the resources needed to archive. How do you partner with an institution you critique or may be opposed to? Artist Suzanne Lacy talked of a strategy of "trading up" as a way to secure resources. Tomas Benitez spoke about defining oneself as a significant part of our nation's cultural patrimony as a method of undermining the "have and have not" binary. Tom Borrup spoke of the work of "building understanding." The question of resources for preservation cannot be reduced to quick and simple answers of where to find support. It is also tied to creating a demand for the materials and the mercurial nature of cultural politics.

Participants talked at length about what it is that these varied organizations might actually preservethe historical moment, the "connections," the "load," the legacy of artists as "change agents." These concerns illustrate that preserving the works of artists should also include preserving a social history. To preserve the radical history of various art activist practices as articulated in art/acts of critique and/or confrontation may return one to that same point of challenge that an archive of activism would reveal. It might also provide an opportunity to understand the cultural vitality of a community through an archive that contains the articulations of aspiration and resistance.

Artist Kathy Vargas eloquently spoke of how "each 'other' is not 'other' alone. The battle for one is the battle of all." Her statement reveals a belief that an archive can be a tool that informs us of the collective work needed to improve society. She went on to say to say that "the more people willing to carry each other loads, the more we equal things out"

Art activism that is tied to an ideology of political/cultural self-determination and affirmation dominated the conversations. However, there was also talk about the actions that are a component of a creative life whose inquires are not socio-political. The aim to preserve conceptual and ephemeral work of artists was also discussed. Peter Taub pointed out that artists who "work in transient forms may not be interested in the preservation of the work itself but rather its impact."

Never far behind the conversation on preservation was the question of who is to do this work and where does the responsibility lie, with the artist or the organization? Jane Saks stated that "We do not always have the opportunity to think about the ecology of our lives." On a couple of occasions it was voiced that artists resist preserving their work because they don't want to be categorized. There were also conversations on how creating and utilizing an archive can be an artist project in and of itself. Ultimately, the discussion turned to the job of archivists. Patrick spoke of the individuals he has worked with that understand the value of preserving the work of artists with HIV and how successful these relationships have been. Steve Urice stated that a "good archivist provides for access." As is often the case, the success of an endeavor is tied to the passion of the people involved, who understand the implications of their work for today and tomorrow.

Accessibility for arts processionals is a great concern, and for the participants of Experience Exchange, the access conversation traveled from questions of a community’s access to resources and to mechanisms that might bring them visibility (i.e., artists with disabilities) to a reoccurring topic of access to digital technology. Not only does one need to ask the question about technological means but, as Francis Phillips stated, "which formats are stable and affordable".

The participants understood quickly the need for an archive and got excited about the potentialities of persevering a community’s legacy, but there was also caution voiced. As Karin Higa asked, "What are the limits of the archive?" Her comments illustrate thinking among the participants that the work of preserving an artist’s expression and empowering talents takes many forms and as Jane Sakes stated "take places in all tenses."

In all tenses. Not just the past but also the present and the future. The discussion about making artistic judgments about quality, legitimacy, good art, bad art, value and worth was present at all the meetings and in "all the tenses." The Estate Project and, specifically, its digital archive is a model of how one can develop an open and on-going preservation effort that archives the complexity that is our cultural heritage and not the greatest hits. Their practice and belief is linked to a democratic value to embrace the compatible, not to eliminate difference but to archive and reveal the many.

Even through the Estate Project appears to be about recording the loss of a community it is also about speaking to the vitality of a community, of a many and a moment. New York City Councilman Philip Reed stated that artists "add value, pride and are a model of aspiration" for communities. Currently, there are many research efforts underway to establish cultural indices that measure cultural vitality. These efforts speak to a desire to better understand the creative life.