Conclusion

In this publication, we have aimed to specify the pedagogical positions in our respective schools while also explaining how the experience of international collaboration has challenged them. The document at hand is a hybrid object, comprising testimonies, reports, theoretical texts, thoughts, and various remarks that reflect the diverse methods and approaches brought together for this project. To structure these concluding notes, we propose to highlight the most salient elements: our perspective on collaborative tools, the positive contrast between the teaching methods of the schools involved in the DTCC project, the significance of in-person meetings, and the pedagogical paths that have emerged as a result of this collaboration.

The DTCC project as a whole has been centered around the topic of digital tools for creative collaboration, whether conducted remotely or in-person. From the perspective of ESADSE, we saw this as an opportunity to further our ongoing critical work on the replacement of dominant tools in art and design schools, such as the Adobe suite and the communication, project management, and creative tools developed by GAMAM companies. This pedagogical approach, which emphasizes "digital writing" and authorial practices, encourages ESADSE students to think critically about various aspects, including ecological and social issues, as well as governance and data security concerns, in relation to their projects and the tools they employ to realize them.We believed that these questions, which are central to the pedagogy of the three partner schools (EKA, HFG, and ESADSE), were at the core of the subject of Digital Tools for Creative Collaboration. However, the desired changes we aimed to implement across our respective schools did not materialize. This discrepancy became a point of disagreement among the project partners, highlighting our divergent positions but also providing valuable learning experiences. The question of tools proved to be less consensual than initially anticipated, and our collaborative experience reaffirmed that the choice of tools is primarily influenced by cultural, ideological, and even political factors. Consequently, we had to invest time in both online and offline meetings to delineate the project's scope, placing greater emphasis on the notion of collaboration itself, which became a case study for us, rather than solely focusing on the question of collaboration tools.

In our collaboration, we relied on the tools that we had in common, placing a higher priority on usability rather than critically examining our stance towards those tools. In light of this approach, apart from a shared Wiki that was created for this project and serves as the foundation of this publication, our remote collaboration was organized using widely-used communication tools such as Zoom, Slack, Miro, and the email applications provided by our respective schools. While we were aware that this project wouldn't bring about significant changes in our schools' established practices, it did spark a collective and critical reflection on the tools we already employ, with a focus on their effectiveness in fostering collaboration. This process resulted in our students taking strong positions and presenting intriguing proposals for new tools or features that could enhance online collaborations.

In summary, we have recognized that the tools we currently use for collaboration are primarily communication-oriented, with only a few specialized productivity tools like Figma or Penpot catering to collective creation. This realization has made it evident that there is still a need for collaborative digital creation tools to be developed. Hence, the significance of our initiative to build ourcollaborative.tools, a catalog that showcases unique and alternative projects fostering creative processes beyond the field of industry, rather than offering pre-existing "solutions."

It is worth mentioning that, from a pedagogical standpoint, the in-person workshop format has reaffirmed its relevance, which is why we have dedicated a significant portion of this publication to it. In particular, the formation of working groups, intentionally including students from each school in every group, has played a vital role in fostering a sense of collaboration among them. The deliberate effort to exchange perspectives and seek common ground has demonstrated the professionalizing impact of this workshop approach. The diversity of spaces and the range of proposals that have emerged highlight the remarkable fertility of this teaching format, as long as there is a commitment to documenting its outcomes. The establishment of a wiki has provided a means to capture and preserve the activities in a faithful manner. Alongside the wiki, the interviews conducted with the students -- which we have chosen to present in future DTCC exhibitions -- serve as a crucial component of this archive, providing an authentic testimony to the significance of these collaborative moments for the students involved.

In continuation, it is evident that the collaborative value of digital tools, particularly in the creative field, cannot fully replace the direct interaction of physical encounters. While collaborative tools prove to be quite effective in a productivity-driven context with well-defined project goals, their inherent digital nature (interface, screens, etc.) currently falls short of replicating an essential aspect of collaboration: the physical presence. The act of meeting others, experiencing different cultures and perspectives, fostering conviviality, and being "contextualized" beyond one's usual workplace are elements that are challenging to simulate digitally. Hence, despite the advantages of digital collaboration, there remains an irreplaceable value in face-to-face interactions. At the conclusion of such a project, it may appear self-evident, but putting it to the test has revealed that creation springs forth from a broader and richer context than the mere software framework of a multi-user interface. This realization underscores the true value of an ERASMUS-supported project like ours. Beyond the tangible outcomes achieved, it is the "extras" accompanying the work sessions that have played a significant role in shaping a mental space specific to creation. Cultural visits, friendly encounters, and discussions outside of formal meetings have contributed greatly to this process.

As affirmed by both students and supervisors, the diverse experiences we encountered during this project have transformed our creative approaches and consequently shaped our productions. Our work has become enriched by embracing pedagogical and professional methods that extend beyond the conventional practices of our respective countries. This clearly shows the richness of the European territory, which, through its differences and points of convergence, compels us to view collaboration as an exercise in physical and intellectual mobility. It encourages us to embark on a journey of cultural and formal discoveries while embracing diverse approaches. In this dynamic context, remaining static is not an option; instead, we are invited to be in constant motion.