Send empyre mailing list submissions to
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
You can reach the person managing the list at
empyre-ow...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Practice in Research defenders (Keith Armstrong)
2. Re: practice-led (5 theses) (Adrian Miles)
3. Re: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28
(Adrian Miles)
4. Re: Practice in Research defenders (Adrian Miles)
5. Re: FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January
21-28 (Phi Shu)
6. Re: FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January
21-28 (Simon Biggs)
7. Re: landscapes and defenders (Johannes Birringer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:39:00 +1000
From: Keith Armstrong <k.armstr...@qut.edu.au>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research defenders
Message-ID: <6e7c8d44-d008-4264-a44e-cdeabb620...@qut.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
white-anted maybe the lot of us :)
On that note of the dead wood we hear so much about (and remebreing
that maybe just 1% of a tree is actually alive and composed of
"living" cells) - I have to say that this is something Ive heard
time and time and time again in various institutional conversations
- that 'such and such' has a research load of 'so much' but does
'absolutely' nothing.
Without speaking about laziness, I dont think we should undestimate
the workloads of our collegues, especially those in full time roles
- especially those teaching a lot and maybe coordinating - and also
lets remember how hard it is to 'get started' again when your energy
has been sapped by a whole day on the computer dealing with various
crises .. not a creative boost in any sense..
.. Its actually acutely hard to keep up an active research practice
over the decades regardless - to be continually successful there
are huge implications on time you can allocate to other critical
areas of your life .. often those researchers we prize as the 1%
(live) wood are undeniably risking health, family and more to keep
up their frankly unfathomable pace.
So - what was that work life balance resolution we made just a few
weeks back ?
Thanks for a great discussion one and all.
keith
On 25/01/2013, at 12:29 AM, Simon Biggs <si...@littlepig.org.uk>
wrote:
Hi Keith
By dead wood I didn't mean younger or emerging researchers, for
whom allowance is made in the UK system as early career
researchers, but the older branches, like myself.
best
Simon
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:43:14 +1100
From: Adrian Miles <adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] practice-led (5 theses)
Message-ID: <07505d9e36374dd59cd2a297ecbc6...@rmit.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
hi Danny
nice to see you here! :-)
got some questions for you. I like your points but I increasingly
find the distinction made between the sciences and what, thesis
humanities writing, creative practice, questionable. First of all
science in these terms gets rendered as a highly reductive Other
that bears little relation to the actual practice of all the
different sciences as research. Scientists all have a research
practice first, the reporting of their research, which is how they
communicate the outcomes of this practice, is not what scientists
think of when they think about research and practice. In this
research practice they deal with different sorts of things but there
certainly seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, intuition, and so
on in this practice. This is not present in how they may perform an
experiment (though it might) but in everything around the experiment.
A thought experiment. Imagine I am a painter. I am dealing with
ambiguity in my subject matter and practice. But when it comes to
putting paint to my canvas, I am very careful, I am highly
methodological, incredibly disciplined and, compared to that painter
over there, very rigid. Or I use code in my art. And when it comes
to writing that code I must follow strict protocols and procedures
if I want it to work. In my reading of the literature around the
philosophy and sociology of science it seems quite trivial to
replace the artist in this thought experiment with a scientist. Some
are messy, some aren't. etc.
The minor detail in the examples is simply to begin to unpack the
reductiveness of simply declaring that 'science' does x, and we don't.
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 8:13 AM, Danny Butt wrote:
2. Importation of scientific terminology (propositional questions,
consensually defined methods, falsifiable results) corrodes
knowledge in creative disciplines, except as far as it is treated
as content, rather than method. Scientific objectivity's moral
economy is based on a fear of idolatory, seduction, and projection
on the part of the researcher - these are exactly the means by
which the creative artist makes their contribution to knowledge.
to knowledge yes, but the terms of the argument are not whether art
creates knowledge (it does) but its contribution to research. The
distinction matters in the political economy of the university
because it is about epistemology and merely making a knowledge claim
does not make it research.
The scientific model of knowledge rests on an author who is fully
in control of their work, whereas in the creative arts such authors
are boring, and therefore useless, however academically justifiable.
No. the scientific model of writing up the *practice* of research
rests on an author fully in control of their work. This confuses the
practice of actually doing the research with its reportage, which in
the sciences is generally 'reportage'. In the humanities our writing
is different not because the practice of research is fundamentally
or qualitatively different, but because for many of us writing is in
fact our 'lab' - that is the site of our practice. This argument
relies on slippage which is easily seen in creative practice. How I
make could be rigid or very open and fluid, either are legitimate.
But when it comes to reporting on this as research, and not just as
knowledge or as an aesthetic category, then for better or worse all
sorts of scholarly norms apply and, particularly currently in the
humanities, it is often attributed to a sole author who is
understood to be in control of this research communication.
The thing that communicates the research outcome is generally not
the same thing as the practice (there are exceptions of course) for
both the creative practitioner and the scientist. And before someone
says the writing economies are different, I know of a computer
scientist who presented an academic, scholarly *scientific* paper to
scientists in verse (to a standing ovation).
3. Since Alberti, visual arts practices have been erratically
theorised as a mode of world-making that can be classed as writing
in the broad sense. Despite the efforts of the protestant sciences
to make an individual responsible for their own knowledge, a writer
is inevitably dependent on a suitably prepared reader, and it is
this other reader, not the writer, who can account for the
knowledge-effects generated. Respect for the reader or viewer
requires that the work be available for independent critical
interpretation, a freedom and independence that since Kant has been
essential to the operation of the aesthetic. Exegetical writings
are thus counter-productive except as far as they enhance or
constitute the freedom and independence of the work. These writings
may be particularly useful in resisting the synchronisation of the
art work to the art market, but probably less so in resisting the
synchronisation of the artistic practice to the academic market.
If the role of the writing is to demonstrate or participate in the
aesthetic integrity of the art work but none of this holds if the
role of writing or other communicative forms is to participate in
the translation of the aesthetic event into/as research.
4. The archive of university knowledge is not a flat globe of
knowledge to be "contributed to" but a contradictory historical
tangle, resting on material and political assumptions that can
never be escaped or accounted for in the aftermath of colonial
capitalism. One value of practice-led research might be in de-
framing knowledge through formal analysis in order to make the
materiality of various forms of knowledge perceivable.
Absolutely.
5. Any creative practice worth the title of a doctor of philosophy
should have wrestled with the potential of its own death, including
the death of its discipline. Artists, unlike scientists, are not
licensed to practice.
Scientists are not licensed to practice. Doctors, lawyers,
accountants psychologists are, and in each case these are
disciplines that are regarded as professional 'practices'. This is
one reason why science can use 'amateur' research.
thoughts?
--
an appropriate closing
Adrian Miles
Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
http://vogmae.net.au/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/8a41f4ce/attachment-0001.htm
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:56:28 +1100
From: Adrian Miles <adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
January 21-28
Message-ID: <afbc756fc8ff437f9c6dbe94d2ddf...@rmit.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 12:08 AM, Phi Shu wrote:
Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can
be communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the
written word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and
I think it is the duty of academics in this area to communicate to
those holding the purse strings that actually, the written word is
not the only means of communicating valid research outcomes.
In any practice knowledge can be communicated in different ways, but
that's not the terms of the argument. It is not whether or not
creative practice expressed knowledge, or if it can express
different sorts of knowledge (of course it can, pick any number of
theories here ranging perhaps from Bachelard's depth psychology
gestalt's through to Deleuze and Guattari's elaborate outline of
what art does in "What Is Philosophy?" and also "The Logic of
Sensation").
The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue
today is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But that
is not yet research.
While I don't think anyone has specifically signalled writing as the
only form, it does have some advantages. For instance to undertake
research you need to make arguments, which generally require forms
of negation (this is not). Negation is incredibly important to
research as argument and could well be impossible without (not sure
though). However, many art forms (as a Belgium surrealist playfully
made concrete many years ago) can't negate. A painting of water
lilies in itself says "here are water lilies, they have these
qualities, etc", a photograph much the same, ditto cinema. Each
needs language (as Magritte too did) to be able to say "this is not
a hill", or "this is not a photograph of a gun", or "this is not a
particular sky with some fluffy clouds".
So for me the problem I'd raise is while art objects in themselves
clearly express knowledge this knowledge might not yet be research.
Furthermore to be research it needs to be able to say or do more
than state what is. When I raise this people suggest all sorts of
examples, yet to date every case relies on something *outside* of
the artwork whether this be a description, statement or other
commentaries. This is the issue I've raised several times here, and
is the logic of the supplement (Derrida) where we like to think that
just because the comments we attach to the work are only small they
don't count for much, yet it is this which provides for the
possibility of the art work engaging in its way outside of itself in
the first case. It is, simply Derrida's parergon.
--
an appropriate closing
Adrian Miles
Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
http://vogmae.net.au/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/1856045c/attachment-0001.htm
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:32:30 +1100
From: Adrian Miles <adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research defenders
Message-ID: <28737faaca604895af52a5cb441d4...@rmit.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
And there I was thinking you were about to utter a string of
profanities and use a six shooter!
--
Adrian Miles
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:29, Simon Biggs wrote:
Hi Keith
By dead wood I didn't mean younger or emerging researchers, for
whom allowance is made in the UK system as early career
researchers, but the older branches, like myself.
best
Simon
On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Keith Armstrong wrote:
Hi Simon
This mirrors the ERA here in Australia and how we have to present
ourselves (and yes its not phd research but post phd research of
course that is counted ) .. the entire body of researchers submit
a quantum of outputs and then a percentage of those end up being
presented for peer review to the national body (Excellence in
Research Australia panel) - several of my works were reviewed in
the round just gone for which in the category media arts lies ..
within we eventually received a 4 - internationally leading (5
being the ultimate). Obviously I was only one of many .. and so it
is a TEAM effort rather than a focus on individuals.
Our process was that for each peer reviewable item - a package of
evidence is prepared - it includes much of what you spoke of - a
research statement, a description, an interview with the
researcher/artist speaking about the research questions - how they
were handles and the impact, a compilation of excerpts from the
work in video/stills/pdf and then the corroborating evidence like
programs, interviews, reviews, etc. I also sat as a reviewer so I
got to see how a number of other institutions did this .. spoken
generally - the confidence of each university governed the level
of detail submitted.
Maybe the clear difference here, if I understand you right, is
that the work itself is the primary output and thats an important
difference therefore. Having the other things - like for instance
reflective writing presented later in a peer reviewed journal is
looked on favourably (and may indeed if strong enough be a further
peer reviewable output) - but for artist researchers - this
centralisation of the work is a wonderful thing - and the fact
that the team result is what counts .. so up and coming
researchers don't have to feel bad or erroneously dead woodish if
they only get say 1 hit.
Cheers
Keith
and the need to present a full portfolio of
On 24/01/2013, at 7:03 PM, Simon Biggs <si...@littlepig.org.uk (mailto:si...@littlepig.org.uk
)> wrote:
Again, considering the Research Evaluation Framework (which is
the official criteria in the UK for being recognised as an
academic researcher) rather than the PhD (I agree, it's the
researcher's entry point, not their main objective), we can ask
what the role of the creative work is in research?
The REF differentiates between projects, activities and outputs.
Generally projects mean research projects - processes and
assemblages of activities, often externally funded. Out of such
projects come activities (seminars, exhibitions, lectures,
demonstrations, etc) and outputs (book and journal publications,
conferences, etc). In the domain of creative practice we have to
distinguish between these different modalities of research and
take care we do not submit a project or an activity as an output.
I will give an example.
An artist/academic is, through an open call, awarded a commission
to do a major public art work. The work is delivered and
installed and received to great public and critical acclaim. Many
words are written about it. The artist, as is often the case,
remains mute on the work. They feel they've said all they need to
say with the artefact. So far, no problem.
But that artist is also a lecturer in an art college and wants to
be submitted for the REF as they know their career development
(the hope of a readership or professorship) depends on their
being officially research active. So, they prepare a portfolio
about the project and submit it for assessment. The submission
consists of beautiful documentation of the work and a description
of how it was made. It also has a short statement concerning what
the work intends. This is all fine. However, the issue is with
what it lacks. Where is the outline of the open call and the
names of the people who selected the work (proof of peer review)?
Where is a list of associated outputs from what is actually a
project rather than an output itself? Did the artist critically
reflect on their work anywhere in the public realm in a
discursive manner? If they did then we have research outputs. Or,
perhaps they didn't do this but they were interviewed about their
methods and intentions and this
was published somewhere - or they presented the project at a
conference on public art. These are also outputs. The other thing
that is lacking in the portfolio is a list of associated
publications. Where are all those words that were written about the
work when it was first installed? These words are very important in
establishing the reach of the work (if any of those words were
written or published overseas, or published in journals that are of
international standing, then the international - as opposed to
national - import of the work is clearly established). Also, we must
remember that the public impact of research also counts in the REF
assessment, so those words are doubly important.
Ultimately the REF is about money. If your research output is
rated a 1 (nationally important) or 2 (internationally
significant) it will not generate any income from the government
for your institution. If it's a 3 (internationally important) or
4 (globally leading - eg: Nobel prize territory) then it will
bring in the money (we don't know what the formula is for the
current REF yet, but a 4 will probably generate at least four
times as much money as a 3). So, within the UK context, this
bizarre process that is the REF is extremely important as it
determines the baseline research income for every public research
institution in the country for the next five years or so. It also
makes or breaks the careers of researchers (one positive benefit
of the REF is that it gives dead wood little place to hide and
thus ensures a degree of transparency and honesty about the
actual value of research in an institution, rather than relying
on reputation - although a less naive person
would point to how people play the game...).
In most subject areas in the UK the PhD is the document you need
to get a permanent academic job and be considered for the REF,
which is then used to determine your progression through the
system (the USA also has its arcane evaluation processes,
although these seem to be both more procedural - word counts,
evidence of service, etc - and personalised than what we have in
the UK, whilst other countries, like Australia, have systems like
the UK's). For artists who have worked in art colleges, perhaps
for decades, that now find themselves in the higher education
sector, this can all seem as alien as it would to any outsider
but it is the reality that possibly 75% of creative practitioners
who also teach in an art department in the UK need to work with.
This is not a new situation - it's been the scenario for twenty
years.
Anyway, so far as the example above is concerned - it was little
effort for the artist to review their portfolio and ensure the
outputs associated with their project, and their value, were
clear and in a format the review panel could understand. No need
to panic.
So far as the creative arts PhD is concerned I think the
situation is often similar to the above, with candidates (and
often their supervisors) confused about where the research is in
the work and how the outcomes of the whole process are distinct
in themselves - and might not be where they initially thought (or
wanted) them to be. Good artists are very good at being their
harshest critics, able to cut out from their work elements for
which they might have strong feelings (through labour or personal
preference) when they realise they compromise the work. The same
is true for good PhDs.
best
Simon
On 24 Jan 2013, at 01:19, Keith Armstrong wrote:
Thanks Johannes :)
? these many many hundreds of works created and theses
written that we may never see or read. Thus for me the question
of the (necessary) contributions to communal or societal
knowledge (succinctly stated by SJN) are still relatively
abstract and powerfully so. Who benefits from all this
knowledge that is not read (or even accessible, readable?) and
have we spoken about the writing yet?
Yes - this is a tragedy/ecology of waste - there is of course
the argument often given that just because a work is regarded as
exceptional in the exhibition context - and is clearly well
recognised by peers and funders alike - it doesn't necessarily
constitute good research or even is maybe research at all. (this
point has been made before a lot ).. And so its inevitable that
often we 'may' also see dreary or thoroughly turgid work
submitted as part of a phd package that is well regarded by
examiners (especially as often they may never see the work that
we are being asked to examine) - so - not surprising its
subsequently ( at face value anyway) uninspiring and thus not
well accessed (with finding and accessing being a further
problem that many institutions are now addressing)
I have only two small questions now, one in response to Keith:
what we're defending is our right to be considered
professionals in our discipline, and to be considered to have
the same level of professionalism as our colleagues in other
disciplines>>
But surely you don't mean to argue that you needed to defend,
say, your "Intimate Transactions," a complex & superb work, in
order to be considered a professional. Neither in the
performance art world, nor in academia??
Thanks for the complement - as always you are too generous!
Actually that was a comment by Kirk :) But .. I must say
yes .. I don't feel the 'need' for a defence as I work both in
and out (just a part timer) in academia - and yet my work I feel
must/does stand up across that divide .. you'll have heard me
bang on about relational thinking enough now to understand why
Im comfortable perched like the proverbial bearded dragon, sat
on a rock between many hard places!
..and then again, you might answer, well, why did they want a
Phd in painting or performance directing or design or
interactive installation, it wouldn't make much sense anyway,
would it, if you are working in the 'industry" as one theatre
colleague of mine ..
Again Johannes we find ourself asking maybe the wrong questions
of why we do things. arguably in response to the powers that we
may feel force us towards non-relational (entirely 'logical')
positions
.. sometimes/often we need someone to tie a rope around our
midriff and slow us down enough just to be able to be within/see
the landscape that is passing us by .. maybe thats why someone
should need to do a phd..
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
)
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Simon Biggs
si...@littlepig.org.uk (mailto:si...@littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
@SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
s.bi...@ed.ac.uk (mailto:s.bi...@ed.ac.uk) Edinburgh College of
Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/
http://designinaction.com/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
(mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
Dr. Keith Armstrong | QUT Senior Research Fellow (p/t)
School of Interaction and Visual Design | Creative Industries
Faculty
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Freelance Interdisciplinary Media Artist | www.embodiedmedia.com (http://www.embodiedmedia.com/
)
Australia Council New Art Recipient: Night Rage/Night Fall, 2012-13:
A seasonal media artwork exploring animal migration patterns &
extinction of human experience
Australia Council Broadband Arts Initiative Recipient, Long Time
No See, 2012-13.
ANAT Synapse, Art-Science Resident, with the Australian Wildlife
Conservancy, 2012-13.
Australia Council Visual Arts New Work Award,The Bat/Human
Continuum, 2012.
Confirmed Exhibitions
| Finitude (v03), "Information, Ecology, Wisdom" - The 3rd Art
and Science International Exhibition and Symposium, Beijing, China
at the National Museum of Science and Technology. Nov1-30th 2012
| Reintroduction, Mildura Palimpsest Site Specific Arts Biennial,
Victoria, Australia, 11th Sept-1st Nov, 2013
Current Projects
| Re-introduction: A new work engaging the art and science of
returning lost mammals to the Australian bush
| The Bat/Human Continuum: A new body of work exploring
codependence, time and virtual darkness
| Night Rage.Night Fall for ISEA 2013
| Long Time No See for ISEA 2013 & The Cube, Brisbane.
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Simon Biggs
si...@littlepig.org.uk (mailto:si...@littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
@SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
s.bi...@ed.ac.uk (mailto:s.bi...@ed.ac.uk) Edinburgh College of
Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/
http://designinaction.com/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/326a3393/attachment-0001.htm
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:26:57 +0000
From: Phi Shu <phi...@gmail.com>
To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
January 21-28
Message-ID:
<CAJFY5_1hbHmwPx0VZLFwpqYeppUS8jx8xGQ=adaqg4+gpu_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
@ Adrian Miles
** **
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 12:08 AM, Phi Shu wrote:****
Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can
be communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the
written
word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and I think
it is
the duty of academics in this area to communicate to those holding
the
purse strings that actually, the written word is not the only means
of communicating valid research outcomes.****
** **
** **
The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue
today
is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But that is
not yet
research.*..*So for me the problem I'd raise is while art objects in
themselves clearly express knowledge this knowledge might not yet be
research.
Yes, but the point is, especially with regard to PhD examination,
that the
examiners are supposed to be expert enough in their field
to discern whether or not a practice based output qualifies as
research,
and without having to read why this might be so in
an accompanying document. Yes, they may need something in
writing, because it is still required, but it is ultimately the
work that
is judged. That was my experience of things, and I was led to
believe it
was how things were done when dealing with practice based
doctorates, in my
discipline, at my university. Of course another aspect of this is
ensuring
that an external examiner that supports this approach is selected,
otherwise it might not be as straight forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/79d6e29c/attachment-0001.htm
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:55:59 +0000
From: Simon Biggs <si...@littlepig.org.uk>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
January 21-28
Message-ID: <669c1f44-f21f-4704-bc08-7392dcfa0...@littlepig.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Phi Shu
What subject area did you do your doctorate in? Was it music or
music related? As we discussed previously, in the domain of music
the purely creative practice based PhD is well established, with the
score and its performance usually sufficient as submission. As yet
I've not encountered this model in the visual arts, perhaps because
in that realm it is usual that the thing is the thing is the thing -
there is no score. That said, in my own field, where the work is
"written" in a meta language (computer code), there is effectively a
score for the work - a score that is interpreted (by a machine) and
performed. In the domain of computer music, where part of my
training occurred, the computer programme is the score. So, why not
in the visual domain? And then we have areas like electronic
literature, where there is a score (programme) that when performed
creates texts - where is the main outcome here? The text or the
programme? Are both submissable - or neither?
Given the prevalence of digital technologies in the creative arts,
of all kinds, and the new forms of authorship (writing and meta-
writing) that they permit it is probably time we completely
rethought where the artefact or creative work is and how that is
critically situated, within and around the work. The current model
of the PhD is inadequate to that task. I'd like to think there's an
opportunity here...
best
Simon
On 25 Jan 2013, at 09:26, Phi Shu wrote:
@ Adrian Miles
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 12:08 AM, Phi Shu wrote:
Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can
be communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the
written word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and
I think it is the duty of academics in this area to communicate to
those holding the purse strings that actually, the written word is
not the only means of communicating valid research outcomes.
The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue
today is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But
that is not yet research...So for me the problem I'd raise is while
art objects in themselves clearly express knowledge this knowledge
might not yet be research.
Yes, but the point is, especially with regard to PhD examination,
that the examiners are supposed to be expert enough in their field
to discern whether or not a practice based output qualifies as
research, and without having to read why this might be so in an
accompanying document. Yes, they may need something in writing,
because it is still required, but it is ultimately the work that
is judged. That was my experience of things, and I was led to
believe it was how things were done when dealing with practice
based doctorates, in my discipline, at my university. Of course
another aspect of this is ensuring that an external examiner that
supports this approach is selected, otherwise it might not be as
straight forward.
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Simon Biggs
si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
skype: simonbiggsuk
s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/
http://designinaction.com/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/5d2dbd80/attachment-0001.htm
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:06:54 +0000
From: Johannes Birringer <johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk>
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] landscapes and defenders
Message-ID:
<DF657B70CB20304DB745D84933F94B1E03AE3506F2@v-
exmb01.academic.windsor>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
dear all
crossing over to other time zones, with relief I note the snow
filled hills and valleys in Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and France,
very beautiful to travel across, enveloped in the peaceful quiet of
cold, with changing snow-capped signs and bulletin boards greeting
the traveler-by in various languages and genres of reference, mostly
to landscapes and myths, sometimes haunting (numbers of people
killed on this spot), mindful, of stories as well as historically
marked sites, places of battles, victories & losses, former
religions, places of art and reflection, monasteries and
sanctuaries, race tracks, health spas, fine dining, places for
children to play, a full world under grey wintry skies
(still wondering what Shu's oblique angle on Riefenstahl was).
This debate this month surely will exhaust, no?
respectfully
Johannes Birringer
________________________________________
Phi Shu schreibt
Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can be
communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the written
word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and I think
it is the duty of academics in this area to communicate to those
holding the purse strings that actually, the written word is not the
only means of communicating valid research outcomes.
The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue
today is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But that
is not yet research...So for me the problem I'd raise is while art
objects in themselves clearly express knowledge this knowledge might
not yet be research.
Yes, but the point is, especially with regard to PhD examination,
that the examiners are supposed to be expert enough in their field
to discern whether or not a practice based output qualifies as
research, and without having to read why this might be so in an
accompanying document. Yes, they may need something in writing,
because it is still required, but it is ultimately the work that is
judged. That was my experience of things, and I was led to believe
it was how things were done when dealing with practice based
doctorates, in my discipline, at my university. Of course another
aspect of this is ensuring that an external examiner that supports
this approach is selected, otherwise it might not be as straight
forward.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
empyre mailing list
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
End of empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 24
**************************************
