> unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic > research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social > value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being.
This is exactly the problem I have with the "art practice as formal research" trend. It's great that this has opened new avenues for art funding but at what price? I fear that this is going to produce a lot of boring art that probably sounded interesting on paper but is missing the spontaneity that makes some artwork really leap out and grab you. Too precisely calculated. Art should, at the very least, have strong elements of spur-of-the-moment whim to highlight that violent tumultuousness that is unbridled "Creativity" (with a capital C). The "academic research" approach is always going to involve major compromises. The magic happens when just dive in. You'll have plenty of time to ask questions and fine tune concepts later. Hmm... how about a research project that examines the effects of academic institutionalisation on creativity? best r. Pall > These pressures function to pervert what research is all about > (finding/creating things you didn't know you might find/create). How can you > know the value of something that doesn't exist yet? Why does everything have > to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with > these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. > > Regards > > Simon > > Simon Biggs > Research Professor > edinburgh college of art > [email protected] > www.eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > [email protected] > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > > ________________________________ > From: james morris <[email protected]> > Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of > Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] > > > On 25/6/2009, "Simon Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is >> not >>foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody >>has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be >>undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâ*˙s have done it. It often >>leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. > > > > I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are > for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) > > > > http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
