Michael Szpakowski wrote: > Like so many of the "what's the problem?" posts this treats the language > associated with art theory ( and indeed cultural & social ideas in general) > as if it is transparent and uncontested which of course, even on a daily > basis ( think party politics, war and peace, healthcare, popular culture), it > is absolutely not. >
> It's a particularly bizarre blindness coming from the very folk who seem to > be most enthusiastic about academia* whom one would have thought would have > welcomed a "question everything" approach. > > Essentially the argument seems to be that Martin is stupid which strikes me > as rude, deeply condescending and untrue. Awkward, yes, and not always > entirely clear but "let him/her that is without sin..." > michael > This is a good old fashioned bit of shit-stirring. Martin has clarified his position on this which is great. Given the dogmatic nature of his original comments, it's hardly a surprise he got the response he did, although I agree we could have done without the graphics. > * and by academia let me say what I mean -I don't mean "teaching" in whatever > context -like Renee I'm utterly in favour. * and by academia let me say what I mean -I don't mean "teaching" It's convenient for your argument to separate the two, but not reasonable. Academia produces human and intellectual capital. This occurs through teaching and research ( or studio practice) carried out by academics... > Nor do I mean the art school tradition at least up to the 70s. Yup great for tiny elite that actually managed to get into these paragons of art pedagogy. I find the romanticisation of the old art school system hard to stomach. Was it really so much better than we have now from a students perspective? Aren't we better off now that we have more going to art schools despite the obvious resourcing issues? > I'm referring particularly to developments over the last 30 years or so. I'm > amazed that people can be so sanguine about the university research culture ( > which has swallowed the art schools) when it is being constantly more > colonised by the market & market values - again there are surely deep issues > here in the way this affects what constitutes "research" and indeed "art" as > defined within the academy, which doesn't of course float Zeppelin-like above > the rest of society ( This is a separate argument. Nobody is denying there are issues in academia about how research is framed. Many ongoing lively debates around this issue are directly contributed to by members of this mailing list (e.g. simon, corrardo) It's the relentless misrepresentation and frankly lazy, yes and *condescending* characterization (to use your term), of "the academy" that gets peoples goat. > and I'm very grateful to Rob for the Art and Language quotes which I > previously knew nothing about and which both made me laugh and struck me as > enormously pertinent). And I'm *not* trying to make some easy or pat argument > - I'm saying there are *unanswered and legitimate questions* and there is > *room > for discussion*... > > > As pointed out by Simon, I found the art and language quotes deeply ironic given that their practice was largely nourished (and financed) within the University of Leeds. Ahem. > --- On Sat, 1/9/10, mark cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> From: mark cooley <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Call for Submissions: Multichannel >> VariableEconomies Screening Programme Deadline 28th January (Helen Sloan) >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 1:45 AM >> Helen, >> Thank you for the generous restatement of a >> perfectly understandable original. Frankly, I wouldn't >> have had the patience. It always amazes me just how bold >> idiocy can be. One would think that an unfamiliar language >> might spark one's curiosity to well... want to >> learn something rather than be offended at your audacity of >> straying from a 5th grade vocabulary. >> what excitement a few well placed words can >> create! i've found it interesting that there is often a >> violent reaction to the language of cultural studies or art >> criticism on some lists, but techno jargon is used with a >> badge of pride. i can't imagine that if every time i >> heard some tech speak that i didn't understand that i >> accused the authors of being elitist >> technocrats. >> btw. sounds like an interesting >> show. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
