Apologies if this comes through twice...
It has been a bit of a difficult initiation to this list for me but I'm grateful to those who have welcomed me or acknowledged my original post about the screening programme. Thanks. I think Michael has a point here - the troubling language does permeate into everything and many of us are complicit in allowing it. I apologise for causing any offence around the tone of my original call. Rob's quotes from Art and Language were great and, although I take Simon's point about 'stones and glasshouses', they are pretty relevant in the context of this strand which seems to be making quite a lot of assumptions about the nature of art, academia/teaching and research. One of the things that has not been addressed really are the further changes that we are about to experience. Whilst creative practice has been embraced, there is a worrying 'enterprise' culture in academia in UK that looks like there will be favour the creative industries above artistic practice and approach (yes I know Creative Industries are supposed to embrace the arts but..). This has been prevalent elsewhere for some time and would love to know others' experiences of this. In UK, the annual budget for universities is to be slashed by £400m and Research Councils are going to fare no better. Universities are being encouraged to align with industry and to restructure their courses to be shorter and more 'vocational'. Most worrying for me is that my areas of interest fall under what is being termed by research here as Digital Economy and Green Knowledge Economy. Given the definitions and approach to the creative industries, in UK at least, this is going to make artistic practice, research and approach as some of us understand it rather tricky. We really should be fighting back on this (rather than with each other) or the arts might become a duller place to occupy - we've already seen it as Rob's quotes pointed out - in the use of the arts for social and urban regeneration (I'm not saying it's all bad but there are a lot of ill thought through projects in this context). On the other hand, this kind of adversity does bring invention but it seems a shame that all we've fought for and is positive feels like it's being eroded. On an up note, I like Dave's hairdresser and the ZIP_SOUNDS. Thanks :) H On 9/1/10 10:46, "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> 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 > > * and by academia let me say what I mean -I don't mean "teaching" in whatever > context -like Renee I'm utterly in favour. Nor do I mean the art school > tradition at least up to the 70s. 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 ( 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*... > > > > --- 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
