Hi Helen <I apologise for causing any offence> I absolutely don't think you need to apologise for *anything* - it must be odd to post something that feels entirely uncontroversial & raise such a storm. I think you've done everyone here a service in (inadvertantly!) starting a interesting discussion & when things get a little fiery it's usually an indication that there are important issues at stake. I agree entirely with your points below & particularly that when it comes to cuts/attacks on funding whether in arts or education it should be shoulder to shoulder first and foremost. Doesn't & shouldn't stop us arguing the detail, though, as we head for the barricades... michael
--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Helen Sloan <he...@scansite.org> wrote: > From: Helen Sloan <he...@scansite.org> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Call for Submissions: Multichannel > VariableEconomies Screening Programme Deadline 28th January (Helen Sloan) > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" > <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 12:01 PM > 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" <szp...@yahoo.com> > 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 <flawed...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > >> From: mark cooley <flawed...@yahoo.com> > >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Call for Submissions: > Multichannel > >> VariableEconomies Screening Programme Deadline > 28th January (Helen Sloan) > >> To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org > >> 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 > >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
