I think Scrivener satisfactorily address what knowledge is within the context of the debate he elicits. He posits apprehension as a way of understanding or comprehending, in distinction to knowledge within its narrower cognitive sense. I think he does this so as to avoid arguments of relative epistemological value whilst at the same time wishing his argument to remain pragmatically engaged with the operation of UK academia. It would be easy to slip into a philosophical musing where Kant, Heidegger and Wittgenstein could become the cardinal points of the argument. Bateson¹s distinctions here are useful but run that risk, although his concept of sensory knowledge is close to what I think Scrivener is proposing as apprehension. Simeon Nelson is looking at this sort of thing with his work at Hertfordshire at the moment.
Best Simon Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk si...@littlepig.org.uk Skype: simonbiggsuk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/ Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice http://www.elmcip.net/ From: TOM CORBY <tom.co...@btinternet.com> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:30:30 +0000 (GMT) To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Is Art Knowledge? It's an interesting paper, but I think you'd really have to start with a thorough definition of "knowledge". Art does provide a way of "knowing" the world, it does through different routes to other forms of practice (e.g. Science) but it does ultimately produce "knowledge". Bateson always said that art produces "sensory knowledge" that ultimately leads to "cognitive knowledge". It's a useful distinction and one that would seem to overlap with Kant's ideas of the purposiveness or otherwise of the art experience (i.e. in my limited understanding, what is the function of the artwork as a generator of experience as opposed to a scientitic artefact that also seeks to produce insight into the world). --- On Wed, 14/4/10, Mark Hancock <mark.r.hanc...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > From: Mark Hancock <mark.r.hanc...@googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Is Art Knowledge? > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" > <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > Date: Wednesday, 14 April, 2010, 23:56 > > > I was lucky enough to have Steve Scrivener teach a module on my MA before he > moved from Coventry University. Really nice chap and he presented some really > interesting ideas about art research, some of which I see in this paper. > > > > > On 14 April 2010 23:37, Simon Biggs <s.bi...@eca.ac.uk > </mc/compose?to=s.bi...@eca.ac.uk> > wrote: >> Check out Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts >> (2009) as a starting place. >> >> Also Scrivener (2002): The art object does not embody a form of knowledge. >> Working Papers in Art and Design 2, >> http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol2/scrivenerfull.html >> <http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol2/scrivenerfull.html >> > >> >> Good luck >> >> Simon >> >> >> Simon Biggs >> >> s.bi...@eca.ac.uk <http://ac.uk> si...@littlepig.org.uk >> <http://si...@littlepig.org.uk> Skype: simonbiggsuk >> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ <http://www.littlepig.org.uk/> >> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/ >> <http://ac.uk/> >> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments >> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ <http://ac.uk/circle/> >> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice >> http://www.elmcip.net/ <http://www.elmcip.net/> >> >> >> >> From: Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org <http://r...@robmyers.org> > >> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org <http://netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > >> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:44:12 +0100 >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org <http://netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > >> Subject: [NetBehaviour] Is Art Knowledge? >> >> Are there any good arguments for or against the idea of art as a >> kind/form/branch of knowledge? I'm after [citable] references to >> philosophical or theoretical authorities, if anyone knows of any. >> >> This isn't homework, it's research. ;-) >> >> Thanks. >> >> - Rob. >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org <http://NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number >> SC009201 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org </mc/compose?to=netbehavi...@netbehaviour.org> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org </mc/compose?to=netbehavi...@netbehaviour.org> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
