I'd agree with Bal's definition of inter and multi disciplinary practices - as, respectively, activities across disciplines that lead to emergent disciplinary characteristics (which might therefore appear as being between) and activities that engage multiple disciplines in order to achieve otherwise unlikely outcomes. I find interdisciplinary working exciting as it has this emergent property about it. It is also a bit chaotic, as Paul observed.
I would suggest a slightly different definition of transdisciplinary. Aside from the evocation of something crossing boundaries the term also suggests something that transgresses. In this respect I usually use the term to indicate a practice that is intended to transgress a discipline and make an issue of that. That is, the activity is self-consciously intended to upset the apple cart. ...and you are right to identify remediation as an important tool. A key part of Bolter's argument is that an emergent medium appropriates the mature medium due to the social conventions that have evolved around it, allowing the new medium to appropriate the conventions of legibility (and all that goes with that - audiences, history, economy, etc). This is considered a dynamic process with things constantly changing, media evolving and shifting. In this context Krauss's arguments seem dated. Also, I'm surprised there isn't anyone at Emily Carr who you can't have this debate with. It's a good College. Who are your supervisors? Best Simon On 17/12/2010 06:41, "Heidi May" <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, Simon, > It's really interesting to consider different perspectives in > understanding the language we use (intermedia, multimedia, > relationism....and, of course, network/ed). I really appreciate your > engagement in this discussion and find it extremely helpful to be able > to converse about all of this. I'm a great believer in 'working things > out' through dialogue, however, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage not > having anyone around me that is all that knowledgeable in this > specific area. Don't get me wrong...very helpful people that each > provide excellent info from their own backgrounds, but no one that is > really spending all of their time doing this kind of thinking. > > Without knowing much about your own backgrounds, I'm guessing that > Simon and I might be coming from the same areas...just in terms of > understandings of intermedia and multimedia (I come from fine arts > originally). However, I like to challenge my own perspectives and > language and factor other ways of understanding into my evolving > theories. Cultural theorist Mieke Bal (visual culture, visual studies) > distinguishes between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary as > "inter" being about the production of something new through the > interrelationship of media/forms/ideas...something that would not > exist otherwise. The "inter" and "multi" are often used interchangably > in many areas of study and I find Bal's distinction to be useful for > my own thinking. "Trans" is also used in place of "inter" sometimes as > well, and I think of "trans" as being more about crossing over to > something as opposed to a form or thing that emerges from the in- > between (transmedia might be even more useful than crossmedia, > depending of course). And then, in terms of a specific medium, there > is the whole debate about "post-medium" (Krauss, 2006) which is also > accompanied by "remediation" (Bolter)....where Krauss and others after > her have discussed there being no medium anymore, yet with remediation > the idea is that all new media just borrows and reuses past media, > thus there is indeed a medium (save that for another discussion!). > > Simon: "The intent is to reveal the dynamics of social relations by > evidencing the becoming of the artefact at a nexus of social relations." > -- This is what I am most interested in. I am interested in analyzing > these moments, the process of "becoming of the artefact," and in some > cases, what the participants learn or take away with them from this > encounter/process. I guess this is why I enjoy thinking about and > discussing art within a learning environment. I am interested in this > "becoming" in terms of both audience reception but also the learning > process of the artist - how the experience transfers into what they go > on to do next and (in my dissertation) how this transfers into what/ > how they teach to their students. > > Rob: If I understand correctly your views on Relationalism than I > concur with what you are saying, in that the networks focused on tend > to be the social and economic networks of the artists/galleries/ etc. > when in fact these are not the networks that produce the work. But I'm > still not exactly sure what you think are the networks that produce > the works. Some would argue (Bourriaud perhaps) that the relations are > those produced by all of the participants. I know for myself that I am > quite interested in looking at networked art from a micro perspective > and then perhaps comparing that experience to the larger social and > economic concerns. However, I'm most interested in the specific > interaction between a viewer/participant/user/student/learner/artist > and the artwork itself, which might need to involve other participants > depending on the artwork, and I argue that Nicholas Davey's work on > hermeneutic aesthetics might be usefully applied in this area. > > Simon: "Networked art does use networks which, in today's world, are > generally run on and through computing systems (which are mostly > digital). Teasing apart the mediale relations between all the elements > involved in networked art is complex. Some artists (and theorists) > have made entire careers out of it." > -- I think I'm up for the "teasing apart" as long as I can make the > argument that networked art does not need to lead us to technological > determinism and that, on the contrary, perhaps we can learn about > ourselves and each other more by embracing networked art and expanding/ > challenging/opening it up. If others feel my philosophical interests > of self-inquiry/realization don't really have a place in networked > art.....well, then I'm screwed and need to start over. I actually see > Relational art as a from of learning, thus relevant to the education > field, and want to import some of the social understandings of that > into our relationship with networked art. > > Thanks for sharing and maybe I'll track each of you down on the good > ol' social networks :) > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ [email protected] http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
