No subject

over the momentum of practice-led research, wherein it tries to
discover its own outline, for better or worse. (That said, I am
still working out a solution to practice in my PhD - whether it can be
practice led, or instead be research which leads _to_ practice).
> 
>    Cornelia Solfrank in an article published in The World of the News, a
>    research newspaper associated with the reSource in/compatible seminar,
>    formulated this problem in an interesting way and she declared her
>    interest in working towards ‘conceptualisation of artistic research ‘as
>    a field ‘different from scientific research’. I would say that this
>    proposition is closely related to the ‘situatedness’ of artistic
>    research in academia as an institution and suggests a process leading
>    to working out the institutional compatibility, but in a way that is
>    particular to art as a discipline.
> 
>    Another framing of this could be through a question which asks: at
>    which point artistic practice and research method become one process,
>    that is when do I consider my practice as a research method? What
>    conditions have to be fulfilled that qualify things that I do as
>    artistic practice or as research method, or perhaps as both at the same
>    time?

A positive or negative feedback... (?)
> 
>    Finally, we can look at this problem in a different way. That is,
>    regardless if the question of artistic practice and research method and
>    their in/compatibilities take place within an institutional or more
>    personal and subjective context, it is, nevertheless, an administrative
>    issue which involves bureaucratic processes and forms of
>    communication/communicating those processes.  This is where we go back
>    to the validation issue and how that affects our practice/research.
> 
In this way, I could imagine, the institution becomes the focus of
research (something which we work our way towards, or perhaps out of). 

>    When preparing for the moderation of transmediale discussion we (myself
>    and my two other colleagues from KURATOR/Art and Social Technologies
>    Research Group) wanted to somehow address that.  I am not sure if it
>    worked in the ‘presentation’ during the event, but it definitely
>    allowed us to address some of the issue in the preparatory stage. Just
>    before the panel discussion we distributed pieces of paper on the seats
>    in the room and each had one of three quotations:
> 
>    1.       For us, art is not an end in itself … but it is an opportunity
>    for the true perception and criticism of the times we live in.
> 
>    – Hugo Ball
> 
>    2.       For us, art is not the end of theory … but it is an
>    opportunity for the reinvention of theory so that it may better reflect
>    the remixological potential of the times we live in.
> 
>    – The Artist 2.0
> 
>    3.       For me, art is not the end of method… but it is an opportunity
>    for articulating the subjective experience/materiality of the times I
>    live in.
> 
>    – In/compatible researcher (one of many)
> 
>    The first two quotations are taken from the overview of remixthebook
>    project by Mark Amerika in collaboration with various artists
>    ([1]http://www.remixthebook.com/). The first one is by Hugo Ball and
>    the second one is a remix of that sentence by Artist 2.0. We followed
>    this method and decided to propose a version of the sentence, the third
>    articulation of it, that directly responds to the subject at hand
>    (artistic research and its in/compatibilities). Each of the paper
>    strips with sentences had dotted lines at the back. Our intention was
>    to suggest this to be a space where one can add their own remix or
>    comment there.

I am curious about how people here see the balance between
subjectivity and objectivity in artistic research.

> 
>    Through this method the idea was to suggest a connection with language
>    that goes beyond a form (of a discussion, presentation, text) and
>    points to other less visible structures.  It was also an experiment
>    which perhaps opened up the discussion beyond those immediately engaged
>    in it and beyond the duration of this event.

This seems to touch again 'irrepresentability'.
> 
>    In my practice as a curator the managerial, administrative and
>    communicative aspects are some of the defining elements of what is
>    considered to be a domain of so called ‘curatorial’ (along many others,
>    of course), or at least what I recognise in my practice and grapple
>    with in my PhD . But I might just leave that for another post.
> 
As in Lasse's post, it seems possible to identify something occuring
outside of the PhD. Is this an element that simply cannot be contained
in the PhD? Does it perhaps feed into the PhD in less visible ways? (I
hope those are relevant questions).

Best wishes,

Magnus

>    Best, Magda
> 
> References
> 
>    1. http://www.remixthebook.com/

> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre