[-empyre-] practice as a means towards academic self-criticism / research as a curatorial enterprise

[Gabriel Menotti]

>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 [MAGDA TYZLIK-CARVER]

I tend to agree with this administrative perspective, or at least I
feel that it is perfectly able to overarch / make the case for the
other two (of “ontological separation” and “methodological
confluence”?).

I wonder if this implies that what is specific to academic work is
just a particular way of accounting for anything – coming down,
precisely (purely?), to an issue of language and form. Could it be?

And going back to a question from previous weeks: how do we preserve
what could not be written down in the first place, and will inevitably
get lost in the bureaucratic translation?

Is part of the work of the researcher to make more graspable the less
visible structures s/he tackles and employs? Should one provide to
his/her examiners the means for his/her own assessment? What about the
posterity?

More generally, how much of a reflexive endeavour within academia (or
a meta-research) must a practice-based PhD be?


>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) [MT]

Considering the role these aspects play in a research project (from
proposal to the publicization of results), is there any particular way
you relate academia and the curatorial?

Best!
Menotti