[-empyre-] Research in Practice, week two, January 14-20

[aslemeur at free.fr]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for not writing english very well. If I want to take part in  
this discussion as I accepted to, I have to write faster than I  
usually would.
And sorry to give my thougths as a kind of bloc...

For the current discussion : In France, before the dissertation (PhD)  
defense, you receive 2 reports that tell if you may defense (or not)  
and present qualities of weaknesses of the dissertation. So you may  
prepare your defense partly on that.
Of course, the quality of the discussion depends on the fields  
closeness of the Committee to yours. The assistence may assist to the  
defense but can not ask questions. They usually sit behing the defender.

To restart with initial general points :
I wanted to do a Phd in arts without knowing what it was. I was just  
starting my own art practice in a way. Delightfully. Passionately. As  
something I was longing for.
At this time I had no desire to look for a job, and the student status  
was perfect form me (I was 23 years old). During my PhD (8 years long,  
I needed to get older !) I did not get much supervision (what is  
alright) probably 3 meetings with my director at the end... I  
alternated practice periods and writing periods.
But in a way, I write all the time but the research way of writing  
requires more concentration and synthetic efforts. I must add that I  
have been writing and reading a lot since childhood. Artists that are  
attracted by/with doing a phd must not fear spending much time with  
books.

I was happy to get a position at the university. It is a real luxury.  
I never believed I would get one.
It is a wonderful way to avoid having a boss, to get a regular salary  
without too much stress, while teaching is a very interesting job,  
allowing you to go on with self education (training). And 8 teaching  
hours a week, 6 months a year is a good deal.
Of course you have then to organise the week or the month (or the  
year) in order to do teaching, creation and research - each of them 3  
could take the whole week to be well lead. Which is not possible. One  
at least must be sacrificed.

I chose to focus on research-creation of course and not teaching. I  
spend as little as possible (generally one day a week) to prepare my  
courses (I teach art practice, which is a different type of  
methodology and discourse from theoretical teaching). The work I do  
(creation/interaction of 3D image in programming language) is time  
eater (for the non programmer I am). Moreover university does not have  
material nor space (some money but you have to apply for, to have  
'contacts' with the team leader etc.) for the research. So I worked a  
lot on my own ideas-project outside the university. 12 years.

This choice has a negative consequence : I don't make an academic  
career. I only know some of my colleagues and I still don't get any  
master course even now that I have been making efforts of integration  
(the second negative point for this tentative of 'career' is that I  
made my phd in another parisian university, not in the one I teach.  
France is known for its chapel gangs isn't it ?)

Besides not having a master course (which is not that tragic, and I am  
sure I will get one before retirement !!) , the negative point to be  
an artist at the university in France is that nobody believes here  
that accademics in art may be artists. Nobody believes that university  
can 'educate' artists. Art universities have a very bad fame. I was  
even advised a few times not to mention my university position in my  
curriculum to get a better recognition from the (french) art milieu...
Of course abroad it is quite different. The word 'Sorbonne' may open doors.

What I like in doing research : by research I mean writing, publishing  
articles, doing talks... on my own practice. I write in order to  
deeply understand what I do, to become aware of sub/unconscious  
concepts or links (and what is programming in art). And I am always  
surprised to see how deep I can go.
I tend to see creation (the long unlinear process of it) as the first  
step (even outside ?) of the research process. Of course I reflect all  
the time on my own desires/ideas of creation, but the very analytical  
and synthetical effort comes after the creation - when I take time for  
it. It requires time too.
Sure it produces another work afterwards because of the whole circle  
of feeling/thinking.

About being or not being an academic.
I am not sure what this word means. Is it a bit pejorative in english  
too ? I am not so much concerned by putting me in a definition or  
under a word.
The main difference I see between me (and other 'practicians'  
teachers) with my 'theroretician' colleagues is that the time they  
spend in books, I spend it in seeing exhibitions (and creating). They  
read much more than me and not the same books (I 'only' read  
Dostoïevski or reread Beckett). It induces that we don't have the same  
references, not even the same way of speaking. It is thus very  
difficult to exchange views. Besides, speaking about philosophers,  
doing quotations... is socially very impressive, seductive... no ?

I must confess that I have almost stopped reading since I finished my  
PhD. I guess I was fairly tired of having worked that much so long  
without creating images, and I wanted to go back to practice. The  
project I then undertook was megalomaniac. I have just finished it  
after 12 years. From time to time (summer time) I try to read articles  
but I don't find any nourishment anymore in them. Am I so changed by  
the research process or by the creation one ? How is it for others  
artists-academics ?

May I finish this long text with a question :
How do other invited persons see the relation between art practice  
teaching and research ? How do other artists (that don't have a phd)  
teach  ?

Many thanks for this discussion !!

Anne-Sarah
http://aslemeur.free.fr