[-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics

[Simon Biggs]

Hi Adrian

Nice we are in agreement, but ...

... I wonder. For art to be recognised as art (which might not be the same thing as it being art) it does have to satisfy certain objective criteria (art world opinion). The argument that art is anything an artist calls art is only true in so far as the artist is recognised by the art world as an artist. In that sense it is no different to how you have portrayed the instrumentalisation of pure science. Perhaps there is scientific research happening that does so outside the consensual world that is science, just as there might be art that happens outside the art world's orbit? I would argue this is the case and that we all know of excellent examples.

But then we are simply talking of creative activity and intellectual inquiry, which anybody can do anytime, if they wish, without having to worry about what it is. The implication of this train of thought is that art and science are similar in that they exist as identified domains of human activity only in so far as they are objectively (socially) recognised to do so. If this is the case then an anthropological approach to the understanding of their respective value is likely to be more productive than an epistemological approach.

best

Simon



On 19 Jan 2013, at 02:28, Adrian Miles wrote:

> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 at 1:49 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>> I agree with everything Adrian says except the statement that in an academic context all research is instrumentalised. It is true that there is more and more pressure for this to be the case but there remain numerous threads of non-instrumental research, whether in theoretical physics, astronomy, pure maths, anthropology, philosophy or creative practice. Happily it is still possible to spend tax payers money on useless inquiry.
>> 
> and I agree with everything that Simon says, though the sense of 'instrumentalised' I would like to be able to use easily includes what Simon describes as 'non-instrumental' research. My working definitions treat art as non instrumental because it does not have to refer to anything outside of itself, if it desires, its use value is to itself only. Where as I'd argue that even 'pure' research, or 'non-instrumental' research must have use value to that particular corner of the field/discipline etc for it to be research. 
> 
> -- 
> an appropriate closing
> Adrian Miles
> Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
> RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
> http://vogmae.net.au/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


Simon Biggs
simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk

s.biggs at ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html

http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/  http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/  http://designinaction.com/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130119/a8defb6d/attachment.htm>