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

[Phi Shu]

I'm guessing that neoliberal economic policies can be blamed for the
problems we are seeing both in universities and in the arts more generally.
Where are all these creative practitioners with doctorates going to get
relevant academic jobs? If they chose to work independently after a PhD,
where is the arts funding going to come from? How long can this
neoliberal "creative industries"
economic exercise continue before people wake up to the fact that there
simply are not enough jobs, there is simply no way every "educated"
creative practitioner can make a "career" out of doing art/music/whatever.
So what's the point? Why bother doing a PhD at all? Sure, if you can get
paid to do it, great, but don't expect to find an academic job afterwards,
unless you are prepared to start jumping through all of the "research
excellence" hoops from the get-go.


And in terms of having perhaps found an academic job, what about the myths
of the academic labour<http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1300/653>
 market <http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1300/653>?


*Myth 1: There Is a Job Market For Which You Must Be Competitive *

*
*

*Myth 2: There Is a Ladder to Climb*

*
*

*Myth 3: The Liberal Arts Are Less Valuable Than Other Fields*

*
*

*Myth 4: We Are Not Workers*


But what's going to change? How many creative practitioners within academic
institutions are actually challenging the status quo?


And finally, some material taken from the conclusion of my doctorate thesis
(a practice based thesis by the way). I was asked to remove it for the
final version.


....On one side there is an institutionally based infrastructure that
supports the activities of a specialist community, on the other, a culture
industry that commodifies music, dictates trends, and establishes the
market value for all music based goods. The audience for experimental music
is minuscule,[2]<file:///E:/Desktop/Desk/Research%20Library/PDF%20RESEARCH/PHD/CORRECTIONS/DRyan%20-%20Thesis%20Corrections%2027-01-12.doc#_ftn2>
and
even mainstream music has been commercially devalued to such an extent that
the independent producer cannot hope to make a reasonable income from "unit
sales" alone; unless they are somehow capable of providing a product that
has mass appeal in the popular domain. Within the institution, though it
may offer a means to sustain a compositional career, the duties that come
with upholding an academic position can place great pressures on the
individual; often to the detriment of "creative output". It also forces
creators to justify the worth of their compositional activities in relation
to its value as *music research*; research, that in accordance with the
institutions administrative regime (and its overarching ethos), must
somehow equate with “excellence.” In this climate, worryingly for some,
free creative expression may perhaps be unsustainable. Arguably, the
combined forces of the market economy (driven by popular notions of
artistic worth) and institutions that are obsessed with producing *excellent
* research (concerned also with the market as they try to move up the
league tables) may in fact be stifling genuine "innovation"...

[2]<file:///E:/Desktop/Desk/Research%20Library/PDF%20RESEARCH/PHD/CORRECTIONS/DRyan%20-%20Thesis%20Corrections%2027-01-12.doc#_ftnref2>
 Landy (2009:521) cites Maurice Fleuret's observation that concerts of such
works are comparable to Kleenex: “use once throw away – thus suggesting
that a work’s *premiere* is also its *derniere*. Such remarks typify the
odd situation known to many late 20th century contemporary music composers:
few performances, few recording opportunities, and even fewer broadcasts.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130120/08591959/attachment.htm>