No subject

e 'work' at all (especially if the 'work' is not received for what it is - =
a relational contribution) rather than some kind of framed entity for deliv=
ery .. if of course that were really possible  - because, in the end the pr=
oduction of more art 'as we (think) we know' it is not what really interest=
s me (a personal perspective of course) ..

So in that sense Im coming to understand that I should increasingly write a=
bout work as vehicle - to better help me understand/picture its  flow withi=
n a series of deeply complex sociocultural relationships.

This contribution (from what we name as the artist) 'could' lead to the eme=
rgence of something that seems absolutely unlike art as we know it .. On th=
at point, nervously,  Ive caught myself (erroneously?) debating with collab=
orators of late (often from non-art disciplines) how or if the emerging pro=
jects we are creating/collating together will even be accepted/seen as/reco=
gnised as art anymore ..

This thinking about measuring up asks me to ask some very fundamental quest=
ions of myself and what conception I have built of myself as a 'form' of ar=
tist .. and what I therefore do and why I do it two decades in ..

Whether this is the moderate or even gross instrumentalisation others speak=
 about is of lesser interest to me, given the debates about the many purpos=
es or otherwise of art are long and ongoing  ..  (Ultimately Id suggest we =
have to respect and foster biodiversity in both art and techno-ecological l=
ife!)   And I guess we really need to build resilience amongst our communit=
y..  if I maybe detect a slightly 'run out' feeling amongst some of our col=
leagues here in the discussion.

Anyway, at least for for me, there is a very blurred distinction between th=
e daily processes of social activism and works which often emerge in dialog=
ue with futurists, designers, architects, urban planners, scientists.. peop=
le who aren't necessarily particularly interested in the fact that Im an ar=
tist. I think thats why the fire still burns so bright after so long..

be interested to hear any responses .. this could lead us to the well tried=
 but still important question of sustaining what we do  (i.e. the different=
 artists we see ourselves as) - I have seen so many give up their work for =
good as the years have rolled why - the reasons are many and complex of cou=
rse .. but I do think how you position your art within your relational jour=
neys is critical - to sustain a practice you first have to sustain yourself=
 and that takes real resolve in the face of continual naysaying..

Cheers  Keith









On 22/01/2013, at 6:49 AM, Donna Leishman <D.Leishman at dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> Timothy Emlyn Jones (now Dean of Burren College of Art), whilst he was at=
 Glasgow School of Art,
> imparted this advice to all the newly appointed PhD students -
>
> "Do not do a PhD to become a better artist"
> It was provocative but refreshingly direct - be an artist and produce art=
 to become a better artist, undertake a Phd to become a trained researcher.=
 13 years later, I still remember that talk and our Q&A's and the comment w=
hose veracity endures yet for me. The formal methods training or creation o=
f methodologies I suggest is vital in providing difference between art/prac=
tice/research and art/practice.
>
> best
> Donna
>
>
> Dr Donna Leishman | Communication Design Context | Course Director BA (Ho=
ns) Illustration | Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art | Tel:01382 348320 =
|Email:d.leishman at dundee.ac.uk http://www.6amhoover.com
>
>
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.un=
sw.edu.au] on behalf of wendy kirkup [wendykirkup at btinternet.com]
> Sent: 21 January 2013 17:17
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 15
>
> Many thanks for inviting me to be part of this developing and fascinating=
 discussion. And apologies in advance if I am making points that have alrea=
dy been made but have missed through my skim read of the postings made over=
 the last two weeks.
>
> I am currently a little more than half way through a practice based PhD a=
t Edinburgh university, and have undertaken the study for what Sarah Jane i=
dentified as its 'reflective, intellectual value' - to become more alert to=
 my own 'ways of
> making and thinking through making, and on ways these might relate to oth=
er artefacts (of knowledge, of practice)'. This is in part a response to my=
 own previous practice of working site specifically on multi-media installa=
tions which necessitated that I and the commissioner hire in assistance at =
every level to help me realise the work. Along with the increasingly instru=
mental criteria for raising (often public) money needed for production, I f=
elt increasingly distanced from any real material investigation, or to find=
 productive points of real reflection in and of the practice as a whole. Th=
e PhD is helping to address this balance bringing me much closer to the wor=
k and its positioning within larger theoretical and contextual frameworks. =
I agree and identify with Simon's comments regarding his part-time practice=
 based students for whom 'the PhD process itself is often integrated into t=
he studio practice of the candidate, with an enhanced role for critical ref=
lection and contextualisation within that'. I also agree with him and other=
s who suggest that this route is not useful or helpful for all artists.
>
> I was recently reading a Practice as Research document given to me by a f=
riend at Glasgow University, which makes the distinction between 'practice =
as research' and 'practice as research MPhils and PhDs'. The paper makes th=
e point, as Sarah Jane does so well as do many other contributers to this d=
iscussion, is that the debate is not about the validity of the practice but=
 of the validity of the practice as research as defined by the academy - an=
d really the key term is perhaps not really practice but research. As the m=
ain funder of University arts and humanities activity in the UK the AHRC ha=
s a specific definition of research which is concerned with research proces=
ses rather than outputs - practice as a methodology, and for this to be com=
municable to others within the discipline or related disciplinary areas. Li=
ke Anne -Sarah I write about the work to understand it better, which then h=
elps to make the next work, as an ongoing process. How I am able to make th=
is clear for others is still something I am working out, but its important =
for me to let the practical work be more than anything I might say about it=
 too.
>
> To pick up a different point - although I no longer regularly teach in ar=
t schools, in the days when I did hold tenured teaching positions and the U=
niversity research exercise loomed, I would watch, often aghast, at the con=
struction of a departmental research profile made from the top down for the=
 purpose (I can't remember anyone ever discussing my work with me, although=
 I was included on each round). In my more recent teaching experiences, I d=
on't think things have changed much (and I hope I'm wrong), with really pro=
blematic and lasting effects.
>
> BW
>
> Wendy
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2013, at 14:23, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
>> To echo Sally Jane's comments on financing PhDs...
>>
>> Most PhDs I have worked with are self-financing and thus often register =
as part time. As most of these candidates are practice based the PhD proces=
s itself is often integrated into the studio practice of the candidate, wit=
h an enhanced role for critical reflection and contextualisation within tha=
t. It's debatable whether this critical enhancement would have happened if =
they didn't do the PhD. I think, in many instances, it was already happenin=
g in their practice and that is why the candidate then chose to work within=
 the framework of the PhD. If the candidate doesn't wish to work in such a =
critical and contextualised manner then a PhD is probably not the right sol=
ution for them.
>>
>> A small number of my PhDs are financed through research grants, which al=
lows them to work full-time on their research. However, they do not get muc=
h money to live on (about half the average UK salary) and when working on a=
 project their research has to serve the aims and objectives of that projec=
t. In that respect they are not free to follow their own agenda and so this=
 is often not a very attractive route for artists to whom conceptual autono=
my is important. Of course, many artists are interested in specific topics =
and wish to work with the challenges such constraints bring with them... th=
is is the topic this month's discussants are engaging.
>>
>> In a very small number of cases some students receive an open stipend, m=
eaning that their fees are paid and they receive a small grant for living c=
osts. The only constraints on their research are those they agree with thei=
r supervisors - which, in turn, will be partly determined by what the insti=
tution requires a candidate to achieve in order to be awarded a PhD. With R=
esearch Councils in the UK no longer directly funding PhDs, and devolving t=
he funds to Block Grant Partnerships and Doctoral Training Consortiums, it =
is easier for those supervisors who work in institutions with such infrastr=
ucture to support students in this way (although the money available is les=
s than was previously the case). But these are rare instances. Where there =
is a BGP in place, that covers the subject area and topic of a potential Ph=
D, it will be valid for many potential supervisors within the institution, =
so a particular supervisor may only get to work with a very small number of=
 such students in their entire time in the institution, if any. At the same=
 time supervisors receive numerous unsolicited emails from potential PhD ca=
ndidates asking if there are funded opportunities available for them to app=
ly for. It's difficult to respond in the negative.
>>
>> At the moment PhD fees in the UK look like good value. Undergraduate fee=
s in England are around =A39000 per year - only partially covering the real=
 cost of study. PhD fees are =A33400 or thereabouts so these students are h=
eavily subsidised by the institutions (who receive no core funding to cover=
 PhDs). In Scotland we are lucky in that undergraduate fees remain at =A30,=
 although for how much longer we will see. This depends on the electorate v=
oting for a party that supports such a policy. Of the four main parties in =
Scotland only one supports this policy (happily for students, the party cur=
rently in government). But they will not be in power forever and the other =
parties wish to institute student fees as soon as they are able. If I was c=
onsidering studying in the next few years I'd do it sooner rather than late=
r...
>>
>> best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2013, at 09:14, sally jane norman wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> To pick up on some points and nuance others: does the "practice" we're
>>> talking about mean pragmatic engagement with materials (which might
>>> include "conceptual materials" as a kind of media, over and above the
>>> conceptual basis of any human production), i.e. forms of craft
>>> (inherited from Greek "techn=E9" - which tended to be secondary to
>>> liberal arts grounded in epistemic thinking/ power enjoyed by the
>>> upper classes)?
>>>
>>> The "justification" question is crucial: for me, "justification" can
>>> constitute or be offered by (part of) the context in which work is
>>> presented. Places for presenting art - whether dedicated or
>>> re-appropriated - contextualise it, and thus to a certain degree
>>> afford its defence, its "justification" (they are "power-conferring"
>>> in framing activity as art). So for me, if I wish to experience an art
>>> work in a place that publicly labels it as art (performance or
>>> exhibition place, whether inside closed walls or "in the wild" but
>>> "framed"), I'm not necessarily going to seek further "justification"
>>> of its status as art. I'd hope it would "speak for itself", though in
>>> some cases this entails some quite explicit "justification" by the
>>> artist, which is perfectly legitimate and sometimes appreciated.
>>>
>>> The university context comes with its own values and ethos, and for
>>> me, these have to do with optimising the sharing and further use of
>>> knowledge and insights, relayed through careful structuring of
>>> research materials to this end. So it requires a different kind of
>>> justification. If you choose to work within this system/ context, this
>>> implies recognising its codes. Other people have very different
>>> definitions of the university, but I think it's important to try and
>>> identify and defend the values we each associate with it, particularly
>>> if/ when we work within it.
>>>
>>> My earlier reference to the "stitched together portfolio without
>>> accompanying critical reflection" botches what for me remains an open
>>> question. Last year I examined a DocFA that might have been entirely
>>> seen as a portfolio, but where the critical edge and spelling out of
>>> reflective and methodological processes were absolutely in-your-face
>>> as integral to the work. It was playfully, intelligently effective -
>>> work on re-appropriation that couched itself in art theory mash-ups to
>>> spell out the means it used and creatively criticised.  So I guess
>>> this brought home, again, the fact that the biggest danger is
>>> generalisation in the face of art as essentially, vitally
>>> idiosyncratic. I'm usually diffident about practice research validated
>>> by universities that doesn't entail specific, independent reflection
>>> on its making but in this case was enthusiastic (the validation
>>> question - who assesses and in keeping with what criteria - is
>>> determinant too). Interestingly, this was a DocFA and universities
>>> under league table and research profile pressure are often trying to
>>> replace these with more "serious" PhD qualifications. DocFA's tend to
>>> take a lot longer and have poor completion rates, precisely because
>>> they offer footholds for artists in the academy without their going
>>> the whole PhD hog. Another open question. As are various "alternative
>>> formats" to PhDs for artists (e.g. Norwegian Arts Research Fellowship
>>> programme).
>>>
>>> PhDs in US or Europe as "an adventure reserved for the riches"?
>>> whoops, that to me is a questionable  generalisation. There are many,
>>> many PhD students and would-be students who are entirely self funding
>>> under extremely arduous conditions and who are far from rich. They're
>>> taking it on because they are deeply committed to the reflective,
>>> critical distance it might give them from their work. And that "might"
>>> is a big one they assume knowingly.  That's why I get angry with the
>>> flippancy and undermining sometimes in evidence amongst their or my
>>> peers, and feel that I owe it to them (and to my own long gone
>>> supervisors) to defend the values of free thinking and intellectual
>>> sharing I continue to associate with a university - admittedly against
>>> increasingly high odds.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> sj
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:00 AM,  <empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.a=
u> wrote:
>>>> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
>>>>        empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>        http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>        empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>        empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>>   1. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Johannes Birringer)
>>>>   2. Re: Practice in Research (Adrian Miles)
>>>>   3. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Adrian Miles)
>>>>   4. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Adrian Miles)
>>>>   5. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Adrian Miles)
>>>>   6. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Cecile Chevalier)
>>>>   7. open questions - art and the university as (still, in spite
>>>>      of it all...) a knowledge commons (sally jane norman)
>>>>   8. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Simon Biggs)
>>>>   9. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>>>>      (Monika Weiss)
>>>>  10. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics (Phi Shu)
>>>>  11. Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28 (Simon Biggs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:18:49 +0000
>>>> From: Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>        <DF657B70CB20304DB745D84933F94B1E03AE35067B at v-exmb01.academic.w=
indsor>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> dear all
>>>>
>>>> the small post I sent a few days ago was meant to interrupt the conver=
sation, and I am sorry for that.
>>>>
>>>> The messages that appeared before here were quite illuminating, in man=
y respects, and also deeply, very deeply  saddening, when
>>>> I felt I read about the experiences described, artists becoming academ=
ics, teaching, defending their Phds,
>>>> embroiled in bureaucracy of management, pedagogy, teaching studio? tea=
ching academic practice & theory? preparation for teaching,
>>>> administering, writing essays and theses, and all this, yes.  And all =
this "knowledge production."
>>>>
>>>> The practice of the now so-called "practitioners" in the university en=
vironment. What
>>>> is this, a practitioner? What are we?  what knowledge, Miles?  whose k=
nowledge criteria? what kind of knowledge are you defending?
>>>> and what would be the difference between art (non-instrumentalized?) a=
nd art (instrumentalized) and "output"?
>>>> what is an "output"? what are your key problems?
>>>>
>>>> (I read Sue Hawksley's last post with great interest, as she is descri=
bing a dilemma
>>>> of space and time to create.....and her work as a " a dance artist ...=
work[ing] with new media, for example
>>>> within  digitally-mediated interactive immersive performance environme=
nts".....
>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>> - these grand claims for developing skills of interactivity feel a bit=
 hollow right now. I notice with irony that I'm finding it difficult to com=
plete this thought....
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, mentio=
ned an artwork produced in the university and submittted for review (evalua=
tion,
>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sign=
fiicance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter?=
 how come this is never addressed"?
>>>> what work is generated?
>>>>
>>>> (mind you, I have failed completely to understand/appreciate the quota=
tion offered to us about " research bricolage" ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> of multiperspectival research methods...... diverse theoretical tradit=
ions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical co=
ntext to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodologica=
l inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers ar=
e empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio-=
political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical multilo=
gical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research b=
ricolage......
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This multimethodological stuff,  to me this is unintelligible verbage,=
 I guess, academic lingo, probably about uninspiring and unwitnessed art.
>>>> To what audience or reception or knowledge context is this language di=
rected? who would bother to read/see/experience this "critical connected on=
tology"?
>>>>
>>>> so I am just wondering aloud about the "practices", that's all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having just read an article in Art in America [http://www.artinamerica=
magazine.com/features/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited/]
>>>> about artists back then responding to a questionnaire asking to descri=
be the sensibility of the ?60s, and the same questions posed to artists now=
 in 2012-13,
>>>> i found Carolee Schneemann's reply about dentists quite interesting:
>>>>
>>>> <<
>>>> Current ideological language uses ?practice? to define art concepts at=
 the expense of process. Practice implies perfectibility, strategy, product=
s: dentists have a practice, violinists practice, yoga is a practice, eleph=
ants practice for the circus. Process invites risk, uncertainty, vision, un=
predictability, concentration and blind devotion.?? Yes, the current situat=
ion is more academic. >>
>>>>
>>>> But surely Schneemann, and the other artists who responded, had much t=
o say about knowledge production, but their production is not defensible, i=
f I understand Adrian Miles correctly.
>>>>
>>>> That was my whole point. What are you defending, then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Johannes Birringer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 2
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:58:06 +1100
>>>> From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research
>>>> Message-ID: <24FF9997CC3C49009EAC35944650B5D8 at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 1:18 AM, maria mencia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing, I would like to bring up is practice PhDs which are on=
ly PRACTICE, has anybody in the list done one of these PhDs?  What makes th=
is practice research? How do you defend it? What is the difference between =
this practice and an artwork/creative work, as it could well be a piece of =
creative writing for instance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Practice based research is one of those things that in the context of =
this discussion gets made more complicated than it perhaps is. Education Ph=
Ds, for instance, are very commonly practice based and have been for years =
as the basis of education research in many PhDs that are about teaching is =
the practice of teaching. Here you are expected (usually) to write a thesis=
 that indicates what you have explicitly investigated in your practice, and=
 the changes in your practice that have occurred as a result of this. For a=
 PhD it would also require a looking 'outwards' from the implications of my=
 practice to demonstrate its significance for others in the field (other pr=
acticing teachers).
>>>>
>>>> In my area (media studies etc) practice based research is reasonably c=
ommon, though often confused with project based research. In project based =
research you do a project.The project is expected to be any/all of an enqui=
ry/response/investigation/analysis of a significant research question reali=
sed through the doing of the project. In practice based research there may =
not be a specific project (or projects) but the key research question inves=
tigated relates very specifically to your practice. As with the education e=
xample it is defended by evidencing the significance of the change to pract=
ice for the practitioner and potentially the field.
>>>>
>>>> to use creative writing as an example. Project based research would be=
 to write something. This artefact is the project component and usually an =
exegesis/viva/thesis/presentation accompanies it to demonstrate how and why=
 it is research (and not just literature). Practice based research you migh=
t write something, you might write several things, but the research questio=
n is not about artefact that is produced but about the activities and actio=
ns of creating or making in itself. (In education you can't bring in a clas=
s as evidence, nor necessarily changes in students results, as it is about =
the change in your practice, not theirs.) Here people like Donald Sch?n oft=
en figure prominently. At RMIT where I work the architecture school has a v=
ery strong practice based history so the emphasis falls less on an analysis=
 of the buildings or designs as artefacts than on the 'thinking-in-action" =
that they express and explore.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, in honours in creative writing a project would be to write a =
creative nonfiction travel book where the research problem might be "how ca=
n the contemporary memoir be used as a basis to write a travel guide?". A p=
ractice based one could be "While writing a creative nonfiction travel memo=
ir I want to examine the relation of my practice to constraint to learn abo=
ut the role of constraint to me as a writer."
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> an appropriate closing
>>>> Adrian Miles
>>>> Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
>>>> RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
>>>> http://vogmae.net.au/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/266f3bd6/attachment.html>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 3
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:07:42 +1100
>>>> From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID: <5C39F6D121CE4E13837DF148A14A7015 at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 1:32 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 crit=
eria (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 h=
appening 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 arg=
ue this is the case and that we all know of excellent examples.
>>>> absolutely and would have thought this has always been the case?
>>>>>
>>>>> But then we are simply talking of creative activity and intellectual =
inquiry, which anybody can do anytime, if they wish, without having to worr=
y about what it is. The implication of this train of thought is that art an=
d science are similar in that they exist as identified domains of human act=
ivity 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 epistemo=
logical approach.
>>>> again, absolutely. What counts here is defined by the players in these=
 games, and putting aside the very legitimate questions about power and ide=
ology and so on for one moment, as any one who plays a game knows, you have=
 to get into the game before you can contest its terms. (I can stand outsid=
e of the soccer field and point out how pointless it all seems, but those o=
n the field playing will simply shrug as clearly "he doesn't get it". If I =
want the soccer players to listen to me as soccer players, I've got to get =
'inside' soccer in some manner.)
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought then this is where anthropology fits, as it provi=
des ways to explain the nature of the games, their rules (implicit and expl=
icit) and the consequences of these. However, it is these rules that largel=
y define what counts epistemologically. But at the moment for this conversa=
tion I'd say it's games all the way down, and yes, anthropology is very use=
ful for this :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> an appropriate closing
>>>> Adrian Miles
>>>> Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
>>>> RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
>>>> http://vogmae.net.au/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/22d890bd/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 4
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:35:02 +1100
>>>> From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID: <9E7A44CF5BF441B29860849ED6EA0682 at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 5:18 PM, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But surely Schneemann, and the other artists who responded, had much =
to say about knowledge production, but their production is not defensible, =
if I understand Adrian Miles correctly.
>>>>>
>>>> not quite :-). Art is perfectly defensible as art. In the context of r=
esearch as a contribution of something new to knowledge (and not experience=
 or even understanding) then some art can do this, of course. But it is not=
 a condition that all art has to do this. I am suggesting though that all r=
esearch has to do this.
>>>>
>>>> So, in a *university* context if I make art and argue that I've done e=
nough and that's my research, then I think you misunderstand research, and =
possibly art. As Ross Gibson (I think reasonably) pointed out in an essay s=
cientists *practice* research all the time in labs, field work and so on, b=
ut culturally accept that they have to express the practice of their resear=
ch in other forms to turn it into research and not just practice. (The big =
difference I see between  these research cultures is that the sciences hist=
orically privilege clarity and the denial of ambiguity when they write up t=
heir research, the humanities toy with ambiguity and clarity, but its prett=
y faux and tame as any PhD candidate or academic trying to work outside of =
scholarly 'norms' knows only too well.) I think in the university context w=
hen I make art if I also want to claim it as research then I need to do som=
ething more.
>>>>
>>>> I realise this freaks everyone out, but I think this is only because a=
n entire complicated architecture has been falsely built that mystifies 'pr=
oject' and 'practice' based research into something particularly special th=
at only refers to a small group of creative 'practitioner researchers'. My =
blue collar upbringing bridles at this self granting of 'specialness' which=
 seems dubious, if not rather tautological. All good research involves erro=
r, chance, intuition, creativity. All good research needs to be communicate=
d in a manner that allows it to be understood by at least some part of the =
relevant community of peers. Whether artists, scholars or scientists I"m no=
t sure is a game changer. (And I completely agree with Simon that this comm=
unity is partly self defined, establishes its norms and this is what lets s=
ome things count and others not.)
>>>>
>>>> Similarly whoever it was that I read recently (in a book) that argued =
that science research begins from known hypotheses that are then tested, ve=
rsus creative research that begins with ambiguity is playing precisely that=
 language game that sends me spare. It turns hypothesis into the thing you =
read in the scientific report and ambiguity into the artefact that is produ=
ced. Any scientist knows that in their *practice* ambiguity abounds. That's=
 why they frame questions to test. Any creative researcher knows that in th=
eir creative making they are responding to any number of hypothesises, we j=
ust don't call them that ("how do I film narrative fiction with one continu=
ous take to?.", "what would it be to write a novel without the letter e?", =
"what is colour"? "what happens if?.?") Ambiguity is not the opposite of a =
hypothesis ("I intend to write a poem that is ambiguous to see if it could =
be understood as a love poem, and as an elegy").
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, didn't really answer your question Johannes. In a nutshell I"ve=
 been in too many university meetings where creative practitioners insist t=
hat what they do is 'research' all by itself. Yet seem not to recognise tha=
t the whole 20 minute discussion explaining how their art is research is ne=
cessary precisely because their art *by itself* can't communicate all that =
(it communicates other things) which is why if they want their stuff to be =
'research' and not only art they need to talk, write, etc about what it doe=
s.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> an appropriate closing
>>>> Adrian Miles
>>>> Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours)
>>>> RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au
>>>> http://vogmae.net.au/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/20352702/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 5
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:51:46 +1100
>>>> From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID: <8FA8DDF4-4E0A-4D6B-B385-44E623681939 at rmit.edu.au>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=3Dus-ascii
>>>>
>>>> Please don't apologise for that. Was a needed interruption. Perhaps si=
mple answer is that for me research needs to be evidenced based and contest=
able. Art by itself - the art thing - might do this but doesn't have or nee=
d to. What is the evidence based, contestable claim made by Monet? Joyce? C=
age? For me, and I stress I'm often on my Pat Malone here, this is not the =
point of their work.  On the other hand as a researcher I can make evidence=
 based contestable claims *about* their work. But that is different to and =
outside of the works in themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On 20/01/2013, at 17:18, Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer at brunel=
.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the small post I sent a few days ago was meant to interrupt the conve=
rsation, and I am sorry for that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 6
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:27:59 +0000
>>>> From: Cecile Chevalier <C.Chevalier at sussex.ac.uk>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>        <15F3F8EFCEAAD14891EF22174F5804C012ACCD11 at EX-SHA-MBX2.ad.susx.a=
c.uk>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> <So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, menti=
oned an artwork produced in the university and submitted for review (evalua=
tion,
>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sign=
ificance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter?=
 how come this is never addressed"?
>>>> what work is generated?> <Johannes>
>>>>
>>>> To amend the balance in a small way.... VIva Viva exhibition in 2008..=
.  where work and thesis were accessible, the exhibition was open and adver=
tise to the general public as well as academics...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.closeupfilmcentre.com/vertigo_magazine/volume-4-issue-2-win=
ter-spring-20091/viva-viva-an-exhibition-at-p3-gallery-london-december-2008=
/
>>>>
>>>> ...The works displayed clearly showed different approaches to practice=
-based research - some works were clearly dominant in their practice, other=
 seems to use practice as a method to access/present knowledge. This may ha=
ve reflected their percentage of practice.... can a practice-based PhD be 8=
0% practice? what is the minimum percentage that practice can be in practic=
e-based research?
>>>>
>>>> I was truly excited by the exhibition (at the time I had not started m=
y PhD), although it had similarities with a traditional art exhibition in i=
ts format (allocated/curated space and documentation) the content of the wo=
rk and documentation was not 'art' but 'research art' (in its dominance of =
knowledge over aesthetics). But what I valued was its access to the general=
 audience that I was then part of, it made research accessible. Sadly there=
 were no Viva Viva in 2009 or any other year after that, which in some aspe=
ct reinforces Johannes's questions as opposed to answer them.
>>>>
>>>> C?cile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa=
.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of Johannes Birringer [Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac=
.uk]
>>>> Sent: 20 January 2013 06:18
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mecha=
nics
>>>>
>>>> dear all
>>>>
>>>> the small post I sent a few days ago was meant to interrupt the conver=
sation, and I am sorry for that.
>>>>
>>>> The messages that appeared before here were quite illuminating, in man=
y respects, and also deeply, very deeply  saddening, when
>>>> I felt I read about the experiences described, artists becoming academ=
ics, teaching, defending their Phds,
>>>> embroiled in bureaucracy of management, pedagogy, teaching studio? tea=
ching academic practice & theory? preparation for teaching,
>>>> administering, writing essays and theses, and all this, yes.  And all =
this "knowledge production."
>>>>
>>>> The practice of the now so-called "practitioners" in the university en=
vironment. What
>>>> is this, a practitioner? What are we?  what knowledge, Miles?  whose k=
nowledge criteria? what kind of knowledge are you defending?
>>>> and what would be the difference between art (non-instrumentalized?) a=
nd art (instrumentalized) and "output"?
>>>> what is an "output"? what are your key problems?
>>>>
>>>> (I read Sue Hawksley's last post with great interest, as she is descri=
bing a dilemma
>>>> of space and time to create.....and her work as a " a dance artist ...=
work[ing] with new media, for example
>>>> within  digitally-mediated interactive immersive performance environme=
nts".....
>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>> - these grand claims for developing skills of interactivity feel a bit=
 hollow right now. I notice with irony that I'm finding it difficult to com=
plete this thought....
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, mentio=
ned an artwork produced in the university and submittted for review (evalua=
tion,
>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sign=
fiicance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter?=
 how come this is never addressed"?
>>>> what work is generated?
>>>>
>>>> (mind you, I have failed completely to understand/appreciate the quota=
tion offered to us about " research bricolage" ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> of multiperspectival research methods...... diverse theoretical tradit=
ions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical co=
ntext to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodologica=
l inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers ar=
e empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio-=
political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical multilo=
gical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research b=
ricolage......
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This multimethodological stuff,  to me this is unintelligible verbage,=
 I guess, academic lingo, probably about uninspiring and unwitnessed art.
>>>> To what audience or reception or knowledge context is this language di=
rected? who would bother to read/see/experience this "critical connected on=
tology"?
>>>>
>>>> so I am just wondering aloud about the "practices", that's all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having just read an article in Art in America [http://www.artinamerica=
magazine.com/features/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited/]
>>>> about artists back then responding to a questionnaire asking to descri=
be the sensibility of the ?60s, and the same questions posed to artists now=
 in 2012-13,
>>>> i found Carolee Schneemann's reply about dentists quite interesting:
>>>>
>>>> <<
>>>> Current ideological language uses ?practice? to define art concepts at=
 the expense of process. Practice implies perfectibility, strategy, product=
s: dentists have a practice, violinists practice, yoga is a practice, eleph=
ants practice for the circus. Process invites risk, uncertainty, vision, un=
predictability, concentration and blind devotion.?? Yes, the current situat=
ion is more academic. >>
>>>>
>>>> But surely Schneemann, and the other artists who responded, had much t=
o say about knowledge production, but their production is not defensible, i=
f I understand Adrian Miles correctly.
>>>>
>>>> That was my whole point. What are you defending, then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Johannes Birringer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 7
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:14:21 +0000
>>>> From: sally jane norman <normansallyjane at googlemail.com>
>>>> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> Subject: [-empyre-] open questions - art and the university as (still,
>>>>        in spite of it all...) a knowledge commons
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>        <CAL1BTimuPZv=3DnVZZD5iH66A-SfX4-DvFSaojjGZ-3+-Ymvz-3Q at mail.gma=
il.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
>>>>
>>>> Dear Simon et al,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for fascinating exchange; a few haphazard, subjective comments
>>>> - with apologies if update skim of postings glosses over related
>>>> points already made -
>>>>
>>>> - doctoral qualifications are awarded in principle for research
>>>> knowledge and insights communicated in ways that allow others to
>>>> dialogue and build with them. This means attempting to forge terms and
>>>> conceptual scaffolds that help make one's work understandable -
>>>> whatever the field - and setting it in context, in keeping with
>>>> notions of the commons (that used to be and for me still are)
>>>> underpinning the university's traditional remit as an academy geared
>>>> towards the public good. So maybe it IS a kind of instrumentalisation,
>>>> insofar as the university's role is to constitute shareable, usable
>>>> work for the community. Dropping the more specific and questionable
>>>> kinds of instrumentalisation where businesses engage students in
>>>> "confidential" application-driven projects by paying symbolic
>>>> contributions to tax-payer backed research environments.
>>>>
>>>> - in the arts, articulation of context and processes doesn't mean
>>>> killing work through systematic and ultimately futile dissection
>>>> (ambiguity and potential for open-ended interpretation often being key
>>>> to artistic practice and works), but formulating reflection on ways of
>>>> making and thinking through making, and on ways these might relate to
>>>> other artefacts (of knowledge, of practice).
>>>>
>>>> - some work lends itself to this process, and some artists derive real
>>>> value from honing their visions thus (reflective, intellectual value,
>>>> and socio-economic/ professional value related to academy status), as
>>>> indicated by several contributors here; some clearly doesn't/ don't.
>>>> Unfortunately, there seems to be a widely held assumption that any
>>>> artistic work can be pulled out of a magically transformational PhD
>>>> mortar board - this undermines both art and the academic institution.
>>>>
>>>> - questions of instrumentalisation/ instrumentality loom over any
>>>> "free thinking", in different ways and degrees, in the institution or
>>>> "ek-stitution" (Florian Schneider's term). There are countless
>>>> scholars, as well as artists, wrestling with original PhD projects
>>>> receiving zero support from the academy, even if they've managed to
>>>> get enrolled to benefit from supervision and dialogue, who self-fund
>>>> through irrelevant drudgery, often without any future possibilities of
>>>> institutional integration. This is frequently overlooked by some
>>>> artists who see themselves as the hardest hit in a hard world.
>>>>
>>>> - many academics, including artists, are prevented from developing
>>>> original research projects by having to focus on tedious institutional
>>>> tasks and politics. These can totally disrupt creative thinking of all
>>>> kinds. In fact, this is probably the most generalised gripe amongst
>>>> academics but it's inherent to institutions. How to have your cake and
>>>> eat it too.
>>>>
>>>> - art has a unique contribution to make in the (constant) reframing of
>>>> research practices and concepts within and outside the academy. It can
>>>> make this contribution all the more incisively through awareness of
>>>> the wider scene in which it operates, and of the constraints facing
>>>> others engaged in research, in order to better identify and defend its
>>>> own specificities.
>>>>
>>>> - growth of PhD gravy trains in universities keen to boost research
>>>> profiles and resources (eg UK bean counting for higher education
>>>> funding bodies), unhelpfully aggravates the confusion, if not
>>>> "mystique", surrounding creative practice doctorates. Another "star
>>>> academy": you're an artist, make the leap and become an academic? Job,
>>>> security, institutional recognition?
>>>>
>>>> - in some places creative portfolios stitched together for submission
>>>> as research are devoid of accompanying critical reflection; in others
>>>> superficial text collations are validated by institutions wishing to
>>>> confer respectable doctoral titles on potentially "impact-strong"
>>>> individuals who can boost strategic links to "real world activity".
>>>>
>>>> - such situations are problematic because they undermine the
>>>> painstaking, sometimes inspiring work being undertaken by deeply
>>>> engaged creative practitioners and free thinkers, like many on this
>>>> list, working inside and beyond the academy walls.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll stop there. Hopefully these points don't come across as
>>>> dogmatic because in my mind they're a bunch of open questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> sj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 8
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:19:40 +0000
>>>> From: Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID: <8B518829-853D-4D6A-AAE8-9A9B754C57F5 at littlepig.org.uk>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"windows-1252"
>>>>
>>>> A review of the outputs for the units of assessments in art and design=
, the performing arts and music, for the UK's 2008 Research Assessment Exer=
cise, would deliver many examples of practice based work that were submitte=
d and reviewed within a framework focused on research value, most of which =
was considered to be research by definition (and a proportion excellent in =
that respect).
>>>>
>>>> There were around 70 higher education institutions submitting research=
 active staff to the unit of assessment for art and design (largely practic=
e based work) and over 40 for performing arts, also many practice based. A =
further 50 or so institutions submitted to the UoA for music, which would p=
robably consist of 50% practice based work. I've not counted how many indiv=
idual artist/academics this represents, but it will be around a thousand, w=
ith each submitting three or four outputs. We can therefore assume there ar=
e thousands of practice based outputs documented in the RAE database.
>>>>
>>>> http://rae.ac.uk/submissions/
>>>>
>>>> Music is an interesting case here. It has been a convention in music f=
or 100% practice based PhDs to be submitted for many years. Music has long =
occupied a privileged position in research-led universities, whereas the ot=
her creative arts have, in most instances (at least in the UK), come to thi=
s in only the last two or three decades. My main experience of academia as =
a student was working in the electronic music studio at Adelaide University=
, which was almost exclusively used by PhD students in composition (that wa=
s in the 70's). Obviously this was not a rock'n'roll environment - the Prof=
essor who ran the studio smoked a pipe and had leather elbow patches on his=
 tweed jacket, representing the cliche of the senior academic of the time. =
But it was a highly creative environment dedicated to music practice and th=
e sort of place where technologies and practices were developed that facili=
tated more popular musical forms (eg: the Professor in question developed t=
he synthesisers used
>>>>  by Pink Floyd on Dark Side of the Moon, a few years earlier).
>>>>
>>>> We have a music school within Edinburgh College of Art (part of Edinbu=
rgh University) and there is little debate there about whether music practi=
ce can be research. It clearly can be, and 100% practice based! However, mu=
sic is distinct, at least when considering the main tropes of music within =
academia (contemporary classical, experimental and electronic music dominat=
e), as much of it exists as writing, in the form of the score. For the PhD =
the score, along with its performance, is often considered sufficient for t=
he submission. There need not be any further contextualisation of the work,=
 other than that required for the viva. That said, knowing a number of PhDs=
 in our music department, they go to great lengths to contextualise and jus=
tify their work, historically, theoretically and technically (often all thr=
ee at the same time). They are artists and they consider it default that th=
ey intellectually justify their work. As an artist myself I've always assum=
ed I have to justify
>>>>  my practice intellectually, whether in argument, in writing or in pra=
ctice. So, I disagree with Adrian when he states that art does not have to =
justify itself. I think it does, and always has had to, just like any other=
 human activity. Art is not special. An anthropologist like Tim Ingold writ=
es insightfully about the value of creativity in culture and points out how=
 this is core in social formation, not a special form of human activity.
>>>>
>>>> To give an example of a music PhD, a professional jazz musician submit=
s a number of scores for ensemble pieces and music for dance. This has been=
 contextualised in relation to jazz history (both traditional and modern - =
eg: Miles Davis, but also working James Brown into the mix) and modern clas=
sical music (eg: Stravinsky to Cage), looking at very specific aspects of e=
ach of these musical traditions and how they inform one another. This has t=
hen been reflected upon in the compositions the student has prepared, which=
 function as exemplars of the hypothesis. The main evidence are the scores.=
 This is considered quite conventional as a PhD submission. I am also aware=
 of similar forms of PhD in the area of creative writing.
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Jan 2013, at 15:27, Cecile Chevalier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, ment=
ioned an artwork produced in the university and submitted for review (evalu=
ation,
>>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sig=
nificance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter=
? how come this is never addressed"?
>>>>> what work is generated?> <Johannes>
>>>>>
>>>>> To amend the balance in a small way.... VIva Viva exhibition in 2008.=
..  where work and thesis were accessible, the exhibition was open and adve=
rtise to the general public as well as academics...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.closeupfilmcentre.com/vertigo_magazine/volume-4-issue-2-wi=
nter-spring-20091/viva-viva-an-exhibition-at-p3-gallery-london-december-200=
8/
>>>>>
>>>>> ...The works displayed clearly showed different approaches to practic=
e-based research - some works were clearly dominant in their practice, othe=
r seems to use practice as a method to access/present knowledge. This may h=
ave reflected their percentage of practice.... can a practice-based PhD be =
80% practice? what is the minimum percentage that practice can be in practi=
ce-based research?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was truly excited by the exhibition (at the time I had not started =
my PhD), although it had similarities with a traditional art exhibition in =
its format (allocated/curated space and documentation) the content of the w=
ork and documentation was not 'art' but 'research art' (in its dominance of=
 knowledge over aesthetics). But what I valued was its access to the genera=
l audience that I was then part of, it made research accessible. Sadly ther=
e were no Viva Viva in 2009 or any other year after that, which in some asp=
ect reinforces Johannes's questions as opposed to answer them.
>>>>>
>>>>> C?cile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at lists.cof=
a.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of Johannes Birringer [Johannes.Birringer at brunel.a=
c.uk]
>>>>> Sent: 20 January 2013 06:18
>>>>> To: soft_skinned_space
>>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mech=
anics
>>>>>
>>>>> dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> the small post I sent a few days ago was meant to interrupt the conve=
rsation, and I am sorry for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The messages that appeared before here were quite illuminating, in ma=
ny respects, and also deeply, very deeply  saddening, when
>>>>> I felt I read about the experiences described, artists becoming acade=
mics, teaching, defending their Phds,
>>>>> embroiled in bureaucracy of management, pedagogy, teaching studio? te=
aching academic practice & theory? preparation for teaching,
>>>>> administering, writing essays and theses, and all this, yes.  And all=
 this "knowledge production."
>>>>>
>>>>> The practice of the now so-called "practitioners" in the university e=
nvironment. What
>>>>> is this, a practitioner? What are we?  what knowledge, Miles?  whose =
knowledge criteria? what kind of knowledge are you defending?
>>>>> and what would be the difference between art (non-instrumentalized?) =
and art (instrumentalized) and "output"?
>>>>> what is an "output"? what are your key problems?
>>>>>
>>>>> (I read Sue Hawksley's last post with great interest, as she is descr=
ibing a dilemma
>>>>> of space and time to create.....and her work as a " a dance artist ..=
.work[ing] with new media, for example
>>>>> within  digitally-mediated interactive immersive performance environm=
ents".....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>> - these grand claims for developing skills of interactivity feel a bi=
t hollow right now. I notice with irony that I'm finding it difficult to co=
mplete this thought....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, menti=
oned an artwork produced in the university and submittted for review (evalu=
ation,
>>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sig=
nfiicance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter=
? how come this is never addressed"?
>>>>> what work is generated?
>>>>>
>>>>> (mind you, I have failed completely to understand/appreciate the quot=
ation offered to us about " research bricolage" ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> of multiperspectival research methods...... diverse theoretical tradi=
tions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical c=
ontext to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodologic=
al inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers a=
re empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio=
-political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical multil=
ogical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research =
bricolage......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This multimethodological stuff,  to me this is unintelligible verbage=
, I guess, academic lingo, probably about uninspiring and unwitnessed art.
>>>>> To what audience or reception or knowledge context is this language d=
irected? who would bother to read/see/experience this "critical connected o=
ntology"?
>>>>>
>>>>> so I am just wondering aloud about the "practices", that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Having just read an article in Art in America [http://www.artinameric=
amagazine.com/features/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited/]
>>>>> about artists back then responding to a questionnaire asking to descr=
ibe the sensibility of the ?60s, and the same questions posed to artists no=
w in 2012-13,
>>>>> i found Carolee Schneemann's reply about dentists quite interesting:
>>>>>
>>>>> <<
>>>>> Current ideological language uses ?practice? to define art concepts a=
t the expense of process. Practice implies perfectibility, strategy, produc=
ts: dentists have a practice, violinists practice, yoga is a practice, elep=
hants practice for the circus. Process invites risk, uncertainty, vision, u=
npredictability, concentration and blind devotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the current situation is more academic. >>
>>>>>
>>>>> But surely Schneemann, and the other artists who responded, had much =
to say about knowledge production, but their production is not defensible, =
if I understand Adrian Miles correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my whole point. What are you defending, then?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Johannes Birringer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 skyp=
e: 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-o=
f-art/staff/staff?person_id=3D182&cw_xml=3Dprofile.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.movin=
gtargets.org.uk/  http://designinaction.com/
>>>> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
>>>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=3D656&cw_xml=3Dde=
tails.php
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/f4dc35f9/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 9
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:34:07 -0600
>>>> From: Monika Weiss <gniewna at monika-weiss.com>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID: <8DDBE0D3-B9AE-47B3-B39B-092C937BBECF at monika-weiss.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"windows-1252"
>>>>
>>>> dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I have only now began to read through some of the posts on this highly=
 contested/defended today subject (art and research, art as research) and t=
his quote came across as something I wanted to write towards and perhaps "o=
ppose" it a little:
>>>>
>>>> "art is non instrumental because it does not have to refer to anything=
 outside of itself, if it desires, its use value is to itself only."
>>>>
>>>> I think when Carolee talks about process as opposed to practice (thank=
 you JB for that artforum quote by the way), and the way I understand the p=
rocess as well --- it leads us, pulls us, away from [and towards] strangely=
 familiar and unfamiliar places, both at the same time. Both familiarity an=
d recognition as well as strangeness and unknown territories, create a prod=
uctive place for the work and its reception.  Thus I disagree profoundly wi=
th the idea of complete independence of art from life (as referent) which t=
he above sentence implies, I think. There is always some type of a connecti=
ng tissue, a link with real event, which is why a dialogue is even possible=
. Of course the question arises how to "defend" that inner and connecting-w=
ith-outer tissue. Critics and historians are "practicing" answers to this q=
uestion in what Edward Shanken I believe calls MCA (main stream contemporar=
y art) -- this "defense" (or de-fence) is practiced by dealers, critics and=
 historians on our b
>>>> ehalf, while in the NMA (new media art) we are more often writing or e=
xposing our thinking directly as theory and making it visible first hand.
>>>>
>>>> This apparent conflict between "art" and "research" has many faces -- =
again something even Shanken agrees in one of his recent posts on Rhizome -=
- that a lot of new media work is not great (if we assume that new media me=
ans it is work that comes automatically with theory and research and writin=
g etc.) but he also states that a lot of MCA is equally not interesting or =
equally not  relevant (also true). Thus, if we take the "power" of the work=
 "itself" aside for a moment, I want to ask whether a profound research don=
e by an artist along side the "work of art" that " stands on its own"  take=
s anything away from the 'art"? -- or, perhaps, it becomes part of it , at =
least in the best case scenario...
>>>>
>>>> I recently had a conversation [following a screening of my work] with =
an important artist from the MCA world whom I mutually adore. However his c=
omplaint was that I spoke as part of my screening, especially that I spoke =
of the issues or histories and places that I researched and that it took aw=
ay some of the "magic" or mystery. He said - "let THEM do it".
>>>>
>>>> This, this strange division between "us" and "them" seems to be as rel=
evant in the conversations about research and art or "practice" as is the c=
ontext of academia. The sometimes still lingering bourgeois notion of an ar=
tist as always a priori "other" and as an outcast, comes to mind. The non-i=
ntellectual, the mute genius, hidden in HIS studio (and then sold by Gaugos=
ian). And, as we all well know, it was the first wave feminist artists and =
writers that, among others, brought to the fore the notion that ideology, p=
olitics, social issues, economy, the body and the biography, all can be exp=
licitly discussed in and alongside the work itself. Of course since then, w=
e have grown both into commercialization of the ideology (and even/especial=
ly of the process itself--enough to just take a walk through Basel etc.) wh=
ich is now commodified (again thanks to MCA machine) but we have also devel=
oped systems of questioning values such as this assumption about the  "non =
instrumental art" --
>>>>  and, in a bright utopian universe, PhD for artists could offer that p=
lace of questioning. [here, I need to also state that only in places like A=
ustralia, where the government pays for PHDs, not in the US and nor in Euro=
pe where it is an adventure reserved for the riches] -
>>>>
>>>> Is our production defensible? By "THEM"? By us? Who has a right to sta=
nd by it in language, in theory, in public forum and how, why? [Interesting=
ly, Schneemann is a very good writer - I recommend especially her conversat=
ion with Thomas McEvilley in the  book accompanying her tremendous retrospe=
ctive in the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, Toronto from few years ba=
ck.]
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> So, there are just my few thoughts  before I dig deeper into the past =
posts in this conversation---
>>>> regards,
>>>> Monika Weiss
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> the small post I sent a few days ago was meant to interrupt the conve=
rsation, and I am sorry for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The messages that appeared before here were quite illuminating, in ma=
ny respects, and also deeply, very deeply  saddening, when
>>>>> I felt I read about the experiences described, artists becoming acade=
mics, teaching, defending their Phds,
>>>>> embroiled in bureaucracy of management, pedagogy, teaching studio? te=
aching academic practice & theory? preparation for teaching,
>>>>> administering, writing essays and theses, and all this, yes.  And all=
 this "knowledge production."
>>>>>
>>>>> The practice of the now so-called "practitioners" in the university e=
nvironment. What
>>>>> is this, a practitioner? What are we?  what knowledge, Miles?  whose =
knowledge criteria? what kind of knowledge are you defending?
>>>>> and what would be the difference between art (non-instrumentalized?) =
and art (instrumentalized) and "output"?
>>>>> what is an "output"? what are your key problems?
>>>>>
>>>>> (I read Sue Hawksley's last post with great interest, as she is descr=
ibing a dilemma
>>>>> of space and time to create.....and her work as a " a dance artist ..=
.work[ing] with new media, for example
>>>>> within  digitally-mediated interactive immersive performance environm=
ents".....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>> - these grand claims for developing skills of interactivity feel a bi=
t hollow right now. I notice with irony that I'm finding it difficult to co=
mplete this thought....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, menti=
oned an artwork produced in the university and submittted for review (evalu=
ation,
>>>>> knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, sig=
nfiicance?  meaning?   so where are these practices, and how do they matter=
? how come this is never addressed"?
>>>>> what work is generated?
>>>>>
>>>>> (mind you, I have failed completely to understand/appreciate the quot=
ation offered to us about " research bricolage" ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> of multiperspectival research methods...... diverse theoretical tradi=
tions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical c=
ontext to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodologic=
al inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers a=
re empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio=
-political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical multil=
ogical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research =
bricolage......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This multimethodological stuff,  to me this is unintelligible verbage=
, I guess, academic lingo, probably about uninspiring and unwitnessed art.
>>>>> To what audience or reception or knowledge context is this language d=
irected? who would bother to read/see/experience this "critical connected o=
ntology"?
>>>>>
>>>>> so I am just wondering aloud about the "practices", that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Having just read an article in Art in America [http://www.artinameric=
amagazine.com/features/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited/]
>>>>> about artists back then responding to a questionnaire asking to descr=
ibe the sensibility of the ?60s, and the same questions posed to artists no=
w in 2012-13,
>>>>> i found Carolee Schneemann's reply about dentists quite interesting:
>>>>>
>>>>> <<
>>>>> Current ideological language uses ?practice? to define art concepts a=
t the expense of process. Practice implies perfectibility, strategy, produc=
ts: dentists have a practice, violinists practice, yoga is a practice, elep=
hants practice for the circus. Process invites risk, uncertainty, vision, u=
npredictability, concentration and blind devotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the current situation is more academic. >>
>>>>>
>>>>> But surely Schneemann, and the other artists who responded, had much =
to say about knowledge production, but their production is not defensible, =
if I understand Adrian Miles correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my whole point. What are you defending, then?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Johannes Birringer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/cbedc525/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 10
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:46:25 +0000
>>>> From: Phi Shu <phishu at gmail.com>
>>>> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research & odd methods, rude
>>>>        mechanics
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>        <CAJFY5_1yshrZf=3D-seP9nj3OP_RFTUSA9AzVAHj9oCjB0JAXVJQ at mail.gma=
il.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"windows-1252"
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that neoliberal economic policies can be blamed for the
>>>> problems we are seeing both in universities and in the arts more gener=
ally.
>>>> Where are all these creative practitioners with doctorates going to ge=
t
>>>> relevant academic jobs? If they chose to work independently after a Ph=
D,
>>>> 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 ther=
e
>>>> simply are not enough jobs, there is simply no way every "educated"
>>>> creative practitioner can make a "career" out of doing art/music/whate=
ver.
>>>> So what's the point? Why bother doing a PhD at all? Sure, if you can g=
et
>>>> paid to do it, great, but don't expect to find an academic job afterwa=
rds,
>>>> 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 m=
yths
>>>> 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 aca=
demic
>>>> institutions are actually challenging the status quo?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And finally, some material taken from the conclusion of my doctorate t=
hesis
>>>> (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 cul=
ture
>>>> 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%20RESE=
ARCH/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 t=
hat
>>>> has mass appeal in the popular domain. Within the institution, though =
it
>>>> may offer a means to sustain a compositional career, the duties that c=
ome
>>>> with upholding an academic position can place great pressures on the
>>>> individual; often to the detriment of "creative output". It also force=
s
>>>> creators to justify the worth of their compositional activities in rel=
ation
>>>> to its value as *music research*; research, that in accordance with th=
e
>>>> 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 *exc=
ellent
>>>> * 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/CORR=
ECTIONS/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 suggestin=
g
>>>> that a work?s *premiere* is also its *derniere*. Such remarks typify t=
he
>>>> odd situation known to many late 20th century contemporary music compo=
sers:
>>>> few performances, few recording opportunities, and even fewer broadcas=
ts.?
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/08591959/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 11
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:30:37 +0000
>>>> From: Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: [-empyre-] Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28
>>>> Message-ID: <664DD090-775F-42B4-B60E-B64722903B80 at littlepig.org.uk>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"windows-1252"
>>>>
>>>> The third and last week of our discussion on Research in Practice begi=
ns. I would like to thank our invited discussants during week two, C?cile C=
hevalier, Laura Cinti, Talan Memmott, Maria Menc?a and Anne Sarah Le Meur, =
as well as everyone who has contributed to the week's debate as it has deve=
loped into new terrain, considering how creative practitioners can also be =
PhD students and academic researchers. Adrian Miles and Johannes Birringer'=
s emails have been especially insightful as questions concerning difference=
 in value between creative practice and research have been debated. We hope=
 that all the participants will sustain their engagement as the discussion =
develops further.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to welcome the invited discussants for week three, the l=
ast week of our discussion, January 21-28. They are:
>>>>
>>>> Keith Armstrong has specialised for 18 years in collaborative, hybrid,=
 new media works with an emphasis on innovative performance forms, site-spe=
cific electronic arts, networked interactive installations, alternative int=
erfaces, public arts practices and art-science collaborations. His ongoing =
research focuses on how scientific and philosophical ecologies can both inf=
luence and direct the design and conception of networked, interactive media=
 artworks. Keith's artworks have been shown and profiled extensively both i=
n Australia and overseas and he has been the recipient of numerous grants f=
rom the public and private sectors. His work Intimate Transactions (with th=
e Transmute Collective) is held in the permamnent collection of ZKM. He was=
 formerly an Australia Council New Media Arts Fellow, a doctoral and Postdo=
ctoral New Media Fellow at QUT's Creative Industries Faculty and a lead res=
earcher at the ACID Australasian Cooperative Research Centre for Interactio=
n Design. He is curr
>>>> ently a part-time Senior Research Fellow at Queensland University of T=
echnology Brisbane, and a practicing freelance new media artist.
>>>>
>>>> Wendy Kirkup is an artist and PHD candidate at the University of Edinb=
urgh. Her past work has been exhibited both nationally and internationally,=
 including Tate Modern, London, ZKM, Karlsruhe Germany and Princeton Univer=
sity Art Museum, USA. Her current PHD study investigates, through the metho=
ds and methodologies of drawing and filmmaking, notions of place-making, co=
nsidered as a set of temporal, material and sensual practices.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Leggett has been working with moving image across the institution=
s of art, education and television since the late-60s. He has film and vide=
o work in archives and collections in Europe, Australia, North and South Am=
erica and has curated exhibitions of interactive multimedia, including for =
the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. He writes and lectures about comp=
uter mediated art, contributes regularly to journals (Leonardo; Continuum) =
and magazines (RealTime, World Art). He has a PhD from the Creativity & Cog=
nition Studios, University of Technology Sydney and an MFA from the College=
 of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales and is currently a Fellow in t=
he School of Creative Arts at the University of Wollongong.
>>>>
>>>> Daniela Alina Plewe received a PhD from the Sorbonne on a thesis intro=
ducing the concept of ?Transactional Arts? referring to art, where interact=
ions become transactions ( http://transactional-arts.com ). Previously she =
acquired a B.A. in Philosophy (Aesthetics, Philosophy of Science, Artificia=
l Intelligence) and a M.A. in Experimental Media Design from the University=
 of Arts, Berlin. Since 1992 she developed media art projects which were in=
ternationally exhibited and have won several awards. Exhibitions and collab=
orations include MIT Media Lab, Harvard Law Lab, Ars Electronica, Canon Art=
 Lab Tokyo, ZKM Karlsruhe, University of California LA, School of Visual Ar=
ts NY, ISEA, Transmediale, ACM Multimedia, Fraunhofer Institute and others.=
 In 2010 she was nominated for the Transmediale Vilem Flusser Theory Award.
>>>>
>>>> Miguel Santos is a transdisciplinary artist and researcher, born in Po=
rtugal and living somewhere out there. He is interested in intersecting per=
spectives in Fine Arts, Philosophy and Cognitive Science and employs those =
findings in the production of installations, videos and photographic works =
that have been exhibited across Europe. In 2011, he received a PhD in Fine =
Arts from Sheffield Hallam University for the research project: ?Poetics of=
 the Interface: Creating Works of Art that Engage in Self-Reflection?. The =
project's main objective was to understand the value of artists employing n=
oise (disturbances) in the formulation of interfaces (i.e. films, videos, p=
hotographs, sculptures, etc.) and its implications for the observer?s inter=
pretation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>> simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skyp=
e: 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-o=
f-art/staff/staff?person_id=3D182&cw_xml=3Dprofile.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.movin=
gtargets.org.uk/  http://designinaction.com/
>>>> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
>>>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=3D656&cw_xml=3Dde=
tails.php
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130=
120/1a93cc19/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre mailing list
>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>
>>>> End of empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 15
>>>> **************************************
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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=3D182&cw_xml=3Dprofile.php
>> http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56=
b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
>>
>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/  http://www.movingt=
argets.org.uk/  http://designinaction.com/
>> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=3D656&cw_xml=3Ddeta=
ils.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096 _=
______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------->>
Dr. Keith Armstrong | QUT Senior Research Fellow (p/t)
School of Interaction and Visual Design | Creative Industries Faculty
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Freelance Interdisciplinary Media Artist | www.embodiedmedia.com

Australia Council New Art Recipient: Night Rage/Night Fall, 2012-13:
A seasonal media artwork exploring animal migration patterns & extinction o=
f human experience
Australia Council Broadband Arts Initiative Recipient, Long Time No See, 20=
12-13.
ANAT Synapse, Art-Science Resident, with the Australian Wildlife Conservanc=
y, 2012-13.
Australia Council Visual Arts New Work Award,The Bat/Human Continuum, 2012.

Confirmed Exhibitions
| Finitude (v03),  "Information, Ecology, Wisdom" -  The 3rd Art and Scienc=
e International Exhibition and Symposium, Beijing, China at the National Mu=
seum of Science and Technology.  Nov1-30th 2012
| Reintroduction, Mildura Palimpsest Site Specific Arts Biennial, Victoria,=
 Australia, 11th Sept-1st Nov, 2013

Current Projects
| Re-introduction: A new work engaging the art and science of returning los=
t mammals to the Australian bush
| The Bat/Human Continuum: A new body of work exploring codependence, time =
and virtual darkness
| Night Rage.Night Fall for ISEA 2013
| Long Time No See for ISEA 2013 & The Cube, Brisbane.