[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 16

[Vicki Sowry]

As is often the case with empyre, this interesting discussion is very
difficult to follow because respondents do not delete previous posts from
their posts, making it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, if you will.

Is there a list etiquette about only keeping relevant parts of previous
posts in the case of referring directly to them - similar to the request to
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."

If so, it would be a great deal easier to follow the discussion.

Cheers
Vicki


On 22/01/13 2:23 AM, "empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au"
<empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> 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
>       (Adrian Miles)
>    2. Re: Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28
>       (keith armstrong)
>    3. Re: Practice in Research & odd methods, rude mechanics
>       (aslemeur at free.fr)
>    4. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 15 (sally jane norman)
>    5. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 15 (Simon Biggs)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:31:15 +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: <DF785FA27C1D41DA9076B4CA97E4BA6C at rmit.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, 21 January 2013 at 3:34 AM, Monika Weiss wrote:
> 
>> Thus I disagree profoundly with the idea of complete independence of art from
>> life (as referent) which the above sentence implies, I think. There is always
>> some type of a connecting tissue, a link with real event, which is why a
>> dialogue is even possible
> Perhaps, though on the surface this risks retreating into romanticism, no?
> After all, why is life a privileged term here? Life is not special to art,
> ants and trees both experience life. If I use generative and algorithmic
> processes to create a work, perhaps with a rule of subtraction, I can make
> some sort of argument about a 'connecting tissue' to a real event, but I'd
> think this is not very relevant to what the work is interested in and doing.
> That you can make that connection is fine, but this is not what makes the work
> art. I can make connecting tissues of connection with lots of things that
> aren't art, so it doesn't tell us what art is, and certainly not art in the
> context of a research activity.
> 
>> I want to ask whether a profound research done by an artist along side the
>> "work of art" that " stands on its own"  takes anything away from the 'art"?
>> -- or, perhaps, it becomes part of it , at least in the best case scenario...
> Nice question. For me this is not a question that matters that much in a
> discussion about art and research only because I think art and research are
> different things (perhaps I ought to dig out those quotes from "What is
> Philosophy?"). The tricky bit in scholarship is being able to understand how
> or what your research question is that your art investigates, but this in no
> way needs to diminish or risk the integrity of the art work, though I think
> Sally Jane Norman's reply details this much better than I have :-)
>