[-empyre-] Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28

[cristina miranda]

Hi everyone,

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for not taking active part in the debate 
so far.

i would like to thank Miguel Santos for his clarifying and sensible 
email. I agree with him, it reflects my own experience in my Ph.D and in 
currently being a Ph.D supervisor.

Best wishes,

Cristina Miranda de Almeida

El 22/01/13 19:18, Miguel Santos escribió:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think about my artistic and research practices as having very 
> similar interests (if not the same) but located in different contexts 
> and, consequently, having different requirements, forms and currencies 
> -- two different languages to represent the same practice (of being 
> curios). Similarly, I think that, academic researchers who sustain an 
> artistic practice and artists that sustain a research practice have 
> the ability (or willingness) to speak the two languages. The 
> coexistence of the different contexts (artistic and academic) --as 
> different-- might be important due to their complementary and 
> challenging relation to one another. Thus, I am thinking that it might 
> be important to value the mobility between the two different 
> representations (research and artistic) of a winder and more complex 
> practice of enquiring.
>
> This ongoing discussion of artists doing research in an academic 
> context is a good example of the reflexivity and level of enquire that 
> artist can bring to any context that they operate, which can be 
> extremely valuable but highly problematic, as well. I find it 
> difficult not to consider the approaches that other disciplines (e.g. 
> physics, biology, philosophy) have developed in their more established 
> existence in academic contexts: were those disciplines equally 
> concerned with their role and operating context as artist are? Or were 
> they simply concern with doing the thing (enquiring)? And, If they 
> weren't similarly reflective, why weren't they? After all, an 
> interesting outcome of artists doing PhDs is that by the time an 
> artist is awarded with a PhD his or her artistic practice (and role) 
> has been questioned and reconsidered to an extended that would 
> otherwise be difficult (if not impossible) within the art world.
>
> From my experience, the process of doing a PhD is somehow unique (with 
> its highs and lows) and contingent to a variety of factors (some of 
> which are often overlooked: research community, supervisors, 
> institutions, working language, finances, to name a few). But 
> regardless of the methodologies and outcomes, awarding a PhD is to 
> recognize that someone can conduct independent research in a rigors 
> manner rather than being an awarded for services to the art world. 
> Consequently, I support the need for a written thesis (between 40.000 
> and 60.000 words) critically reflecting and contextualizing the PhD 
> project (not only the artistic but also the research practice). 
> Further, the written requirement (which as a few people in the 
> discussion have already mentioned can be extremely valuable in the 
> understanding of ones practice) can, also, make an exciting long-term 
> contribution to the process of artists reclaiming their role in the 
> production and dissemination of discourses regarding the artistic 
> practice, which (many times) can only be suggested from an insider's 
> perspective.
>
> Last words, I would not say that I become a better artist after my PhD 
> but I am definitely a different artist, and I am glad.
>
> All the best,
>
> Miguel
>
> ---
>
> www.santosmiguel.com <http://www.santosmiguel.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130122/967054dc/attachment.htm>