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

[Simon Biggs]

Hi Phi Shu

What subject area did you do your doctorate in? Was it music or music related? As we discussed previously, in the domain of music the purely creative practice based PhD is well established, with the score and its performance usually sufficient as submission. As yet I've not encountered this model in the visual arts, perhaps because in that realm it is usual that the thing is the thing is the thing - there is no score. That said, in my own field, where the work is "written" in a meta language (computer code), there is effectively a score for the work - a score that is interpreted (by a machine) and performed. In the domain of computer music, where part of my training occurred, the computer programme is the score. So, why not in the visual domain? And then we have areas like electronic literature, where there is a score (programme) that when performed creates texts - where is the main outcome here? The text or the programme? Are both submissable - or neither?

Given the prevalence of digital technologies in the creative arts, of all kinds, and the new forms of authorship (writing and meta-writing) that they permit it is probably time we completely rethought where the artefact or creative work is and how that is critically situated, within and around the work. The current model of the PhD is inadequate to that task. I'd like to think there's an opportunity here...

best

Simon


On 25 Jan 2013, at 09:26, Phi Shu wrote:

> @ Adrian Miles
>  
> 
> On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 12:08 AM, Phi Shu wrote:
> 
> Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can be communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the written word as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and I think it is the duty of academics in this area to communicate to those holding the purse strings that actually, the written word is not the only means of communicating valid research outcomes.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> The problem is whether this knowledge is research. The sky is blue today is a knowledge claim. Perhaps part of a SMS art work. But that is not yet research...So for me the problem I'd raise is while art objects in themselves clearly express knowledge this knowledge might not yet be research. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the point is, especially with regard to PhD examination, that the examiners are supposed to be expert enough in their field to discern whether or not a practice based output qualifies as research, and without having to read why this might be so in an accompanying document. Yes, they may need something in writing, because it is still required, but it is  ultimately the work that is judged. That was my experience of things, and I was led to believe it was how things were done when dealing with practice based doctorates, in my discipline, at my university. Of course another aspect of this is ensuring that an external examiner that supports this approach is selected, otherwise it might not be as straight forward. 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/5d2dbd80/attachment.htm>