[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 24
Sue Hawksley
sue at articulateanimal.org.uk
Sat Jan 26 03:44:16 EST 2013
I probably came into this discussion as a bit of a scared sapling!! -
having only just begun working full-time in academia, and so the
juggling of workloads, multi-tasking and managing of the pace of 'non-
practice' (or process?) activities currently feels overwhelming, and I
have lots of those 'sapped' moments.
However to return to one of the original points about the pros and
cons of artists undertaking PhDs, as a newby 'artist-with-PhD' I am
positive about the experience, no regrets there. Most valuable is that
it allowed me to think differently about my work, and a offered a
chance to engage with the culture of deep and ongoing critical inquiry
associated with a university, the values of free thinking and
intellectual sharing that Sally Jane mentioned. Pragmatically, it
provided an entry card and greater choice over whether to situate my
work within academia. The new problem is to work out whether, within
that context, it will be possible, as Keith said, to " tie a rope
around our midriff and slow us down enough just to be able to be
within/see the landscape that is passing us by .. "
This discussion has been really helpful to do just that. As someone
relatively new to academia, it still seems very fertile ground despite
the issues.
thanks to everyone for thought-provocations and inspiration.
best, Sue
On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:07, <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 defenders (Keith Armstrong)
> 2. Re: practice-led (5 theses) (Adrian Miles)
> 3. Re: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28
> (Adrian Miles)
> 4. Re: Practice in Research defenders (Adrian Miles)
> 5. Re: FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January
> 21-28 (Phi Shu)
> 6. Re: FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three, January
> 21-28 (Simon Biggs)
> 7. Re: landscapes and defenders (Johannes Birringer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:39:00 +1000
> From: Keith Armstrong <k.armstrong at qut.edu.au>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Practice in Research defenders
> Message-ID: <6E7C8D44-D008-4264-A44E-CDEABB62023A at qut.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> white-anted maybe the lot of us :)
>
> On that note of the dead wood we hear so much about (and remebreing
> that maybe just 1% of a tree is actually alive and composed of
> "living" cells) - I have to say that this is something Ive heard
> time and time and time again in various institutional conversations
> - that 'such and such' has a research load of 'so much' but does
> 'absolutely' nothing.
>
> Without speaking about laziness, I dont think we should undestimate
> the workloads of our collegues, especially those in full time roles
> - especially those teaching a lot and maybe coordinating - and also
> lets remember how hard it is to 'get started' again when your energy
> has been sapped by a whole day on the computer dealing with various
> crises .. not a creative boost in any sense..
>
> .. Its actually acutely hard to keep up an active research practice
> over the decades regardless - to be continually successful there
> are huge implications on time you can allocate to other critical
> areas of your life .. often those researchers we prize as the 1%
> (live) wood are undeniably risking health, family and more to keep
> up their frankly unfathomable pace.
>
> So - what was that work life balance resolution we made just a few
> weeks back ?
>
> Thanks for a great discussion one and all.
>
> keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25/01/2013, at 12:29 AM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith
>>
>> By dead wood I didn't mean younger or emerging researchers, for
>> whom allowance is made in the UK system as early career
>> researchers, but the older branches, like myself.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:43:14 +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-led (5 theses)
> Message-ID: <07505D9E36374DD59CD2A297ECBC6772 at rmit.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> hi Danny
>
> nice to see you here! :-)
>
> got some questions for you. I like your points but I increasingly
> find the distinction made between the sciences and what, thesis
> humanities writing, creative practice, questionable. First of all
> science in these terms gets rendered as a highly reductive Other
> that bears little relation to the actual practice of all the
> different sciences as research. Scientists all have a research
> practice first, the reporting of their research, which is how they
> communicate the outcomes of this practice, is not what scientists
> think of when they think about research and practice. In this
> research practice they deal with different sorts of things but there
> certainly seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, intuition, and so
> on in this practice. This is not present in how they may perform an
> experiment (though it might) but in everything around the experiment.
>
> A thought experiment. Imagine I am a painter. I am dealing with
> ambiguity in my subject matter and practice. But when it comes to
> putting paint to my canvas, I am very careful, I am highly
> methodological, incredibly disciplined and, compared to that painter
> over there, very rigid. Or I use code in my art. And when it comes
> to writing that code I must follow strict protocols and procedures
> if I want it to work. In my reading of the literature around the
> philosophy and sociology of science it seems quite trivial to
> replace the artist in this thought experiment with a scientist. Some
> are messy, some aren't. etc.
>
> The minor detail in the examples is simply to begin to unpack the
> reductiveness of simply declaring that 'science' does x, and we don't.
>
>
> On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 8:13 AM, Danny Butt wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. Importation of scientific terminology (propositional questions,
>> consensually defined methods, falsifiable results) corrodes
>> knowledge in creative disciplines, except as far as it is treated
>> as content, rather than method. Scientific objectivity's moral
>> economy is based on a fear of idolatory, seduction, and projection
>> on the part of the researcher - these are exactly the means by
>> which the creative artist makes their contribution to knowledge.
> to knowledge yes, but the terms of the argument are not whether art
> creates knowledge (it does) but its contribution to research. The
> distinction matters in the political economy of the university
> because it is about epistemology and merely making a knowledge claim
> does not make it research.
>> The scientific model of knowledge rests on an author who is fully
>> in control of their work, whereas in the creative arts such authors
>> are boring, and therefore useless, however academically justifiable.
>
> No. the scientific model of writing up the *practice* of research
> rests on an author fully in control of their work. This confuses the
> practice of actually doing the research with its reportage, which in
> the sciences is generally 'reportage'. In the humanities our writing
> is different not because the practice of research is fundamentally
> or qualitatively different, but because for many of us writing is in
> fact our 'lab' - that is the site of our practice. This argument
> relies on slippage which is easily seen in creative practice. How I
> make could be rigid or very open and fluid, either are legitimate.
> But when it comes to reporting on this as research, and not just as
> knowledge or as an aesthetic category, then for better or worse all
> sorts of scholarly norms apply and, particularly currently in the
> humanities, it is often attributed to a sole author who is
> understood to be in control of this research communication.
>
> The thing that communicates the research outcome is generally not
> the same thing as the practice (there are exceptions of course) for
> both the creative practitioner and the scientist. And before someone
> says the writing economies are different, I know of a computer
> scientist who presented an academic, scholarly *scientific* paper to
> scientists in verse (to a standing ovation).
>>
>> 3. Since Alberti, visual arts practices have been erratically
>> theorised as a mode of world-making that can be classed as writing
>> in the broad sense. Despite the efforts of the protestant sciences
>> to make an individual responsible for their own knowledge, a writer
>> is inevitably dependent on a suitably prepared reader, and it is
>> this other reader, not the writer, who can account for the
>> knowledge-effects generated. Respect for the reader or viewer
>> requires that the work be available for independent critical
>> interpretation, a freedom and independence that since Kant has been
>> essential to the operation of the aesthetic. Exegetical writings
>> are thus counter-productive except as far as they enhance or
>> constitute the freedom and independence of the work. These writings
>> may be particularly useful in resisting the synchronisation of the
>> art work to the art market, but probably less so in resisting the
>> synchronisation of the artistic practice to the academic market.
> If the role of the writing is to demonstrate or participate in the
> aesthetic integrity of the art work but none of this holds if the
> role of writing or other communicative forms is to participate in
> the translation of the aesthetic event into/as research.
>>
>> 4. The archive of university knowledge is not a flat globe of
>> knowledge to be "contributed to" but a contradictory historical
>> tangle, resting on material and political assumptions that can
>> never be escaped or accounted for in the aftermath of colonial
>> capitalism. One value of practice-led research might be in de-
>> framing knowledge through formal analysis in order to make the
>> materiality of various forms of knowledge perceivable.
> Absolutely.
>>
>> 5. Any creative practice worth the title of a doctor of philosophy
>> should have wrestled with the potential of its own death, including
>> the death of its discipline. Artists, unlike scientists, are not
>> licensed to practice.
>
> Scientists are not licensed to practice. Doctors, lawyers,
> accountants psychologists are, and in each case these are
> disciplines that are regarded as professional 'practices'. This is
> one reason why science can use 'amateur' research.
>
> thoughts?
> --
> 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/20130125/8a41f4ce/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:56:28 +1100
> From: Adrian Miles <adrian.miles at rmit.edu.au>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
> January 21-28
> Message-ID: <AFBC756FC8FF437F9C6DBE94D2DDFC60 at rmit.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
> In any practice knowledge can be communicated in different ways, but
> that's not the terms of the argument. It is not whether or not
> creative practice expressed knowledge, or if it can express
> different sorts of knowledge (of course it can, pick any number of
> theories here ranging perhaps from Bachelard's depth psychology
> gestalt's through to Deleuze and Guattari's elaborate outline of
> what art does in "What Is Philosophy?" and also "The Logic of
> Sensation").
>
> 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.
>
> While I don't think anyone has specifically signalled writing as the
> only form, it does have some advantages. For instance to undertake
> research you need to make arguments, which generally require forms
> of negation (this is not). Negation is incredibly important to
> research as argument and could well be impossible without (not sure
> though). However, many art forms (as a Belgium surrealist playfully
> made concrete many years ago) can't negate. A painting of water
> lilies in itself says "here are water lilies, they have these
> qualities, etc", a photograph much the same, ditto cinema. Each
> needs language (as Magritte too did) to be able to say "this is not
> a hill", or "this is not a photograph of a gun", or "this is not a
> particular sky with some fluffy clouds".
>
> So for me the problem I'd raise is while art objects in themselves
> clearly express knowledge this knowledge might not yet be research.
> Furthermore to be research it needs to be able to say or do more
> than state what is. When I raise this people suggest all sorts of
> examples, yet to date every case relies on something *outside* of
> the artwork whether this be a description, statement or other
> commentaries. This is the issue I've raised several times here, and
> is the logic of the supplement (Derrida) where we like to think that
> just because the comments we attach to the work are only small they
> don't count for much, yet it is this which provides for the
> possibility of the art work engaging in its way outside of itself in
> the first case. It is, simply Derrida's parergon.
>
> --
> 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/20130125/1856045c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:32:30 +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 defenders
> Message-ID: <28737FAACA604895AF52A5CB441D4FA3 at rmit.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> And there I was thinking you were about to utter a string of
> profanities and use a six shooter!
>
> --
> Adrian Miles
> Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
>
>
> On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:29, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith
>>
>> By dead wood I didn't mean younger or emerging researchers, for
>> whom allowance is made in the UK system as early career
>> researchers, but the older branches, like myself.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Keith Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi Simon
>>>
>>> This mirrors the ERA here in Australia and how we have to present
>>> ourselves (and yes its not phd research but post phd research of
>>> course that is counted ) .. the entire body of researchers submit
>>> a quantum of outputs and then a percentage of those end up being
>>> presented for peer review to the national body (Excellence in
>>> Research Australia panel) - several of my works were reviewed in
>>> the round just gone for which in the category media arts lies ..
>>> within we eventually received a 4 - internationally leading (5
>>> being the ultimate). Obviously I was only one of many .. and so it
>>> is a TEAM effort rather than a focus on individuals.
>>>
>>> Our process was that for each peer reviewable item - a package of
>>> evidence is prepared - it includes much of what you spoke of - a
>>> research statement, a description, an interview with the
>>> researcher/artist speaking about the research questions - how they
>>> were handles and the impact, a compilation of excerpts from the
>>> work in video/stills/pdf and then the corroborating evidence like
>>> programs, interviews, reviews, etc. I also sat as a reviewer so I
>>> got to see how a number of other institutions did this .. spoken
>>> generally - the confidence of each university governed the level
>>> of detail submitted.
>>>
>>> Maybe the clear difference here, if I understand you right, is
>>> that the work itself is the primary output and thats an important
>>> difference therefore. Having the other things - like for instance
>>> reflective writing presented later in a peer reviewed journal is
>>> looked on favourably (and may indeed if strong enough be a further
>>> peer reviewable output) - but for artist researchers - this
>>> centralisation of the work is a wonderful thing - and the fact
>>> that the team result is what counts .. so up and coming
>>> researchers don't have to feel bad or erroneously dead woodish if
>>> they only get say 1 hit.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and the need to present a full portfolio of
>>> On 24/01/2013, at 7:03 PM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk
>>> )> wrote:
>>>> Again, considering the Research Evaluation Framework (which is
>>>> the official criteria in the UK for being recognised as an
>>>> academic researcher) rather than the PhD (I agree, it's the
>>>> researcher's entry point, not their main objective), we can ask
>>>> what the role of the creative work is in research?
>>>>
>>>> The REF differentiates between projects, activities and outputs.
>>>> Generally projects mean research projects - processes and
>>>> assemblages of activities, often externally funded. Out of such
>>>> projects come activities (seminars, exhibitions, lectures,
>>>> demonstrations, etc) and outputs (book and journal publications,
>>>> conferences, etc). In the domain of creative practice we have to
>>>> distinguish between these different modalities of research and
>>>> take care we do not submit a project or an activity as an output.
>>>> I will give an example.
>>>>
>>>> An artist/academic is, through an open call, awarded a commission
>>>> to do a major public art work. The work is delivered and
>>>> installed and received to great public and critical acclaim. Many
>>>> words are written about it. The artist, as is often the case,
>>>> remains mute on the work. They feel they've said all they need to
>>>> say with the artefact. So far, no problem.
>>>>
>>>> But that artist is also a lecturer in an art college and wants to
>>>> be submitted for the REF as they know their career development
>>>> (the hope of a readership or professorship) depends on their
>>>> being officially research active. So, they prepare a portfolio
>>>> about the project and submit it for assessment. The submission
>>>> consists of beautiful documentation of the work and a description
>>>> of how it was made. It also has a short statement concerning what
>>>> the work intends. This is all fine. However, the issue is with
>>>> what it lacks. Where is the outline of the open call and the
>>>> names of the people who selected the work (proof of peer review)?
>>>> Where is a list of associated outputs from what is actually a
>>>> project rather than an output itself? Did the artist critically
>>>> reflect on their work anywhere in the public realm in a
>>>> discursive manner? If they did then we have research outputs. Or,
>>>> perhaps they didn't do this but they were interviewed about their
>>>> methods and intentions and this
> was published somewhere - or they presented the project at a
> conference on public art. These are also outputs. The other thing
> that is lacking in the portfolio is a list of associated
> publications. Where are all those words that were written about the
> work when it was first installed? These words are very important in
> establishing the reach of the work (if any of those words were
> written or published overseas, or published in journals that are of
> international standing, then the international - as opposed to
> national - import of the work is clearly established). Also, we must
> remember that the public impact of research also counts in the REF
> assessment, so those words are doubly important.
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately the REF is about money. If your research output is
>>>> rated a 1 (nationally important) or 2 (internationally
>>>> significant) it will not generate any income from the government
>>>> for your institution. If it's a 3 (internationally important) or
>>>> 4 (globally leading - eg: Nobel prize territory) then it will
>>>> bring in the money (we don't know what the formula is for the
>>>> current REF yet, but a 4 will probably generate at least four
>>>> times as much money as a 3). So, within the UK context, this
>>>> bizarre process that is the REF is extremely important as it
>>>> determines the baseline research income for every public research
>>>> institution in the country for the next five years or so. It also
>>>> makes or breaks the careers of researchers (one positive benefit
>>>> of the REF is that it gives dead wood little place to hide and
>>>> thus ensures a degree of transparency and honesty about the
>>>> actual value of research in an institution, rather than relying
>>>> on reputation - although a less naive person
> would point to how people play the game...).
>>>>
>>>> In most subject areas in the UK the PhD is the document you need
>>>> to get a permanent academic job and be considered for the REF,
>>>> which is then used to determine your progression through the
>>>> system (the USA also has its arcane evaluation processes,
>>>> although these seem to be both more procedural - word counts,
>>>> evidence of service, etc - and personalised than what we have in
>>>> the UK, whilst other countries, like Australia, have systems like
>>>> the UK's). For artists who have worked in art colleges, perhaps
>>>> for decades, that now find themselves in the higher education
>>>> sector, this can all seem as alien as it would to any outsider
>>>> but it is the reality that possibly 75% of creative practitioners
>>>> who also teach in an art department in the UK need to work with.
>>>> This is not a new situation - it's been the scenario for twenty
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, so far as the example above is concerned - it was little
>>>> effort for the artist to review their portfolio and ensure the
>>>> outputs associated with their project, and their value, were
>>>> clear and in a format the review panel could understand. No need
>>>> to panic.
>>>>
>>>> So far as the creative arts PhD is concerned I think the
>>>> situation is often similar to the above, with candidates (and
>>>> often their supervisors) confused about where the research is in
>>>> the work and how the outcomes of the whole process are distinct
>>>> in themselves - and might not be where they initially thought (or
>>>> wanted) them to be. Good artists are very good at being their
>>>> harshest critics, able to cut out from their work elements for
>>>> which they might have strong feelings (through labour or personal
>>>> preference) when they realise they compromise the work. The same
>>>> is true for good PhDs.
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 01:19, Keith Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Johannes :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> ? these many many hundreds of works created and theses
>>>>>> written that we may never see or read. Thus for me the question
>>>>>> of the (necessary) contributions to communal or societal
>>>>>> knowledge (succinctly stated by SJN) are still relatively
>>>>>> abstract and powerfully so. Who benefits from all this
>>>>>> knowledge that is not read (or even accessible, readable?) and
>>>>>> have we spoken about the writing yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - this is a tragedy/ecology of waste - there is of course
>>>>> the argument often given that just because a work is regarded as
>>>>> exceptional in the exhibition context - and is clearly well
>>>>> recognised by peers and funders alike - it doesn't necessarily
>>>>> constitute good research or even is maybe research at all. (this
>>>>> point has been made before a lot ).. And so its inevitable that
>>>>> often we 'may' also see dreary or thoroughly turgid work
>>>>> submitted as part of a phd package that is well regarded by
>>>>> examiners (especially as often they may never see the work that
>>>>> we are being asked to examine) - so - not surprising its
>>>>> subsequently ( at face value anyway) uninspiring and thus not
>>>>> well accessed (with finding and accessing being a further
>>>>> problem that many institutions are now addressing)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have only two small questions now, one in response to Keith:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what we're defending is our right to be considered
>>>>>>>> professionals in our discipline, and to be considered to have
>>>>>>>> the same level of professionalism as our colleagues in other
>>>>>>>> disciplines>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But surely you don't mean to argue that you needed to defend,
>>>>>> say, your "Intimate Transactions," a complex & superb work, in
>>>>>> order to be considered a professional. Neither in the
>>>>>> performance art world, nor in academia??
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the complement - as always you are too generous!
>>>>> Actually that was a comment by Kirk :) But .. I must say
>>>>> yes .. I don't feel the 'need' for a defence as I work both in
>>>>> and out (just a part timer) in academia - and yet my work I feel
>>>>> must/does stand up across that divide .. you'll have heard me
>>>>> bang on about relational thinking enough now to understand why
>>>>> Im comfortable perched like the proverbial bearded dragon, sat
>>>>> on a rock between many hard places!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..and then again, you might answer, well, why did they want a
>>>>>> Phd in painting or performance directing or design or
>>>>>> interactive installation, it wouldn't make much sense anyway,
>>>>>> would it, if you are working in the 'industry" as one theatre
>>>>>> colleague of mine ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Again Johannes we find ourself asking maybe the wrong questions
>>>>> of why we do things. arguably in response to the powers that we
>>>>> may feel force us towards non-relational (entirely 'logical')
>>>>> positions
>>>>>
>>>>> .. sometimes/often we need someone to tie a rope around our
>>>>> midriff and slow us down enough just to be able to be within/see
>>>>> the landscape that is passing us by .. maybe thats why someone
>>>>> should need to do a phd..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> )
>>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>> simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>> @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
>>>>
>>>> s.biggs at ed.ac.uk (mailto: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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> (mailto: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 (http://www.embodiedmedia.com/
>>> )
>>>
>>> Australia Council New Art Recipient: Night Rage/Night Fall, 2012-13:
>>> A seasonal media artwork exploring animal migration patterns &
>>> extinction of human experience
>>> Australia Council Broadband Arts Initiative Recipient, Long Time
>>> No See, 2012-13.
>>> ANAT Synapse, Art-Science Resident, with the Australian Wildlife
>>> Conservancy, 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 Science International Exhibition and Symposium, Beijing, China
>>> at the National Museum 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 lost 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au (mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au)
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>> Simon Biggs
>> simon at littlepig.org.uk (mailto:simon at littlepig.org.uk) http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>> @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
>>
>> s.biggs at ed.ac.uk (mailto: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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130125/326a3393/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:26:57 +0000
> From: Phi Shu <phishu at gmail.com>
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
> January 21-28
> Message-ID:
> <CAJFY5_1hbHmwPx0VZLFwpqYeppUS8jx8xGQ=AdaQG4+GPU_qgg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>>
>> @ 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/79d6e29c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:55:59 +0000
> From: Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] FW: FW: FW: Research in Practice, week three,
> January 21-28
> Message-ID: <669C1F44-F21F-4704-BC08-7392DCFA03DF at littlepig.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:06:54 +0000
> From: Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] landscapes and defenders
> Message-ID:
> <DF657B70CB20304DB745D84933F94B1E03AE3506F2 at v-
> exmb01.academic.windsor>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> dear all
>
> crossing over to other time zones, with relief I note the snow
> filled hills and valleys in Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and France,
> very beautiful to travel across, enveloped in the peaceful quiet of
> cold, with changing snow-capped signs and bulletin boards greeting
> the traveler-by in various languages and genres of reference, mostly
> to landscapes and myths, sometimes haunting (numbers of people
> killed on this spot), mindful, of stories as well as historically
> marked sites, places of battles, victories & losses, former
> religions, places of art and reflection, monasteries and
> sanctuaries, race tracks, health spas, fine dining, places for
> children to play, a full world under grey wintry skies
>
> (still wondering what Shu's oblique angle on Riefenstahl was).
>
>
> This debate this month surely will exhaust, no?
>
>
> respectfully
> Johannes Birringer
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Phi Shu schreibt
>
>>>
> 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 mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 98, Issue 24
> **************************************
Sue Hawksley
sue at articulateanimal.org.uk
http://www.articulateanimal.org.uk
More information about the empyre
mailing list