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 this quote came across as something I wanted to write towards and perhaps "oppose" 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 process as well --- it leads us, pulls us, away from [and towards] strangely familiar and unfamiliar places, both at the same time. Both familiarity and recognition as well as strangeness and unknown territories, create a productive place for the work and its reception. 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. Of course the question arises how to "defend" that inner and connecting-with-outer tissue. Critics and historians are "practicing" answers to this question in what Edward Shanken I believe calls MCA (main stream contemporary art) -- this "defense" (or de-fence) is practiced by dealers, critics and historians on our behalf, while in the NMA (new media art) we are more often writing or exposing 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 means it is work that comes automatically with theory and research and writing 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 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... 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 complaint 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 away some of the "magic" or mystery. He said - "let THEM do it". This, this strange division between "us" and "them" seems to be as relevant in the conversations about research and art or "practice" as is the context of academia. The sometimes still lingering bourgeois notion of an artist as always a priori "other" and as an outcast, comes to mind. The non-intellectual, the mute genius, hidden in HIS studio (and then sold by Gaugosian). 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, politics, social issues, economy, the body and the biography, all can be explicitly discussed in and alongside the work itself. Of course since then, we have grown both into commercialization of the ideology (and even/especially of the process itself--enough to just take a walk through Basel etc.) which is now commodified (again thanks to MCA machine) but we have also developed 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 place of questioning. [here, I need to also state that only in places like Australia, where the government pays for PHDs, not in the US and nor in Europe where it is an adventure reserved for the riches] - Is our production defensible? By "THEM"? By us? Who has a right to stand by it in language, in theory, in public forum and how, why? [Interestingly, Schneemann is a very good writer - I recommend especially her conversation with Thomas McEvilley in the book accompanying her tremendous retrospective in the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, Toronto from few years back.] -- 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 conversation, > and I am sorry for that. > > The messages that appeared before here were quite illuminating, in many > respects, and also deeply, very deeply saddening, when > I felt I read about the experiences described, artists becoming academics, > teaching, defending their Phds, > embroiled in bureaucracy of management, pedagogy, teaching studio? teaching > 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 > environment. 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 describing 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 > environments"..... > >>> . > - 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 complete this > thought.... >>> > > So now I feel even more confused, as no one has ever yet, here, mentioned an > artwork produced in the university and submittted for review (evaluation, > knowledge attesting, confirmation of output, impact?), influence, > signfiicance? 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 quotation > offered to us about " research bricolage" ... > >>> > of multiperspectival research methods...... diverse theoretical traditions > are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical context > to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodological > inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies researchers are > empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into > socio-political and educational phenomena. Kincheloe theorizes a critical > multilogical 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 directed? > who would bother to read/see/experience this "critical connected ontology"? > > so I am just wondering aloud about the "practices", that's all. > > > Having just read an article in Art in America > [http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/features/sensibility-of-the-times-revisited/] > about artists back then responding to a questionnaire asking to describe 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, products: > dentists have a practice, violinists practice, yoga is a practice, elephants > practice for the circus. Process invites risk, uncertainty, vision, > unpredictability, 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@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
