Subject: Re: Considerations of research and creativity
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2006 - 17:56:15 EDT
Validation of art to be art == conformism.
Indeed.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
>From: Katharine Norman <katharine@novamara.com>
>Sent: Oct 24, 2006 4:02 PM
>To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>Subject: Re: Considerations of research and creativity
>
>Kenneth Newby wrote:
>> I think it's wonderful to be able to simply make the work from the
>> heart and not have to justify to a dean or professional organization
>> the credibility of what one does... or another way of putting might be
>> that the work simply stands for itself with all of its deeply embedded
>> knowledge... waiting for an audience to begin their own
>> personal/social decoding process. I've always had trouble with
>> art-works that need to be explained too much. The university approach
>> to research on the other hand is all about explanation.
>
>Thanks, Kenneth for your thoughtful explanation of what research means
>to you. So it does after all appear that the reasons for an artist doing
>in-house university research are, or can be, somewhat pragmatic - as I
>was previously also considering.
>
>Personally I"m not sure I would conclude that art research (presuming
>you mean research by practitioners rather than the acceptance of
>practice *as* research) must be fundamentally focussed on the process of
>innovation, or need be. The science-based research model in both private
>and university spheres edges towards a business model - towards
>competitive product-based outcomes (whether that's a new pill to pop, or
>a ground-breaking paper to publish). It concerns me that the arts in the
>university increasingly appear to buy into that same trajectory; the
>"university approach," as you yourself put it - and both the powers that
>be, and sometimes the artists that be there accept this as satisfactory.
>This scares me, as do some of the other, related, suggestions on the
>list regarding "validation" of the work (those also challenged by Eliot,
>more eloquently than I, in his most recent posting to this list).
>
>all best,
>
>Katharine
>
>
>>
>> I think I'm still trying to articulate a response to Kevin's initial
>> statement that "Research" doesn't allow you to 'know' anything;
>> creativity is about "knowing"... I believe the research process is
>> creative... fundamentally based on play and an attempt to engage in
>> some form of innovation and, in that way, not that much different from
>> other creative activities such as art-making... but they're
>> different... one can conduct research in any area not just art. Art
>> research is just a very interesting angle on the process in that it
>> almost constitutes a kind of meta-research in the way it focuses on
>> the very process of innovation itself.
>>
>> Kenneth.
>>
>>
>> On 23-Oct-06, at 5:51 PM, Katharine Norman wrote:
>>
>>> Kenneth Newby wrote:
>>>> I think the difference, again, is one of intention. This includes
>>>> the requirement to disseminate the results of the research. That's
>>>> the professional difference, I believe, between the university
>>>> researcher and the artist-innovator. As an artist I can engage in
>>>> a creative process in an intuitive way and get some wonderful
>>>> results.... hard stuff to fathom for the outside witness of the
>>>> work. The artist-researcher in the university context bears some
>>>> considerable responsibility to be able to reflect on this process
>>>> and and articulate its outcomes for others. Art outside the uni
>>>> bears little or no responsibility beyond the presentation of the
>>>> work itself.
>>> so do you feel that artists working outside the university are
>>> primariliy 'intuitive' artist-innovators rather than artist-researchers?
>>> You seem to be presenting them as opposite poles, professionally.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On a certain level there's no difference between the Tuscan studio
>>>> and the university, except perhaps a different emphasis on
>>>> professional values. It's all knowledge... some of it is just
>>>> harder to bring out of its deep place in the body into the world of
>>>> language where its description can sit on a library shelf for later
>>>> examination and further use.
>>>>
>>>> Kenneth.
>>>>
>>>> On 23-Oct-06, at 3:33 PM, Katharine Norman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 3:50 PM -0400 06 10 23, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I suppose that doing art in a university is different. I'm
>>>>>>> not in one, but I've studied in them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the difference between what you describe and, say, the
>>>>>>> practice in a Tuscan painter's studio of the 14th or 15th
>>>>>>> century, where there was evidently a great deal of some sort of
>>>>>>> study, reflection, and assimilation going on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I wanna know too...What is the difference between art outside and
>>>>> inside the uni, do you think? What does differentiate "academic
>>>>> research" from simple "research" as a practicing artist, other than
>>>>> funding?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:23 EST