-
2000
Archive of provocative art-research comments
-
- last updated Jan
2001
-
- These are 2000's past
months' 'provocative comments', along with selected
responses including those from the RTI
mailbase discussion
list. Please
contact Beryl
Graham with
responses to any month's comments, as views can
be added at any time.
Index:
2000 Nov/Dec:
What are art research ethics?
2000
Aug/Sep/Oct: Is Research a Craft?
2000 July:
Professional Doctorates?
2000 June: How many Ph.D.s is an art-practice-based
student doing?
2000 May: Is
suffering good for us?
2000 Apr:
Picasso's Ph.D. (guest
provocateur Chris Rust)
2000 Mar: What
is the difference between objectivity and
truth?
2000
Jan/Feb: Why are designers so active and fine artists
not?
< To
1998/1999 archive
<
To 2001 archive
Nov/Dec
2000
What are art research
ethics?
- Macleod's question "What
would falsify an art practice?" brings up the
issue of what the developing ethics or standards might
be for practice in art research. What might be some
examples of art research ethics from within the
field?
Reference:
Macleod, Katy (undated, c.2000) What would falsify
an art practice? Broadside Series no. 5.
Birmingham: University of Central England. [ISBN
1873352239].
From now on, for each
provocative comment, one person whose field is
particularly relevant will be personally invited to
respond.
Selected edited
responses for this month:
This month,
the invited respondent was Katie Macleod:
In 'What would falsify an art practice?' I was really
trying to make clear how important it is for
artist/researchers not to be supervised in such a way
that they felt their art practice was being sidelined.
I do think it's quite possible for an
artist/researcher to submit an impressive PhD where
the research findings are embedded in the artwork
submitted. There are now brilliant examples of this,
some of which I've seen and some of which I've heard
about through interviewing students. On a rather
different tack, however, I do think some of the
responses from the wider confraternity of scholars,
(UK Council for Graduate Education, etc. ...), is
worth considering as strategic to a sidelining of
creative practice research. This is because they
insist that findings must be reported through a
written text. This position is endorsed by John Hockey
and his colleague Jacqueline Allen-Collinson in the
current issue of JADE, where the assumption appears to
be that research 'analysis' will be presented through
the written text. This can be identified as an
exclusionary tactic, although it's not intended to be.
It makes my mind wander (it is Friday...) to Mary
Douglas' analysis of these institutional 'operations'
in 'How Institutions Think'.... I'm not too hot on
ethics but I am keenly attuned to how institutions
function - the mechanisms they use to embrace or
exclude ...
Katie Macleod KMACLEOD@plymouth.ac.uk
We can no longer lean
on the RAE's new but still fundamentally Scientific
model if we are to face up to the structuring of a
mode of ethics for art research.
The location within the teaching and institutional
framework of Art research inevitably governs any
discussion about ethics. Does 'Ethics' presumes good
Ethics?
New validations, albeit initially though the
requirements attached to new and existing funding
opportunities, will emerge particularly in the
relationships between output ( culturally validated
and meaningful application) and issue (what is it that
we can or should ethically be talking about ). But it
is how we arrive at a valuable set of objectives that
will create an ethical debate.
Negotiating the framework for standards in art
research beyond RAE, AHRB, NESTA, etc. means
recognising a public / social structure that is
contemporary and is based on true participation within
and without the institution.
Outputs cannot be launched into the public realm in
the way that a new product might be. Despite the
'apparition' of a marketplace (gallery, conference,
performance, publication) surely we must also be
challenged to redefine the vehicle for our output.
Perhaps an investigation into exactly where we affect
the remodeling of funding bodies and strategies would
be ethical.
One existing (but strangely unspoken)
code or ethic is the activity of 'playing the game'.
While interpreting the make-up and intentions of
funding bodies, political strategies and social
development is a prerequisite of active research, it
need not be so competitive.
What actual, validated, and disseminated research is
going on behind the scenes to maintain a competitive
strategy for funding support and recognition?
Interesting.
I would encourage an ethical standpoint on the sharing
of unique networks and personal contacts that support
outputs (e.g. the gallery context or RAE panel
affiliations ). Cross referenced with data protection
and mapped to RAE successes would we find any
interesting connections? But is that research?
Andy Kennedy a.kennedy@ rgu.ac.uk
Aug/Sep/Oct
2000
Is research a
craft?
- The Craft of Research
was the title of a book written in 1995. Given that
traditional researchers have questioned whether craft
(or art) might be research, how might crafts-people,
makers or artists respond to claims that research is a
craft? How might a review of conventional 'research
product' read?
Reference:
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb and Joseph M.
Williams (1995). The Craft of Research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
There were no responses
to this comment! However, the DRS
discussion list
has recently discussed issues of 'craft' (see 30th Sep
ff).
July
2000
Professional
Doctorates?
- Since April, debate has raged
on the DRS
list concerning the
differences between the Ph.D. and the Professional
Doctorate (or DA, D.Art or D.Des). An opinion was
quoted - that those who "... couldn't cut it in the
Ph.D. program went for the DA." (an unnamed professor
quoted in Peters, quoted in Friedman:
Fri, 2 Jun 2000, 16:05:46).
In Britain, professional doctorates in art or design
are not very widely discussed. Would anyone like to
give some useful examples of such doctorates, which
may not be for those who "couldn't cut it"? (Fantasy
'ideal professional doctorate' ideas also
welcome).
See the RTI
mailbase discussion list
July.
June
2000
How many Ph.D.s is an
art-practice-based student doing?
Last month's provocative
comment related to the range of knowledge fields
needed for a art-practice-based research PhD. An
external examiner of one such PhD commented that it
was actually two, possibly three PhDs. Are we being
too 'belt and braces'?
June's comment was posted to DRS
list and discussion
took place there.
May 2000
Is suffering good for
us?
Last month's
provocative comment
[see also Design
Research Society list]
raised several postings related to Ph.D.s as 'suffering'.
Now that garrets have become expensive 'lofts', is the
research process a useful new form of suffering? What
kind of suffering is good for us?
Suffering?
"They sat with him on
the round seven days and seven nights, and no one
spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering
was very great."
Job 2:13
Beryl Graham asks, " .
. . is the research process a useful new form of
suffering? What kind of suffering is good for
us?"
As I see it, the
research process is obviously useful but it isn't a
form of suffering. At least, it isn't suffering for
those who should properly be research
scholars.
Those who aren't
suited to research may look on research as suffering.
It's an issue of what you're good at and an issue of
what suits you. Some people love football matches.
That, for me, would be suffering. Some people see
kitchen work and cooking as a form of suffering. I
find cooking a pleasure.
It's much the same
with work. My research in knowledge management and
information studies involves philosophy, history, and
understanding how human beings behave. This often
involves qualitative methods that require a rich
tolerance for ambiguity. Dealing with this kind of
ambiguity is sheer torment for colleagues who enjoy
that clarity and certainty of statistical
relationships. For me, it's the other way around. The
challenge of ambiguity and the patterns of historical
development are exciting while I am plagued by the
mechanical details of statistics.
If you'd rather be
doing something else, research is suffering indeed.
Ifyou are suited to the work, the work of research it
is the doorway to knowledge and discovery.
"O that my words were
written down!
O that they were inscribed in a book!
O that with an iron pen and with lead
they were engraved on a rock forever!"
-- Job 19:23-24
Ken Friedman
ken.friedman@bi.no
"This often
involves qualitative methods that require a rich
tolerance for ambiguity. Dealing with this kind of
ambiguity is sheer torment for colleagues who enjoy
that clarity and certainty of statistical
relationships."
I like your phrase "a
rich tolerance for ambiguity". This seems a very
valuable skill for surviving the PhD process.
I think that students
from all fields expect some rigour, rules, and
self-challenge from research (as well as the luxury of
having 3 years to concentrate on something
fascinating). I also think that there are some
particular problems facing art-practice-based students
that are perhaps more a 'cruel and unusual punishment'
than a regular dose of suffering. For example, my own
research included not only statistical aspects but
also less positivist methods with a healthy helping of
ambiguity. I was tormented (as well as enlightened) by
both. At the very least, this involves one in at least
twice as much reading/being-advised about method -
something which an experimental science PhD student
may not have to do, if working within very prescribed
methodological boundaries. This science student can
concentrate on researching his/her research subject
(although sometimes, even this is prescribed by
others), rather than researching about research
methodologies for very extended periods.
The other
distinguishing kind of suffering relates to:
"O that with an
iron pen and with lead
they were engraved on a rock forever!"
Not tablets of stone
exactly, but the paper tome. Not only do art-practice
PhD students need to know how to write a standard
paper thesis, but they are also struggling with other
media in an effort to more effectively communicate
their research. Again - a huge amount of learning and
research which may not directly concern the research
topic. Perhaps this suffering does not relate so
primarily to art-practice research, however, as others
are also struggling to represent complex concepts, or
three-dimensional moving phenomena, in a way that is
accessible and reasonably archival. Sometimes it feels
like inventing rock-carving.
"... no one spoke a
word to him, ..."
Overall, perhaps the
worst thing is suffering in silence - there's not that
many students working on new means of art-practice-led
research, and few tomes to wave in support. There's a
great need for students' support networks to
develop.
The question of
whether art-practice-based students suffer more than
others leads me on to next month's provocative
comment: "How many Ph.D.s is a practice-based student
doing?"
Beryl Graham
beryl.graham@sund.ac.uk
Apr 2000
Picasso's Ph.D.
(this month's
guest provocateur is Chris Rust)
Picasso never
wanted a PhD. At least we always thought so, but the
diaries of the late distinguished art historian,
Professor Zeke Conran suggest otherwise.
Years ago in Mexico,
Prof Conran met the great man and commented that
Picasso never needed academic honours. Both men
laughed, but the artist grew strangely silent. Later
on, Picasso confessed that he was troubled by the
memory of his Scottish great aunt, who had said that
he would never succeed without proper
qualifications.
Picasso's respected
his aunt and academic failure depressed him. He tried
evening classes and correspondence courses but it was
too difficult. Eventually he blurted out his request -
could Prof Conran help him obtain a PhD? He had heard
that some hotheads in the universities were claiming
that his work was as significant as the most rigorous
academic research so couldn't he be allowed a research
degree?
The academic felt
deeply for the artist and saw his creative juices
being blighted by the memory of his aunt, but after
long reflection he said no. A PhD required a thesis, a
thesis required writing and that was that.
The painter pleaded.
He had tried essays on the theory of Motor Vehicle
Maintenance and exams in Chinese Cookery but all he
produced was more drawings, more paintings. "My
research is in my sketchbooks," he said, "my thesis is
on gallery walls around the world. Professor, you
understand art, surely you can recognise the questions
I ask, the methods of my investigation, the knowledge
and originality in my work?"
But the Academic shook
his head. He had examined 483 PhD theses from "Narrow
gauge charcoal in pre-industrial calligraphy" to
"Public art in South Cheshire, July-September 1936". A
PhD required a thesis, and that was that. Artists must
make do with wealth and fame, the glittering prizes
were beyond their reach.
Was he right? Or did
Picasso go to the grave a wronged and bitter man?
(Please consult your university's PhD regulations
before completing this question.)
Chris Rust.
C.Rust@shu.ac.uk
Selected edited
responses so far this month:
Although Chris's
advice is to consult your university's PhD regulations
before responding, may I add to that advice? The
evidence should not be whether your university
specifies a [substantial] written thesis as
all/part of a fine art PhD, but whether the other
requirements could be satisfied without one, i.e. are
the regulations wrong to specify the medium as well as
the message?
Members of this list might be interested to note that
Prof Susan Tebby will be taking the "Picasso question"
as her keynote theme at the Research
into Practice
Conference in
July.
M.A.Biggs@herts.ac.uk
Is the message from
Chris Rust, questioning the Holy Ritual of the Big
Black Tome?
Chris Rust says Picasso was told he had to write a
thesis in Spanish to get a PhD. Picasso was lucky.
When I was a lad PhDs had to be written in Latin, and
with a quill. The quill had to be plucked from a live
chicken, in a cold muddy farmyard, at 5am the morning
of PhD registration at the Research Degrees Committee.
Then, if you were left handed you had to learn to
write with your right hand. You had and still have to
suffer to get a PhD in art & design. Scientists
having fun learning how to advance science is one
thing. Artists and designers having fun learning how
to advance art and design is quite another. Don't be
soft lad, we don't want lots of arty types with PhD's,
it will cramp our style!
P.S. De Montfort University allows registration of a
PhD study with an outcome which may have a 10,000 word
thesis plus substantial supporting practical work,
rumour has it.
Alec Robertson alecr@dmu.ac.uk
Interesting indeed;
but the idea that _history somehow _redeems past
injustice... is a crock -- an art-museum-crock.
Artists' heirs at-least need to financially benefit
from the artworld-shell-game. Until then, tooth and
nail.
Brad Brace bbrace@netcom.com
[This month's
comment was taken up by the DRS mailbase list, and
MUCH discussion took place. Debate covered
'suffering', research training, definitions of PhDs,
MAs and MFAs, and differences between 'studio
doctorates' and 'practice-led PhDs'. Please
go
to DRS list to
read it, as there is too much to put here.
Ed.]
Mar
2000:
What is the difference between
objectivity and truth?
"After all, the ultimate
goal of all research is not objectivity, but truth."
Helene Deutsch
(1884-1982), U.S. psychiatrist. The Psychology of
Women, vol. 1, Preface (1944-45).
Beryl
Graham
Some responses this
month:
This is a
philosophical question. Objectivity expresses a
relationship between the observer and observed which
attempts to construct neutral observational
conditions. In addition to making claims about the
external world it therefore tells us what we think are
neutral observational conditions. Truth, on the other
hand, is independent of observational conditions,
though determining truth may require meeting certain
criteria such as correspondence or coherence. In terms
of research, the term "truth" is VERY rarely applied,
except in theology. and even theologists lost their
faith in objectivity at the same time that we all lost
faith in Modernism.
Michael Biggs M.A.Biggs@herts.ac.uk
As a good post
post-modernist I was thinking more of relative than
fundamentalist truths, and the way in which fine art
research seems to have bypassed 'objectivity' but
still remain interested in 'truth' as somehow related
to artistic 'rigour'. 'Truth to materials' (be they
wood or binary computer code) is still under debate? I
was also interested in how the (often
feminism-informed) rejection of false claims of
objectivity, still leaves space for a research quest
'beyond' objectivity.
Beryl Graham beryl.graham@sund.ac.uk
No, I think "truth to
materials" is a modernist concept, although I am
unsure of the policy position that a
post-post-modernist would hold. Whether one avoids
objectivity by going "beyond" it is questionable. The
criticisms of objectivity leveled by feminists are
exactly those of my last sentence, and the notion of
neutral observational conditions. I do not require
that my fine art researchers are either objective or
that they quest for truth, because neither is a
prerequisite for arts and humanities research.
Michael Biggs M.A.Biggs@herts.ac.uk
More desired than
required perhaps? 'Truth' is obviously a ludicrous
thing to require in a doctoral research context, but
the sense of quest seems one of the few things which
seems to get some students through the medieval Slough
of Despond that can be the Ph.D. process. It sometimes
seems a less ludicrous word than 'rigour', as it
avoids those connotations of the stiff and the
dead.
The word 'truth' is, as you say, rather old fashioned,
so they may not be using the very words "truth to
materials", but I would say that recent debate
concerning art education (for example the debate about
the importance of drawing at Goldsmiths) also marks a
(differently-informed) 'return' to the primacy of
physical materials rather than 'theory'.
Beryl Graham beryl.graham@sund.ac.uk
If you are implying
that phenomenology has a greater truth-currency in
practice-based research then I think nobody would
disagree with you.
Michael Biggs M.A.Biggs@herts.ac.uk
Jan/Feb
2000:
Why are Designers So Active and
Fine Artists Not?
I recently joined the DRC
mailbase discussion list and was deluged by active
international debate. So why are those design guys so
active and the fine artists not?
[Design Research Society
list:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/drs/]
Beryl
Graham
Some excerpted
responses:
"Outrageous
Question!!! Apart from being an obviously loaded,
anti-artist question in the realms of 'Och anyone
could do that' or artists are just self-indulgence
addicts, I will try to comment on why I think this
question may exist.
Activity, is often measured in a logical and linear
way; often governed by conditioned ideas of success,
achievement and 'valuable' contribution or output.
An artist, philosopher or even a designer (while
pursuing the new) will spend a serious amount of time
apparently 'lost', searching, allowing influence,
moving intuitively.
Perhaps it is at this time, spent where the darker
hidden aspects of life are being uncovered
(potentially), that the 'punch card machine'
malfunctions and criticism begins.
I do not assume that we can fully justify hedonistic
or woolly approaches to the creative process but I
believe that it is often consumerist and capitalistic
preconceptions that create the dismissive attitudes
imposed on many subtle, dangerous, and vital
activities.
Furthermore I accept the beauty of and need for round
pegs to 'not' fit square holes."
Andy Kennedy, ATRAK@garthdee1.rgu.ac.uk
Not that outrageous I
think - could be pro-artist. Maybe artists are all too
busy making artwork (being practice-led and all that)
rather than talking about it. But I do think design
has much more of a structure (more magazines,
conferences and more 'research centres'). Artists seem
much more isolated, and sometimes very reluctant to
admit learning from other people rather than inventing
their own method. Also, lots of artists don't seem to
like using computers!
anon
-
Return to
Top
-
|
