Dear All
If my earlier comment came across as sarcastic, then I apologise.
I was attempting to make the serious point that there are aspects of
thinking which simply cannot be adequately expressed using pictures alone.
Surely the most compelling evidence of this is the fact that the early cave
paintings which were referred to eventually evolved into our syntactically
discrete systems of language.
Of course, language can be ambiguous, and often is ambiguous, but to imply
that it is inherently so is quite a different matter.
George W.
At 02:19 PM 11/23/01 +0000, you wrote:
> Dear list members, Much as I feel disinclined to respond at all to
>George's latest sarcastic offering I feel I should in order to simply say
>that I had hoped to begin an interesting debate on this list, and initially
>that seemed to be what was happening. Sarcasm is OK and fine over a pub
>table but perhaps in this arena something a little less aggressive might be
>more in order. I hope that others among you might take up the thread again.
>Best wishes, Jac
>
> >From: George Whale >Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing
>list >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: a response >Date:
>Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:42:56 +0000 > >Jac > >That's an interesting line of
>argument. > >Now draw me a picture of it. > >George. > > >At 08:31 PM
>11/22/01 +0000, you wrote: >>The list has livened up! Thank you George for
>your kind words,and also to >>Richard for your own reponse. I will try to
>address some of what you both >>say. To begin with I don't think that I
>said I believe "the notion of an >>entirely practice-based degree is
>supportable", I rather questioned the >>conviction that it is not. The idea
>that practice should be alienated within >>a "non-academic situation" while
>research remains the prerogative of >>Richards academic "custodians" seems
>as intellectually arrogant as the >>arrogance George attributes to some
>practitioners. Richard, I agree with >>you - words are very ambiguous -
>which seems to mitigate any claim that >>propositional language has a
>distinct advantage over visual imagery. >>Interpretation is the key and
>written text can be - and usually is >>interpreted in many different ways,
>as is art. I would point out here that >>surely the very first form of
>communication, other than the! grunts and >>general pre-verbal vocalisation
>of primitive man, was wall drawings - >>imagery that did not involve the
>written word but nevertheless was "read" >>and understood. >>If the
>academics are the custodians of research does this make research >>itself a
>prisoner of academia? Maybe yes - a political one I think. The
>>>established conventions of the PhD form the bars and the visiting rights
>are >>awarded it seems by those who have equally "vested interests and
>ingrained >>modes of thinking" as those George wants to challenge. >>The
>idea that research funding is in danger of being given out simply to
>>>support studio practice seems, from my limited experience of such things,
>a >>little bizarre as - and George is surely aware of this - you do not get
>>>accepted onto a PhD course easily, practiced-based or otherwise. The work
>>>you are expected to do as part of the degree framework and requirements,
>and >>the amount of time you spend away from the studio in order to pursue
>this is >>no small amount and this I think is appropriate given that a
>candidate has >>chosen a PhD over and above any other way of producing the
>intended body of >>artwork. I myself was made fully aware of this before I
>was accepted at >>Loughborough and I chose the PhD for many reasons
>including those that Steve >>pointed out in an earlier post. Why should not
>the academic framework >>enhance and push on the level of practice in a way
>that is both constructive >>and fulfilling for the artist him/herself while
>at the same time be! >>generative of new ways of working and insights into
>practice that can be >>communicated to others in the field, and does the
>academic framework >>necessarily have to have an additional written
>component in order to do >>this. I am not saying it should be categorical
>either way - I myself have an >>academic background as well as practical
>one and therefore the integration >>of the two comes naturally and is not a
>real issue. In general however I >>would not like to think that a purely
>practice-based PhD is "unthinkable". >>Those other people in the field may
>or may not be practitioners themselves, >>but those that are do not I think
>deserve to be denigrated as lacking in >>humility because they uphold the
>idea that art practice which is intended as >>research deserves to be
>evaluated as such, do not to have a research degree >>themselves. Besides
>the obvious question as to how on earth do you get >>research expertise in
>the arts if the academics are bent on ! keeping >>artists off campus goes
>hand in hand with the distinct possibility that >>those same academics are
>as lacking in a sound basis for apprehending an >>artwork as the
>practioners that George talks about. I never said, I think, >>that there
>should be any level of relativity in which all art intended as >>research
>should naturally be judged as successful in its objective. After >>all I
>see no reason why practice-based PhDs should be any more or less
>>>successful in general than conventional ones. It is the move toward
>>>credibility of practice - for those who seem at present entrenched in
>their >>lack of acceptance of it that I would advocate. Stalemate? It is
>not a >>radical change in the whole structure of a PhD in order to let in
>the enemy >>at the gate, I am simply saying that there must be scope for
>debate about >>practice and its relation to research which is more along
>the lines of >>Richard's "both sides" as opposed to intellectual closure. I
>must say at >>this point that I do take ex! ception to George's remarks
>about whether a >>practitioner may or may not have earned a PhD. No one I
>would imagine - >>perhaps naively - would go through a PhD research period
>unless they really >>wanted to and no-one would receive one unless they
>both did - and were seen >>to earn it. Perhaps however I am being naive
>again. It seems to me that >>there is an enormous scope for research at PhD
>level in any number of >>disciplines, a practice-based proposal in fine art
>being only one. It is an >>approach that I myself have chosen and I am
>comfortable with. The >>straitjacket does not come from the PhD level of
>practice itself but rather >>from the "conform or get out" kind of attitude
>which seems indicative of >>someone encased within his own self imposed
>bonds. >>I look forward to any more comments, >>Best wishes to all list
>readers >>Jac >> >>
>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>Get
>your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >>
>>> > >http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/ad/htmlpages/staff/gwhale.html
>> >George Whale >Research Associate >& Design (LUSAD) >Loughborough
>>Leicestershire >LE11 3TU >UK > >Tel: +44 (0)1509 228967 >Mobile: 07944
>751088 >Fax: +44 (0)1509 228902
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/ad/htmlpages/staff/gwhale.html
George Whale
Research Associate
Loughborough University School of Art & Design (LUSAD)
Loughborough
Leicestershire
LE11 3TU
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1509 228967
Mobile: 07944 751088
Fax: +44 (0)1509 228902
|