Dear Ken,
the hair brained and the turtle mind contrast helps me point out the un-need to resolve the issue with artefacts and research reports, i a hurry.
Unicorns might not exist and there is little point in trying to determine an arithmetic outcome to Root 2. But there is a point in questioing whether there is always 180 degrees in a triangle under all conditions.
Me thinks you are right Ken, except that you have forced the issue to the point of tautology - thus all research reports are resercah reports and all artefacts are artefacts.
There is a confusion, at a deep level, between the status of primary and secondary objects in different fields of research such that the re-port of scientific research is something that comes after the rifle has been fired (sound being heard after the sight of the event); whereas the artefact in some research comes after the secondary event of the hypothesis/report. I might, for example, argue in my research, that it is possible for a new kind of music - this music is then presented as the aretfact. The fact that some of the reporting is before and some after (critical accounts of the musical performance) is not that different to the dicourse of other research where the viva acknowledges that there is a knower as well as a known and that there is no knowledge without both. The attempt, by some areas of research, to make a fully vivid account of the research outcome is an acknowledgement that the agonistics of different domains are different. the failure, of ALL domains, to make fully explicit their research outcomes, points to the contiuning agaony of the persuit of knowledge.
I can make an artefact that requires a prior discourse - in this sense, the artefact is a re-port (a carrying again) The vitality of various artefacts illustrates the desire, by certain fields, to ensure that the research is valid (has legs-can walk).
The attemp to locate the vitality in a private language that seeks to hide from inspection, allows that a lot of crap gets called art. The location of the artefact is not wrong, I suggest. What is wrong is the subsequent failure of the community, to carry out the required VIVA of both the artists and the art work. The discourse is there, the will to impose its rules seems, often, to be lacking. This is yet another scandal of fine art that has found its way into the world of design. Removing this stumbling block, I take to be part of the work of this email group. Thus I fully support Ken's challenge while also questioning what we must now do.
trust this helps
keith russell
newcastle OZ
|