Dear Chris,
Thanks for your response.
I am going to agree on an important point and disagree on an important point.
I agree that this kind of exhibition is important and I said so. IF
Alec had been talking about an exhibition such as a museum mounts, I
would support his call.
I disagreed because that is NOT what he proposed.
Please read Alec's text again.
Alec specifically called for artifacts that he terms
"self-explanatory." He specifically states that these
"self-explanatory" objects are NOT supported by any written text.
Alec described:
"c) stand-alone exhibits
"In some cases, researchers may feel that it is appropriate to
present their research in the form of an exhibition which is
self-explanatory and does not require a separate written paper."
Moreover, he specifically calls for these "self-explanatory"
artifacts as the proposals that the organizers - that's YOU Chris! -
"particularly encourage." Alec is claiming to speak for you on this,
while you seem to be saying something else entirely.
Alec writes:
"The organisers of this strand invite proposals for exhibits that
match any of the three types above, and would like to particularly
encourage proposals for c. stand-alone exhibtions."
Your response describes the kind of exhibits I would have had in mind:
"A knife is a relatively simple artefact which can explain some
things about itself to some audiences but it has its limitations. The
excellent Royal Armouries Museum near here in the city of Leeds, has
many well considered rich exhibits which explain, for example, the
process of producing and using Japanese swords. I am sure that was
the kind of thing in Alex Robertson's mind in the call for exhibits,
which is an experimental project intended to see if anybody is
producing such things."
I agree with you.
I disagree with Alec.
You are calling for the intelligent use of artifacts as
demonstrations within a proper research result.
Alec is calling for accepting artifacts as a complete research
result. In calling for "self-explanatory" artifacts, he claims that
the artifact can explain itself without "a separate written paper."
The last time I examined a museum exhibit such as that you describe,
the kinds of labels and supporting documents that "explain, for
example, the process of producing and using Japanese swords" require
what Alec rejects:
"a separate written paper."
Wall labels, exhibition texts, and museum catalogues are all
"separate written paper[s]."
If you review the many threads on these issues over the past decade,
you will find repeated calls for "research results" that take the
form of self-explanatory objects, objects and art works, material
presented without recourse to alphanumeric symbols and the like.
It is time to be clear.
If the people who wish to call for this are ready to debate, let us
have the debate.
I do not think you intend this debate and I am not debating you. I am
asking that you do not attempt to paper over clear differences.
The claim has been made in a call put forward on behalf of the Design
Research Society. Either Alec cannot write or he made the claim I
assert that he made. If this were merely a typo, I would accept it,
but Alec has made similar claims and argument several times before.
He has also offered the confused accounts of tacit knowledge to
support his claims.
It is time for people to show up and responsibility for what they write.
If this is not what Alec meant, then let him agree in print that he
does NOT mean a self-explanatory artifact independent of a supporting
text. That would end the debate right now.
If Alec - or anyone else - claims that it is possible to produce a
"self-explanatory" artifact that stands as an independent research
result "and does not require a separate written paper," then I say
again,
DEMO OR DIE!
The challenge stands.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
|
