Hello All-
Another angle on the question Ralph has posed about the distinctive characteristics of 'aesthetic research' might involve critical reflection on the instrumentality of knowledge itself - so for the record, here's a quick Monday afternoon riff on the melody I'm hearing...
If indeed the myth of scientific 'knowledge for its own sake' has been constructed in modern history precisely in such a way as to conceal the power dynamics that determine the rules and norms about what is or is not 'art', or 'truth' for that matter...
Then on one hand, those organizations that have traditionally championed non-instrumental 'ends in themselves' (e.g., following David C's analysis, the academy, the arts, and the church) can no longer exempt themselves so piously from the instrumentality of exchange markets...
And yet at the same time, those organizations that have traditionally been constructed as means to a particular end (whether it be profit maximization or poverty reduction) find themselves confronted at a process- or practice-level with the somewhat paradoxical 'need' for non-instrumental frivolity, for play, for artistic expression, for spirituality, for well-being, etc...
Thus the question concerning 'aesthetic research' provides us as academics with an occasion to identify the different modes of instrumentality at work within our own epistemological frameworks, as well as within the material and institutional structures that make it possible for us to have this conversation at all - while it provides us as artists with an occasion to acknowledge and affirm normativity not just as one derivative effect of 'the artwork', but additionally as a medium within which new forms of creation and expression are possible.
Speaking of excessive logics, I offer as a gift to those of you who made it this far in this message the following link to a gallery in San Francisco currently seeking artistic submissions to an exhibition titled 'By Any Means Un/necessary' (http://www.mission17.com/byanymeans.htm)
Best wishes to all from Lausanne,
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Hansen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: lundi, 1. novembre 2004 18:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Aesthetic Research and Generalisability
Why would the emperor need clothes? The audience is blind.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Bathurst [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tue 11/2/2004 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Aesthetic Research and Generalisability
Hi Folks
I've been thinking of the issue of generalisability that Steve got going and John, Stephen and Violina have contributed to. I really like the distinction between convergent and divergent ideas. Here's the problem though: we can accept divergence but how do our differing experiences and reporting of those experiences help us with theory building?
This link between method (how we do aesthetic research?) and theory building (what do our findings mean?) is what I'm currently struggling with. I think aesthetic research enables us to make intuitive leaps but when it comes to describing these logically so the wider academic community 'buys in' to our ideas, then we have a problem. Do we just, then, accept divergence and use that as a defense or is there an approach that acknowledges the uniqueness of aesthetics and yet is acceptable to the non-aesthete?
My colleague in an office down the corridor from mine says: "Your emperor has no clothes!" I'm struggling for a response. . .
Ralph
|