On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:45:42 +0100 Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> (2)
>
> I will welcome a clarification IN THE FORM OF
> A CLEAR STATEMENT of what Christopher
> Frayling meant by his distinctions
>
Ken and all - Quite recently I saw Christopher Frayling speak (at a
short course for intending PhD students in Art and design) and he
expressed a certain amount of exasperation that people continue to
return to these distinctions. In essence he said they were distinctions
he made in order to clarify his own thinking at a particular point in
time but they were not intended as exclusive categories (he noted that
in many research situations there is considerable overlap between the
categories).
He indicated that his frustration lies in the fact that many people
refer back to his distinctions in the paper "Research in Art and
Design" as if they were exclusive categories and as if they were
perfect definitions of 'types' of research.
>Every time I have seen these phrases, I have
>asked for a clear definition of the distinctions
>these phrases are intended to represent.
>No one has yet responded, not on this list,
>not on the DRS discussion list, not on IDForum,
>and never at a conference.
So Ken - I have now added to the list of many who have not answered
your question - Sorry!
Cheers
Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
P.M. Gutherson
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 01782 294669
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__
Advanced Research Institute / \ | | )
School of Art & Design ____ \ __ /
Staffordshire University / \ | \ |
Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK _/ _\ _| _\ _|
tel +44(0)1782 294602 fax +44(0)1782 294873 [log in to unmask]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|