etivity 2 (e2) posted last week had 2 objectives: firstly, to debate the model of art as knowledge production outlined by Graeme Sullivan in his text Artist as theorist; secondly, to develop critical reading skills that can be used towards critical writing as outlined by Deborah Knott in Critical reading towards critical writing. At its core was a double question related to (1) how to read critical theory and (2) how to apply this critical reading to the production of our own writing? As D. K presents in her intro,
“Most of the papers you write will involve reflection on written texts – the thinking and research that has already been done on your subject. In order to write your own analysis of this subject, you will need to do careful critical reading of sources and to use them critically to make your own argument. The judgments and interpretations you make of the texts you read are the first steps towards formulating your own approach.”
Both Cinzia and Liliana present their reading of Artist as theorist as a useful framework to elucidate their practice, claiming that it is in the intersection of the three sites of practice- systems, communities and cultures- that lies the potential for the transformative nature of art-based knowledge production.
It also appears that for both the cultural site is where their research is currently rooted. It may be worth then investigating the use of (postmodern) visual methodologies developed around theories of representation and interpretation that, as discussed in Sullivan’s chapter (from page 167), are at the core of working in cultures:
“The critical task is to determine the social impact of these different visions, and the creative task is to create forms of representation that have the capacity to reveal, critique and transform what we know. This is characteristic of making in cultures as artists who pursue a resistant art practice make full use of the potential of visual images to help reveal critical understandings about issues of human concern.” (P.168)
Filed under: e-tivity02-0809, paula roush , art practice as research, paula roush
In Chapter 5- Artist As Theorist from Graeme Sullivan’s 2005 book Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts.
The author starts by describing the artist’s work such as being expansive, creative and critical. He then subdivides the practice (concerning knowledge production) in Making in Systems, when related to structure and skills, Making in Communities, referring to negotiating and communicating meaning, and Making in Culture, when it focuses on challenging perception and prompting new ways of thinking.
Sullivan explores the expansive potentiality inherent in a digital era concerning these 3 areas, and points out the change that the artist’s role has developed in society. He says ¨The image of the artist as creator, critic, theorist, teacher, activist, archivist partly captures the range of art practice today¨, as he emphasizes the many functions of the visual artist in contemporary culture. And it is precisely this point that makes the text valuable to me, because it stands on the believe that artists (and their reflective path), when meeting their personal view with the public voice, can bring insight to the way human beings understand and deal with the world. Thus, it seems to me a result of adaptation, that in the current visual environment, the role of the visual artist has shifted, and has also become more that of the role of a cultural agent.
LiLITH`S EVOLUTION
Because my practice is founded in poetry, I have come a long way dealing with images (as metaphors), but it was not until a couple of years ago (maybe sensing the need to communicate), that I decided to materialize them, and so have shifted into the visual arts to continue my practice. In this way, the need of Making in Communities has influenced my Making in System practice. As for Making in Culture, I believe that it is in the visual and textual content of my play, where I intend to exhort the audience: LiLITH’S TRIAL is a play about otherness and what it offers (hopefully) is a new ‘apprehension’ to the way we articulate with reality.
Filed under: e-tivity02-0809, lili, liliana garcia urmeneta , art practice as research, liliana garcia urmeneta, lilith
Graeme Sullivan’s 2005 book Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts is a good text for exploring ways of using the visual arts as research methods in a number of fields. I have found it less useful as a tool to understand how methodologies for specifically visual arts research can be theorized. Although I appreciate that visual art as practice-based postgraduate research is fairly new – therefore not yet clearly structured and conceptualized – I find Sullivan’s diagrammatic approach dissatisfying.
Chapter 5- Artist as Theorist subdivides the practice of artists concerned with knowledge production into three categories: Making in Systems, Making in Communities, and Making in Cultures. I find the separation of Making in Systems and Making in Communities particularly difficult, as the first definition includes collaborative practices and the second limits an understanding of community to indigenous community. I cannot find in this text an understanding of community that might be suitable for a twenty-first century connected urbanized reality, like the one many artists-theorists are part of.
On the other hand, this attempt to fix reference points makes the task of understanding my own way of working and thinking easier ‘by contrast’. Paula mentioned in our last meeting how artists tend to (I quote from my notes) “Absorb, hybridize and question methodologies from other fields in pragmatic ways.” I think that this might apply to methodologies developed within the field of visual art itself. Although generalizations are always dangerous (irony!), each artist tends, by definition, to re-invent a singular way of being an artist.
The third category of Making in Cultures as defined by Graeme Sullivan, echoes something I feel very strongly: “It is in relationships rather than images or objects where value is located.” In my practice, this applies to the relationships between me, the images of myself I produce, the individuals who encounter them, and the vast numbers of relationships we are all involved in. Therefore, according to Sullivan’s categorization, my practice is rooted into Making in Cultures, but is also embedded in ideas and methods that fall under the definitions of Making in Systems and Making in Communities.
Perhaps, you could try and make up your own mind by watching some of my video works on the Perpetual Art Machine on line video gallery …
Filed under: cinzia cremona, e-tivity02-0809, practice-based research , art practice as research, cinzia cremona
image from Graeme Sullivan’s 2005 book Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts
This week we will delve deeper into the theory of practice-based research, using as main text Chapter 5- Artist as Theorist from Graeme Sullivan’s 2005 book Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. The objective is to deepen the debate on the model of art as knowlege production, whilst developing critical reading skills that can be applied towards critical writing.
Task:
Read Chapter 5- Artist as Theorist where the author argues on “the reemergence of the artist-theorists as important sources of vision and voice within the cultural politics of these times… and the approaches they use that require different ways of thinking about artistic enquiry” (p.150). He goes on to describe three areas of visual arts practice Making in Systems, Making in Communities, and Making in Cultures.
Firstly, identify the central claims of the text, examining the evidence used and how is this deployed to support the argument towards these three sites of practice.
Secondly, evaluate the argument, by positioning your practice within and/or outside this diagram. Can you argue along the author’s line of reasoning, that working within this site you are producing new knowledge? Or do you need to defend an opposing argument? In that case, what sort of (counter-) evidence are you presenting?
Respond
In this blog, follow your classmates posts and choose one to leave a comment on their analysis of Sullivan’s argument and on how they see their sites of practice.
Timeline:
Monday, December 1st (task),
Tuesday, December 2nd (respond)
Readings:
Sullivan, G. (2005). Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. SAGE.Chapter 5- Artist as Theorist
Deborah Knott: Critical reading towards critical writing
Filed under: e-tivity02-0809, paula roush, practice-based research
Recent Comments