Having read the texts from the on-line journal, I have a few thoughts I would like to share.
1. Willem De Greef writes in ‘Opening: A Certain MA-ness’: “Art students have to become academics or develop some basic competencies in research. Is there really a need for this?”
If we accept that art practices have differrent methodologies and forms of knowledge to offer, then it would be important to be able to translate these into academic language and formats in order, among other things, to exchange, compare and contrast qualities.
2. In ‘Posing Singularity’, Jan Verwoert discusses the issue of art as knowledge production in terms of “intellectual provocation and the disruption of thoughts, ideas, words.” This reminds me of the way Liliana talked about her practice in our first session. Verwoert also equates artistic knowledge production to “new forms of embodiment”, ways to “embody provocative ideas” and “produce novel forms of communication”. Perhaps Verwoert means that art practices offer ways of assembling and disassembling knowledge, i.e. organising ideas and thoughts differently, with a different logic. This is how I would like to think about it.
4. I find that some aspects of the ‘Research Report’ show an approach to art practice as one homogeneous field, clearly porgressing in one direction. It is because of the use of terms like “adequate”, “optimum location”, “best practice”, etc. These sound to me like value judgements. In relation to what system of criteria?
At this time in particular, there are so many ways of practicing art with rigour in relation to a variety of ideas. It seems to me a very rich landscape. It would be a pity to think that only a certain approach is the contemporary one, or the best one …
What do you think?