Shaping Intuition

Genzuk´s Ethnographic Research describes the ‘traditional’ way Social Sciences (and other sciences) have followed when investigating a field; they have a previous hypothesis, they collect data (interviews, observation, documents) and they give it an interpretation that suites the hypothesis. The paradoxical aspect of applying this ‘Scientific Method’ in the Social Sciences, is that more then often, there is a tendency to ‘bend’ the information so that results fit the chosen theory. It is a methodology that has a ‘fixed eye’ so I believe it rarely discovers anything.

Dick’s Grounded Theory
, on the other hand, seems to proceed with a ‘cleaner eye’, with almost nothing beforehand, and by observing and comparing (systematically) evidence and data, it unveils the theory that lies underneath. The emergent theory, thus, really matches the situation.

Concerning my practice, theory and knowledge actually emerge from my own investigation. First I move rather intuitively, I follow an ‘image’ that leads me to another stage, and so forth, until I find myself in a place where I can see more clearly. It is always the process that talks back to me, and helps me understand and shape my first inspiration/ intuition. And unlike any scientific method, I try to give memory enough time to forget,  I let things rest beyond my consciousness, I try to ‘run away’ from my ‘sight of discovery’, and come back later (late as possible)  as if very indifferent, to see if what ever I found, still works for me, actually builds up with the piece, and allows me to move forward in a certain direction. Of course I take notes and draw lines that guide my thoughts and ideas, I may even have a couple of handbooks around the area, but it might also be a sudden erratic ‘flying paper’, that shows me there is always an effective way in which the back of my mind works.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Shaping Intuition

  1. cinzia1 says:

    Lily, you are very clear about the steps you follow whilst working. But how would you describe it by referring to existing, acknowledged research methodologies? Even by denying them … This is the problem I have been encountering. I worry that describing a method as ‘intuitive’ means not really wanting to take it apart. There is always the risk with art practice that if one looks too closely at the way one works, it becomes impossible to do it again! But it might also be a way of becoming clearer about what you are trying to do and become able to do it better …

  2. liligrana says:

    I am sorry but I can only think of something that follows the line of Grounded Theory, and yes, my methodology is very much what I do step by step. I have an image (and maybe an hypothesis of how to make it happen)and then I try it from stage to stage. Concerning the kind of work I am doing now of course it has been done gradually, in an ascension: words provoke images (also the other way, images provoke words first), images require visual elements (installation, media, actors), and this generates an atmosphere that is complete when incorporating the soundtrack, then the scene is like a word in a poem, when it is defined, it inspires the next scene…I cannot think of the existing acknowledged research methodology that you ask.

  3. Pingback: weaving ethnography/art « ThInking Practices

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s