|
N.B. The Laboratory will be producing a publication of papers from this conference. "Another Country". (Being a highly subjective, selective and unscientific [in a Newtonian sense, although perhaps not in postmodern scientific terms] account of a symposium in Oxford on a sunny day in May). "There's more research [writing] than anybody should have to read." Professor Charles Harrison I'm sure that neither Prof. Harrison nor I think that this should actually be applied to our own brilliant writings, but nevertheless, I agree. So, here's an experiment in keeping it short. (Lists, tables, that sort of postmodern reference to science thing). I agree with this ...
because ... "[University-based art
research] is no better than the morality of
the person who gets the dosh"
Richard Wentworth quoting
a friend. It's true that existing
structures offer huge scope for cynicism:
Universities
exploiting artists, artists exploiting
Universities. Let's
try not to. The best thing about peer review is
that real peers can hopefully spot the
scams. "We should value the
'International provincial'."
Lynda Morris (Norwich
School of A & D) Regional art schools are
always at a disadvantage if artistic 'success'
is measured in London careerist terms. If this
same measure is applied to 'research success'
then the same problem persists. Where will our
'peers' be selected from? (Interesting to note
that all the funding bodies represented are
based in London). "[It's disturbing
that] those who put their energies into
teaching are much less likely to be promoted
than those put their energies into research,
even if they do so at the expense of teaching."
Prof. Charles
Harrison The divisive potential of
academic research funding is legion. A
respondent
on our 'Provocative Comment' pages
praises "real work done
by those on permanent part time contracts" as
being the most valuable research in many ways.
These are the kind of contracts cut in recent
years. "Artists' Ph.D.s should be
Viva'd in the presence of the artwork, by a jury
of artists" Jon
Thompson Some Universities have
already been doing this, or at least using
artists/academics teams. Some artists, of
course, are both. "Most people here are what
the French call 'd'une certain age'
… I know half of you from Saatchi
openings." Richard
Wentworth (London-based artist) Depressingly true, of the
speakers if not the audience. There was little
evidence that any of the speakers apart from
Maud Sulter was aware of events North of
Manchester, or of newer developments in
art-practice-led formal research. Very
frustrating for a specialist audience to have so
few minutes for debate. Still, Wentworth's show
Thinking Aloud was well worth seeing on
the way home. I DISagree with this ...
because ... "Why [on earth] would
a fully engaged artist would want to take six
years out to do a Ph.D." [actually, three
years for a full-time doctorate].
Prof. Jon
Thompson "Research is most valuable
when process is primary rather than 'outcome'"
(Pavel
Buchler). "Ph.D.s don't seem to attract
good artists." Prof. Jon
Thompson The vast majority of artists
don't know that Ph.D.s exist. Practice-led
Ph.D.s have existed for maybe ten years. Perhaps
it is a little early to dismiss the field
completely. Some Interesting
Ideas: Dr. David Pilsbury of the
HEFCE assured us that the next RAE assessment
exercise would be based on criteria drafted by
the panels themselves. Unfortunately we were too
busy being flagellated by professors to discuss
what these criteria might most usefully be, in
order to be most relevant to real artists. Is
this being publicly debated anywhere? How does
this information reach the panels? Many of the panel speakers
were very critical of "currently fashionable art
theory" (semiotics/deconstruction/politics of
representation). In fact, so many speakers did
this, that I have to assume that this is now
actually currently UNfashionable theory, and
that currently fashionable theory consists of
criticising semiotics/deconstruction (and
perhaps returning to art
historical/aesthetic/craft models). Perhaps
exhibitions such as the Whitechapel painting
show also signify [sorry] this change in
fashion. Might the importance of craft in some
art-practice-led Ph.D.s relate to this
development? It's not often that I find
myself looking to the ACE as a model of good
practice, but their speaker at least mentioned a
wide geographical and disciplinary spread of
things which could be looked on as 'research',
both outside and inside of universities. I
don't know anybody working in academic
art-practice research who doesn't value a very
wide range of non-formal artists' research
practices, but at this event there was much
hostility to formal Ph.D. research (Ruskin
doesn't do it, so perhaps a little N.I.H.
syndrome here?) This isn't helpful in developing
useful dialogues, nor even reflective of the way
in which many artists move in/out/around formal
education during their lives. The Gulbenkian Foundation
calls their one of their 'research grants' the
blissfully simple 'Time to Experiment' grant.
Beryl Graham, June 1999. |
