5th April- Research Context//Ba2b reading section// 'The necessity for Theory'
Research Context//Ba2b reading section
'The necessity for Theory'
Reflections at bottom of post
Similarly to 'See it again, say it again: the artist as researcher' the language is the first thing I notice about this text. As I have mentioned before I struggle to analyse text for its meaning and separate that from the language, grammar and tone of the work. Therefore I noticed the use of 'we' a lot which is something I am very aware of in my own writing, not to presume or to force a grouping. It's is difficult however these generalisations can't be made. For example the sentence 'what we class as art' if very subjective and is likely taking a western stance. The viewer is therefore aligned with the writer, this can be used as a tool to grow solidarity but also weakens the text as it is fault formulaic. This is something I admired about the text, it is the first time I have read about the mathematical theorisation of art. Well, as near as can be achieved. The three section model relates very heavily to relational aesthetics and the way in which work is met/the 'life' of the work. It is difficult as the model often discusses things as if they are linear or have the ability to be measured in a linear way. Dividing actions into 'doing' and 'thinking' for me is problematic as they feed so heavily through and into one another. The most interesting part of the model for me was the object section separated into 'material' 'symbolic' and 'commodity'. As history shifts and changes these sections become later and smaller. There are other overarching factors of course but the commodity is very much outweighing the symbolic in modern day. To the point where symbolism is commodified and rendered meaningless. This is the relationship between the 'object produced' and the object seen. This model is I taxed for students to develop their own pathways between art, the viewer and the artist however it has so much more to offer by way of mapping cultural and historic connections. This text is less investigating research as praxis and is more concerned with the 'research' as a separate thing. Also it puts a lot of weight on 'the art object' being a physical thing, when Research is a practice this is less linear. 'Every encounter between the object and the spectator is a unique one' this sentence throws up a very vital question for me in terms of my own work. That question is regarding if the viewer has already got certain beliefs and ideas within them that the art surfaces or can the work I still new concepts, thoughts and beliefs within the viewer. Due to the unique nature of each encounter how can we know this. This is where my 'trace' concept steps from, something that can not fully be mapped yet is fully at work in each encounter.
'The necessity for Theory'
Reflections at bottom of post
Similarly to 'See it again, say it again: the artist as researcher' the language is the first thing I notice about this text. As I have mentioned before I struggle to analyse text for its meaning and separate that from the language, grammar and tone of the work. Therefore I noticed the use of 'we' a lot which is something I am very aware of in my own writing, not to presume or to force a grouping. It's is difficult however these generalisations can't be made. For example the sentence 'what we class as art' if very subjective and is likely taking a western stance. The viewer is therefore aligned with the writer, this can be used as a tool to grow solidarity but also weakens the text as it is fault formulaic. This is something I admired about the text, it is the first time I have read about the mathematical theorisation of art. Well, as near as can be achieved. The three section model relates very heavily to relational aesthetics and the way in which work is met/the 'life' of the work. It is difficult as the model often discusses things as if they are linear or have the ability to be measured in a linear way. Dividing actions into 'doing' and 'thinking' for me is problematic as they feed so heavily through and into one another. The most interesting part of the model for me was the object section separated into 'material' 'symbolic' and 'commodity'. As history shifts and changes these sections become later and smaller. There are other overarching factors of course but the commodity is very much outweighing the symbolic in modern day. To the point where symbolism is commodified and rendered meaningless. This is the relationship between the 'object produced' and the object seen. This model is I taxed for students to develop their own pathways between art, the viewer and the artist however it has so much more to offer by way of mapping cultural and historic connections. This text is less investigating research as praxis and is more concerned with the 'research' as a separate thing. Also it puts a lot of weight on 'the art object' being a physical thing, when Research is a practice this is less linear. 'Every encounter between the object and the spectator is a unique one' this sentence throws up a very vital question for me in terms of my own work. That question is regarding if the viewer has already got certain beliefs and ideas within them that the art surfaces or can the work I still new concepts, thoughts and beliefs within the viewer. Due to the unique nature of each encounter how can we know this. This is where my 'trace' concept steps from, something that can not fully be mapped yet is fully at work in each encounter.
Comments
Post a Comment