Reflection
on taught sessions, 15.01.2016 and 22.01.2016
Theoretical
perspectives
Theoretical
perspectives are considered important in art practice in terms of communicating
across disciplines and other boundaries. A theoretical perspective is a set of
"truths" , according to a quote used from Anderson and Herr. The
choice of the word "truths" seems odd to me. Isn't it rather a set of
opinions, which hopefully are rigorously explored and argued? Theoretical perspectives can help us to look
at what we're doing (creating, making, writing). Practice can develop knowledge
and equally, academic research can develop knowledge. Theoretical perspectives
can allow us to analyse and articulate this knowledge.
Some
examples of theoretical perspectives:
- Feminist
- Marxist
- Socially critical
- Interpretivist
- Post modernist
- Post structuralist
- Deconstructivist
Some
elements of a theory may resonate but others may not. You may need to pick and
choose, which is acceptable, but must be justified.
Theoretical
perspectives usually divide into quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative
perspectives are positivist and assume one truth. Examples given were science,
religion, politics, philosophy. Do each of these have one truth? I don't think
they do, or if they do, it is only at a very general level.
Characteristics
of qualitative perspectives include multiple "truths" , discursive,
reflexive. They are more concerned with an individual than a group and do not
view a situation as static. This type includes theoretical perspectives such as
narrative theory and phenomenology. The latter concerns how we experience the
world vs what physically makes up the world, and one fellow student gave a good
example of this; the scientific universal truth of a glass of water vs the
experience of drinking that glass of water. and narrative theory. I could grasp
that.
As
researchers and practitioners we do not exist in a vacuum, but rather in a
community of some sort, with shared techniques, theories and problems. The
shared matters form a paradigm (a framework, a world view, a general set of
beliefs) that can guide our research or practice. So as an MA cohort we are a
community with different practices but within the paradigm of the MA. I also
exist as an artist within a very loose Twitter community of artists with whose
work I identify in some way. They are all very different - printmakers, fine
artists, ceramicists - but I find something in common with their work and I
enjoy seeing their working processes when they are kind enough to share work in
progress.
I am
not sure I totally understand the concept of a paradigm and I need to look at
this further when (if) I ever get the time. I understand the concept of a
framework of beliefs but there seemed to be an implication within this session
that the paradigm is prioritised and that any occurrence that tests the
paradigm needs to be bent into line so that it fits in with the paradigm.
Everyone has beliefs but they change with time and experience. I still have
strongly held beliefs that I've held since childhood but they are not now so
absolute as life experience has, inevitably, introduced grey areas.
Some definitions that were offered:
Epistemology
is the theory of knowledge and is concerned with validity and scope of
knowledge and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. This is of
interest to me as in a past life I worked on project business cases and this
taught me the rigour of justifying an argument. It's a skill which transfers
into academic research although the approach is different. I now find myself
justifying my argument with citations of others of the same opinion who've
managed to get it published!
Ontology
is concerned with the nature and relations of being. It recognises the
sentience of our being and that we give and receive knowledge and understanding
to each other. An interesting example that was thrown in here is the beliefs of
the Middle Ages (as we perceive them now, note) based on religion. Today's
world view is difference; secular or many religions. This didn't receive a lot
of discussion and although I can understand it as an example, I'm not sure it
is a wholly valid one as the "beliefs of the Middle Ages" seemed to
equate to the Western Art canon when the comment was made.
Interpretivist
theory is concerned with the role of the individual within the collective
social group. It looks at what drivers are making that person behave in that
way. Life stories and narrative histories with a particular viewpoint
("lens") are part of this tradition. Socially critical perspective is
similar. It looks at levels of power within society and works to develop social
change through changing individual and group consciousness. These both sound
interesting although I suppose I am commenting on social change rather than
causing it.
From a
very different viewpoint, there was an acknowledgement that art research by
practice is often motivated by deeply personal concerns. It's therefore based
on "local" (personal) knowledge as well as theorised knowledge. This
logic may often be lost when writing up. We need to recognise that art may be
bringing new theories and realities. This is important to me because I think
the voice of the visual needs to be prioritised and this is best done by
creating visual work which is then opened up to others for them to comment if
they wish.
A few points from the discussion in class
on 22nd January:
Does
language allow you to pull in the viewer or does it alienate them? Are the
artist's intention and the viewer's intention equally valid? A recurring theme
is that of language as emotive. All words are loaded with a meaning other than
the dictionary definition, depending on the context in which they are used.
There was an opinion that art can actually be seen as a non-elitist expression.
Someone quoted Billy Childish - site yourself on the fringes, do what you want,
what's inside you. In other words, don't worry about writing about it or what
others are going to write about it.
We
concern ourselves with "how" and "why" artists have done
things. But do we need to know why? Can't we have our own opinion on that?
Personally I find it helps if I know something of the context of an artwork. I
am big on context, though, in all aspects of my professional life. I think some
knowledge of the artist or their situation at that point in time gives you a
way into the work. What you find next is up to you. Another classmate gave a
good quote: "your art should speak
for itself and your words should only enhance it". I think that is
probably a validation of my idea of having a little bit of context.
Another
thought was that successful art should resonate with others. In my opinion most
art resonates with at least some others in different ways. No one piece of art
is ever going to resonate with everybody!
Well,
after two weeks of talking about theoretical perspectives, I think I am more
confused than ever. I definitely have some element of feminist perspective but
it is not over-riding and neither is it backed up by extensive reading - it's
just from growing up in the 1970s. The introductions to what I would consider
the more nebulous theories mentioned above seem to need backing up by more
extensive reading, but until I can find some theoretical perspective in which
to anchor my work, I don't know if I even need to do that reading- and time, as
always, is of the essence. During the discussion someone mentioned nihilism as
a theory of having no theories and to be honest this sounds attractive at this
point in time. It's associated with atheism, though, which is definitely not
me.
I
would have liked more detailed sessions in theoretical perspectives, perhaps
with a bit more information about some of the main theories. Feminism and
Marxism always seem to be the main ones peddled out, but surely there are
theories to do with lived experience? Perhaps I just haven't found them yet,
although I have been looking.
No comments:
Post a Comment