Reflective Journal Entry: Eight

‘By presenting these pathways or framings on a hybrid DVD-ROM I am ensuring that no single mode of experiencing the project is privileged. The computer monitor becomes a democratic site for the rendering of the material, and the user/reader is empowered to choose the order and manner in which s/he experiences the three pathways, including alternating between them midstream. This is a critical concern for me as it facilitates the imagining and experiencing of this practice-led research as being devoid of a logocentric host.’ (‘Streamgate PhD’ stuff)

Comment on this and think about ways that I can ensure that my project is not viewed in a special way above other parts e.g. the component of a good practise led PhD – ‘ensuring that no single mode of experiencing the project is privileged.’ I will try to present my artefact in a variety of different ways. Perhaps I can use video, audio, Powerpoint presentation slides, other slides, poems, indeed a plethora of eclectic resources, which will be democratically selected. In this way a new narrative can be created - one that is free of the old school academic constraints that have so dogged the universities of the world.

I can present my story about an outsider called Yudhi who (a) defies the typical interpretation of what a terrorist is (a fanatical brutal killer), and (b) re-defines the meta narrative of the world of the terrorist. The reader/hearer/seer will be able to follow the thesis I will present in their own way using the pictures, poetics, academic explanations, hyperlinks, hypertextuality in general, documentary style presentations, and Powerpoint slides. (Add – ‘Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions’ below in Differences between Practice-Based and Practice-Led Research ) No one medium will be more privileged. It is in this way that we can see that, in Lucy Lyons words, ‘they are a legitimate way for artists to reclaim their work back from the historians, philosophers and critics by gaining an authoritative, academic voice through the validation of a doctorate.' ("Walls are not my friends: issues surrounding the dissemination of practice-led research within appropriate and relevant contexts" - Lucy Lyons) (taken from - AHRC Research Review Practice-Led Research in Art, Design and Architecture -)

It is this notion of reclaiming that embodies this kind of work for it is only through reclamation that we can begin to re-create new narrative forms using different media and establish for ourselves not only as legitimate ‘practitioning’ researchers, but pioneers in a new aspect of knowledge production and praxis.

Use this:

‘Abstract During the last decade, research in art and design in Finland has begun to explore new dimensions. Artists and designers have taken an active role in contextualising and interpreting the creative process in practice, as well as the products of this process, by looking at the process itself and the works produced through it. From this new point of view, the knowledge and the skills of a practising artist or designer form a central part of the research process, and this has produced a new way of doing research. In this new type of research project, part of the research is carried out as art or design practice. The central methodological question of this emerging field of research is: how can art or design practice interact with research in such a manner that they will together produce new knowledge, create a new point of view or form new, creative ways of doing research? In this article, the making and the products of making are seen as an essential part of research: they can be conceived both as answers to particular research questions and as artistic or designerly argumentation. As an object made by an artist–researcher, the artefact can also be seen as a method for collecting and preserving information and understanding. However, the artefacts seem unable to pass on their knowledge, which is relevant for the research context. Thus, the crucial task to be carried out is to give a voice to the artefact. This means interpreting the artefact. During the process of interpretation, furthermore, the artefact has to be placed into a suitable theoretical context. In this process, the final products (the artefacts) can be seen as revealing their stories, i.e. the knowledge they embody.’ (Maarit MäkeläEmail: makela.maarit@gmail.com)

This again suggests new modes of learning that have to be understood. Making the artefact ‘speak’ is like a ventriliquist trying to get a dummy to say ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’! But it has to be done.

And this:

‘Practice-based Research is an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice. Claims of originality and contribution to knowledge may be demonstrated through creative outcomes, which may include artefacts such as images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions Whilst the significance and context of the claims are described in words, a full understanding can only be obtained with direct reference to those outcomes. A practice-based PhD is distinguishable from a conventional PhD because creative outcomes from the research process may be included in the submission for examination and the claim for an original contribution to the field are held to be demonstrated through the original creative work.’ (http://www.creativityandcognition.com/content/view/124/131/)

In other words, the process is as important as the end product. Or, it’s better to travel than to arrive! And there’s not going to be a bias towards the written form as opposed to visual or aural. There is a democracy at work, which says all elements of the thesis are equal just like people in the eyes of the law of a country! So images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions are all on a par with say, a table of graphs showing e.g. average rainfall in Southern Peru, or the cosine of Pi divided by the square root of 12 trillion to the power of 5, whilst spectacular academically, will not be considered more valuable or satisfactory to the academy as constituting ‘real’ ‘true’ or, ‘more valuable’ than a PhD about the composition of a typical pop song since 1972! More on this as I am leaning now tor\wards a digital PhD thesis where all of the above could figure somewhere in the intertextual milieu that I would like to create therein so that images, music, designs, models, digital media or other outcomes such as performances and exhibitions could shoulder to shoulder with a more academic interpretation of the artefact.