Art Research Symposium 5th-6th March

Monday 5^th March – Studio B seminar room

10-10.45am:  Jooyeon Park 

Presentation of work in progress and introduction to Judith Butler, ‘Who owns Kafka?’, LRB, Vol. 33 No. 5 · 3 March 2011 

10.45-11.45am: Discussion around the text Who owns Kafka?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n05/judith-butler/who-owns-kafka 

11.45-1pm: Research Share presentation

1-2pm: Lunch

2-3pm: Discussion: ‘Geopolitical Criteria and the Classification of Art’ in ‘Bursting on the Scene’: Looking Back at Brazilian Art,  Third Text, Volume 26, Issue 1, 2012 (accessible through the library website) 

3-4-30: Rebecca Harris and Ruth Legg

Performance lecture and presentation around Ruth Legg’s Quietly My Broadcast

Tuesday 6^th March

2pm: Visit to Aural Contract: The Freedom of Speech Itself by Lawrence Abu Hamdan at

The Showroom, 63 Penfold Street, London NW8 

 5pm: Visit to Social Fabric and discussion with curator Grant Watson at InIVA, 1 Rivington Place  London EC2A 3BA 

This coming Friday (Tomorrow) is the opening of Formless at the Old Police Station, please see attached information.

Various venues please see below

ART, SPEAKING FOR ITSELF

The next PhD research symposium will examine the assumption, made by many artists, critics, curators and academics,  that art objects and images speak immanently. But how does art’s immanence function? What do such assumptions about the immanence of the artwork’s operation suggest? And at a time when there’s a widespread consensus about the loss of the authority of the artwork as an object - and especially as an object of perception – how do we understand the activities of visiting exhibitions/events and looking at art? (If it’s still important to encounter artworks in those modes.)

We look at artworks and read texts that label, pitch, position, supplement and interpret them.  We are of course also used to text works and works that join texts with images and we are well versed in treating text as visual material. If the artwork is encountered always in this overlap of the visual and the textual (or in Rancière’s terms, the visible and the sayable) then should art’s supposed immanence be somehow identified with that area of overlap, or does the operation of textual material dissolve any notion of immanence here?

Preparatory reading:

Alain Badiou, ‘Art and Philosophy’ from Handbook of Inaesthetics (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), pp. 1-15

Victor Burgin, ‘The Absence of presence: Conceptualism and Postmodernism’ in The End of Art Theory: Criticism and Postmodernity (London: McMillan, 1986), pp. 29-50.

Both texts on VLE

 Alain Badiou text can be found in the symposium on The Artist, 13-15/10/08  https://learn.gold.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=48571

Timetable:

Mon 23 January

10.30: Shahin Affrasiabi. Venue: 10 Ashwin Street, Dalston E8 (nearest tube: Dalston Junction)

12: film screenings. Venue: Studio B, Barriedale Buildings, Goldsmiths.

1-2: lunch

2-5: art, speaking for itself: Ramon Bloomberg, Kyoung Kim, Barbara Pfenningstorff, Linda Aloysius. Venue: Goldsmiths studios A and B.

Tues 24 January

10.30: Hanne Darboven, Camden Arts Centre. Meet at CAC (Arkwright Road, NW3 6DG). Nearest tubes: Finchley Road/Finchley Road & Frognal.

From here we will visit:

Mexican Miracle Paintings (Wellcome Collection, Euston Road),

Lygia Pape (Serpentine Gallery, Kensington Gardens),

Brian Griffiths (Vilma Gold, Minerva St, E2),

Saskia Olde-Wolbers (Maureen Paley, Herald St, E2),

We have room booked for discussion at The Serpentine 2-4pm.

Various venues please see below

ART, SPEAKING FOR ITSELF

The next PhD research symposium will examine the assumption, made by many artists, critics, curators and academics,  that art objects and images speak immanently. But how does art’s immanence function? What do such assumptions about the immanence of the artwork’s operation suggest? And at a time when there’s a widespread consensus about the loss of the authority of the artwork as an object - and especially as an object of perception – how do we understand the activities of visiting exhibitions/events and looking at art? (If it’s still important to encounter artworks in those modes.)

We look at artworks and read texts that label, pitch, position, supplement and interpret them.  We are of course also used to text works and works that join texts with images and we are well versed in treating text as visual material. If the artwork is encountered always in this overlap of the visual and the textual (or in Rancière’s terms, the visible and the sayable) then should art’s supposed immanence be somehow identified with that area of overlap, or does the operation of textual material dissolve any notion of immanence here?

Preparatory reading:

Alain Badiou, ‘Art and Philosophy’ from Handbook of Inaesthetics (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), pp. 1-15

Victor Burgin, ‘The Absence of presence: Conceptualism and Postmodernism’ in The End of Art Theory: Criticism and Postmodernity (London: McMillan, 1986), pp. 29-50.

Both texts on VLE

 Alain Badiou text can be found in the symposium on The Artist, 13-15/10/08  https://learn.gold.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=48571

Click here to download:

_Burgin002_copy.pdf (3.55 MB)

(download)

Click here to download:

_Burgin002_copy.pdf (3.55 MB)

Timetable:

Mon 23 January

10.30: Shahin Affrasiabi. Venue: 10 Ashwin Street, Dalston E8 (nearest tube: Dalston Junction)

12: film screenings. Venue: Studio B, Barriedale Buildings, Goldsmiths.

1-2: lunch

2-5: art, speaking for itself: Ramon Bloomberg, Kyoung Kim, Barbara Pfenningstorff, Linda Aloysius. Venue: Goldsmiths studios A and B.

Tues 24 January

10.30: Hanne Darboven, Camden Arts Centre. Meet at CAC (Arkwright Road, NW3 6DG). Nearest tubes: Finchley Road/Finchley Road & Frognal.

From here we will visit:

Mexican Miracle Paintings (Wellcome Collection, Euston Road),

Lygia Pape (Serpentine Gallery, Kensington Gardens),

Brian Griffiths (Vilma Gold, Minerva St, E2),

Saskia Olde-Wolbers (Maureen Paley, Herald St, E2),

We have room booked for discussion at The Serpentine 2-4pm.

Wobble & Squint is delighted to present their first Christmas Art Fair Extravaganza!

THIS Saturday 17th December, 11am - 7.30pm

Praxis Studios 3-9 Belfast Road, Stoke Newington

Wednesday 16th November, 4pm in Studio A

What next?

Any ideas for texts or other material, post in the comments section, or withold until further notice

UPDATE... some reading:

Extracts from Richard Sennett's : The Fall of Public Man

Click here to download:

The_Fall_of_Public_Man-Richard_Sennet-Extracts.pdf (808 KB)

(download)

Click here to download:

The_Fall_of_Public_Man-Richard_Sennet-Extracts.pdf (808 KB)

This came to my attention.. on subject?

Bettina's done more than wonder in her offer to organize a sort of non-symposium where we share work casually on the heels of a symposium but not as an official part of it. Taking some of the fear of formality out of it but capitalizing on the fact that a number of our non-local colleagues schedule their trips back to London (or just to Goldsmiths) around symposia dates.

Something also noted by a few in post-symposium conversations is a reluctance to Posterous, because it's totally public. Wondering if we just set up a Research Programme Dropbox and people can opt in/out as they wish? It might be a total fail or not; won't know til we try.

Thoughts on the methods of Goldin+Senneby and/or AND Publishing? Anything there spark the imagination to use/abuse? I think AND's offline-only model (in its current iteration) for its library collection offers something interesting and maybe offers somewhere to go for a non-internet-based form of information exchange. What of the experiments? Anything there to work with or not work with?

Curious.

Normal 0 0 1 555 3165 26 6 3886 11.1280 0 0 0

Dear fellow researchers,

Having returned to Berlin after the Research Share symposium, I wondered what kind of spaces this sharing and exchange of research could take place in, apart from the coming together at the symposium, informal conversations around it, and this platform. The format of daylong presentations of research projects from last year was dropped, and this virtual platform introduced, but what I feel is missing between those two is a space in which we can present our research project in an ambitious way without having those presentations assessed (that is done anyway in the end of the summer term).

As an inspiration, how this space might look like, Silke’s, Megumi’s and Kyoung’s session on the void came to my mind, a session they prepared together for the Graduate School symposium and that some of us attended. What I liked about this format was not so much its “formal” character (being part of an official event in a small lecture theatre with a moderator and so on), but the joint effort of thinking through a term that plays out in quite different ways in each research project. In that way, I got to know each of my colleagues’ projects, and got a lot out of the issue-driven conversation that followed. I don’t believe that those sessions can be constructed in an artificial way, or that it should be the task of the ones who organize the symposia to schedule presentations; in that reason I agree that the mixed format of last year might not have been ideal; rather, I think that those sessions come into being out of sympathy, in the sense that one research question attracts or challenges another. I guess this is where the Research Share group is heading anyway, and it is a pity that I cannot join it physically (due to living and working in Berlin), but I want to bring up a pragmatic proposal to set a chain of “sympathy” into motion.

I would like to throw in some terms and questions I deal with in my research – if there is anybody who sympathizes or wants to challenge these notions, I would like to propose an informal, but ambitious session of presentation plus debate, preferably after a symposium (in the late afternoon or the day after). I do not envision this session as an occasion for evaluation/assessment, or an announced as part of the symposium; bringing it close to the symposium would be rather a way making it accessible to those (like me) who only come over to London from time to time, for the symposia. We could prepare and organize the session ourselves (online and in situ), thinking about a space that would suit the format we envision; obviously, if my interests of research do not trigger any response, but if there are other “sympathies”, I would be more than happy to attend sessions of colleagues (such as Kyoung, Megumi and Silke), because for me, this is the most dense and productive way of getting to know about each other’s work, giving and receiving feedback.

In my research, I use the term “exposure” to describe moments in the preparation and reception of art works/performances, in which relations are created between agents (such as artists, curators, public), base on a presumably fragile position and embodied practice. Instead of regarding the coming together of the artistic proposal and its reception as the central core, I want to disperse the idea of a central situation into different “zones of exposure”, which I then approach both from the side of preparation and reception, thus rejecting the idea of a “central encounter”, of a coming together of artist/artwork/public. If some of those terms and ideas resonate with or go against your research interests, and if you want to dedicate a session to those questions, please let me know, or let others know about your questions so that they can connect to them.

Best, Bettina

 PS here my address in case you want to contact me per email, apart from exchanging comments on posterous:

vap01bw@gold.ac.uk

Dear Goldsmiths Art Researchers,

Thanks to those who attended the first Research Share session which produced a good discussion.

The next session will be Mon 10 October 6-8pm (after the MFA Monday night lecture by Anna Dezeuze).

At this session we will:

• Read the Liam Gillick text on The Discursive
• Read another text (to contribute ideas, please add a comment to this post)
• Discuss symposium organisation

Please contribute to the discussion on this post. If you have yet to sign-up for art-research.co.uk follow the instructions on this post.

Until you receive your gold.ac.uk email address, you can still comment on this post using a personal email, facebook or twitter identity. You will not be able to contribute 'official' posts like this one until you have a Goldsmiths email address (again, see here for more details).

Following on the last post on Research Share... A while back, Andrea asked Daniel, John, and I this question.  In turn, I've posed the same question to others since the end of term.  In response, Julia Martin generously wrote back:

Hi Kyoung,

just from the top of my head... I think there are perhaps different
categories of research sharing, loosely corresponding with work phases,
but also with the nature of the work, e.g.
- regarding background information, revealing and explaining contextual
data feeding into the work; increasing access to a work; mediation;
- regarding methodologies of the making process, experiences with
translating data into form/narrative/etc; technicalities; experiments;
tricks and tipps, practical stuff;
- regarding documentation and individual evaluation of work and research
process, how it was received, success/failure, on what grounds;

Each of these might have different sharing partners (is sharing =
exchange?), peers or lay audiences, colleagues that work similarly or
others that have a very different approach, people whose advice one is
seeking, people one tries to teach something to...

In sharing, does one want to get a specific message across (to convince,
to sell) or is it a more neutral presentation of stuff (take it or leave
it)?
which strategy for which audience?

all the best,
Julia