Session Information
29 SES 14, Parallel Paper Session
Paper Session
Contribution
This paper is elaborated together with a namesake Research Workshop also presented at ECER 2013 Istambul. Both are raised from the awareness of the urgency to question contemporary practices of arts education and research in order to configure a transgressive view of these. The authors are a group of people coming from distinctive artistic areas who share a common interest in arts education, and who are committed to alternative ways of furthering their understanding of the world, as potentially afforded by artistic practice (Sullivan, 2011). This paper is intended to contextualize and to reflect upon the experience of the workshop, stressing some of the questions that populate the daily research of the authors.
The basis of this proposal is the conviction that theory and practice are not separate areas of cognition, and thus that to treat them holistically enforces the frame of a contemporary networked knowledge. This view of western culture is challenging though, as the current state of affairs is outlined by a strong presence of preconceived and shaping ideas coming from prevailing Modern bequest in the wider conception of education (Efland, Freedman, Stuhr, 1996) (Madoff, 2009), particularly visible in artistic field due to the exacerbation of Modernist reveries like subjectivism, self-expression and genius (Danvers, 2006). Add to this the constraints assigned to language regulations, and the tendency is to take theory and practice separately.
The authors want to consider the implications of such naturalized ideas and procedures, as well as the privileged status given to writing in the reification of thought, in the construction of knowledge (Maharaj, 2006). While the workshop will stage these circumstances and become the arena of their discussion, by performing moments of entangled practice and theory, merging action and thought and going from body movement to writing to body movement, this paper intends to disseminate its achievements. Authors and participants engage in practice as “knowing bodies” (Danvers, 2006) participating in the world: “[…] if we are not to amputate the mind from the body, we have to begin by recognizing that the primary site of each mind is a particular finite corporeal body. A secondary site could be identified in the form of the many constructs, messages and markers which the mind/body externalizes and presents to others – all human production could be said to constitute this secondary site – a body outside – a shadow of the primary site.” (2006: 80).
The opening to the world that contemporary art faces and represents, during the last two decades, brought to it a great amount of diversity and plurality (Agamben, 2006). It’s not a strict variation of artistic trends, but a whole brand new way to conceive each and every artistic object, even If it fits to a chain or an artistic approach we think we knew. This very new body is at the same time the support and the stage to this new creative conception.
What is the impact of doing in the ‘knowing bodies’ writings? How do they construct knowledge through this experience?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Agamben, G. (2006). “O que é o contemporâneo?” in Agamben , G. (2009) O que é o contemporâneo e outros ensaios, traducção de Vinícius Nicastro Honesko. ARGOS: Associação das Editoras Universitárias, Chapecó, pp. 55- 73. ISBN978-85-7897-005-5. Danvers, J. (2006) “Picturing Mind: Paradox, Indeterminacy and Consciousness in Art & Poetry”, Ed. Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam- New Yourk, NY 2006. Danvers, J. (2006), “The Knowing Body: Art as an Integrative System of Knowledge” in Hardy, T. (org) (2006), Art education a postmodern world: collected essays. Bristol: Intellect. Pp. 77-90. Efland, A.; Freedman, K.; Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern Art Education: an approach to curriculum. Virginia: The National Art Education Association. Groys, B (2009) Education by Infection, Editid by Steven Henry Madoff, Massachusetts Institute of Tachnology, 2009, pp. 25-32. Haghighian, N. S. (2011). “Deshacer lo investigado”. In Verwoert, J.; Haghighian, N. S; Echevarria, G.; Garcia, D.; Lesage, D. e Brwon, T. (2011). En torno a la investigación artística. Pensar y ensenar arte: entre la práctica y la especulación teórica. Barcelona: Contra Textos, Museo d'Art Compenrorani, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Servei de Publicacions, Bellaterra, 2011. ISBN 978-84-490-267-6 Madoff, Steven Henry (2009). Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century). Cambridge: MIT Maharaj, S. (2006), “Nick Stanley and Sarat Maharaj” in Hardy, T. (org) (2006), Art education a postmodern world: collected essays. Bristol: Intellect. Pp. 27-32. Preston-Dunlop, V. (1995), Dance Words , Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH) Sullivan, Graeme (2011). “The Artist as Researcher – New Roles for New Realities” in WESSELING, Janneke (ed.) (2011). See it Again, Say it Again – The Artist as Researcher. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2011, pp. 79-101.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.