« Hybrids in Biology and Physics | Main | Appropriation »
March 22, 2004
Sustaining Practice
Hybridization as a means of sustaining practice.
Under a modernist framework, ideology rained supreme. One developed a WAY of working that was proposed as RIGHT, and adhered to forever . . . people like MUller-Brockman admit to actually being "bored of it all", but still won't conceed to the notion that they might have been able to change . . .
are we any more open to change within our practice today?
The best thing that's happened in my own practice has been the rejection of ideology . . . of any sort. Which is why I think I liked the Feyerabend quote in the Deconstruction chapter - "the only principal that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes".
A creative practice of any sort should be open to constant hybridization and renewal ñ regeneration - regenerative?
Posted by Luke Wood at March 22, 2004 05:46 PM
Comments
We discussed this idea of yours a little in class the other day - kind of interesting to see the divergent responses to the strengths of a hybrid practice. There were the new media people and interdisciplinary practitioners who immediately understood your use of the term and responded positively - but the horticulturalists were a little concerned since their experience of hybrid plants were that they grew big but were infertile!
Posted by: Lisa Grocott at March 22, 2004 06:44 PM
Cool, I guess there's a question there for me to look into . . . why would a hybrid practise be more fertile?
I guess I see it being more fertile over a period of time/change [which I see as inevitable]. While the 'static/pure' practitioner might certainly develop fertile work at a given point in time, unless they can continue to exist in a state of hybridity [which seems very rare?] their practice will become stale and, I guess you could say, infertile.
Posted by: Luke at April 18, 2004 10:19 AM