Hot Rod Biology

Initially I kind of felt like I wasn't sure whether my topic was well received or not. Now I see that it was a little more complicated than that! I got quite positive feedback from members of the audience after the seminar was over, but having since talked to Lisa, and having listened to the questions from the panel again, I can see problems . . . I'm not sure this is that bad though, as I knew there were problems when I was writing the talk.

1. The talk didn't really define my terms used in my title ñ the lack of differentiation between 'hybrid' and 'appropriation' was brought up by the panel. Lisa later questioned what I meant by 'generative' and I couldn't answer very well!

2. Panel suggested I focus on 'Practitioner' approach ñ process of appropriation, instead of theory/politics/ethics of appropriation.

3. Also suggested I need to take a position on either the 'hybrid' or 'appropriation' . . . and flesh out the 'third entity' idea.

4. Suggestion that I undertake projects to develop this along following lines . . .
Homage / Theft / Parody / Pastiche / Citation ñ approach each type of appropriation with the same content/convention to exercise through designing ñ asking which acheives hybridity.

To quickly respond to these here . . .

1. I think is very valid and became quite obvious as I was attempting to write the talk. I will be aiming at developing and refining my use of these terms. Particularly 'generative'. It really bugged me when Lisa asked and I couldn't really answer! It does seem to be key to the topic after all.

2. The 'Hybrid Practitioner' should have been discussed more in the talk . . . I think I just thought I didn't have a comprehensive understanding of what I meant by it, so avoided it! The practitioner and the process should be at the core of this topic. This is also where I need to be able to ditch the ethics side of this topic . . . Lisa suggested focusing on the practice of appropriation rather than theory as a way to do this . . . I must admit I have trouble divorcing the two!?

3. I think I'll be able to sort this out by dealing with 1.

4. Developing a project, or projects to come out of this . . . I had imagined that from here I would try to develop a project with which would begin to question my topic along the lines suggested by question 1 here ñ developing my notion of appropriation/hybridity as 'generative', so I think that much of the panels concerns could be approached via this. I can see the value in approaching different types of appropriation, although I'm not totally sure about the exact types they propose? I'd like to look into this more and be sure that I can make distinctions between the different types I approach.

. . . apart from all this Cameron made the most helpful observation. He said my topic is in danger of "evaporating", and he's quite right! He's refering to my attitude [ref. Bakhtin] that every statement is hybrid, and that all design is appropriation [ref. Michl].

This problem is HUGE! Fundamental. And potentially derails my whole topic. I think this is what Lisa's worried about too?

I'm not so sure this is the end of it though? I feel like there's something here about realising what we actually do ñ and the inherent value in that ñ this is partly what Jan Michl's piece is about. Can we then act/practice in a fundamentally more 'savvy' way? Seeing something for what it is, without trying to impose what it should be.

I'm wondering if I can stop my idea from evaporating via the distinction that Bakhtin makes between conscious and unconscious hybridity? I have been thinking that if I can locate generative appropriation on the side of the conscious [or what I'd like to call 'active'] hybrid, that my project follows from there.

I tried to make this point in the discussion following my talk when Jonty mentioned something about all communication being subconsciously hybrid ñ we appropriate without knowing or meaning to. I stated that I would be focusing on the conscious or intentional hybrid ñ that which is 'designed', ie. the decision to make things hybrid, as opposed to things being naturally so.

While I can see my topic appeared relatively wide open, I think [I hope!] that I can refine it down from here. Stay posted . . .