Hot Rod Biology

« Having something to say... conclusion(s) | Main | Summative categories »

May 11, 2006

The National Grid as thesis...

In discussion with Lisa just prior to leaving NYC she suggested the possibility of using The National Grid as my final project... primarily I think as a way to combine the projects and make less work for myself, but also because it seemed to make some kind of sense as I'd been pointing to TNG as 'evidence' of my Masters having manifested some change/shift in my practice.

I immediately liked this idea, but having thought about it over the last week I've been finding it really hard figuring out how to proceed? It seems obvious that I'd 'plan' the issue and then brief people to write about specific aspects that relate to my topic... esp people who'd been influential within it, Lisa obviously, and I was really keen to Stuart to do something. I quite liked that the briefs I would write could be considered as my thesis (in the sense that the thesis contains as many questions as answers).

Anyway I talked to Jonty, my co-editor, about this idea... and we both agreed there was a large potential for it to be 'icky'. Interestingly I think we both meant the same thing in our use of a vague and childish term... it was hard to locate, but I think it had to do with the idea that TNG would become (for an issue at least) 'academic'. I think we both like the idea that the publication can be more abstract than that... existing between definitions like that and 'real world' etc. More of a ghost...

I think I mentioned this to Cameron and Lisa when we met, but it became more apparent when considering how to package/write up my research... I have two potentially different endings I think? To be honest I feel like there's one that RMIT would like, and then there's one that The National Grid would like... my question here (and I really would like feedback!) is... are these really different? And is [1] innappropriate for TNG? Or is that just a question of the language I use? And finally, should I just go back to doing what I was going to do (thesis as a publication of/on it's own, a monstrous text constructed by me using both appropriated and original texts)?

[the sensible academic conclusion]
1. THE MONSTROSITY OF PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH
- the newness of practice-based research (illegitimacy)
- the hybrid/mutant nature of it (it's construction is monstrous)
- that it tends toward autobiography and narcissism
- how to negotiate this (self-awareness vs self-obsession)... learn from it, make it generative?
- how to articulate this... communicate (extract) implicit/particular/tacit knowing as explicit/abstract knowledge via personal stories and anecdotal evidence?
________________________________________________________________________

[the angry young man conclusion]
2. THE DYNAMICS/MECHANICS OF MONSTROSITY IN CREATIVE PRACTICE (imagination, innovation, and invention)
- monstrosity as a generative metaphor
- the importance of the marginal and provocative in creative practice
- locating the marginal/peripheral
- generating and sustaining the provocative

all of the above could be discussed particularly in relation to individual practice (reinvention, generative-ness), but also more abstractly in relation to the broader domain of Design (something about Design's ability to generate or sustain marginal and provocative practices [I don't think we do it as well as other creative practices... why?])
________________________________________________________________________

My penultimate review is on in 3 weeks and I really need to make a decision and get a considerable amount done before then!? I'm quite freaked out about that time frame but I'll try and reserve my anxiety for offline discussions...

Posted by Luke Wood at May 11, 2006 10:00 AM

Comments

Posted by: Kris at May 12, 2006 07:36 AM

Posted by: Max at May 12, 2006 10:07 AM