Chapter 1. Intuitive Stories
James Elkins
Planning Notes
with Amelia and Jennifer
Stories of Art planning session 11th March
Make our own group map?
Where are all the women? Make a map as if women have always been included? Sadness...:(
Mapping women artists with Anonymous gaps where there should be major landmarks
Virginia Wolf - A Room of One’s Own - imagines Shakespeare’s sister.
No great women artists? or no cultural opportunities for centuries.
Artist’s muse.
PreRaphaelite women.
Always been exceptions - Clara Schumann (musician)
Culture takes a long time to develop.
Things are the way they are because of the things that went on centuries before. Art is still regarded as masculine.
Louise Bourgeouis. Latterly has become a major figure in 20c art. Why are there no less ‘famous’ ones? Doesn’t take much to flood the consciousness
Map of invisibility and absence.
No definitive way of describing ‘histories of art’
Confusing. deliberately paradoxical.
Map is like a complex matrix of connections. Cats cradle.
There’s logic to it but it appears illogical - because you could never map this.
Throwing LB back into 20th century, relativity distorting time/space.
Alternative universe, realities -mind sets - paradigms.
Einstein theory of relativity.
Drawing a map, making it solid, eliminates it,as the reality must be more fluid.
Where do the realities meet, collide, expand.
Slicing water, waves.Tsunami diagram.
History doubles back - repeats energetic way, waves
Introduction of someone new like LB forever changes the history you thought you knew.
Map is subject to change and it only exists because it will change.
Make 3 separate maps to illustrate the relativity of each and where they merge or change each other
Louise Bourgeois and the 20th Century
What criteria to prove the point and exemplify the mapping distortion.
Make two maps before?
At seminar make group map - this will be the distorting one!
timeline software - collaborative story telling
Grasping the concept.
1. Framing and structure of the seminar
2. Group exercise - the meat
3. Takeaways (the learning aims- open ended, establish a framework, not the “teaching outcome”.
Possible structure to the seminar:
Introduction (linking paper to concept)
Group Exercise (to illustrate the premise)
Reflection on Group Exercise
Summary and takeaways
How do we create a map collaboratively?
Map is a thought experiment
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Amelia 12th March.
We could begin by discussing:
What we all took from the chapter of the book and what it made us think about?
It made me think that history cannot be defined in the conventional, chronological ways we think they can. That perhaps ART history is a fluid and ever changing thing that can change depending on where you place yourself in time. The knowledge you have cannot be unlearned or disregarded and consequently this knowledge influences your perception of distant history allowing you to make links or see influences in artists that were not possible if we viewed art history solely as chronological (referring to the text where Picasso influences Rubens).
My personal art history perception has gaping holes in many areas (as they all do) and that any art history is an individual's record of their journey through art according to what they have been exposed to - if you don't know it, it doesn't appear to exist. This made me think about the alternative realities - the histories all exist on different planes/branes for different people and sometimes they collide - but they are all valid. There is no ONE definitive version of Art history.
If we were attending a seminar on this text what would WE like the chairs to discuss and investigate?
What artists or periods do I think have been prominently discussed, chornicled and explored and what have been ommitted and why?
What does the group see 20thC art history as at the moment? Given our own backgrounds/interests and current perspective?
How can abstract thinking around art history help me to make previously unseen links?
What would we like to take away from the seminar?
I'd like to be able to apply the methods and ways of thinking we learn from the discussion to apply it to our own personal maps and think about history in a more fluid and abstract way than previously.
The most important thing to think about is the SMALL amount of time we have. We need to engage 6 other people in the discussions and give them each a voice - so we may need to allocate the largest chunk of time to discussion - and if we choose to create a map include it in that time. Remember it is only 55 mins in TOTAL - and that includes a Q&A and any exercises. Perhaps it would be easiest to split the time up into the sections we want to explore and then work out how best to do that in each time allocated? Bit like the Machu Pichus. We had to create those very precisely and we will need to do the same for this - precise and no overrunning of any sections - we will need to keep close watch on the time otherwise it will be cut short without conclusion or full exploration.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Amelia 18th Mar
Eleanor and I worked through our ideas and thoughts at the time of meeting - which were our hangout notes.
We had got as far as thinking we would like to do a group exercise with making a map. We were discussing what format or specific angle we should be taking when Jennifer joined us and that is as far as we got as the discussion stopped at that point.
So does anyone have any ideas or suggestions on how to progress?
Any ideas on what you'd like to discuss? The structure? Would we like to do it together or carve the time into (strict) 15 min sections and take one each? (Of which case we only need to include a connector to the next person and decide an order with 10 mins Q&A, wrap up).
Personally, I would still like to do a group exercise with a map - at least in my slot if not as a shared thing.
So does anyone have any other suggestions or preferences?
So my suggestion is a group map (or series of 'alternative reality' maps that link up) for a group exercise of 20-30 mins. I'm happy to draw/map it at the time for later distribution. We had also considered making our own art history maps for discussion as a starting point (not the same as mapping the territory because it will include artists that you acknowledge/appreciate but aren't influenced by), but didn't get very far on firming that up.
……………………………………………...............................................................................................
Jennifer 19th Mar
I have gone back and re-read the paper today, and I'm still struck by the term "toy system", in a positive way. I don't yet have any fully formed thoughts on this however...
Re. Amelia's suggestions below, in terms of structure, I think we did formulate an outline that would work...and you've described it below.
I also like the idea of doing the mapping exercise - a map of artistic influences would be interesting. Do we have the entire group do a single map, or is it a small group exercise? (Maybe two groups of 3?)
The result would be an interesting group perspective on the landscape of influences. This would certainly underscore the point that doing this for oneself could be a valuable reference tool. And yes, it's different from mapping the territory, in that it's either another approach to revealing the same points of reference, or it is an entirely different lens to look through. Maybe this is part of the post-exercise discussion, and we ask our colleagues to respond to this question for themselves?
I think for us the question remains how open ended or specific we make the instructions for the content of the maps. Feminist perspective? Personal influences? Other lens or focus?
Practically, maybe it's a 5-8 minute intro and summary, with more time in the middle for both the exercise and the reflective discussion. I think the reflective discussion with the entire group will be most valuable and where we may get pinched for time.
I think we should present the semniar as a group, but roughly split the seminar into three sections, with each of us being the point-person for a section. (It's just most likely easier that way.)
With 3 of us, perhaps one person does the intro and another the conclusion. During the exercise, the third from our group "leads" gives instructions and guidance, and the other two sit in with the group/s as a possibly a "recorders"(and provided we go with two small groups for the exercise).
How do both of you feel about dividing up the presenting as above? I do suggest however, that we continue to develop the outline of what to say during the sections as a group.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….......
Eleanor 20th March
Looks like we're thinking of having 1. an overview, 2. each of us host a micro seminar on a point or two, and then 3. gathering into a conclusion. Short time - probably enough to explore just one or two points each, keeping it straightforward - so between us 3 - 6 aspects of the text makes for an interesting seminar, wide ranging on such a complex abstract thought Elkins presents.
……………………………………….......................................................................................................
Eleanor 25th March 2013
What strikes me about the Elkins piece is the approach towards mapping which not only examines alternative maps, but subverts the idea of mapping, and goes further, considering mapping almost as an exercise in unmapping – as soon as a concept is mapped, or represented in some kind of imagined map, the absurdity of locating ideas in space and time is highlighted.
Elkins begins the piece by discussing thought experiments of Einstein, and the mapping examples show that all maps are thought experiments and perceived shapes of ideas.
The inner mapping and location of ideas form maps and models.
Into art – distorted shapes revealing sensation.
30th April 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment