Hi folks,
Things seem to be growing and progressing here, which is great.
Last night I got involved in a meeting from the comfort of my own home. The meeting was held in Birmingham City Centre and broadcast live using Bambuser. I was able to contribute to the meeting using a chat facility, a bit like msn/google chat/twitter etc. There were quite a few people listening in and getting involved with the meeting virtually.
The meeting wasn't really for me. My partner was at the meeting and it was all far too geeky and technical for me but I was really interested in the concept live broadcasting and the uses is may have for this group - especially for Helen, Becky and me.
Please let me know if you are interested (email is the best way to contact me hello@emilyquinton.com) and I'll get more information for you. Apparently there are some other broadcasting options that might be better for us to use...but they would essentially do the same thing.
Speak soon!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
New readings posted
Right then.... a reminder to those who were there at the end and a vivid description for those who were not... As people were packing up, this is roughly what happened...
[full references are down there on the left. Please email if you can't get hold of the papers]
I suggested that we really should have a proper look at Laurel Richardson's paper next time we meet... The end is particularly good, especially if we want to take up this 'writing group' idea... I'm hoping to read a bit more about writing groups before we meet... Anyone been in one..? Tell us more, here and/or there... Please, if you read just one thing, make it this...
Heather also recommended a paper by Carolyn Ellis that she really liked. So that's listed too.
And following on from the discussion about the afterlives of our work, who reads what so what can/should we say about whom, aaargh - an old chestnut - I've added a third paper, by Roger Sanjek, in which he describes his attempts to shape readings of his (1998) ethnography The future of us all: race and politics in New York City.
[full references are down there on the left. Please email if you can't get hold of the papers]
I suggested that we really should have a proper look at Laurel Richardson's paper next time we meet... The end is particularly good, especially if we want to take up this 'writing group' idea... I'm hoping to read a bit more about writing groups before we meet... Anyone been in one..? Tell us more, here and/or there... Please, if you read just one thing, make it this...
Heather also recommended a paper by Carolyn Ellis that she really liked. So that's listed too.
And following on from the discussion about the afterlives of our work, who reads what so what can/should we say about whom, aaargh - an old chestnut - I've added a third paper, by Roger Sanjek, in which he describes his attempts to shape readings of his (1998) ethnography The future of us all: race and politics in New York City.
Monday, March 17, 2008
more on installation...
Wow Emma, thanks for the full report, having had to duck out it was good to get caught up.
I was really interested to read about the conversation about writing as installation that had stemed from Richards comment on the problems with writing about installation art. This is obviously something close to my own heart having tried to give a seminar paper about the installation art expereince. What i was trying to open up room for in that account of installation art was the suggestion that installation art as a medium centralises the expereince of the viewer - ie it is in part this expereince that produces the work- the work is incompete without this element. In contrast to the accounts of representational practice ( ie landscape art /writing what ever) this sort of understanding of the art experience develops the viewer ( and/or reader if we are to consider Ian's suggestion of writing as installation) as always already ( to use that hidously overused phrase (sorry!!)) a part of the work. Thus there is never one complete interpretation/expereince, in fact the work does not exist until it is experienced. Given these medium conditions - which are so integral to installation art - there is no sense in which anyone who was writing about installation art ( and any art object or art history since Duchamp) would really desire to produce anything other than a partial account of installation practice, the problem obviously comes when there is an expection of somehow a complete account, or when the writing is such that it develops the rhetroic of a complete and authoriatian account. The ethics of this move mean that the expereince of the work is one in which responsiblity for its interpretation lies as much with the viewer (or reader ) as with the artist ( or the writer ) ( lets get rid of that intentionalist fallacy ! ). Anyway- sorry for the blurb but i was really annoyed to have missed this bit of the discussion as this intersection of ethnogprahy and art is prescily where my interests lie and i had been thinking quite a bit about the way in which this conception of installation practice works with so many of these problems of representation (which is really obviously really given the history of the medium) and actually without the content of the work risks becoming just another rant on the mis-understandings of certain 'ideas' of practices other/ in addition to representation...
Anyway- sorry to be so all over the place and random, if anyone wants to talk about this more please let me know, i have found nothing as yet ( apart from my own witterings) on writing installation expereinces, but more generally on writing the art expereince with a particual post structualist bent see James Elkins book 'Our beautiful dry and distant texts'. Thanks for reading hatti
I was really interested to read about the conversation about writing as installation that had stemed from Richards comment on the problems with writing about installation art. This is obviously something close to my own heart having tried to give a seminar paper about the installation art expereince. What i was trying to open up room for in that account of installation art was the suggestion that installation art as a medium centralises the expereince of the viewer - ie it is in part this expereince that produces the work- the work is incompete without this element. In contrast to the accounts of representational practice ( ie landscape art /writing what ever) this sort of understanding of the art experience develops the viewer ( and/or reader if we are to consider Ian's suggestion of writing as installation) as always already ( to use that hidously overused phrase (sorry!!)) a part of the work. Thus there is never one complete interpretation/expereince, in fact the work does not exist until it is experienced. Given these medium conditions - which are so integral to installation art - there is no sense in which anyone who was writing about installation art ( and any art object or art history since Duchamp) would really desire to produce anything other than a partial account of installation practice, the problem obviously comes when there is an expection of somehow a complete account, or when the writing is such that it develops the rhetroic of a complete and authoriatian account. The ethics of this move mean that the expereince of the work is one in which responsiblity for its interpretation lies as much with the viewer (or reader ) as with the artist ( or the writer ) ( lets get rid of that intentionalist fallacy ! ). Anyway- sorry for the blurb but i was really annoyed to have missed this bit of the discussion as this intersection of ethnogprahy and art is prescily where my interests lie and i had been thinking quite a bit about the way in which this conception of installation practice works with so many of these problems of representation (which is really obviously really given the history of the medium) and actually without the content of the work risks becoming just another rant on the mis-understandings of certain 'ideas' of practices other/ in addition to representation...
Anyway- sorry to be so all over the place and random, if anyone wants to talk about this more please let me know, i have found nothing as yet ( apart from my own witterings) on writing installation expereinces, but more generally on writing the art expereince with a particual post structualist bent see James Elkins book 'Our beautiful dry and distant texts'. Thanks for reading hatti
Friday, March 14, 2008
Notes from meeting number three
The third meeting, the first one I’ve been to so far. This time the group included myself, Heather, Richard, Justin, Ian, Hatti, a green teapot, Kerry, Debs, Huw, Lynne and a bit later on David. We had mostly read some of the readings – Susanne Gannon’s paper, Laurel Richardson’s book chapter, or shorter paper – though none of the readings had been read by everyone. Anyway, we began altogether and here is my impression of some of what came out, in no particular order …
We were, through the readings, mainly talking about writing and the concerns surrounding how we write about the other, how or can we represent an out-there, returning to the politics of writing and for what and who we are writing anyway? Maybe we’ve turned, or are turning, into a writing group?
May be that’s what much of it is about anyway? The struggle to write. To make sense of and choose a position within the endless circle we find ourselves in when writing about the other, or the ‘out-there’, which is also always a writing of self, which is also always a writing of other, or ‘out-there’. We cannot pull apart the self and other or the in-here and the out-there, and we can only ever partially write it.
Writing is then always a translation or mediation, it is another reality. Richard told us of writing about viewing an artist’s installation and the impossibility of representing what it was he saw, may be, Ian suggested, the writing should be understood as another installation, an installation of an installation.
Writing creates the out-there and other through ourselves. What we write cannot say ‘the out-there is like THIS’ but only this is what I understand it to be. And as Susanne Gannon highlights in her paper, the I understanding and the me-stories need also to be unsettled with the uncertainties and multiplicities of the I and me. But then will we not just end up in a mess, lost in a fragmentary writing? Do we risk losing coherence, authority or politics in what we communicate?
Hatti suggested a paper that talks about how to write the mess – not John Law, something else – I think she’s mentioned it earlier in this blog.
We’ve returned again to the politics of it all – how different regimes constrain our writing and the choices we make to work within them or outside of them, perhaps challenging them to shift their boundaries. Who are these people we’re writing for anyway and how are they involved in our work in the first place?
We talked often of writing for academic audiences, but some of us are also writing for policy makers and other audiences. Our work is often caught up in powerful relationships – the funder and fundee, the host and guest. How is it affecting what we do and write? How does it situate our ethics? How similar are the relationships we are each in and are these replicated for those people who may be our ‘hosts’?
I’ve scribbled a lot of questions. We each may have quite different answers and ways of doing. We each take particular positions, adopt particular and partial I’s or me’s. No position is right or better. Our positions are not static or singular we may shift around through our texts, we may be in the foreground and in the background – both and neither. Wait a minute you bunch of hypocrites – didn’t you say last time that it’s better to be consistent or something like that? I don’t know I wasn’t even there.
Sometimes it’s worth just writing – just starting and letting the writing form itself – go for it – write – write yourself an email – then once it’s out there it can be played around with and justified, if justification is necessary.
So what next …
Heather suggests reading Heartful Autoethnography by Caroline Ellis – she will add a link
Maybe we should also read something about different audiences – linking back to the politics of ethnography – let’s look at the blog that Huw has already suggested dealing with how anthropological work is being misused by government and military
Ian suggests we all try to read that Richardson book chapter, then we can really talk through some of her ideas on writing.
And don’t we need to have something real to talk about – some of our own writing? Yes, we have agreed to share 2 pages of our own existing, or made to measure text before we next meet (like Heather has already done) – writing which might raise some of the issues that have come up so far, something to talk through - of course in a constructive and supportive way – that goes without saying we hope.
We meet next in just over a month – Wednesday 30th April 3-5pm.
Hope this has done the trick.
See you all soon
Emma
We were, through the readings, mainly talking about writing and the concerns surrounding how we write about the other, how or can we represent an out-there, returning to the politics of writing and for what and who we are writing anyway? Maybe we’ve turned, or are turning, into a writing group?
May be that’s what much of it is about anyway? The struggle to write. To make sense of and choose a position within the endless circle we find ourselves in when writing about the other, or the ‘out-there’, which is also always a writing of self, which is also always a writing of other, or ‘out-there’. We cannot pull apart the self and other or the in-here and the out-there, and we can only ever partially write it.
Writing is then always a translation or mediation, it is another reality. Richard told us of writing about viewing an artist’s installation and the impossibility of representing what it was he saw, may be, Ian suggested, the writing should be understood as another installation, an installation of an installation.
Writing creates the out-there and other through ourselves. What we write cannot say ‘the out-there is like THIS’ but only this is what I understand it to be. And as Susanne Gannon highlights in her paper, the I understanding and the me-stories need also to be unsettled with the uncertainties and multiplicities of the I and me. But then will we not just end up in a mess, lost in a fragmentary writing? Do we risk losing coherence, authority or politics in what we communicate?
Hatti suggested a paper that talks about how to write the mess – not John Law, something else – I think she’s mentioned it earlier in this blog.
We’ve returned again to the politics of it all – how different regimes constrain our writing and the choices we make to work within them or outside of them, perhaps challenging them to shift their boundaries. Who are these people we’re writing for anyway and how are they involved in our work in the first place?
We talked often of writing for academic audiences, but some of us are also writing for policy makers and other audiences. Our work is often caught up in powerful relationships – the funder and fundee, the host and guest. How is it affecting what we do and write? How does it situate our ethics? How similar are the relationships we are each in and are these replicated for those people who may be our ‘hosts’?
I’ve scribbled a lot of questions. We each may have quite different answers and ways of doing. We each take particular positions, adopt particular and partial I’s or me’s. No position is right or better. Our positions are not static or singular we may shift around through our texts, we may be in the foreground and in the background – both and neither. Wait a minute you bunch of hypocrites – didn’t you say last time that it’s better to be consistent or something like that? I don’t know I wasn’t even there.
Sometimes it’s worth just writing – just starting and letting the writing form itself – go for it – write – write yourself an email – then once it’s out there it can be played around with and justified, if justification is necessary.
So what next …
Heather suggests reading Heartful Autoethnography by Caroline Ellis – she will add a link
Maybe we should also read something about different audiences – linking back to the politics of ethnography – let’s look at the blog that Huw has already suggested dealing with how anthropological work is being misused by government and military
Ian suggests we all try to read that Richardson book chapter, then we can really talk through some of her ideas on writing.
And don’t we need to have something real to talk about – some of our own writing? Yes, we have agreed to share 2 pages of our own existing, or made to measure text before we next meet (like Heather has already done) – writing which might raise some of the issues that have come up so far, something to talk through - of course in a constructive and supportive way – that goes without saying we hope.
We meet next in just over a month – Wednesday 30th April 3-5pm.
Hope this has done the trick.
See you all soon
Emma
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
interesting eg of theory/ethnog mix
Hi guys,
Carol Rambo Ronai, Sketching With Derrida: An Ethnography of a Researcher/Erotic Dancer Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 3, 405-420 (1998)
i came across this a while ago- following up derrida rather than ethnography, but it was referenced in the gannon article so i found it again and it is worth a read- esp, for thinking through those theory/ethnog mixes that we were talking about...
i am interested in following up the way in which certain descriptive tags are given to these kinds of account and what they then imply- here we have 'sketch'- which presumes a certain type of artistic practice, this forms a fascintating pair with the incredibly laboured and gestural images ( such pracitce has art historical precident for being interpreteaed as cathertic self exploration) which accompany the text in Veils the cixious /derrida book gannon talks about) and also other articles on ethnogrpahy i have found ( i can ref if anyone else wants to follow this up ) which discuss 'messy' texts- ( this is NOT john law for those who were in the contemp. debates reading group) - less intersting for me than the use of the artistic vocab but still seems to open up some good questions.
sorry for the witter- see some of you later- i wonder if we could eventually get these sessions video linked to the Birmingham contingent?
alos i can photocopy the article if anyone who is interested does not have access.
hatti
Carol Rambo Ronai, Sketching With Derrida: An Ethnography of a Researcher/Erotic Dancer Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 3, 405-420 (1998)
i came across this a while ago- following up derrida rather than ethnography, but it was referenced in the gannon article so i found it again and it is worth a read- esp, for thinking through those theory/ethnog mixes that we were talking about...
i am interested in following up the way in which certain descriptive tags are given to these kinds of account and what they then imply- here we have 'sketch'- which presumes a certain type of artistic practice, this forms a fascintating pair with the incredibly laboured and gestural images ( such pracitce has art historical precident for being interpreteaed as cathertic self exploration) which accompany the text in Veils the cixious /derrida book gannon talks about) and also other articles on ethnogrpahy i have found ( i can ref if anyone else wants to follow this up ) which discuss 'messy' texts- ( this is NOT john law for those who were in the contemp. debates reading group) - less intersting for me than the use of the artistic vocab but still seems to open up some good questions.
sorry for the witter- see some of you later- i wonder if we could eventually get these sessions video linked to the Birmingham contingent?
alos i can photocopy the article if anyone who is interested does not have access.
hatti
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Laurel Richardson paper
For those interested in writing-stories this paper may also be of interest, it is shorter than the aforementioned chapter - Laurel Richardson (2001) 'Getting personal: writing stories' Qualitative Studies in Education 14/1, 33-38.
Kerry
Kerry
Monday, March 3, 2008
Other readings
Thanks to Kerry for the report.
In the middle of our meeting I remember a discussion about writing ethnography evocatively - the importance of plot, characterisation, etc. - and suggesting that we could read something about this for next time.
So, I've added another reading for our next meeting to the list down there on the left, by Laurel Richardson, which does just this. There seem to be a few copies of different editions of the Handbook of Qualitative Research in Exeter's library, but I should be able to root out my photocopy to lend out to those who can't get to them.
I also remember us agreeing that we didn't all necessarily have to read everything for next time, so please try to do either/or or both. Please also blog in or email references for any of the other readings you bring, mention or think we should read.
In the middle of our meeting I remember a discussion about writing ethnography evocatively - the importance of plot, characterisation, etc. - and suggesting that we could read something about this for next time.
So, I've added another reading for our next meeting to the list down there on the left, by Laurel Richardson, which does just this. There seem to be a few copies of different editions of the Handbook of Qualitative Research in Exeter's library, but I should be able to root out my photocopy to lend out to those who can't get to them.
I also remember us agreeing that we didn't all necessarily have to read everything for next time, so please try to do either/or or both. Please also blog in or email references for any of the other readings you bring, mention or think we should read.
The Exploded Paper...a report on meeting 2
In theory the second meeting of the Exnography, ugh group should have focussed on ‘the politics of ethnographic research’. Those of us who attended the initial meeting (except Ian) were/are fairly new to ethnographic research, and all seem to be struggling with the [im]possibilities of how and where to start doing and thinking and writing. We welcomed the idea of a supportive group environment in which to read and discuss, write, share ideas, issues, and problems. We also welcomed the idea of engaging with ethnographic work and issues of ethnographic research within our own discipline*. The politics of ethnographic research seemed a good place to start…in theory.
Here is an attempt to summarize the second meeting…
Some of us who attended the first meeting came back for more – Heather, Kerry, Ian and Richard, and we were joined by Helen, Debs, Lynne, Justin, Harriet, Hattie and Leila, and following the birth of the blog we have also been joined by friends afar, Becky, Emily, Helen, Emma, Mark.…yes, Exnography, ugh is…Expanding (ugh, sorry I couldn’t help myself, it’s just so Extraordinarily Exciting). Most of us had read ‘You want to be careful you don't end up like Ian. He's all over the place': autobiography in/of an expanded field (the director's cut)’ by Ian Cook (he knows a thing or two about ethnography). There’s a link to the Ian’s paper somewhere over there, on the left hand side of page.
The expanded group opened these themes out (and then some), Ian’s paper led to a discussion about the expanded field...boundaries, borders, negotiation, masturbatory processes, rural others/selves, urban explorations, Bill Bunge, gangsters, evocation, institutions, classic monographs, irrational behavior…and much more. Explosive stuff…and we didn’t even touch on the Baxi Bermuda. We didn't get to talk about panic, though some of us wanted to.
So, negotiation was a key issue for many in the group, juggling real and perceived responsibilities to research participants, collaborators, funding bodies, supervisors, examiners etc. We discussed field boundaries and academic border control…how could we best negotiate the spaces between ‘institution’ and ‘out there’, work through our responsibility to others and to the integrity of our own work. It was felt that in cases where critical ethnographic research was necessary to fulfill commitments to research partners autoethnography was a method through which wider experiences could be tackled.
Within the academy, the politics of ethnographic research was still an issue, many of us felt that the traditional research model of ‘thinking – doing – writing’ was problematic (if not impossible) for our ethnographic projects. Spending a large amount of time immersed in theory prior to immersion in the field may be counter-productive, confusing, and often a waste of time. Other members of the group felt that a thick theoretical framework was important. A difference between being theoretically informed and theoretically framed – I guess!? In light of this discussion/debate some members of the group felt that it was important to read some classic monographs, others felt that more recent works were more useful...
So onward we go…we have another paper to read, Susanne Gannon (2006) The (Im)Possibilities of Writing the Self-Writing: French Poststructural Theory and Autoethnography. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6/4. Those who wish to do so can bring selected readings that may be useful to our explorations, classic monographs not compulsory.
* Human Geography…for those of you who may have accidentally strayed into this blog.
Here is an attempt to summarize the second meeting…
Some of us who attended the first meeting came back for more – Heather, Kerry, Ian and Richard, and we were joined by Helen, Debs, Lynne, Justin, Harriet, Hattie and Leila, and following the birth of the blog we have also been joined by friends afar, Becky, Emily, Helen, Emma, Mark.…yes, Exnography, ugh is…Expanding (ugh, sorry I couldn’t help myself, it’s just so Extraordinarily Exciting). Most of us had read ‘You want to be careful you don't end up like Ian. He's all over the place': autobiography in/of an expanded field (the director's cut)’ by Ian Cook (he knows a thing or two about ethnography). There’s a link to the Ian’s paper somewhere over there, on the left hand side of page.
The expanded group opened these themes out (and then some), Ian’s paper led to a discussion about the expanded field...boundaries, borders, negotiation, masturbatory processes, rural others/selves, urban explorations, Bill Bunge, gangsters, evocation, institutions, classic monographs, irrational behavior…and much more. Explosive stuff…and we didn’t even touch on the Baxi Bermuda. We didn't get to talk about panic, though some of us wanted to.
So, negotiation was a key issue for many in the group, juggling real and perceived responsibilities to research participants, collaborators, funding bodies, supervisors, examiners etc. We discussed field boundaries and academic border control…how could we best negotiate the spaces between ‘institution’ and ‘out there’, work through our responsibility to others and to the integrity of our own work. It was felt that in cases where critical ethnographic research was necessary to fulfill commitments to research partners autoethnography was a method through which wider experiences could be tackled.
Within the academy, the politics of ethnographic research was still an issue, many of us felt that the traditional research model of ‘thinking – doing – writing’ was problematic (if not impossible) for our ethnographic projects. Spending a large amount of time immersed in theory prior to immersion in the field may be counter-productive, confusing, and often a waste of time. Other members of the group felt that a thick theoretical framework was important. A difference between being theoretically informed and theoretically framed – I guess!? In light of this discussion/debate some members of the group felt that it was important to read some classic monographs, others felt that more recent works were more useful...
So onward we go…we have another paper to read, Susanne Gannon (2006) The (Im)Possibilities of Writing the Self-Writing: French Poststructural Theory and Autoethnography. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6/4. Those who wish to do so can bring selected readings that may be useful to our explorations, classic monographs not compulsory.
Lesson...in theory nothing goes to plan.
Please join-in, in either room 358 12 March 2pm or virtually in whatever room you choose.* Human Geography…for those of you who may have accidentally strayed into this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
