<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Beyond Practice-led Research [CFP]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="6"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24pt'>Beyond Practice-led Research [CFP]<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <BR>
<I>A special Issue of </I>TEXT<BR>
<a href="http://www.textjournal.com.au/">http://www.textjournal.com.au/</a><BR>
<BR>
<I>Editors: Scott Brook and Paul Magee <BR>
</I> <BR>
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Practice-led research has come to dominate the discussion and practice of <BR>
research in the university-based creative arts. It is hard to imagine that <BR>
landscape without it. At the same time, serious questions about its <BR>
viability have been raised. In the recent <I>Routledge Companion to Research in <BR>
the Creative Arts</I>, Søren Kjørup notes that even after decades of <BR>
institutional commitment, the field ‘has not developed any generally known <BR>
classics and no stars (while the names of a small group of theoreticians <BR>
have become quite run-of-the-mill).’ Meanwhile Michael Biggs and Daniela <BR>
Büchler argue that ‘[a]lthough these actions conform to the conventions of <BR>
academic research, they do not result in a significant research activity.’ <BR>
Such statements suggest that it is time to move beyond an advocatory stance <BR>
on practice-led research, to assess its strengths and limits, and to ask <BR>
whether there are alternatives.<BR>
<BR>
For instance, does the fact that practice-led research has not been taken up <BR>
by stakeholders in the cultural sector (arts funding bodies, curators, <BR>
reviewers, audiences) undermine its claim to represent practice? Why are so <BR>
many artists reluctant to provide exegetical comment (“What does it mean?”) <BR>
on their own work? What do we make of this practice of not-speaking? And if <BR>
the rise of an extensive discussion of method in the creative arts reflects <BR>
the new regimes of research accountability, can practice-led research be <BR>
defended on other grounds? Further, what are the alternatives? Have we <BR>
forgotten previous presentations and discussions of the relation of art and <BR>
knowledge, for instance, those which focus on the role of art in instigating <BR>
inquiry in others? Are there disciplines, movements and genres outside the <BR>
university-based creative arts (e.g. cultural studies, Théâtre du Soleil, <BR>
feminism, ethnography, generative art, postcolonial studies, Dada, Third <BR>
Cinema, Forum Theatre, culture jamming . . .) that have broached the <BR>
arts/knowledge divide according to other paradigms?<BR>
<BR>
We are open to papers that are sensitive to institutional pragmatics no less <BR>
than papers that argue that there is something uncompromising about creative <BR>
work. And we would like to raise the same possibilities for the discussion <BR>
of scholarship more generally, including that it involves a commitment to <BR>
what the late Foucault theorised as <I>parhessia</I>, or ‘fearless speech’. Papers <BR>
are sought on these and any related themes. The editors are open to artworks <BR>
that resonate with this topic. They are open to papers that break the mold.
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><I>
</I></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><I>Abstracts and expressions of interest for artworks</I>: <B>Dec 31 2011<BR>
</B><I>[This is optional, but recommended]<BR>
<BR>
Deadline for papers and artworks: </I><B>April 1 2012<BR>
</B> <BR>
<I>Publication date: </I><B>October 2012<BR>
</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'> <BR>
<BR>
Email: <a href="Scott.Brook@canberra.edu.au">Scott.Brook@canberra.edu.au</a> & <a href="Paul.Magee@canberra.edu.au">Paul.Magee@canberra.edu.au</a> </SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>