what is the importance for the individual and for the society of telling the truth, of knowing the truth, of having people who tell the truth, as well as knowing how to recognize them?
this is interesting as I immediately think of the trade union representative or shop-steward, often regarded as a 'trouble-maker' for simply telling the truth and holding organisations to account
In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy.”
Interesting concept but hierarchical orders within institutions ensure truths are rarely voiced. ie risk of death = risk of sack so one remains silent
As a result, a new set of conversations between artists, scientists, philosophers, critics, economists, architects,
Again, this smacks of intellectual elitism
process-based work and open-ended experimentation creates the speculation, unpredictability, self-organization, and criticality that characterize
For me, these are all positives. I learn far more from doing(practice) than reading(research). My art-making practice is almost all process-based ,while my research forms the context. I'd be interested to hear how others work
it nevertheless lends itself far too easily to emulating the institutions of art education, with its archives, libraries, and research-based practices as primary representational strategies.
Why is this the case?...habit/routine?
In particular, I would not wish to give up the notion of “conversation,” which to my mind has been the most significant shift within the art world over the past decade.
Seminars are a much more inclusive and open-ended approach
If education can release our energies from what needs to be opposed to what can be imagined, or at least perform some kind of negotiation of that, then perhaps we have an education that is more.
I like the idea of what 'can be'...opposing can be exhausting!
In education, when we challenge an idea, we suggest that there is room for imagining another way of thinking
Suggesting an alternative is crucial is provoking change. Merely criticising the status quo appears negative
challenge is written into our daily activity, where we learn and perform critically informed challenges that don’t aim at undermining or overtaking.
I agree, punching or talking down to others is never helpful
I would suggest education to be the site of a shift away from a culture of emergency to one of urgency
I would agree a shift towards this mindset would help to avoid knee-jerk reactions and encourage more pragmatic decision-making
might instead encompass fallibility, which can be understood as a form of knowledge production rather than one of disappointment.
Failure is always disappointing and discouraging, the use of the word fallibility does little to curtail these emotions
This speaks to an idea that there might be endless possibilities within us that we might never be able to bring to successful fruition.
How are these abilities and possibilities recognised and more importantly brought to the fore?
a platform that could bring together unexpected and momentary conjunctions of academics, art world citizens, union organizers, activists, and many others
implies elitism...who are the 'many others'!?
how understaffed and underfunded,
little has improved in this sense
If education is forever reacting to the woes of the world
this seems to be in conflict with the opening sentence of the paragraph stating that weak eduction is non-reactive
If it is not, then maybe those “outsiders” are not outside at all, but can be recognized as already here and part of us, but only if we listen
This is refreshing...a much more inclusive approach!
There were questions regarding the very nature of ownership of an image or an idea.
As a photographer, I find the ownership of an image provokes some interesting debate within the industry. Last summer I spoke with an art collector who overtly admitted that his ownership of certain works was nothing more than a 'vanity project' , another form of image!, & 'bragging rights over his peers'.
There were questions regarding who produces questioning: What are legitimate questions, and under what conditions are they produced?
Cherry-picking questions and who asks them is again, problematic and appears condescending.
Each of these teams pursued a line of inquiry into what we could learn from the museum beyond the objects on display and its educational practices.
This is an encouraging turn that is not always considered by museums
More importantly, it must always include within it an element of fallibility—the possibility that acting will end in failure.
Refinement is a crucial and perpetual part of any process- to suggest 'failure' over a desire for improvement is not encouraging for any individual or institution
speculation, expansion, and reflexivity without the constant demand for proven results. If this was a space of experimentation and exploration, then how might we extract these vital principles and apply them to the rest of our lives? How might we also perhaps apply them to our institutions? Born of a belief that the institutions we inhabit can potentially be so much more than they are, these questions ask how the museum, the university, the art school, can surpass their current functions.
To surpass current functions, I would suggest that 'vital principles' the author refers to should also extend to a place outside of the academic institution
Academies often focus on what it is that people need to know in order to start thinking and acting,
This sounds very condescending and arrogant, people can already think and act!
their reach could be wider, that they might provide sites for doing so much more than they ever thought they could.
with the current Covid19 restrictions and guidance , museums are being forced to urgently explore alternatives. 'Sites' could extend to curation of digital space to reach a larger geographical area
principles of education there to operate as forms of actualization.”
Is Rogoff proposing 'speculation, expansion, and reflexivity' as the 'principles of education'? Surely these terms already exist in a market economy, albeit in a much broader sense?
but by thinking of the cultural sector as a market economy,
I find this particular use of language slightly dangerous as it suggests an ethos of supply and demand. Of course, for most innovative cultural movements or 'turns', originally there was no demand.
can surpass their current functions.
Rogoff alludes to being frustrated by current institutional frameworks but doesn't elaborate on their constraints
“What can we learn from the museum?” and referred to a form of learning that could take place beyond that which the museum sets out to show or teach.
This reminds me of a talk I attended at Playfair Library by Alistair Hudson, director of Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, who was promoting his idea of the 'useful museum' as 'art school for everyone'. I was impressed by his enthusiastic outlook towards full inclusivity and enjoy this quote from the following article: https://civicroleartsinquiry.gulbenkian.org.uk/resources/mima-middlesbrough-institute-of-modern-art
“all people learn together this role that art has in society of transformation. That includes cooking, gardening, politics, housing, healthcare, everything. Once you start to get that message embedded into people’s minds, that’s when you stop them saying we don’t need an art gallery any more, or we don’t need art, or we don’t need culture. Because actually you don’t choose whether you have culture or not, it’s just a question of what kind of culture you have.”
“educational turn in curating” address education or curating at precisely the points at which it urgently needs to be shaken up and made uncomfortable?
I wonder if Rogoff is challenging the traditional museum style of curation where the curator controls the content and context of the work. When the piece was written, perhaps moving towards a more ambiguous model that encourages audience interpretation of the work may have been seen as a bold move that undermined the role of the curator, particularly in the museum setting
a generative moment in which a new horizon emerges in the process—leaving behind the practice that was its originating point?
is the originating point ever truly left behind?, even when a new practice is turning against its predecessor, surely the past shapes the future even when they appear to be polar opposites?