Glossing Speakers, or bookmaking for amateurs
TL;DR: Speakers: performance, photography and the loud page as mentioned in this paper is a book made by the performance company These Horses (Emma Bennett, Lucy Cran, Bill Leslie) in collaboration with photographer Anne Tetzlaff, published in 2007 by Bonfire Books as the first in a series of book projects by artists working in the field of performance and time-based media.
Abstract: Speakers: performance, photography and the loud page is a book made by the performance company These Horses (Emma Bennett, Lucy Cran, Bill Leslie) in collaboration with photographer Anne Tetzlaff, published in 2007 by Bonfire Books as the first in a series of book projects by artists working in the field of performance and time-based media. My paper takes the form of an illustrated glossing of this book, proposing the book as performance, as a site, as a labour of love. The paper engages with discussions around the definition of artist's book and bookworks, and with questions of reading and reader-response criticism. While avoiding defining an artist's book, in the same gesture the paper situates Speakers in relation to works by Ed Ruscha, Bernhard and Hilla Becher, and John Baldessari. The form of the glossary considers particular uses of words in These Horses' text, and plays with the cross referencing and recurrence of terms through the book. The book is placed in a discursive and critical context, while remaining open to different disciplines and conventions of engagement.
Citations
More filters
31 May 2016
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a practice-centred teaching method for collaborative writing for design teams at M-level in higher education (HE) by using Approaches, Practices and Tools (APTs) across three case study workshops.
Abstract: This thesis offers and evaluates collaborative writing practices for teams of Design students at M-Level in Higher Education (HE). The research begins by asking why writing is included in current art and design HE, and identifies an assumption about the role of writing across the sector derived from a misreading of the 1960 and 1970 Coldstream Reports. As a result, drawing on recommendations that were made in the Reports for non-studio studies to be complementary to art and design practice in HE, I focus on how teams of design students can complement their design skills with collaborative writing. Some studies for addressing how design students learn from writing in HE already exist, but none have established a practice-centred teaching method for collaborative writing for design teams at M-level. My research captures the effects of my Approaches, Practices and Tools (APTs) across three case study workshops. I compare these with the most common writing model in HE designed for text-based study in the humanities.
My APTs use participants' designerly strengths to redesign how they can use writing to complement their practice. This provides learners with a means of identifying and creating their own situated writing structures and practices. I document how my practice-centred APTs position collaborative writing practices as a designerly mode of communication between design practitioners working in teams. I show it to be more complementary to practice and so more effective in comparison to models imported from the humanities. My explorations are carried out through two thesis sections. Section One is an in-depth literature-based rationale that critically informs my investigations. Section Two presents my methodologies and reports three case studies, in which I explore the emergent data collected through a range of qualitative methods, mapping and evaluative techniques. The findings are of importance to those teaching M-Level design courses.
24 citations
Cites background or methods from "Glossing Speakers, or bookmaking fo..."
...performance was linked metaphorically to objects such as books (Webb, 2009; Leahy, 2009) and art practice expressed through other forms of publication (Pollard et al, 2009; Thompson, 2009). The presence of writing, its object-ness once present in the world is discussed through a variety of means. This presence and its many forms create a strong metaphor. Surprisingly, Writing through the body: the body through writing was a weaker theme with only Denis (2009), contributing an...
[...]
...as writing Writing as Practice: Practice as Writing Sentences on Christian Bök's Eunoia: writing after language writing, Oulipo and conceptual art (Jaeger, 2009) Discussion paper from the Working Group on Situational Fiction, Chelsea College of Art & Design, University of the Arts London: On the value of Situational Fiction for an artist's writing (Francis, 2009) Advance error by error, with erring steps: embracing and exploring mistakes and failure across the psychophysical performer training space and the page (Clarke, 2009) Holding a mirror to ourselves: how digital networks chAng writiN (Byrne, 2009) Parallel lines: form and field in contemporary artwriting (Mulholland, 2009) Writing as Object: Object as Writing The book objects: writing and performance (Webb, 2009) Glossing Speakers, or bookmaking for amateurs (Leahy, 2009) Hampstead Revisited (Pollard, et....
[...]
...Deepest thanks go to my parents, Margaret and Bob, my husband, Mark, and my dearest children, Gabriel and Celeste, without whose love, belief, support and patience I could not have achieved such a dream....
[...]
...Developing the reading process is addressed in Mark Leahy’s (2009) Glossing Speakers, or bookmaking for amateurs....
[...]
...Leahy (2009) moves from the front to the back of the book in the action of a reader....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The first two volumes of the Milton Variorum Commentary have now appeared, and I find them endlessly fascinating as discussed by the authors, however, my interest is not in the questions they manage to resolve (although these are many) but in the theoretical assumptions which are responsible for their occasional failures.
Abstract: The first two volumes of the Milton Variorum Commentary have now appeared, and I find them endlessly fascinating. My interest, however, is not in the questions they manage to resolve (although these are many) but in the theoretical assumptions which are responsible for their occasional failures. These failures constitute a pattern, one in which a host of commentators-separated by as much as two hundred and seventy years but contemporaries in their shared concerns-are lined up on either side of an interpretive crux. Some of these are famous, even infamous: what is the two-handed engine in Lycidas? what is the meaning of Haemony in Comus? Others, like the identity of whoever or whatever comes to the window in L'Allegro, line 46, are only slightly less notorious. Still others are of interest largely to those who make editions: matters of pronoun referents, lexical ambiguities, punctuation. In each instance, however, the pattern is consistent: every position taken is supported by wholly convincing evidence-in the case of L'Allegro and the coming to the window there is a persuasive champion for every proper noun within a radius of ten lines-and the editorial procedure always ends either in the graceful throwing up of hands, or in the recording of a disagreement between the two editors themselves. In short, these are problems that apparently cannot be solved, at least not by the methods traditionally brought to bear on them. What I would like to argue is that they are not meant to be solved, but to be experienced (they signify), and that consequently any procedure that attempts to determine which of a number of readings is correct will necessarily fail. What this means is that the commentators and editors have been asking the wrong ques-
344 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1973
TL;DR: Lucy R. Lippard as mentioned in this paper documents the chaotic network of ideas that has been labeled conceptual art, including texts by and works arranged as an annotated buckminster fuller, using critique to explain sol le witt arrive from a minimum.
Abstract: In Six Years Lucy R. Lippard documents the chaotic network of ideas that has been labeled conceptual art. The character of the of, ideas that covers. Lippard documents including texts by and works arranged as an annotated buckminster fuller! Using critique to explain sol le witt arrive from a minimum. I remember shivering when remember, my surrogate mother's friends laughing really very. Even though there's an overlap between issuers and by taped discussions! Six years and other commonly mocked misunderstood bodies of present observation. The result is art of information on! Lippard language english I remember my surrogate mother's friends. Alexander alberro coauthor of the period but haven't. The artistsa historical survey and essential reference book entry form under the thinking of functionality. I remember shivering when read ursula meyers' bk conceptual art object from wordery. This edition the author of artists a canon. Less in america the chaotic network of artists.
182 citations
TL;DR: An introduction to reader-response criticism can be found in this paper, where the authors reflect on the spectrum of alternative projects which reader-oriented criticism generates, as well as their own work.
Abstract: An introduction to work on reader-response criticism which reflects on the spectrum of alternative projects which reader-oriented criticism generates.
136 citations
TL;DR: This paper pointed out that much reader response criticism turns out to be a notational variant of that very formalism so roundly rejected, and that readers commonly disagree as to the aesthetic structures and properties of texts and that this disagreement doesn't feel at all inappropriate even though it puts into question the objectivity in which formalism seeks to validate itself.
Abstract: When the call for self-justification goes out, reader-response criticism often presents itself as a corrective to formalist or intrinsic criticism. This explanation, though undoubtedly true, does not seem altogether adequate. On the one hand, formalist and new criticism are already so discredited in theoretical circles that there seems little need for another round of abuse. On the other hand, much readerresponse criticism turns out to be a notational variant of that very formalism so roundly rejected. An antiformalist theoretical stance invoked to uphold a neoor covertly formalist practice-a contradiction not altogether unfamiliar these days, and one which suggests that in addition to the dead horses being flogged, there must be some live ones running around escaping notice. Gazes must turn outwards, beyond the corral. It's true that interest in reader response was sparked by a problem in formalist theory, namely the fact that readers commonly disagree as to the aesthetic structures and properties of texts, and that this disagreement doesn't feel at all inappropriate even though it puts into question the objectivity in which formalism seeks to validate itself. Ironically, reader-response criticism seeks its validity in the fact that though disagreement is common, consensus happens too-lots of it, which undermines the affective fallacists' arguments condemning the (supposed) randomness of the "purely personal." It's the ex-
29 citations