Luận án: Đối thoại như Thực hành và Thấu hiểu trong Nghệ thuật Đương đại - John Mark Hammersley

DIALOGUE AS PRACTICE AND UNDERSTANDING IN CONTEMPORARY ART By JOHN MARK HAMMERSLEY A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a practice-based doctorate for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The School of Art & Design Cardiff Metropolitan University Cardiff May 2015 This research was kindly supported by a BARS research bursary from Cardiff Metropolitan University Candidate’s declaration This is to certify that the work presented here has not already been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. I state that the contents of the work submitted are the sole result of the candidate’s own investigation, except where otherwise stated. This is to certify; i) that this thesis, if successful, may be made available for inter-library loan, photocopying (subject to the law of copyright) and that the title and summary may be available to outside organisations; ii) that the University may electronically store, copy or translate the thesis to any approved medium or format for the purpose of future preservation and accessibility; that the thesis deposited in the digital repository will be accessible to a wide variety of people and institutions, including automated agents and search engines via the World Wide Web; that once the thesis is deposited, the item and its metadata may be incorporated into public access catalogues or services, such as national databases of electronic theses. or iii) that the thesis, if successful, may be made so available after the expiry of a bar on photocopying and/or access.

Signed: ______________________________ John Hammersley Contents Chapter 1: Prologue 1 Chapter 2: Introduction 10 The positions of the main protagonists in debates on dialogue in art 12 Dialogical art practice as a multi-layered activity 14 Concerns regarding theoretical administration of practice 19 Methodological disposition of this study 21 The presentation of this thesis 22 Chapter 3: Methodology and method 25 Methodology 25 Contemporary art’s near past and emerging present 27 The discourse surrounding dialogue in contemporary art 34 The contribution of Bourriaud, Kester and Bishop’s positions to 36 this thesis Developing themes through engagement and conversation in the 38 field Artistic practices which provide interpretive resources for the 39 construction of this practice Influences of these practices on my approach 42 Developing a socially constructed framework of inquiry 43 Multiple realities and multiple practices 44 How my chosen framework informs my approach to dialogical art 46 practice as research How the philosophical notion of language games contributes to my 48 selection and development of method Method 51 Preparing an ethical framework 53 The generation of material 55 The snowball 57 Description of interview participant group established through the 60 snowball The interview process 63 How I constructed my field study conversation 68 The use of case reflections 72 Interpretation, synthesis and analysis of research material 77 Description of analysis of findings and development of bricolaged 78 dialogues Stage 1 Arrangement of extracts from transcripts and case studies 78 into broad organisational themes Stage 2 Interpretation of extracts from transcripts and case studies 79 leading to the construction of open codes Stage 3 Grouping of open codes into provisional themes 81 Stage 4 Consolidation and ordering of themes 83 Presentation and discussion of material as research texts 86 Phase 1. How I constructed mimetic dialogue 87 Phase 2. The development of tag clouds leading to a discussion of 90 the literature How I designed the tag clouds 91 Phase 3. How I developed maieutic dialogue into reflective dialogue 96 Chapter 4: Context 97 Context dialogue 99 Context tag cloud 106 Contexts: A discussion of the literature 107 The current landscape of contemporary art as context of dialogue 107 The shift of dialogical practices from ideal to everyday social 109 spaces Dialogical practices alter art’s relationship to its historical context 111 Dialogical practices shift away from rather than oppose art’s 114 historical project Dialogical practices disrupt the critical context of contemporary art 117 Dialogical methodologies disrupt narrow critical frameworks 121 Dialogical practices shift our understanding of learning in the 124 academicised context of current art Discussion of the characteristics of context in dialogue 131 The dominance of the post-structural and postmodern landscape 132 Dialogue is changing art’s relationship to its historical narrative 134 The critical context becomes less distant and abstract in dialogue 135 The increasingly academicised context of art 137 New understanding: a reflection on context 139 Maintaining tension between different modes of performing 140 knowledge Constructing an emergent, adaptive and dialogical framework of 141 practice Chapter 5: Meaning-making 144 Meaning-making dialogue 146 Meaning-making tag cloud 167 Meaning-making: A discussion of the literature 168 Dialogical practices are leading to shifts away from the traditional 169 framework of meaning-making in contemporary art Dialogue contributes to an alternative framework of meaning- 171 making Dialogue diffuses the subject matter of art 174 Dialogue implies changing our understanding of our selves and/or 176 changing our relationship with the world Discussion of some characteristics of meaning-making in dialogical art 181 Dialogue shifts away from art’s traditional construction of 182 meaning-making Dialogue diffuses the subject matter of art 184 Dialogue implies changing our understanding of ourselves and/or 186 our relationship with the world New understanding: Implications for the meaning-making process of 188 dialogical art Shifting away from oppositional argument and the emergence of an 188 alternative approach to meaning-making The possible implications of dialogue’s diffusion of thematic 191 concerns Chapter 6: Relating 194 Relating dialogue 196 Relating tag cloud 213 Relating: a discussion of the literature 214 Conversation provides the resources for a more contradictory, and 215 ambivalent relationship to the world Dialogical practices alter the construction of the self in the work of 219 art Dialogue sustains and is sustained by self-risk 222 Dialogue alters the sense of engagement in art 224 The transformational potential and the ethical implications of 227 dialogue Dialogical practices question the ethical exchange of art 228 Dialogue problematises representation in contemporary art 230 Identification as a process of support in dialogue 232 Discussion of some characteristics of relating in dialogical art 235 Conversation provides the resources for a more contradictory, and 236 ambivalent relationship to the world Dialogical practices alter the construction of the self in the work of 238 art Dialogue sustains and is sustained by self-risk 240 Dialogue alters the sense of engagement in art 241 Dialogical practices question the ethical exchange of art 242 The problem of representation and the potential support of 243 identification New understanding: Discussion of the emergent understanding of relating 245 Offsetting concerns of objectification in dialogue through 245 interpersonal conversation Conversational dialogue as an interactive process of discovery and 248 learning Chapter 7: Discussion-conclusion 250 How this thesis was constructed 251 How a socially constructed framework developed out of inquiry 253 Constructing a situated conversational practice of co-participatory 254 learning as a mode of life Synthesising, analysing and presenting research material 256 This inquiry’s findings 258 Implications of these findings 260 Limitations of this inquiry 263 Future research 265 What I gained from doing this research 266 This study’s contribution to understanding and knowledge 267 Tension between singular expert claims to knowledge and the 269 collective performance of knowledge Avoiding rigid concretisations, and foundationalist and essentialist 271 prescriptions of meaning References 274 Appendices List of tables and figures Table 1.

Research participants 61-62 Table 2. Grouping of codes: Critical transformation 82 Table 3. The six steps of simplifying and reordering themes 84 Figure 1. Context tag cloud 93 Figure 2.

Meaning-making tag cloud 94 Figure 3. Relating tag cloud 95 Figure 4. Context tag cloud 106 Figure 5. Meaning-making tag cloud 167 Figure 6.

Relating tag cloud 213 Abstract Dialogue as practice and understanding in contemporary art This study investigates how social constructionist dialogue as art demonstrates a layered mode of practical inquiry, which weaves together interactive and explorative, re-presentational and reflective modes of dialogue in the performance of knowledge. Recent art debates present dialogue as a relational, collaborative and situated mode of meaning-making, and an alternative to traditional constraining frameworks of art. However, artists have been criticised for idealised interpretations of dialogue, which present it as something essentially good and democratic, for insufficiently scrutinising dialogical relationships, and for not providing adequate process accounts for secondary audiences. This study’s multi-layered performance of knowledge draws on thematic insights developed through fourteen interviews and five field conversation artworks from 2008 onwards.

Research material from conversational encounters was combined and presented as three constructed written dialogues, which reflect the tensions and questions that emerge out of enacting such a layered mode of dialogue as art. These tensions are re-presented, and discussed in three central thematic chapters, which frame these themes as issues of context, competing characteristics of meaning- making and relating. The constructed written dialogues provide a platform for further discussion and reflective analysis, which in turn are proposed as an invitation to continued dialogue and socially grounded interaction. The central implication of this study’s contribution to knowledge is that such an approach to practice-led inquiry articulates how dialogue may contribute to the increasing shift in critical art practices towards to more imbricated, uncertain, and performative approaches to knowledge, and provide an alternative to essentialised and foundationalist interpretations of dialogue.

Chapter 1: Prologue This prologue presents the rationale for the underpinning focus on social constructionist theory and dialogic approaches to art study and practice, through setting out the development of my intellectual and practical disposition. What has informed my identification with and development of a constructionist research approach to dialogical practice in contemporary art? Like most artists who enter into research practice I come with a diverse set of prior experiences and practices, which led me to undertake the inquiry in this way. Maxwell (2005) believes that personal experiences and goals play an important part in research studies, in particular sustaining a researcher’s motivation to see through what can be a demanding and challenging process, but also informing a researcher’s disposition. Reflecting on my prior experience has been important for me and sustained my commitment to such an approach.

In this manner, a reflection acts as a point of re-orientation valuable because entering into the complex debates provoked by alternative dialogical approaches to art practice has at times been a bewildering experience. Such a personal and reflective approach to practice may be more familiar to ethnographic approaches to art but such a disposition is not without its critics. Foster (1996) has criticised reflective dialogical practices, which he characterises as an artistic self-othering and accuses of representing a detached narcissism. However Foster also notes in an interview with French et al.

(1997) that art’s co-option of psychoanalytical theories through philosophy often ignores the continuing 1 contribution and changing understanding of those concepts within psychoanalysis and psychodynamic practice. Many relational and socially engaged practices draw on philosophical and anthropological notions of the dialogical self, which construct the self as already an other, an I/Thou. Self-othering is also not necessarily negative and is an understood and necessary dynamic of the psychology of learning. The dialogical self, an I/Thou is variously described in the work of Buber (1996), Levinas (1991) and Bakhtin ([1919] 1990) amongst others and informs contemporary psychodynamic notions of the plural or evolving self (Kegan, 1982) less apparent in contemporary art’s discourse.

The criticisms of ethnographically disposed and reflexive art’s practices may thus be limited by less than contemporary conceptualisations of self- understanding and development in psychoanalytic and psychodynamic perspectives. However, this prologue aims to acknowledge the prior influences and biases that shape and inform human and interpersonal research. This prologue also acknowledges that in interpersonal inquiry the researcher is construed as the instrument of the research (Maxwell, 2005) and method a reconstruction of the artist- researcher. With research that adopts a complex constructed method, personal reflection on the researcher’s prior experience can also provide a useful interpretative resource for readers.

My intention is to highlight how my prior experiential knowledge may have contributed to my methodological decisions and dispositions, without necessarily aiming to summarise these into a grand theory label or perspective.