I chose the Dissertation option last year and began writing early in 3.1 as this was an easier option than practical artwork at the time. Then, due to some confusions over what had to be submitted and when, the Dissertation vanished briefly and an unexpected essay appeared. After quite a lot of work behind the scenes, the Dissertation returned, albeit not to the 3.2 materials. The essay though remained as there had to be a written component for assessment at 3.1. Mine acts as a prelude to the Dissertation and so is attached.

I’m not able to publish the Dissertation until it’s been assessed but I can include the abstract here.

The advent of artificial intelligence has caused consternation in the creative industries with fears that it will render artists and writers redundant. I will argue that it is just a tool, that we have been using tools for millennia to make our work and that the solution will be to understand the limitations of artificial intelligence and its dependence on a conscious mind for true creativity. In time we forget how much of what we use now had not existed before we made it, and in the making of it, whether repurposed or novel, we adopted the technologies of the time.  Photography was an early example of modern technology, opening the door for digital apps, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. My assertion is that these, like brushes and palettes before them, are tools to be used in the evolution and democratisation of visual art.

Key Terms: Artificial Intelligence (AI); Virtual Reality (VR); Augmented Reality (AR).

Conboy-Hill, S. Abstract taken from the unpublished Dissertation entitled ‘Dreamtime to Screentime: how old does technology have to be before we stop mentioning it?’

My primary concern now is that, while art historians may have little to worry about with a delay of a year or so between completion and assessment, I am more than a tad worried that mine is out of date already!

___

Now, reading the new (for now) materials*, I find there is more to do.

Artists and writing

Edmund de Waal, The White Road. The short piece appears to be an abstract, a somewhat poetic opinion piece about de Waal’s ‘obsession’ with clay. It isn’t clear who wrote it, the only name associated with it being de Waal’s own in which case he has a right to the opinion. I’m not sure I would want to read any more though; as literature it has a static quality, presented to the reader as an immutable object, solid and frankly rather lifeless, no matter the life it strains to convey.

Hito Steyerl, In Defence of the Poor Image. This is also an opinion piece but this time delivered to us via a megaphone. The language is convoluted, loud and imperious but with no life. Reading it, I can see the author striding back and forth in front of an audience, chin raised to the ceiling, one arm signalling the authority of a flag, and a voice booming its message in ear drum-rattling stentorian tones.

Allan Sekula, The Body and the Archive. Unable to access this.

Grayson Perry, The Descent of Man. I thought I had this but I haven’t. Matt Haig likes it so I have now. It’s a 2016 publication that deals with ‘default man’, essentially the patriarchy, who places himself at the centre of the universe, sets the standard for all men and conveniently excludes women. Katy Hessel, in her 2022 book, The Story of Art Without Men, has even more to say, and Caroline Criado-Perez in Invisible Women (2020) is excoriating about the total absence of attention to women in almost all spheres of life, including medical research meant to target women in particular. Guerrilla Girls kick the lot into touch when it comes to the (in)visibility of women’s art.

Andrea Fraser, Why Does Fred Sandback’s Work Make Me Cry? This link is a 404 but I found another route. Unfortunately, I can’t access the written content but I can see an image of a Grey Room so if that’s it, I’d argue that you probably had to be there, and from the co-authors, it would appear an allegiance to psychoanalysis would help.

Vincent Van Gogh’s Letters. There are hundreds of these, some of them annotated in an interpretive manner which seems to suggest that the annotator is assuming a kind of authority of perception with which the author can’t argue. Again, opinion presented as fact and unchallengeable. I find it rather arrogant.

John Berger, Berger on Drawing (2005). I have a lot of time for Berger. He surprised me when, in his videos about drawing and painting, he made a very clear stance against female nudity in art. Unfortunately, I can’t access it as my OCA sign-in isn’t accepted.

Addressing the questions and assertions beneath these examples, I would take issue with the idea that they all demonstrate the artists’ ‘passion for practice’ and creativity in how they structure their writing. Perhaps I’m too 21st century to accept florid expostulating as passion, and too much the writer to go with convoluted prose that squeezes the life out of its message. I prefer plain English (this need not exclude difficult words) and an authenticity of style that brings me into the author’s mental space. Berger does that, as does Perry. Many others though, seem to be performing; their words crafted to within an inch of their lives in the expectation that this will impress. And maybe it does in some quarters, but not this one. Reminded of writing instructions so that other people can understand them, the acronym KISS comes to mind – Keep It Simple Stupid!

*The 3.2 materials I had received in advance of starting the course January which I was unable to do, have been superseded for the March intake and so this post is essentially redundant in terms of fulfilling requirements.

SCH 2024