the discussions i have been having with random people have been about research against rhetoric; and about ethics against the aesthetic. and i do know that they are intertwined but i have lost all bearing on both the latter. i am showing the strain of being labeled an ‘urbanist’ by those around me.
on the other hand, in between all of these i have come to love writers and film makers who claim to do neither and do something that instead reveal layers of experience that i might have felt but never seen represented. as far as research is concerned i am wary of work whose approach is one that clearly articulates a position and then substantiates it with case studies. the substantiation of argument is what makes it Research. i agree.
however, i am afraid that an exploration of language itself or form does not emerge out of it. if experimentations in language are to be attempted they become illustrative rather than essential to the questions posed. and i am interested in language nowadays. what are the methods that exist for the investigation of it?
the crux of the discussion yesterday was this - how does one develop a framework that allows for a variety of voices and methods to emerge. categories were made, grids drawn
so the blog was called a ‘silly thing’ yesterday at the crit meeting on ‘emerging urbanisms’. poor me. actually all blogs were. so i am only one of a million. poor us. i guess they aren’t theoretical enough. all writing needs to be - even if it is fiction.
it was category 7, i guess if i had to find it on the chart. digital cartography. but i claim no such intention. i do not claim it to be serious or research in any form. does it need to be?
No comments:
Post a Comment