postgraduate program, workshop

Florian Feigl How do we do the things that we do?

18-19 January 2018

a rewrite of twelve design principles

a.trofimoff_betonmischer

Florian Feigl is a practitioner and scholar, maker and facilitator in the broader field of time-based art and more specifically of performance as art. Artistic research, artistic process, making as production of knowledge occupy focal areas of his doing and thinking.

The proposal for the two work periods in January and February is to analyse, discuss and introduce strategies and methodological approaches as articulated in permaculture desgin practice (Mollison, Holmgren) in relation to the Pattern Theory (Alexander) towards an environ-mental & corpo-real understanding of artistic process and artistic research.

Florian comes as a visiting researcher. The idea is to support the current research within the „Making / Conditions“ block at a.pass, to engage with the processes under way, to collaborate in designing situations and spaces of making and understand the diverse conditions.

What he bring:
– Some basic ideas and principles of permacultural design practice,
– some related texts and theoretical bodies,
– practical experimental tools and approaches from the realm of object based performance art & composition.

Some general remarks:

As practitioner and scholar, maker and facilitator in the broader field of time-based art and more specifically of performance as art terms such as „artistic research“, „artistic process“, „making as production fo knowledge“ occupy focal areas of my doing and thinking. And I couldn‘t miss noticing that these terms gain weight & visibility in the field of contemporary art making, art discourse and also art education. At the same time the very terms – without the prefixed „artistic“ – are used and at times seemingly valued when it comes to descriptions in the fields of science, politics and economics (to name some out of many) and increasingly in the world of contemporary entrepreneurship.

Now these are developments that are already around for a while: Boltanski/Chiapello‘s „New Spirit of Capitalism“ (1999), Jon McKenzie‘s „Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance“ (2001) could be mentioned as landmarks that articulated, described, and critically reviewed the development beyond the closer field of art a while ago.

However, there are still some blank spots left. Maybe most importantly: There are still no systematic descriptions or broader agreements on what it actually should be this „artistic process“, „artistic research“. What makes it different from other all kinds of processes and researches? To avoid misunderstandings: I would not propose to aim for a general definition to nail the issue for good. (Most probably the value of the terms lies to a certain extent in the flexible quality.) But my suspicion is that on the one hand the „je ne sais quoi“ and highly individual qualities assigned to individual „artistic processes and researches“ are based on still prevailing 19th century ideas and role models when it comes to art making. And on the other hand makes the terms so highly susceptible to be occupied and taken over by ever hungry economic ideologies, the dictate of economic surplus value and individual improvement. (We all still remember how „the artist“ became a model for „the new worker“– and suffer from the results.) Making artist into better entreprenuers has to stop.

Instead: let‘s adress and describe how we do the things that we do to make better art and produce new and better environments for a truely contemporary art making,

My proposal is to apply and further analyse strategies and methodological approaches – as articulated in permaculture desgin practice (Mollison, Holmgren) – to develop a contemporary environ-mental & corpo-real understanding of artistic process and artistic research. Is it possible to develop and describe artistic practice as complexe environment? What if we focus on details and design patterns which include and relate to agents beyond the artist, his/her intuition, imagery and narrations, scarce funding situations and imagined focus groups? Will this allow to understand and design more precise work situations? Will this allow to create a different understanding, describe and apply a relational, environ-mental and corpo-real understanding of choice & decision, image & process?

Further reading:

ecologies_of_making_florian_feigl