What Distinguishes Scholarship from Art?
The paper concerns Michael Biggs and Daniel Büchler's 2010 claim that the creative arts doctorate is a contradictory amalgam of two discursive modes, one aimed at translating a research experience into a ‘single, unified answer’ to a problem, the other at eliciting a plurality of responses in divers...
| Publicado en: | New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice & Theory of Creative Writing Vol. 11; no. 3; pp. 400 - 417 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=98697383&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 98697383 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 14790726 V4D jtl: New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice & Theory of Creative Writing issn: 14790726 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2014 vid: 11 iid: 3 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 98697383 10.1080/14790726.2014.956120 ppf: 400 ppct: 17 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 132KB tig: atl: What Distinguishes Scholarship from Art? aug: au: Magee, Paul affil: Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT2601, Australia su: Scholarly method Arts Humanities Psychoanalysts Psychoanalysis sug: subj: Scholarly method Arts Humanities Psychoanalysts Psychoanalysis keyword: art epistemology Lacan post-structuralist writing scholarly style university discourse ab: The paper concerns Michael Biggs and Daniel Büchler's 2010 claim that the creative arts doctorate is a contradictory amalgam of two discursive modes, one aimed at translating a research experience into a ‘single, unified answer’ to a problem, the other at eliciting a plurality of responses in diverse audiences through an evocative artefact. I set forth the lines of this critique, and then compare the analysis of scholarly method it is based upon with Jacques Lacan's fascinatingly similar account of what he calls ‘the university discourse’. My discussion diverges from Biggs and Büchler's, however, when it comes to considering Lacan's own writing style, which seems far more geared to eliciting a plurality of responses than presenting a ‘single, unified answer’. Lacan is, of course, a psychoanalyst. But many of the authors broadly associated with him in this stylistic regard (Derrida, Foucault, Serres, Deleuze, Barthes, among others) are academics. By Biggs and Büchler's analysis, they write as artists. This is curious, given that we cite them as our pre-eminent academic authorities. I reflect on how we might have to nuance Biggs and Büchler's distinction to accommodate this paradox, and further consider its implications for the style of humanities scholarship an exegesis might best assume, to satisfy critiques like theirs. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice & Theory of Creative Writing is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice & Theory of Creative Writing holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2014 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|