this semester, i did a theory course about praxis. yeah, i know.
it was good and interesting and we had some very nice, lively discussions at every meeting, but now as it comes to writing the obligatory assignment, i don't quite know what to say and where i stand. i'm writing this as a sort of stream of consciousness and i'm writing it here in hopes that the informal, fun, unjudging blog-context will only allow me to think more freely.
so, what is theory and what is praxis and how are they relational to one-another and how can they be reconciled? and where in my practical work comes theory into play if at all, and how? i guess this is what the assignment is.
i'm finding myself unsure of what i actually learned about the topic in my course. but maybe that wasn't the point of the course, ultimately. like, it wasn't so much about propagating one ultimate truth or state-of-science on the theory-praxis relationship, but rather just about discussing it openly and planting a seed in our heads to think about it and keep thinking about it beyond the course. which is probably a very good approach, academically, but unsettles my clarity-loving brain, especially with the prospect of having to write a graded paper about it. what if my subjective thoughts in this subjective essay are wrong?? i just don't like it when there isn't something clearly correct that i can take and cite back to my prof to show i've understood the material. it unnerves me to be judged simply on my opinion on a topic. (i know this isn't what's actually happening, there are objective aspects to even the most subjective of essays that make it fairly gradable and my opinion really is the least of anyone's worry in that respect etc etc but tell that to a brain that grew up on constant academic approval and is scared of doing things wrong™)
anyway. we're supposed to write about where theory or research work appears in our own practical work, yeah? ok. i don't think it does, very much, for me. or, it depends on the project. but i don't think i tend to, at least actively, draw from theory when i make things. obviously, i have learned some theory in the past, pertaining to both, artistic praxis specifically, and the themes that appear in my art. obviously, to some extend, i draw from the things i've learned about colour theory when i choose colours. and obviously, i know that this and that symbol or iconography has these and those associations or historical meanings, so i avoid it or use it to underline a point. but this doesn't feel like theoretical work -- and much less like research. it feels more just like...i know things and i draw from the things i know to create better, more poignant and effective art. especially artistic theory feels much more like just a part of the praxis to me, or at least very entangled with praxis. theory that is about praxis is part of practical knowledge. colour theory is practical knowledge. and it's nice to have it researched and written out and maybe understand why a colour has this and that effect, but i personally have learned loads more about using colour (and particularly about how i like to use colour) from...well, using it. (side-note, do we think one can sophisticatedly cite children's hospital colour theory in this context? i'm just thinking it might be a poignant example of when theory is applied without practical contextual perspective)
this makes me think of artistic studies -- colour studies, life drawing, anatomy studies etc. they don't really feel like praxis, do they? to me at least they don't. which is why i never do them, though i keep telling myself i really should. to me, studies in art, though they are technically practical, feel much more like theoretical work. or, analogue to analysing text and writing about it. and if i keep thinking about it, at the same time, text analysis starts feeling practical. or, it becomes apparent that writing is as much a practical task and craft as painting or drawing or masonry, but is kind of commonly understood as naturally more theoretical/less practical because...well, because what? maybe because writing -- next to verbal conversation and debate -- is how theory has come to be preserved and communicated. (written) text is the medium of theory, everything else is praxis. is what it feels like. tell me if i sound insane.
so, writing is praxis as much as drawing is. can we take this revelation as grounds to interrogate theory's supposed separation from praxis further? because i've (had to) read some guy say oh, pactitioners think theory doesn't affect them but actually even just thinking about your next project and how to make it is theory. #gotthem (Michael Erlhoff, Design als genialischer Purzelbaum - Gedanken zum elastischen Zwischenraum von Theorie und Praktik) but two people can play that game. what is the most theoretical medium? it's not text as we've established, because writing is a craft. ok well, maybe you suck at writing but that kind of makes it hard to get your theories and findings across, doesn't it? next, conversation and debate. speaking. arguably also a craft. debate definitely is. i've only ever seen it (formal debate) in TV and cinema but that is not a chill and nonchalant, no-effort undertaking. it requires preparation, it requires a conversational skill of understanding what your opponent is saying, it requires argumentative skills that people don't just have. down this slippery slope, unless you're just saying your unfiltered thoughts out loud, you need to do some sort of organising to them, your arguments, your research and whatever else is part of your theoretical work, to communicate them to everyone else. and as far as i am concerned, effective communication is a skill that you can practise (as in, work to get better at) and practice (as in, use practically). so, uh, actually, any theory that tries to effectively communicate itself to other people is also praxis. #gotthem. don't call yourself a theorist if you aren't always literally this guy:
 |
| The Thinker by Auguste Rodin (Animal Crossing New Horizon version, screenshotted from MonkeyKingHero on YouTube) |
so maybe in the same way that in most praxis, you'll also have theoretical influences, draw from theoretical knowledge, think about why and how you make a thing the way you make it, there's also gonna be a practical element to most theoretical work, not only because you can utilise practical research methods or whatever but simply because communicating your thoughts and ideas and arguments and findings is a practical craft. and really, theory that isn't communicated (effectively) is kind of worthless. what does it help anyone if some guy has smart thoughts about the world but he refuses or is unable to convey them in ways that people can understand? well, maybe i must allow the possibility of someone thinking and researching just for themselves, that's okay, there is value in that (even if that value is reserved to one person only). but we're not really talking about that kind of personal, self-serving theory. or are we? what are we talking about? i might just end up very minutely differentiating and defining the different types/use cases of theory and praxis. boom. half the essay written.
ok. whatever. my practical work and theory. as i've said, it depends on the project how much i draw from theory or how much theoretical research i do. last semester we did a graphic design project that was specifically about researching a topic and designing the product appropriately, so there was a lot of theoretical & research work that preceded and accompanied my design process there. so obviously if the project is non-fiction and especially if i'm in charge of writing/curating its contents in addition to the design work, theory becomes a very prominent aspect of that project. in contrast, if the project is depicting a fictional setting, story and/or characters that are mostly fabrications of my own mind, and/or that i already know a lot about, i don't need to actively research very much if at all. but i also think that maybe research (for an artistic project) isn't all the same. research is the act of seeking knowledge that won't necessarily directly become part of the project but will absolutely help in making it, and you can read a book for this (a very theoretical sort of research) but you can also do interviews (which feels a bit closer to real life (and praxis)) or seek out a first-hand experience of the things you need to learn (this is definitely praxis. but it's a kind of praxis that functions as theory in relation to the artistic project you're doing it for). and i suppose that these different kinds of research are useful for different kind of projects and topics and relevancies that they have in the project. for a project that is very feely and atmospheric, you might want to reproduce the setting for yourself so you can feel it and convey that feeling more authentically. for a project that's more informative or philosophical, reading a lot about the topic might be more useful. for projects about people's lived experiences, interviews might be best. etc. you get the point. for some projects you may like to do all of this.
i think i'm just not very interested in what is traditionally understood as theory? at least in the arts & design field? not in a broader scope, anyway. i think my artistic praxis is driven mainly by emotion/vibes and (primarily, probably) narrative. i think that more than anything else i like to tell stories in my art, i always have. and sure, stories can include philosophical and theoretical musings but i don't think i would say this is a focus point for me personally. and the theory that i would work into a narrative wouldn't be about art/design. neither do i think i am doing theoretical work/research with my art, or could do a theoretical analysis of my process/artistic philosophy like some of the artists did that we looked at in class. i just. make up characters and stories and that's it. ok maybe i explore things? with august and gabriel, i explore love and relationships beyond platonic vs romantic a lot. with The Shepherd i want to explore religion and spirituality and devotion in- and outside of a formal religious setting/context (and i have qualms about whether i'm "allowed" to say anything about the topic because i am not religious at all....i ought to do my research i suppose. topic for another time when i'm further along in the project). with my uni comic i explored my own and others' experiences with socialising and finding community. but i wouldn't equate these explorations to research or theoretical work. i think that maybe for me, research and theoretical praxis needs to be more deliberate than what i do in my stories. more targeted. more specific. theory and research try to find something out -- something entirely new, or why something is the way it is, or something more about an underresearched or misrepresented topic -- and/or try to arrive at a conclusion that will widen the pool of knowledge and insight on the subject. i just don't think i am doing all that. or am really interested in doing. not on a regular basis, anyway. i can totally make myself get into it (did it fine and well for my previous theory assignments and the vampire book and this or that personal little essay i've written) but it's just not the main drive of my work. i just wanna make stuff and tell stories and play make-believe with my dolls.
ok i think this is enough for now. this helped. i still feel a little overwhelmed with the non-specificity of the assignment and topic, but i think i've at least figured out a few points i'll like to bring up in the essay. thank you, void that is my blog. handheart
No comments:
Post a Comment