Hard News: Quantum Faster
379 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
No doubt Paul Litterick will correct me, but I bet that art schools have valuable staff members who nonetheless cannot produce compelling works of art themselves.
I think that is a matter of opinion, or taste. A more persuasive analogy might be the relationship between Art History and Art. I am an Art Historian, but that does not make me an artist. I know about Art, but I cannot do it competently.
Phelan sneers at practitioners, but no activity would exist without its practitioners. Academic theory is only an interpretation of practice. What Phelan appears to want is influence over practice, a desire which is beyond the normal bounds of academic work.
It does strike me that many PoMo theorists talk about power and privilege in derogatory terms while demanding power and privilege for themselves. They will not even let authors speak for themselves; only the opinions of the theorists matter.
I could go on but I will probably get myself into trouble again.
-
If anyone is passing through Hamilton East,
Geoff, Geoff, Geofff - people don't pass through Hamilton at all, they only pass by
:-p
(Go the 'Canes!) -
It does strike me that many PoMo theorists talk about power and privilege in derogatory terms while demanding power and privilege for themselves. They will not even let authors speak for themselves; only the opinions of the theorists matter.
Thanks, that was what I was getting at. There's a tendency to regard the merits of theory as beyond debate.
My story: a while back, I helped organise a media conference, in conjunction with a sponsor and a tertiary institution.
The people we liaised with at the institution gossiped behind the sponsor's back, and when it came to their presentations, they did not deliver. One, a semiotician, had to be restrained from telling the same unhelpful "parable" in successive discussions, and the other clipped out all the advertisements from the morning paper, sellotaped them together and presented the result as if it were an actual argument.
Later, at a debrief with colleagues, they complained that there really should be another conference for theoreticians, because they had difficulty communicating with the practioners. (I should note that we'd brought some excellent practitioners into the country for the conference.)
As one of those colleagues observed to me later: "Were they really saying they can't communicate with the industry they're supposed to be training people for?"
By the same token, we also discovered how bloody hard it is to get working journalists to come in and discuss ideas. They represented a regrettably small proportion of delegates.
Guess I'm in trouble now too ...
-
It does strike me that many PoMo theorists talk about power and privilege in derogatory terms while demanding power and privilege for themselves.
Yeah, like for instance the guy with the hair and the arms, what's his name, you know, the one who wrote the book...
Seriously: whom?
-
There's a tendency to regard the merits of theory as beyond debate.
And I would argue there is a tendency in this country - and seen in these very forums at times - to regard the de-merits of theory as beyond debate. Neither position is helpful.
-
And I would argue there is a tendency in this country - and seen in these very forums at times - to regard the de-merits of theory as beyond debate.
Yes, thanks. I must have had this conversation two hundred times in this country and it was never except in defence of the fact that theory has *some* merit. Wish it didn't have to be said, to be honest.
-
was there free booze Russell?
-
Geoff, Geoff, Geofff - people don't pass through Hamilton at all, they only pass by
Well, you won't be getting any feijoas--other than those hurled in your direction as you pass by.
Seriously, though--can we have an end to snide remarks about Hamilton (and Palmerston North and Timaru) as they are kind of insulting to those who live there, and know of the pleasures that abound. New Zealand is really too small for such parochialism.
I really must get back to writing up my research...!
-
How about Barthes, for a start. He kills the author and so demands privilege for the critic as an interpreter of meaning.
So, how about that Battlestar Galactica, then?
-
Yes, thanks. I must have had this conversation two hundred times in this country and it was never except in defence of the fact that theory has *some* merit. Wish it didn't have to be said, to be honest.
But the issue was the degree to which theory -- and a particular idea of theory -- should occupy vocational journalism training. Its merit there was presented as a given, and I didn't think that argument was good enough.
-
New Zealand is really too small for such parochialism.
We like to think big and include the parochialism like a big country does :)
-
Its merit there was presented as a given, and I didn't think that argument was good enough.
Oh for Pete's sake. If you can't see that maybe studying media thoery might have some relevance for media professionals, than what's the point? To you they might as well be studying physics, apparently (as per your example above). One really despairs sometimes.
You know whom I can absolutely guarantee to you knows Foucault and co. very intimately? Alastair Campbell. It'd be good if those theories were approached also by somebody who isn't actually, you know, evil.
-
How about Barthes, for a start. He kills the author and so demands privilege for the critic as an interpreter of meaning.
So, the idea that we should go beyond "the works of Balzac" and the unique psychology of Balzac, but rather look at the times of Balzac, the cultural milieu in which his works were produced, the inescapable influences, the unintented meanings, seem without merit to you? And Foucault's elaboration on the same theme, his reflections on the author function, don't seem to you relevant to understanding how culture works? Do you think it's a power play, the critic taking control of literature (as if it hadn't been the case previously, when the critics decided who belonged to the canon and who didn't)?
Well, I guess it's your prerogative. How about that Battlestar Galactica indeed.
-
I don't think anyone here is arguing that critical theory should dominate journalism training. If it helps trainee journos understand the history of the fourth estate and its relationship with power, I don't much mind which types of theory are applied.
As I said during the session on future of news media at Foo, journos and media organisations have historically been granted privileged and protected access. The associated responsibilities seem to be falling by the wayside in favour of commercial imperatives and shallow infotainment - hence the current attention to remedying that trend.
Certain disciplines are more likely to provide relevant theory about the topic. The challenge is making their lessons relevant to a non-academic (and non-French) audience, and I expect some courses do that quite well already. But I wouldn't expect the leadership of that process to come from the theoretical academics.
-
I have taken the liberty of copying a message from Roger Horrocks as he has long though, and written, about the persistent strand of anit-intellectualism in the NZ media:
Reading the discussion of "The journalist & the 'tosspot'," I thought it might be useful to mention an essay I wrote that looks in some detail at this issue of New Zealand journalists and columnists attacking academic "theory" - in the context of a general anti-intellectualism. The essay is entitled "A Short History of 'the New Zealand Intellectual'" and appears in the book Speaking Truth to Power, ed. Laurence Simmons (Auckland, AUP, 2007), pp.25-67. I don't talk about DuFresne but I do discuss Michael Laws, Paul Holmes, Gareth George, Deborah Coddington and other prominent journalist/columnists who strongly promote an hostility to theory and to academics.
Roger Horrocks -
Certain disciplines are more likely to provide relevant theory about the topic.
And that is likely to mean disciplines which focus on meaning, culture and power - sociology, politics, cultural studies and so on. Physics, less likely - except quantum ones. Now how did we get back there?
-
So, the idea that we should go beyond "the works of Balzac" and the unique psychology of Balzac, but rather look at the times of Balzac, the cultural milieu in which his works were produced, the inescapable influences, the unintented meanings, seem without merit to you?
No, but it creates a different relationship between author, critic and reader. I am not saying this is a bad thing.
And Foucault's elaboration on the same theme, his reflections on the author function, don't seem to you relevant to understanding how culture works?
I think Foucault was a really bad historian who put his theory ahead of the facts for his benefit.
Do you think it's a power play, the critic taking control of literature (as if it hadn't been the case previously, when the critics decided who belonged to the canon and who didn't)?
Yup. But the critics and theorists should be upfront about it. To return to the subject, Phelan's essay is an attempt to rubbish non-academic critics and give his people, the academic critics, a privileged place in the training of journalists.
-
The essay is entitled "A Short History of 'the New Zealand Intellectual'" and appears in the book Speaking Truth to Power, ed. Laurence Simmons (Auckland, AUP, 2007), pp.25-67.
The full title of the book is Speaking Truth to Power: Public Intellectuals Rethink New Zealand . I'm interested in the ground covered by Roger's essay, and had a crack at it from my untutored perspective in the introductory essay for Great New Zealand Argument . I actually quoted a lecture given by Roger that had quite an influence on my thinking.
'Tis true: New Zealanders have frequently been devoid of theory, frequently to the astonishment of visitors. It's still a problem.
But I preferred the interview section of the book: the likes of Brian Easton and Lloyd Geering, independent thinkers the both, provided wide-ranging and nuanced insights. By comparison, Simmons and Stephen Turner seemed stuck in a very fixed set of ideas (despite Turner's shock-and-awe prose). Derrida etcetera ...
-
I think Foucault was a really bad historian who put his theory ahead of the facts for his benefit.
Based on which of his histories, out of curiosity?
-
But I preferred the interview section of the book: the likes of Brian Easton and Lloyd Geering, independent thinkers the both, provided wide-ranging and nuanced insights. By comparison, Simmons and Stephen Turner seemed stuck in a very fixed set of ideas (despite Turner's shock-and-awe prose). Derrida etcetera ...
Or it could just be that Easton and Geering are well versed in theories that you find less threatening and more comfortable (ie *not* Derrida, etc.). Incidentally, I remember Easton, whom I verily enjoy, once poo-pooing (and in passing, completely out of context) in one of his Listener columns the fact that somebody had been funded at a NZ university to write study the history of the orgasm. Not beeing able to see how something like the orgasm could conceivably have a history, and how an understanding of that history could be interesting and useful in a variety of ways, doesn't strike me as having a very nuanced intellectual worldview. But that's just me obviously.
-
To be fair, Giovanni, there are some writers who have discussions informed by theory without the theory being so in your face. Pomo is a bit self-consciously confronting like that - and excessively turgid at times, which I wonder isn't partly a cross-cultural phenomenon in itself.
-
theatre...
for god's sake.
-
Or it could just be that Easton and Geering are well versed in theories that you find less threatening and more comfortable (ie *not* Derrida, etc.).
Ahem. Could I just say I found them more lucid, broad-minded and persuasive?
-
theatre...
for god's sake.
You newspaper types just have no fortitude for theory.
-
I'll have you know I'm a glossy supplementy type these days.
anyway theory makes my brian hurt...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.