That is, in the discontinuous/intense state from which such categories have first emerged. Rather, they are intended as a means for setting the images of painting and art out of equilibrium. ![]() ![]() Within the consistently sensuous, non-ontological frame of ‘mattering’, such conceptual propositions are not prescriptive or totalizing. They radically reposition the artwork as an event rather than a medium and define ways in which different paintings function in terms of ‘intra-action’ and ‘diffraction’ instead of identity and reflexion. This and other original categorisations (such as ‘work-of-violence’, ‘painting-as-a-body’, ‘painting-for-screens’ among others) emerge from analyses of artworks that were produced either during the PhD or personally encountered. This practice-led PhD thesis proposes a radical reconceptualisation of painting independent of its traditional means of production: painting is the singular multiplicity of material-discursive practices cohering around ‘facing’, which names the intra-active event of ‘seeing all at once’. These two entangled ‘sets’ of propositions creatively engage with the in/determinate direction of what a diffractive methodology might look like in practice, while at the same time being cognisant of the complex discussions about the appropriateness of referring to ‘methods’ or ‘methodologies’ as human-centred activities. Propositions generated as part of a published example of a re-view of three books on posthuman non-representational research are also diffracted through the text. We use a diffractive methodology (spatial and temporal), theory and practice as a way of activating experimentation with the affirmative method of diffractively reading texts, oeuvres and philosophies through one another. Therefore, avoiding prescription and a rush to application, we take up Stephanie Springgay’s proposal (drawing mainly on Whitehead) to diffract a non-hierarchical list of propositions through the text that disrupt the theory/practice binary and activate a self-organising potential for adopting a diffractive methodology in research. Postqualitative research disrupts the idea that educationalists can be given tools or techniques to investigate the world objectively, independently and at an ontological distance from the researcher. Re-turning to our experiences of putting a diffractive methodology to work ourselves, as well as engaging with the writings of Donna Haraway and Karen Barad, we produce some propositions regarding a diffractive methodology for researchers to consider. The article argues that the diffraction of Snow and Whitehead hinges on theories of “beauty” and will demonstrate (with Whitehead) that humanities scholarship originates in a total environment in which works of art-as the subject matter of humanities research-stand out and preserve themselves as “enduring objects”. As such, reading diffractively shies away from relying on classification and is playful with the past, present, and future of the humanities. ![]() This way of reading was first formulated in the context of feminist epistemology (but can be found elsewhere and under different names) in an attempt to generate constructively conceptual rather than closed hermeneutical readings of theoretical texts by making the reading dynamic and open-ended (in Karen Barad’s terms: reading their insights “through” one another). I argue that, whereas Snow refers to Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World, he ultimately paves the way for a reductive interpretation of humanities scholarship, which is a move that can be repaired by delving into Snow’s own reference to Whitehead following a diffractive reading methodology. Snow’s famous thesis of “the two cultures” through the early work of Alfred North Whitehead. This article develops a philosophy of the humanities by reading C.P.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |